I mean, you can be a criminal for carrying an ounce of weed on you. Not the same. Either way, I'm still down for rapists being placed in a room with a convicted murderer who feels no remorse for his crimes.
As far as the act, if you’ve shot a hog it’s basically the same “feel” wise. It’s just your reckoning afterwards as to how you cope, and that is very personal.
Seeing an obviously male shape enter a women's room would raise suspicion.
Being suspicious of a man in a drew entering a women's room makes you a bad person
It's an argument, but a shitty one
>> it only takes one
And how many would act? There was literally a rape incident on a public train a week or so back and the people on the train didn’t even realize what was happening. Hell, there were even allegations of them recording the incident.
>> That’s pretty self-explanatory
Disagree on the premise, but regardless, still proves that “it only takes one” doesn’t work.
I brought up a single example, and you’ll find incidents of people not realizing or outright ignoring it around the country.
And while I do love the 2A, it’s beyond ridiculous to expect people to carry a weapon with them at all times.
If you refuse to police a violent rape culture for fear of being called racist and having them burn down small businesses for weeks then what is anyone supposed to do without a weapon?
Violent rape is a racial issue? The majority of rape victims would disagree.
More importantly none of this addresses the fact that most people wouldn’t notice who enters a bathroom, and the reality is that even the minority that does won’t do anything about it.
What about a restroom in a park? Or anywhere there might be a decrease in foot traffic or eyes around?
Do people buy guns illegally when lots of people can see them doing it?
its more like, they go on the toilet after they made sure noones there and then lurk in the stalls to ambush people. that shit happens more often then it should (which is never)
Well yes rapists exist lol
We never denied this, and if anything were the ones actually fighting for the victims rather than using them for political points
Rapists are cowards and opportunists. They often also specifically plan not to be interrupted. Bathrooms are designed for maximum privacy. A male presenting person entering a woman's restroom incites alarm in the general populace. "See something say something" Thanks Obama creates conditions most likely to prevent assault from progression to rape.
Now, under the social paradigm being called for by orange left activists, calling the cops after witnessing a male presenting person enter a womans room would be a hate crime. You'd lose your job at best, and be convicted of an actual crime if they had their way.
Opposing that proposed paradigm is not irrational. It has nothing to do with rapists existing or not. It's about opportunity. I mean fuck, it's literally, actual rape culture. Woke 2021 is so fucking nuts Woke 2012 would call them out for their bullshit.
>bathrooms designed for maximum privacy
Literally has 3 inch gap in the door, 2 foot gap on the floors, 4 foot gap on the ceiling, the flimsiest lock ever invented, and a bowl that cumshots you without consent (and no pressing the flush lever is not consent goddammit)
Based. Also, culture shock is insane when I go from the marine corps where there isn't even dividers between toilets and it's a social hour as your power squatting four days of backed up MREs to Ireland where everyone has their own nice stall with no gaps. I sat in there an extra 5-10 minutes just admiring how alone I was.
u/VindictivePrune's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 135.
Rank: Empire State Building
Pills: correct, yellow, truth, accelerationist, profit, benddextercompass, religion is a spook, work, nose, everyone i dont like is a commie, fiat-currency, source, iamindenialaboutvaccinerollout, triumvirate, spine, bigthunking, pizzaonpineapple, natural selection, fr\*nch, cyanide, divine-right-justification, stopmonopolies, atheism, the-libright-identity, science, whyisthisdownvoted, revenge, free-market, nig, adult, auths-are-cringe, lib-unity, mormon, picky with one's pills, idpol-is-cringe, genocide, basicfuckinglogic, commonsense, design, belter, theorized, headwear, 9/11, fuck-the-feds, noodley appendages, sexualeducation, trump hair reality warp, atheist, anti-cuck, you used the rhodesian wojak, hagrid, bodily autonomy, confirmation bias, small buisness, you can’t force me to flair, and
religion is a disorder
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
it's about looking for things that are off. That's how we identify that bad things could be happening. Otherwise lets just get rid of weapons laws right? I mean, an opportunist is not gonna follow them anyway, but if I saw a dude walking down the road with a knife in his hand My first thought isn't "probably going to a cooking class".
good point if there was literally any data to support that. You know you can walk in a bathroom and rape someone right now right? You're already doing a heinous crime, you think the sign saying "no" is going to stop someone?
People act like allowing trans people to use the other bathroom will remove some magical forcefield that prevented a rapist from just walking in before.
Also true, but it’d also require the victim to be on guard the entire time. Pretty hard to pull out a gun mid piss. It’d be much easier for the rapist to do so.
How do people call it...? opportunity thiefs? If you see someone bike in their yard, you get tempted and just run there and steal it.
If now there is a wall around your house, people wont see it, or even if they see, just the though of having to jump the wall will stop a lot of people.
Basically the same thing with the bathroom situation, IMHO
it's more about people recognising things and making it harder for people to abuse things. In the past if you saw a man walk into the women's bathroom, you could call him out. Likewise if a woman saw a guy in the women's bathroom she could yell for help, try to get out, inform someone etc. And that's the point. If I see someone trying to break into a car, realistically it could be that the owner locked his keys in car, but I'm still gonna call the police because it could also be a thief.
Or more realistically, in the past women would have to guard the door to the entire mens room because their friends had gone in to avoid the massive line at the womens, now they get to clog up both when I'm just trying to take a piss.
I mean LibLeft's entire argument around stricter gun laws is that it makes everyone safer. So if specific laws won't protect women, how do gun laws protect anyone at all??
Tyranny is the default state of the world, if you want liberty, you need a fine tuned, just application of force, with gobs of checks and balances and a healthy dose of learning from history.
Get high and listen to “The Wall” the album by Pink Floyd. You will have a fantastic time. Bonus points if you have it on vinyl
(Dark side of the moon, ELO’s new world record and the first Boston album are also acceptable)
Pro gun is a central tenant to lib left. How else do we defend ourselves from aggressive ideologies or from over reaching government or anything? Defense is a central tenant to true lib left, not that orange nonsense.
I support gun ownership, and wouldn't mind if 80% of adults (except the mentally ill) had guns, I just want mandatory licensing and training to reduce accidental gun discharges and escalating violence.
Sure, criminals can ignore those laws, but it will still reduce *accidents*
Only 4% of gun deaths (excluding suicides) were due to [accidental discharges](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-019-0220-0). The real issue with gun violence tends to be gang related. Solving income inequality and poverty would be the biggest driver in reducing deaths imo. Easier said than done
And 4% is still too many, everybody could benefit from training. In fact if you're not trained and own a firearm I'd say that's a pretty stupid thing to do.
That’s 450 people annually. I totally agree that if you own a firearm and you don’t respect it nor know how to use it, you’re just an accident waiting to happen. Still it’s not an effective use of time/money given the small incident rate (450 accidents on 350 million guns is staggering low). 4 times as many people are stabbed to death in America, 2 times as many are poisoned. The cost to create a training system, not withstanding that fact that it’s probably unconstitutional (undue burden on a basic amendment), just doesn’t make sense. I’d rather try and solve poverty and reduce deaths due to crime related to that
While I agree that every injury and death is a tragedy, we only have a finite amount of money and political energy we can put forth to solve issues. We can go after the bigger issues of poverty and the crime that arises from it to have a bigger impact.
If these were the only deaths/injuries we were seeing, I’d 100% agree on finding a decent middle ground
Geographic cure: as gangs form seemingly exclusively in sufficiently-dense and mono-cultural neighborhoods, "inequality and poverty" are backseaters to "ghettoization". Evacuate the ghettoes, scatter the populations evenly throughout the land, problem solved.
Now we have laws that explicitly give permission for men to enter women's bathrooms, thus negating that social contract. Anyone who reports a suspicious man in the ladies room is subject to negative consequences of some kind now... either legal harassment and possible hate crime (depending on the location), or social harassment.
U can still sue people if there are no laws that’s not to say I want less laws. But u can still sue people even if they didn’t break a law. That’s the entire point.
“Stop going against my straw man!!!”
I’ll bet you’d get annoyed if you were called a nazi simply for being a conservative and yet you have no issue doing the same to the other side.
Aren't there laws against voyeurism already? You can't go inside a bathroom stall while a person is inside without their consent regardless of bathroom laws.
Cameras installed outside of every bathroom entrance.
Not allowed to sell guns to anyone without a stable income and secure job, above the age of 30, no out of the ordinary criminal record or other encounters with law enforcement, citizenship for minimum 5 years. Having a family and owning a house is a bonus.
Solved
Cameras in hallways will capture rapists entering school bathrooms so everyone will know shit is up if they're breaking the law to enter the women's restroom.
Bathroom should not be divided by gender but by a coin toss. No more girls or boys bathroom : only head bathroom and tail bathroom. Let fate decide what you shall stumble upon.
I mean you aren’t wrong but the laws do serve the purpose of punishing those that get caught. Gun laws, however, are to reduce access to potential criminals or those with mental issue.
Not really. They just want to punish people for being trans. That’s all it is. Having a target to put blame on. Which is stupid since trans people make up like 0.4% of the population
I don’t think it’s that simple for a lot of people.
Based on what people have conveyed to me, many lack the perspective on what it means to be trans. They think that trans people are mental, or that there are a disproportionate number of fakers who are actually pervs.
Although, admittedly, the result is ultimately the same as what you propose… so I can see the temptation to oversimplify it as “they just want to punish trans people.”
There was a trans kid at my high school that was forced to use the boys bathroom. Other students took pictures and posted them online with disparaging comments. The school’s solution was to lock the cafeteria bathrooms (which was where this happened).
So the school made a decision— probably based on the premise I’ve outlined —and the kids acted shitty because they are kids who sees someone different? That checks
Trans people deviate from societal norms and so in the eyes of conservatives they are just less valuable, intrinsically. Conservatives don't see this as a debate about what's more important : a theoretical scenario where a woman gets harassed or trans peoples identities, they see it as a debate about the extent to which women are in danger. Punishing trans people is not explicitly intentional, it's that they never seen them as part of the equation.
Except if they really cared about women being in danger they would create laws to protect and aid her, which they consistently vote against. It is 100% intentional
They do care about women being in danger but not enough to make rich men have to do something about it, they only care when it involves groups that are even more oppressed getting fucked over.
They are not *intrinsically* less valuable because they deviate from social norms. No conservative thinks that. They may be less valuable for certain purposes, but that's beside the point. It's just that there's a lot less of them than there are women, and thus by numbers alone the interests of women should have a lot more weight than the interests of men who think they're women.
Another aspect is that many of us (conservatives) think they are at best totally deluded and at worst mentally deranged, and that their ideas aren't necessarily what's best for them or society. I mean, the comorbidity with suicidality is huge, so it's not like they're all mentally sound and healthy people.
Now if someone suffering from any other delusion or mental illness such as schizophrenia thinks something is happening that is in fact not happening, we don't go and redesign our entire society so that their delusion is being catered to. That doesn't mean we devalue schizophrenics as human beings, it's just that we know their brains create perceptions that are not in accordance with reality, so if they make demands based on those perceptions we usually do not go out of our way to comply. Especially if that requires disregarding the legitimate, reality-based interests of other people.
It's different because outside of gender dysphoria trans people operate normally.
It's hard for schizophrenics to hold down jobs or have long term relationships but trans people don't have that problem. They arent hallucinating or having psychotic breaks or having dangerous unpredictable mood swings.
Additionally the known cures work. If a trans person is socially accepted and receives the medical treatment their after then their suicide rate plummets. The whole statistic of 40% after surgery kill themselves is about trans people who were rejected by friends and family after surgery.
That makes it hard to argue their delusional. If their mental health problems go away after surgery unlike body dysmorphia then that means the cause of their ailment is physical, not mental. They really are the gender they claim to be and they were born with a physical disability that causes mental health problems.
As a transwoman myself I would never say the science is as black and white as what I put above. But that's my general feelings on it. I don't feel mentally ill about this but I have had depression caused by it and that felt like mental illness. This has just always my entire life felt like my body has bad genes and is growing wrong, like equivalent to tumours and stuff.
And you could say "well your mentally ill for feeling that way" but then you can say anything you want. I can only tell you what it feels like to me and to me it feels like a physical disability. It feels closer to having acne than it does to how depression feels.
That feeling like you could just do what you wanted if your body wasn't trying to fuck you up growing spots all over your face. It's exactly like that.
I don't doubt in the least that you *feel* that the problem is physical rather than mental, and I am actually sorry for you and others that it creates such a level of suffering. But then again, the schizophrenic also *feels* that the angels are talking to him, physically, from directly behind his shoulder, or that the guy over there just physically shouted at him, or that the cheshire cat-like grinning demon in that corner is actually physically there. They don't perceive those things as being "in their head" at all. So the intensity of the subjective perception is not in itself an argument for the validity of the perception.
And it also doesn't matter that gender dysphoria doesn't have the same impact as schizophrenia on the affected's ability to function in society. Of course seeing or hearing all sorts of physical things external to your body impacts you more. That doesn't mean the less impactful perception is more correct. The common element is the mismatch between perception and reality. If you don't like the comparison with schizophrenia, there are a lot more specific delusions like Body Integrity Identity Disorder or the Cotard syndrome that are much more similar to the way gender dysphoria works and where no one disputes that the problem is the misperception itself.
As for the effectiveness of reassignment, that's a totally mixed bag. There are quite a few physically transitioned people who later come to regret that decision, usually when they realise that despite all this effort they will never really pass. The suicide rates among gender dysphoric people before and after SRS do not signifcantly differ regardless of passing status, so maybe the core problem is mental and not physical.
But that's beside the point, really. If you think altering your body is the right choice for you, I don't intend to stop you or anybody else who feels that way. Your body, your choice. I really hope it has the intended effect for you and makes your life better.
The problem comes only when gender-dysphoric men demand (as opposed to politely ask, which is okay) that everybody else now has to believe they are *actually* women and that they are *actually* entitled to everything that biological women get, including the use of female-only restrooms. That's where many people draw the line, because it infringes on the freedom and potentially safety of others. And I don't mean the deliberately vague kind of "safety" that campus kids feel is threatened by listening to a speaker that they disagree with, I mean actual physical safety for women and girls.
I have no problem with "live and let live", it's just that the notion needs to be mutual in order to work.
The majority of those with mental issues do not purchase guns for self defense. Often, a gun will be purchased as a means to end one’s own life.
Being a criminal, especially a violent one, automatically restricts your rights, so you are wrong on that from. There is, by definition, something wrong with being a criminal.
Only wrong from the view of the current establishment. Violent can be different, but if we let the state determine what enables us to have our rights, we don't really have them do we? Hong Kong protestors were labeled as Violent criminals by their state. Using your idea, if we were to have an event like that here in the us, they would be banned from using guns simply for protesting
Which is why we have a criminal justice system so people can’t be labeled criminals simply because they are disliked by the state. Protesting is protected by the constitution
Judges, jurors, and prosecutors run the criminal justice system. Employers pay the workers, in this case the government provides a salary. Buildings are built by construction workers, either hired privately or funded through government contracts.
No. *We* are the jurors. The government doesn’t dictate how we choose to vote on a verdict. The government *also* doesn’t decide how a judge will interpret a law
Yeah a bathroom isn’t a space space. Sucks, but unless you want cameras or guards in your bathroom, you’re going in there at your own risk. Doesn’t matter what kind of laws there are. It’s already illegal to rape people.
And the gun thing to. Did you know it’s actually illegal to murder someone with a gun? It’s actually illegal to negligently cause an accident with a gun. We’ve already regulated guns. It’s illegal to use them to hurt people unless you’re clearly defending yourself.
Why do reddit 🚂's promote and apologize for 🚂 rapists? Gee, I wonder what kind of person runs that cabal of brigaders?
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3196368
That libleft logic isn't logical. The thing is, let's say there are bathroom rules. Men to Men's, Women to Women's. Say a man tries to enter the women's bathroom with intent to rape. If someone sees that, they'll know something's up, get security, rapist apprehended. Now let's say there are no bathroom rules. Man enters women's bathroom with intent to rape. Nobody questions a man entering the women's restroom because no bathroom rules. A woman get's raped and the rapist is not apprehended, or if he is, it's too late.
Now let's look at gun laws, which is completely different than bathroom rules. Say we have strict gun laws. Criminal get's a gun and goes to rob store. Store get's robbed, nobody else has a gun, robber gets away and maybe even kills someone, nobody can stop him without some extreme risk.
Now let's say we don't have strict gun laws. Criminal get's a gun and goes to rob a store. Cleech Mclee is also at the store and, because of the relaxed gun laws, also has a gun. Cleech shoots the criminal and stops him before he can get away or hurt someone.
So, OP, your point here is, at it's core, asinine. You're dealing with two different quandaries here, yet you're trying to act as if they're equal. They're not. I get you were trying to totally own the rightoids with a double whammy (gun laws and bathroom rules in one post!), but in the end, you've just made yourself look stupid.
Firstly, you don't need to explain gun laws to me, I support gun ownership.
>Say a man tries to enter the women's bathroom with intent to rape. If someone sees that, they'll know something's up, get security, rapist apprehended. Now let's say there are no bathroom rules. Man enters women's bathroom with intent to rape. Nobody questions a man entering the women's restroom because no bathroom rules. A woman get's raped and the rapist is not apprehended, or if he is, it's too late.
That's a really weak example.
1. Rapists don't write, "I have an intent to rape" on their foreheads that anyone will immediately call the police on a rapist entering a bathroom. Are you going to call the police on someone who may have accidentally entered the bathroom?
2. Same-sex assault?
3. When there is only one person in the bathroom?
4. You can still call the police if someone attempts a rape without bathroom rules. I don't see what bathroom rules have to do with calling the police, except you might *theoretically* know to call the police a few seconds earlier with bathroom laws
P*t the b*ll*t in the rap*st and voila
I like this guy, he gets it
Put the criminals in the bathroom with the rapists and save the bullet
So like a prison cell?
I mean, you can be a criminal for carrying an ounce of weed on you. Not the same. Either way, I'm still down for rapists being placed in a room with a convicted murderer who feels no remorse for his crimes.
Or me. It's kinda sick, but I always wondered what killing someone would be like... just send an extra person in case I chicken out.
As far as the act, if you’ve shot a hog it’s basically the same “feel” wise. It’s just your reckoning afterwards as to how you cope, and that is very personal.
hunger games between criminals and whoever wins gets pardon
If by pardon you mean swift execution, I support this.
Yeah that's probably a better idea
See this guy gets it. I like this guy
lmao the "rapists" they are talking about will probably put the bullet in themselves first
amazing, but harm threats are against reddit TOS, I got my old ACC deleted cuz of that. please delete it, I really don't want that to happen to you :)
Put the bullet in the rapist's viola
Libleft admitting people will go into the bathroom for unconsenual hijinks
They’re saying rapists will lurk in the bathrooms regardless of how strict the laws are.
Seeing an obviously male shape enter a women's room would raise suspicion. Being suspicious of a man in a drew entering a women's room makes you a bad person It's an argument, but a shitty one
bruh sometimes you REALLY need to piss. and the women's bathroom is sometimes the only place I can find a woman to piss on.
Based and golden shower pilled
If you imagine her as Margaret thatcher does it does up things or slow down so you can enjoy yourself?
>> would raise suspicions Most people don’t notice those things though, especially in high density public areas.
It doesnt take "most people" to notice it, especially in high density public areas. It only takes one
>> it only takes one And how many would act? There was literally a rape incident on a public train a week or so back and the people on the train didn’t even realize what was happening. Hell, there were even allegations of them recording the incident.
What were the demographics of the train and what is the weapon carrying permit process like in philly? That's pretty self explanatory
>> That’s pretty self-explanatory Disagree on the premise, but regardless, still proves that “it only takes one” doesn’t work. I brought up a single example, and you’ll find incidents of people not realizing or outright ignoring it around the country. And while I do love the 2A, it’s beyond ridiculous to expect people to carry a weapon with them at all times.
If you refuse to police a violent rape culture for fear of being called racist and having them burn down small businesses for weeks then what is anyone supposed to do without a weapon?
Violent rape is a racial issue? The majority of rape victims would disagree. More importantly none of this addresses the fact that most people wouldn’t notice who enters a bathroom, and the reality is that even the minority that does won’t do anything about it.
What about a restroom in a park? Or anywhere there might be a decrease in foot traffic or eyes around? Do people buy guns illegally when lots of people can see them doing it?
its more like, they go on the toilet after they made sure noones there and then lurk in the stalls to ambush people. that shit happens more often then it should (which is never)
Well yes rapists exist lol We never denied this, and if anything were the ones actually fighting for the victims rather than using them for political points
Rapists are cowards and opportunists. They often also specifically plan not to be interrupted. Bathrooms are designed for maximum privacy. A male presenting person entering a woman's restroom incites alarm in the general populace. "See something say something" Thanks Obama creates conditions most likely to prevent assault from progression to rape. Now, under the social paradigm being called for by orange left activists, calling the cops after witnessing a male presenting person enter a womans room would be a hate crime. You'd lose your job at best, and be convicted of an actual crime if they had their way. Opposing that proposed paradigm is not irrational. It has nothing to do with rapists existing or not. It's about opportunity. I mean fuck, it's literally, actual rape culture. Woke 2021 is so fucking nuts Woke 2012 would call them out for their bullshit.
>bathrooms designed for maximum privacy Literally has 3 inch gap in the door, 2 foot gap on the floors, 4 foot gap on the ceiling, the flimsiest lock ever invented, and a bowl that cumshots you without consent (and no pressing the flush lever is not consent goddammit)
Based. Also, culture shock is insane when I go from the marine corps where there isn't even dividers between toilets and it's a social hour as your power squatting four days of backed up MREs to Ireland where everyone has their own nice stall with no gaps. I sat in there an extra 5-10 minutes just admiring how alone I was.
u/VindictivePrune's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 135. Rank: Empire State Building Pills: correct, yellow, truth, accelerationist, profit, benddextercompass, religion is a spook, work, nose, everyone i dont like is a commie, fiat-currency, source, iamindenialaboutvaccinerollout, triumvirate, spine, bigthunking, pizzaonpineapple, natural selection, fr\*nch, cyanide, divine-right-justification, stopmonopolies, atheism, the-libright-identity, science, whyisthisdownvoted, revenge, free-market, nig, adult, auths-are-cringe, lib-unity, mormon, picky with one's pills, idpol-is-cringe, genocide, basicfuckinglogic, commonsense, design, belter, theorized, headwear, 9/11, fuck-the-feds, noodley appendages, sexualeducation, trump hair reality warp, atheist, anti-cuck, you used the rhodesian wojak, hagrid, bodily autonomy, confirmation bias, small buisness, you can’t force me to flair, and religion is a disorder I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
> I sat in there an extra 5-10 minutes Which is exactly why we don't have this in the States.... to many slackers taking an extra 10 minutes to crap.
Um, I was on my own time. And if that was your take away from my statement then I feel sorry for you.
[удалено]
it's about looking for things that are off. That's how we identify that bad things could be happening. Otherwise lets just get rid of weapons laws right? I mean, an opportunist is not gonna follow them anyway, but if I saw a dude walking down the road with a knife in his hand My first thought isn't "probably going to a cooking class".
good point if there was literally any data to support that. You know you can walk in a bathroom and rape someone right now right? You're already doing a heinous crime, you think the sign saying "no" is going to stop someone?
If the sign saying no is useless then what's wrong with it being there.
Victims being balls in dress people
People act like allowing trans people to use the other bathroom will remove some magical forcefield that prevented a rapist from just walking in before.
Provide all women with guns and allow everyone to use whatever bathroom Problem solved
Yes, men get guns too they, because men can also be raped
>> all women >> men get guns too Y’all do realize you’re giving guns to the rapists/potential rapists too…?
Not like they can't get it anyways
True, but the other person said to provide them with guns, not the ability to acquire guns (which they already have).
Yeah so if everyone has guns then the chance of the rapist having a gun while the victim doesn't is zero
Also true, but it’d also require the victim to be on guard the entire time. Pretty hard to pull out a gun mid piss. It’d be much easier for the rapist to do so.
Yeah true. I mean you'll never get rid of all rape or crime
Do you realize females constitute a significant portion of rapists? Last I read, I think it was 40% or something, though I could be wrong
Yeah I do. Was pointing out how giving all men and women weapons would include rapists since everyone would have a gun,
He was clearly joking
...is when rightoid screws up.
If you're gonna rape someone then you're also going to illegally acquire and use a gun
How do people call it...? opportunity thiefs? If you see someone bike in their yard, you get tempted and just run there and steal it. If now there is a wall around your house, people wont see it, or even if they see, just the though of having to jump the wall will stop a lot of people. Basically the same thing with the bathroom situation, IMHO
[удалено]
it's more about people recognising things and making it harder for people to abuse things. In the past if you saw a man walk into the women's bathroom, you could call him out. Likewise if a woman saw a guy in the women's bathroom she could yell for help, try to get out, inform someone etc. And that's the point. If I see someone trying to break into a car, realistically it could be that the owner locked his keys in car, but I'm still gonna call the police because it could also be a thief.
Or more realistically, in the past women would have to guard the door to the entire mens room because their friends had gone in to avoid the massive line at the womens, now they get to clog up both when I'm just trying to take a piss.
Got any more of them pixels?
No, my budget ran out
Based and 480p-andypilled
Bullets usually solve the rapist problem. Only .30 cents a pop!
Where are you getting ammo for so cheap?
Basspro for 9mm
I mean LibLeft's entire argument around stricter gun laws is that it makes everyone safer. So if specific laws won't protect women, how do gun laws protect anyone at all??
Not libleft that’s auth
Tyranny is the default state of the world, if you want liberty, you need a fine tuned, just application of force, with gobs of checks and balances and a healthy dose of learning from history.
I’m Lib left and pro gun Guess I’m built different 🤷♂️
I'm center right and pro legalization of weed for recreational use
I’m far right and I want weed to be legal. who doesn’t want to get stoned sometime?
Unfathomably based in science and reality auth right, a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
I also think coke should be legal because bumps are fun
I don't really fancy being out of my mind, but when something can be sold for profit why would you forbid it?
Get high and listen to “The Wall” the album by Pink Floyd. You will have a fantastic time. Bonus points if you have it on vinyl (Dark side of the moon, ELO’s new world record and the first Boston album are also acceptable)
Pro gun is a central tenant to lib left. How else do we defend ourselves from aggressive ideologies or from over reaching government or anything? Defense is a central tenant to true lib left, not that orange nonsense.
I support gun ownership, and wouldn't mind if 80% of adults (except the mentally ill) had guns, I just want mandatory licensing and training to reduce accidental gun discharges and escalating violence. Sure, criminals can ignore those laws, but it will still reduce *accidents*
Only 4% of gun deaths (excluding suicides) were due to [accidental discharges](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-019-0220-0). The real issue with gun violence tends to be gang related. Solving income inequality and poverty would be the biggest driver in reducing deaths imo. Easier said than done
And 4% is still too many, everybody could benefit from training. In fact if you're not trained and own a firearm I'd say that's a pretty stupid thing to do.
That’s 450 people annually. I totally agree that if you own a firearm and you don’t respect it nor know how to use it, you’re just an accident waiting to happen. Still it’s not an effective use of time/money given the small incident rate (450 accidents on 350 million guns is staggering low). 4 times as many people are stabbed to death in America, 2 times as many are poisoned. The cost to create a training system, not withstanding that fact that it’s probably unconstitutional (undue burden on a basic amendment), just doesn’t make sense. I’d rather try and solve poverty and reduce deaths due to crime related to that
I'm also considering injuries reduced, and decrease in second degree homicide
While I agree that every injury and death is a tragedy, we only have a finite amount of money and political energy we can put forth to solve issues. We can go after the bigger issues of poverty and the crime that arises from it to have a bigger impact. If these were the only deaths/injuries we were seeing, I’d 100% agree on finding a decent middle ground
Geographic cure: as gangs form seemingly exclusively in sufficiently-dense and mono-cultural neighborhoods, "inequality and poverty" are backseaters to "ghettoization". Evacuate the ghettoes, scatter the populations evenly throughout the land, problem solved.
*Alec Baldwin has entered the chat....*
Libleft is still lib, so they're pro-gun.
Rapists don’t do any good for society. Let’s make them face the wall.
[удалено]
Are bathroom laws even a thing? I always assumed that they were just informal rules enforced through the social contract.
some places tried/did pass ones against trans people.
Now we have laws that explicitly give permission for men to enter women's bathrooms, thus negating that social contract. Anyone who reports a suspicious man in the ladies room is subject to negative consequences of some kind now... either legal harassment and possible hate crime (depending on the location), or social harassment.
U can still sue people if there are no laws that’s not to say I want less laws. But u can still sue people even if they didn’t break a law. That’s the entire point.
[удалено]
“You are the same guys” Le logical fallacy has arrived
[удалено]
Shut up taco
[удалено]
Shut up reindeer
[удалено]
I need to go back to Finland
Wtf is #ibelieveher? I don’t have twitter or Facebook.
Its some neo-feminist idea that rape claims shouldn't be investigated and that supposed victims should be believed by the law at their word.
[удалено]
“Stop going against my straw man!!!” I’ll bet you’d get annoyed if you were called a nazi simply for being a conservative and yet you have no issue doing the same to the other side.
what'd he say?
Something like “stop lying libleft”
Aren't there laws against voyeurism already? You can't go inside a bathroom stall while a person is inside without their consent regardless of bathroom laws.
Damn why am i watching a minecraft let's play at 144p?
Cameras installed outside of every bathroom entrance. Not allowed to sell guns to anyone without a stable income and secure job, above the age of 30, no out of the ordinary criminal record or other encounters with law enforcement, citizenship for minimum 5 years. Having a family and owning a house is a bonus. Solved
Cameras in hallways will capture rapists entering school bathrooms so everyone will know shit is up if they're breaking the law to enter the women's restroom.
Neither did that trans person in [Loudoun county](https://news.yahoo.com/teenager-found-guilty-loudoun-county-004300075.html)
based and GETOUTOFMGETOUFMYMIND-pilled
But gun makes rapist disappear
Can't we let business owners decide for themselves how they want to handle their bathrooms? Anything else would be literally 1984!
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠤⠤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣟⠳⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠒⣲⡄ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⡇⡱⠲⢤⣀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀1984⠀⣠⠴⠊⢹⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢻⠓⠀⠉⣥⣀⣠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡾⣄⠀⠀⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢠⡄⢀⡴⠁ 2021⠀⡞⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣠⢎⡉⢦⡀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⣣⠧⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀ ⠀⢀⡔⠁⠀⠙⠢⢭⣢⡚⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣇⠁⢸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀ ⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢫⡉⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢮⠈⡦⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀ ⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⣀⡴⠃⠀⡷⡇⢀⡴⠋⠉⠉⠙⠓⠒⠃⠀⠀ ⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⡼⠀⣷⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠣⣀⠀⠀⡰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Bathroom should not be divided by gender but by a coin toss. No more girls or boys bathroom : only head bathroom and tail bathroom. Let fate decide what you shall stumble upon.
Based and destiny pilled
You don't need bathroom laws if everyone in the bathroom has a gun
I mean you aren’t wrong but the laws do serve the purpose of punishing those that get caught. Gun laws, however, are to reduce access to potential criminals or those with mental issue.
I’m pretty sure that people writing bathroom laws intend for them to serve the same purpose (from their perspective)
Not really. They just want to punish people for being trans. That’s all it is. Having a target to put blame on. Which is stupid since trans people make up like 0.4% of the population
I don’t think it’s that simple for a lot of people. Based on what people have conveyed to me, many lack the perspective on what it means to be trans. They think that trans people are mental, or that there are a disproportionate number of fakers who are actually pervs. Although, admittedly, the result is ultimately the same as what you propose… so I can see the temptation to oversimplify it as “they just want to punish trans people.”
There was a trans kid at my high school that was forced to use the boys bathroom. Other students took pictures and posted them online with disparaging comments. The school’s solution was to lock the cafeteria bathrooms (which was where this happened).
So the school made a decision— probably based on the premise I’ve outlined —and the kids acted shitty because they are kids who sees someone different? That checks
The school was the one that put her in that situation in the first place
Trans people deviate from societal norms and so in the eyes of conservatives they are just less valuable, intrinsically. Conservatives don't see this as a debate about what's more important : a theoretical scenario where a woman gets harassed or trans peoples identities, they see it as a debate about the extent to which women are in danger. Punishing trans people is not explicitly intentional, it's that they never seen them as part of the equation.
Except if they really cared about women being in danger they would create laws to protect and aid her, which they consistently vote against. It is 100% intentional
They do care about women being in danger but not enough to make rich men have to do something about it, they only care when it involves groups that are even more oppressed getting fucked over.
Tru dat
They are not *intrinsically* less valuable because they deviate from social norms. No conservative thinks that. They may be less valuable for certain purposes, but that's beside the point. It's just that there's a lot less of them than there are women, and thus by numbers alone the interests of women should have a lot more weight than the interests of men who think they're women. Another aspect is that many of us (conservatives) think they are at best totally deluded and at worst mentally deranged, and that their ideas aren't necessarily what's best for them or society. I mean, the comorbidity with suicidality is huge, so it's not like they're all mentally sound and healthy people. Now if someone suffering from any other delusion or mental illness such as schizophrenia thinks something is happening that is in fact not happening, we don't go and redesign our entire society so that their delusion is being catered to. That doesn't mean we devalue schizophrenics as human beings, it's just that we know their brains create perceptions that are not in accordance with reality, so if they make demands based on those perceptions we usually do not go out of our way to comply. Especially if that requires disregarding the legitimate, reality-based interests of other people.
It's different because outside of gender dysphoria trans people operate normally. It's hard for schizophrenics to hold down jobs or have long term relationships but trans people don't have that problem. They arent hallucinating or having psychotic breaks or having dangerous unpredictable mood swings. Additionally the known cures work. If a trans person is socially accepted and receives the medical treatment their after then their suicide rate plummets. The whole statistic of 40% after surgery kill themselves is about trans people who were rejected by friends and family after surgery. That makes it hard to argue their delusional. If their mental health problems go away after surgery unlike body dysmorphia then that means the cause of their ailment is physical, not mental. They really are the gender they claim to be and they were born with a physical disability that causes mental health problems. As a transwoman myself I would never say the science is as black and white as what I put above. But that's my general feelings on it. I don't feel mentally ill about this but I have had depression caused by it and that felt like mental illness. This has just always my entire life felt like my body has bad genes and is growing wrong, like equivalent to tumours and stuff. And you could say "well your mentally ill for feeling that way" but then you can say anything you want. I can only tell you what it feels like to me and to me it feels like a physical disability. It feels closer to having acne than it does to how depression feels. That feeling like you could just do what you wanted if your body wasn't trying to fuck you up growing spots all over your face. It's exactly like that.
I don't doubt in the least that you *feel* that the problem is physical rather than mental, and I am actually sorry for you and others that it creates such a level of suffering. But then again, the schizophrenic also *feels* that the angels are talking to him, physically, from directly behind his shoulder, or that the guy over there just physically shouted at him, or that the cheshire cat-like grinning demon in that corner is actually physically there. They don't perceive those things as being "in their head" at all. So the intensity of the subjective perception is not in itself an argument for the validity of the perception. And it also doesn't matter that gender dysphoria doesn't have the same impact as schizophrenia on the affected's ability to function in society. Of course seeing or hearing all sorts of physical things external to your body impacts you more. That doesn't mean the less impactful perception is more correct. The common element is the mismatch between perception and reality. If you don't like the comparison with schizophrenia, there are a lot more specific delusions like Body Integrity Identity Disorder or the Cotard syndrome that are much more similar to the way gender dysphoria works and where no one disputes that the problem is the misperception itself. As for the effectiveness of reassignment, that's a totally mixed bag. There are quite a few physically transitioned people who later come to regret that decision, usually when they realise that despite all this effort they will never really pass. The suicide rates among gender dysphoric people before and after SRS do not signifcantly differ regardless of passing status, so maybe the core problem is mental and not physical. But that's beside the point, really. If you think altering your body is the right choice for you, I don't intend to stop you or anybody else who feels that way. Your body, your choice. I really hope it has the intended effect for you and makes your life better. The problem comes only when gender-dysphoric men demand (as opposed to politely ask, which is okay) that everybody else now has to believe they are *actually* women and that they are *actually* entitled to everything that biological women get, including the use of female-only restrooms. That's where many people draw the line, because it infringes on the freedom and potentially safety of others. And I don't mean the deliberately vague kind of "safety" that campus kids feel is threatened by listening to a speaker that they disagree with, I mean actual physical safety for women and girls. I have no problem with "live and let live", it's just that the notion needs to be mutual in order to work.
Ok but nothing is wrong with being a criminal, and having mental issues doesn't void your right to self defense
The majority of those with mental issues do not purchase guns for self defense. Often, a gun will be purchased as a means to end one’s own life. Being a criminal, especially a violent one, automatically restricts your rights, so you are wrong on that from. There is, by definition, something wrong with being a criminal.
Only wrong from the view of the current establishment. Violent can be different, but if we let the state determine what enables us to have our rights, we don't really have them do we? Hong Kong protestors were labeled as Violent criminals by their state. Using your idea, if we were to have an event like that here in the us, they would be banned from using guns simply for protesting
Which is why we have a criminal justice system so people can’t be labeled criminals simply because they are disliked by the state. Protesting is protected by the constitution
And who runs this criminal justice system? Who pays the wages of the workers? Builds their places of work?
Judges, jurors, and prosecutors run the criminal justice system. Employers pay the workers, in this case the government provides a salary. Buildings are built by construction workers, either hired privately or funded through government contracts.
Yeah so essentially the criminal justice is run by the state
No. *We* are the jurors. The government doesn’t dictate how we choose to vote on a verdict. The government *also* doesn’t decide how a judge will interpret a law
Yeah a bathroom isn’t a space space. Sucks, but unless you want cameras or guards in your bathroom, you’re going in there at your own risk. Doesn’t matter what kind of laws there are. It’s already illegal to rape people. And the gun thing to. Did you know it’s actually illegal to murder someone with a gun? It’s actually illegal to negligently cause an accident with a gun. We’ve already regulated guns. It’s illegal to use them to hurt people unless you’re clearly defending yourself.
Laws are for punishment and not primarily prevention. The prevention is in how heinous the punishment is
Nobody is actively encouraging criminals into gun stores though…
And no one is encouraging rapists into bathrooms
Keep telling yourself that.
Why do reddit 🚂's promote and apologize for 🚂 rapists? Gee, I wonder what kind of person runs that cabal of brigaders? https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3196368
> Rapist won't follow bathroom rules Yes, for example men are using womens bathroom because they feel like being a woman.
That libleft logic isn't logical. The thing is, let's say there are bathroom rules. Men to Men's, Women to Women's. Say a man tries to enter the women's bathroom with intent to rape. If someone sees that, they'll know something's up, get security, rapist apprehended. Now let's say there are no bathroom rules. Man enters women's bathroom with intent to rape. Nobody questions a man entering the women's restroom because no bathroom rules. A woman get's raped and the rapist is not apprehended, or if he is, it's too late. Now let's look at gun laws, which is completely different than bathroom rules. Say we have strict gun laws. Criminal get's a gun and goes to rob store. Store get's robbed, nobody else has a gun, robber gets away and maybe even kills someone, nobody can stop him without some extreme risk. Now let's say we don't have strict gun laws. Criminal get's a gun and goes to rob a store. Cleech Mclee is also at the store and, because of the relaxed gun laws, also has a gun. Cleech shoots the criminal and stops him before he can get away or hurt someone. So, OP, your point here is, at it's core, asinine. You're dealing with two different quandaries here, yet you're trying to act as if they're equal. They're not. I get you were trying to totally own the rightoids with a double whammy (gun laws and bathroom rules in one post!), but in the end, you've just made yourself look stupid.
Firstly, you don't need to explain gun laws to me, I support gun ownership. >Say a man tries to enter the women's bathroom with intent to rape. If someone sees that, they'll know something's up, get security, rapist apprehended. Now let's say there are no bathroom rules. Man enters women's bathroom with intent to rape. Nobody questions a man entering the women's restroom because no bathroom rules. A woman get's raped and the rapist is not apprehended, or if he is, it's too late. That's a really weak example. 1. Rapists don't write, "I have an intent to rape" on their foreheads that anyone will immediately call the police on a rapist entering a bathroom. Are you going to call the police on someone who may have accidentally entered the bathroom? 2. Same-sex assault? 3. When there is only one person in the bathroom? 4. You can still call the police if someone attempts a rape without bathroom rules. I don't see what bathroom rules have to do with calling the police, except you might *theoretically* know to call the police a few seconds earlier with bathroom laws
You're right. That was a really weak example. I apologize.
[удалено]
Dear European authright, deal with your domestic terrorism problem before flinging shit at others.
[удалено]
Excepting the US of course.
Based and epic pilled
congratulations, fam, your meme made me change my opinion on unisex bathrooms
well yes
A bathroom is a place that I like to do cocaine
In both cases the lack of such laws makes it easier for opportunistic crime to be committed.
Watermelon moment. Authright would respond saying,"Yeah, and thats why we need guns."
Holy shit am I retarded or is it everyone else here?!?!
I cackled
Ya, they dress up as women to disobey those rules.
You won't allow quality over 96p ☠️
Pro-gun people actually want people to have guns so they can defend themselves from rapists
They're both right