BBJoey posted:

Yeah, at what point does this fuckwit's desire for liberty end? Why does the government oppress my freedom by making me get a driver's license? Why can't I yell fire in a theatre? Why can't I stalk people and scream obscenities at them without the police infringing my rights?

quote:

The Minnesota State High School League (the organization all schools, including private Christian schools, must be members of in order to compete in state athletics) is working directly with OutFront Minnesota on a Transgender Student Athlete Policy that will allow boys who identify as girls to play on girls’ sports teams and girls who identify as boys to play on boys’ sports teams. This also means that boys and girls can have access to the same showers, locker rooms, bathrooms, and hotel rooms as the opposite sex.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

So boys will be sleeping next to your sons, and girls will be sleeping next to your daughter?

I'm not sure what you're complaining about, people?

GreyjoyBastard posted:

But what if they're homosexual?

Fortunately, bisexuals don't exist. So that improves the odds.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

So boys will be sleeping next to your sons, and girls will be sleeping next to your daughter?

I'm not sure what you're complaining about, people?

quote:

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS TRANSGENDER POLICY?

-Talking Points-

1. Such a policy is NOT (repeat NOT) required under state or federal law.
   
   
2. This policy will affect both public AND private schools--and HOMESCHOOLED students who participate in public or private school athletics. There is NO exemption for religious schools or religious students.
   
   
3. The policy allows transgender boys to play on girls’ sports teams and transgender girls to play on boys’ teams with no safety provisions for physical disparities.
   
   
4. Transgender boys can access girls’ locker rooms, showers, bathrooms, and hotel rooms (and vice versa).
   
   
5. The policy requires privacy accommodations for transgender students, but the protection of non-transgender students’ privacy rights is not required.
   
   
6. The policy basically puts an unfunded mandate on all schools, requiring “Transgender Sensitivity Training” for school staff, parents, students, and others…
   
   
7. The policy leaves schools vulnerable to lawsuits for violations of students’ and parents’ rights and religious freedom rights.
   
   
8. The process for developing this policy has lacked transparency, bringing only one viewpoint to the table, despite requests and offers for participation from other viewpoints.

WHAT’S THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE?

That’s easy—LOVE. The Christian response should always be one of love because we serve the God who IS Love and Who BECAME Love in the flesh.

And Love doesn’t lie. Being loving means always speaking the truth—in love (Eph. 4:15). Love never rejoices in wrongdoing—it rejoices in TRUTH (1 Cor. 13:6).

Responding in love means there’s no room for the follower of Jesus to disregard the pain of those struggling with their gender identity.

Responding in love certainly also means that there’s no room for the follower of Jesus to help spread the lie that because you “feel deeply internally” that you are a girl makes you a girl when God fearfully and wonderfully made you a boy in His own image (Psalm 139:14)!

And, when it comes to children, we have an even greater duty to protect and ensure that they are not being fed lies that will harm them. Jesus said it would be better for us to drown than to cause one of His children to stumble and sin! (Matthew 18:5-6)

Part of Turning the Lights Back On in Minnesota this year means letting YOUR light shine—speaking the truth in LOVE.

Join us as we help shed light and truth on the harm this policy will cause to our kids, our schools, and our ability to speak the Truth about who God designed us to be.

quote:

Responding in love certainly also means that there’s no room for the follower of Jesus to help spread the lie that because you “feel deeply internally” that you are a girl makes you a girl when God fearfully and wonderfully made you a boy in His own image (Psalm 139:14)!

Mo_Steel posted:

There's a lot of terrible in there, but this bit about how physical anatomy trumps gender identity:

Stupid Hate-Filled Rhetoric posted:

4. Transgender boys can access girls’ locker rooms, showers, bathrooms, and hotel rooms (and vice versa).

5. The policy requires privacy accommodations for transgender students, but the protection of non-transgender students’ privacy rights is not required.

quote:

Responding in love certainly also means that there’s no room for the follower of Jesus to help spread the lie that because you “feel deeply internally” that you are a girl makes you a girl when God fearfully and wonderfully made you a boy in His own image (Psalm 139:14)!

Mr E posted:

The thing is, I legitimately don't think it should be a right to choose against vaccines if you don't have a medical reason. If you want your lovely kids to die, I guess that's your choice, but as was mentioned it harms the entire community, not just your child.

StealthArcher posted:

I have the right to shake my baby.

I have the right to feed him bleach.

My rights supercede your inanity.

And if you don't think so, IMPEACH.

quote:

3. The policy allows transgender boys to play on girls’ sports teams and transgender girls to play on boys’ teams with no safety provisions for physical disparities.

T-man posted:

I'm neither a doctor nor a woman, but what are they talking about? Do they think the transboys will accidently rip off other boy's penises or something? What do they mean by this, beyond the obvious and idiotic "MUST PROTECT GIRLS THEY WEAK" bullshittery?

T-man posted:

I'm neither a doctor nor a woman, but what are they talking about? Do they think the transboys will accidently rip off other boy's penises or something? What do they mean by this, beyond the obvious and idiotic "MUST PROTECT GIRLS THEY WEAK" bullshittery?

Mo_Steel posted:

Gen. Ripper posted:

Taking this retarded thing at face value, are they implying the boy would also find it uncomfortable sleeping next to the girl? Because hahahha holy poo poo somebody's never been within a 50 mile radius of a high school campus, ever.

Strudel Man posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field

edit: Though that's not safety provisions, I suppose. But boys and girls sports are kept separate for a reason.

Armyman25 posted:

Pretty much. You can expect the transgender "girls" to start winning all the trophies.

VitalSigns posted:

It's my right to choose whether or not to feed my child. The government passing a law to force me sounds like tyranny.

Wulfolme posted:

There's some skeletal structure stuff too that hormone therapy after puberty couldn't change, so they are right in some cases. Therefore, the transgenders are the real oppressors.

Bizarro Kanyon posted:

Two friends posted this (1 is a decent college student, 1 is a soldier who served in Iraq and is now a prison guard) Absolutely none of it is cited and it comes from "The Revolution" facebook page.

I do love the random complaining about different languages and the complaining about the non-existant "push 1 for Spanish".

Edit: I forgot to ask: How do you even argue with this stuff? Nothing is cited so there is no way to really rebut it, is there?

quote:

The dirty secret that everybody knew was that most of the state’s agricultural workers were immigrants, many of them illegal. Some lived in the state; others migrated with the harvest from southern Florida up to New York and back. Some of the former have moved away, while many of the latter are bypassing Georgia. Without them, according to a University of Georgia study, farmers were about 40 percent short of the number of workers they needed to harvest last year’s crop.

Despite high unemployment in the state, most Georgians don’t want such back-breaking jobs, nor do they have the necessary skills. According to Dick Minor, president of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Grower’s Association, immigrants “are pretty much professional harvesters” with many specializing in particular crops.

Guilty Spork posted:

Also, not only is "Press 1 for Spanish" not a thing (it's usually like number 8, mentioned after almost everything else except the option that lets you talk to a person), but oddly enough there are people here legally who do in fact speak Spanish.

ArchangeI posted:

Looking forward to people going transgender if they can't hack it as male athletes and want an easy win. It's so easy, quick and if it doesn't work, they can just reverse it!

ArchangeI posted:

Looking forward to people going transgender if they can't hack it as male athletes and want an easy win. It's so easy, quick and if it doesn't work, they can just reverse it!

JohnClark posted:

To continue with Ben Carson chat, I have really grown to love Facebook's suggested articles:

quote:

How liberals are unwittingly paving the way for the legalization of adult incest
Damon Linker

You should really care that the German Ethics Council (a government committee) has pronounced that Germany's laws banning consensual incest between adult brothers and sisters ought to be abolished.

Now, it's not because Germany's laws directly affect the United States; they don't, of course. And even within Germany itself, the ruling party of Chancellor Angela Merkel has indicated that it doesn't plan on following the council's recommendation.

The reason why Americans — and especially American liberals — should care about the council's ruling is that it gives us a glimpse of America's future.

The German council's position is based on the claim that "the fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination" overrides all other moral considerations, including "the abstract idea of protection of the family." That is very similar to the rationales that have been used to uphold reproductive rights and to strike down bans on same-sex marriage throughout the United States. And we have every reason to think the same logic will eventually apply to bans on sibling incest in this country.

Many liberals will want to deny this, since it sounds like a slippery-slope argument, which social conservatives love to deploy but liberals prefer to mock and dismiss, often illustrated by outrageous and ill-informed quotations from Rick Santorum. But slippery-slope arguments are aren't always foolish. On the contrary, they can be powerful and persuasive when they simply point out that justifying activity A with reference to principle X opens the door to justifying activities B, C, and D, if they, too, conform to principle X. All it takes is someone to make a claim in favor of activity B, C, or D for that person to be granted the same rights as those making a claim in favor of activity A.

This is precisely what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been banging on about since his blistering dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that overturned Texas's anti-sodomy statute. Focusing less on the details of the Texas law, Scalia was primarily concerned that the libertarian rationale used to strike it down would apply just as well to any law seeking to regulate consensual sexual behavior, including bans on "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity."

Scalia made a similar slippery-slope argument in his dissent in United States v. Windsor (2013), the case that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In Scalia's view, it didn't matter that the majority had refrained from finding "a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage." By denying that there is any possible rationale for opposing same-sex marriage besides the desire to "'disparage,' 'injure,' 'degrade,' 'demean,' and 'humiliate' our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual," the majority had established a principle that rendered both state-level bans on gay marriage indefensible and an eventual declaration of a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry inevitable.

A series of lower courts have subsequently paid backhanded tribute to the power of Scalia's argument by relying in part on his dissent in overturning numerous state-level bans on same-sex marriage. As for his claim about an inevitable constitutional right to gay marriage, it hasn't been declared yet. When will it happen? Since the principle justifying such a right has already been established, Scalia thinks it could happen any time, with the primary consideration being what the majority believes "it can get away with."

Well, how long before the majority wants to and believes it can get away with declaring a constitutional right to sibling incest?

Don't laugh. As with same-sex marriage, the principle has already been established. In a notorious passage of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that upheld the constitutional right to abortion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, of the mystery of human life." Kennedy relied on the same passage in his majority opinion in Lawrence. The German Ethics Council expressed a similarly libertarian ideal of sexual autonomy in its ruling in favor of sibling incest.

Perhaps you still think the comparison is silly. But it's not. Here are some relevant questions for liberals. I think you'll be surprised where the answers lead you.

Do you support the right of consenting adult brothers and sisters to marry? If not, why not? What legal or moral principle justifies granting marriage rights to unrelated same-sex couples while denying such rights to brothers and sisters?

Note that the German Ethics Council also held that the prospect of a brother and sister producing children with genetic defects cannot be used as a reason to deny them a right to marry. After all, disabled couples are not prohibited from procreating under German law, even though they have a greater-than-average chance of producing disabled kids. The same is true, incidentally, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

If you do support the right of brothers and sisters to marry, is it because you think there's nothing wrong with (or even something potentially good about) incestuous relationships? Or do you support the right to incestuous marriage despite being disgusted by the practice?

This question is significant because in recent years some liberals have begun to argue that it is not enough for traditionalist religious believers merely to tolerate same-sex marriage. Instead, these people must positively affirm the legitimacy and goodness of gay marriage as an institution. Otherwise, they run the risk of perpetuating the evil of homophobia. Which brings us to:

Is it acceptable to affirm the right of incestuous couples to marry while continuing to think that such marriages are depraved? Or should we combat such anti-incestuous beliefs — just like racism, sexism, and homophobia — on the grounds that they will encourage hurtful stereotypes?

I suspect that liberals won't appreciate being asked these questions. But refusing to answer won't stop the logic at work in the sexually libertarian principles that on other occasions liberals triumphantly champion. Once a person, couple, or group of people make a sexual-partnership claim based on autonomy and consent, there is increasingly no basis on which to legally reject it. And once it becomes legally accepted, there is increasingly no basis on which to morally reject it.

Which means that, sooner or later, incest is likely to be legal and morally accepted in the United States