Welcome to Thunderdome

Flippant does not mean insulting. It means not showing a serious or respectful attitude. Such as being hyperbolic in a mildly humorous way to counter an argument one finds silly. I should have quoted the full statement to put my response into better context:

"They're not going to rape you or turn you gay (Not that there's anything wrong with that)!" True, but that's not the issue. First of all, are you implying that straight men would rape straight women if given the chance?

I thought you were being flippant with that question. Are you saying you really do think it likely that anyone making that statement does so primarily because they think all straight men are rapists?

As to the fact that some people actually do say that all straight men are rapists, I agree. No matter how stupid or crazy of a statement you can think up you'll be able to find some crazy idiot that will agree with it. The world is full of crazy idiots. But I seriously doubt that those that would actually agree with that statement are in any way a large group. It's a handful of extremists, and the only reason they seem to be having an effect - especially in academic institutions - is that other people who originally committed to the "minorities can't be racist" (since whites have all the power) and other various anti-white concepts popular with the liberal political correctness crowd around race issues have turned those same attitudes towards issues of sexism. They don't believe that all straight men are rapists, but they cater to those who do because they believe things like "women can't be aggressors" (since men have all the strength) and that any woman claiming victimhood must always be right (because men have all the power, and to deny the victim would be to oppress her).

The effect is as if all straight men are rapists is a common view, but not many people actually think that. If nothing else the large number of men on that side of things that haven't raped anyone know it's not true. And the majority of women who have fathers and sons and husbands that they know haven't raped anyone also know it's not true.

The real problem, though, is the complete lack of respect between the left and the right. If you present a reasoned and well-constructed argument about why homosexuals in the military could potentially be a logistical nightmare there are many on the left who have deeply held assumptions about what those on the right are like and they do not see that argument. All they see is their assumptions about who you are and what they see is "I'm a redneck and I don't want no faggot to fuck me in my sleep." So their response of "They're not going to rape you or turn you gay" seems like a misnomer and is not a reasoned and well-constructed argument.

The right does the same thing. If you make a reasoned and well-constructed argument about the horrors of state-sponsored religions, the importance of the separation of church and state, and thus why prayer in public schools is dangerous, there are many on the right who have deeply held assumptions about what those on the left are like and they do not see that argument. They also only see their assumptions and so they see "I'm a sinner that hates God and so I just want to destroy Christianity." The results of where such a conversation goes from there is rather predictable.

So when you select one of these sorts of responses and treat it as if it were a serious and reasoned response, you aren't doing any service to the level of the conversation. It's not exactly a strawman argument because it's true that some people do say that sort of thing. But to select that as the thing to argue against is a bit like beating up the loud annoying retarded kid to prove how strong you are.

Flippant does not mean insulting. It means not showing a serious or respectful attitude.

I don't think those two things are different.

If you present a reasoned and well-constructed argument about why homosexuals in the military could potentially be a logistical nightmare there are many on the left who have deeply held assumptions about what those on the right are like and they do not see that argument. All they see is their assumptions about who you are and what they see is "I'm a redneck and I don't want no faggot to fuck me in my sleep." So their response of "They're not going to rape you or turn you gay (Not that there's anything wrong with that)" seems like a misnomer and is not a reasoned and well-constructed argument.

You are correct, but I would argue that smart people are making the argument I was debating. That's why I said it. These moronic arguments are being made at a national level, not just a local level, and that's part of the problem. The more these people are allowed to say these things at such a high level without being refuted, the more people buy into them as truth.

I mean one only need to look at the current political landscape to see that. How many people on both sides of the aisle walk around believing bullshit that was thrown their way? How many intelligent people simply wanted gay people to be able to serve and never considered the logistics of it? How many people run around screaming about marijuana being a gateway drug and being harmful when numerous studies show the exact opposite?

Best example I can give as to why I feel that flippant question has merit is the whole trans people in bathrooms controversy. The national narrative FOR trans using any bathroom contains this "Opponents claim the rule opens up bathrooms to voyeurs but supporters say that's an unrealistic fear." That's a direct quote from the article Vince linked. There's a narrative being told that people won't abuse this in a story about someone abusing it.

Again, how often does a lie need to be told before it becomes the truth?

The real problem, though, is the complete lack of respect between the left and the right.

Again, I agree. The inability to believe you're (meaning anyone or any organization) possibly wrong on something is a huge problem. The inability to find compromise is a huge problem.

The right does the same thing.

Of course they do.

So when you select one of these sorts of responses and treat it as if it were a serious and reasoned response, you aren't doing any service to the level of the conversation. It's not exactly a strawman argument because it's true that some people do say that sort of thing. But to select that as the thing to argue against is a bit like beating up the loud annoying retarded kid to prove how strong you are.

But it's my position that if nobody is silencing that loud annoying kid his word is going to become the "truth", which we've seen happen a billion times. Thus, there's nothing too stupid to squash.

Again, how often does a lie need to be told before it becomes the truth?

I understand your frustration. But I would argue that a lie never become the truth no matter how loud it is shouted nor how widely it is believed. It is still wrong. And given enough time it will be proven so, assuming that humanity still exists and has at least a passing interesting in discovering truth.

Yes, stupid people say stupid things. Yes, many of the people in charge of big things are stupid people that say stupid things. Yes, even people that have some limited areas in which they are not stupid are still stupid in other areas. That is all so. But that doesn't mean you have to willfully become stupid yourself in order to interact with them. You are better than that.

But really, feel free to quote the stupid arguments and show how stupid they are if that makes you happy, but don't expect me to take them (or your treating them in a serious manner) seriously.

Flippant does not mean insulting. It means not showing a serious or respectful attitude.

I don't think those two things are different.

I don't know how to reply to this. Personally I don't find everything that is not hard-nosed tight-assed respect to be an insult. Nor do I think all things not serious as the grave are insulting. But to each his own. Just promise me you'll never go into stand-up comedy with that attitude.

As to the topic at hand of transsexuals and bathrooms and how it is also full of people being stupid, I have a few thoughts.

On the one hand no one is seriously saying that "all men should be able to just randomly declare that they are feeling womanly that day and decide to go to the women's room instead and that should be fine." To characterize the opposing side that way is stupid, or at a minimum it is selecting the stupidest people and slapping them around like the aforementioned loud annoying retard and pretending that somehow makes some sort of point. It does nothing to actually make a reasonable counter argument as to why a workable solution is impossible.

On the other hand we have those opposed who are characterized by some of those for as nothing more than tranny-hating rampaging Christian fear-weasels. But most of the people opposed are generally reasonable non-evil people who just have at worst an obsession with conformity. To characterize them as evil is stupid, or at a minimum it is selecting the stupidest people and commencing with the slapping. I am not going to take that as any more of a meaningful or useful response than I am the previous paragraph.

How many people on both sides of the aisle walk around believing bullshit that was thrown their way?

From where I'm sitting I would have to say 100%. It is part of the process of choosing a side of that isle in the first place. If you didn't believe the bullshit you'd be standing somewhere else. (NOTE: This is me doing a little retard slapping myself, I admit it. But then I'm not pretending to be a serious voice of reason among a sea of troubling arguments.)

Flippant does not mean insulting. It means not showing a serious or respectful attitude.

I don't think those two things are different.

I don't know how to reply to this. Personally I don't find everything that is not hard-nosed tight-assed respect to be an insult. Nor do I think all things not serious as the grave are insulting. But to each his own. Just promise me you'll never go into stand-up comedy with that attitude.

There's a shitload of grey area in between "can't take it seriously" and "insulting." Hell, the tone of most of my speech is somewhere between those two endpoints. The thinner the skin of the true believer, the more likely they are to mistake the former for the latter.

I understand your frustration. But I would argue that a lie never become the truth no matter how loud it is shouted nor how widely it is believed. It is still wrong. And given enough time it will be proven so, assuming that humanity still exists and has at least a passing interesting in discovering truth.

I agree the truth will come out, but how much damage gets done in the meantime? Shouldn't we be throwing logic at stupidity to squash it? Isn't the silent majority part of why this country has four assholes running for president? The uneducated who live off the government, the left wing elite, and the bible thumping "morally superior to everyone" jackasses are the voices we hear rather than the majority of people who think both sides are nuts.

I mean, not for nothing, but people are murdered every day by other people who thinking blowing themselves up and killing innocents will gain them entry into heaven where 72 virgins await them. If education was a bigger thing in the parts of the world where this is big, perhaps it wouldn't be so big.

There are people who think Bush/Haliburton/Global Warming was behind 9/11. People who think we never landed on the moon. People who think the Earth is fucking FLAT. People who think only white people are responsible for the slave trade or that it only happened here in the U.S. and doesn't still happen today around the world. Man, I could go on. (And granted I'm picking extreme examples.)

How many people want Bernie Sanders to become president because they think his economic ideas are sound because they're ignorant or unwilling to accept the fact that those same policies have failed everywhere else? How many people brush aside the fact that the dirtiest, most crooked, scumbag running for president is the woman? How many people think Trump will make America great again despite him having no plan and the patience of your average tired 5 year old? How many people were cheering last night as Cruz rolled out a dumb bitch who almost drove HP into the ground? HOw many people saw that and thought, "What a great move!" instead of "He clearly picked a woman to attack Trump where he's weakest and hopefully could use against Hillary."

Ok, you're right. Stupid people. Lots of them. But am I really wrong for engaging them? For addressing their stupidity? For pointing out when they have faulty logic?

How many children have to die because people think child molesters can be reformed yet in the next breath talk about how gay people are born that way, and it's natural, and you can't change that? (And I'm not arguing against gay people here, just pointing out really bad logic.)

But that doesn't mean you have to willfully become stupid yourself in order to interact with them. You are better than that.

I was thisclose to quoting only this, responding "Taking your advice", and that's it. But, I honestly like the debate. When defending this forum and its denizens, the number one thing I can always lean on is the fact that despite different backgrounds and opinions, we can actually discuss issues. It's such a rare thing these days. I know for a fact I've changed a mind or two here and my opinions on things have been changed. Not because someone beat me into submission, but because a logical argument was presented with facts to back it up. Hell, I'd argue that's why our most vocal liberal members left. They were getting absolutely demolished with facts with linked sources and they had to resort to name calling. (That's not picking on liberals in general, it just happens that our forum members are more middle of the road with right leaning beliefs.)

So while you might think I lower myself when I address dumb things, it's more about educating myself. When I enter a debate I like all angles covered because my friends outside this forum are diverse and I'll discuss these topics again. I will have fact checked ammo sitting in my gun where they'll usually have opinion and hearsay. Maybe I can ignore some of the lower hanging fruit, but fuck does it feel satisfying to smash some of those fuckers into orbit.

Plus, I think things that are being said in nationally published articles should be fair game.

I don't know how to reply to this. Personally I don't find everything that is not hard-nosed tight-assed respect to be an insult. Nor do I think all things not serious as the grave are insulting. But to each his own. Just promise me you'll never go into stand-up comedy with that attitude.

Context is everything. I thought you were being intentionally insulting with your "flippant" remark. It's why I asked. Watch. Malcolm, you have a beautiful and peaceful soul. See? Context.

TPRJones wrote:On the one hand no one is seriously saying that "all men should be able to just randomly declare that they are feeling womanly that day and decide to go to the women's room instead and that should be fine."

Yeah but sometimes I get the menstrual cramps real hard.

Malcolm, you have a beautiful and peaceful soul.

Ok, you're right. Stupid people. Lots of them. But am I really wrong for engaging them? For addressing their stupidity? For pointing out when they have faulty logic?

No, by all means fight the good fight! But I don't think there's that much stupidity here, so if you post one of their stupid arguments and rip it apart here as if that were a meaningful exercise, what can I say except "I think you are still wrong overall, but you are right that particular argument was stupid." It doesn't advance the conversation on this board all that much.

Not that I'm offended or anything. By all means, go right ahead! And I'll do what I can to counter you when I disagree. But just don't be surprised when dissecting one of those stupid arguments here doesn't change my mind.

But, I honestly like the debate. When defending this forum and its denizens, the number one thing I can always lean on is the fact that despite different backgrounds and opinions, we can actually discuss issues.

I absolutely agree. Just try to bring some more reasonable points to counter when you want to play ball, that's all I'm asking. And I will make an effort to do the same and would hope you'd call me on it if I start slapping retards at you. Except when we're just pointing at them and laughing together, of course. That has value as well.

Who is that Malcolm? I swear I just saw that picture on Imgur.

But I don't think there's that much stupidity here, so if you post one of their stupid arguments and rip it apart here as if that were a meaningful exercise, what can I say except "I think you are still wrong overall, but you are right that particular argument was stupid."

Wait. What am I wrong about?

I agreed that your proposal about folks needing to be at x point in the process was fine.

The rest of this was just discussing how stupid people are frustrating.

Maybe... and I hate playing this card, but... maybe one just needs to be a parent to be concerned about who is in the restroom with them.

I know I still don't let my 10yo go in alone, yet.

Leisher wrote:Who is that Malcolm? I swear I just saw that picture on Imgur.

That's MC Chris from a few years back.

Does he know he looks like a young Patton Oswalt?

But I don't think there's that much stupidity here, so if you post one of their stupid arguments and rip it apart here as if that were a meaningful exercise, what can I say except "I think you are still wrong overall, but you are right that particular argument was stupid."

I mean just in general. We often end up on opposite sides in these things.

I don't think so. I just think that when we are, we're more willing to discuss it than other people.

Here's an interesting tidbit that should be noted in these discussions: https://popehat.com/2016/04/25/bathrooms-and-fear

Feds tell NC to renounce their law by Monday or lose federal money for stuff.

NC to feds: GFY.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/n ... se-doj-hb2

Yeah... So... I don't like the bill, and want it gone.

But, I don't think the DoJ has the authority to say that HB2 violates Title VII or Title IX. Gender identity is not a protected class, the end. DoJ cannot just implement this change without a literal act of Congress. It has to be law.

Agreed. The DoJ are supposed to uphold the law, not create it. I'm sure in court they'll try to shoehorn it in under "sex" but the whole point is that gender is not identical to sex.

Stop helping, DoJ, you're doing it wrong.