• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

 
 
 
Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
You completely misunderstand the comparison.

You want to effectively ban them from society because you are afraid of some of them. Exactly like wanting to remove the bad parts of town.
Click to expand...
Exactly what part of my views can be interpreted by a reasonable and rational person as wanting to ban transgender people from society as a whole? Be specific.
Click to expand...
By painting targets on them. Targets we already know bring violence down on them.
 
Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Emily Lake said:
bilby said:
You cannot protect women in bathrooms from rape by banning transwomen from ladies rooms
Click to expand...
Let's say that tomorrow, a new law is passed that lets any male use the women's room if they wish. There are still rooms labeled "mens" and "womens", but males can use whichever they would like to.

Do you think this law will:
A) Reduce the risk of a woman being subjected to sexual assault, voyeurism, and exhibitionism?
B) Increase the risk of a woman being subjected to sexual assault, voyeurism, and exhibitionism?
C) No change to the risk of a woman being subjected to sexual assault, voyeurism, and exhibitionism?

Please include your rationale for which option you choose as the most likely impact of that law on women.
Click to expand...
1) It would have pretty much zero effect on sexual assault as toilets are not a common venue in the first place.

2) It probably would increase voyeurism and exhibitionism.
Click to expand...
Alright, so it will increase voyeurism and exhibitionism. Do you think it's a good idea to create policies that increase the likelihood of women being subjected to voyeurism and exhibitionism? What benefit is gained that offsets the harm done to women?
Click to expand...
Note the conditional I put on it.
Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
However, we are arguing for said person being female-presenting and with an ID that says F. That will basically screen out the perverts.
Click to expand...
There are several things in here that you seem to be assuming without evidence.
First, you're assuming that they have an ID that has an F on it... and you're assuming that their ID will be requested.
Second, you're assuming that someone spending 30 minutes at the DMV to change their ID will screen out perverts.
Third, you're assuming that "female presenting" is somehow required.
Fourth, you're assuming that perverts would never, ever put on a skirt if it let them engage in *legally sanctioned* voyeurism and/or exhibitionism.
Click to expand...
ID normally is not requested because they present as female. That's the part that I think will screen out the perverts--it's not easy for a guy to make themselves look female. It's not the time at the DMV. And note that even the DMV is a big screen--now they have an ID that says F and sooner or later that will get noticed.

Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
And you still haven't adequately addressed the male-presenting people that you are requiring to use the women's. You can quickly identify a FtM vs a M?
Click to expand...
I don't actually care what risks FtM women choose to take for themselves. If they wish to use the men's room, I don't care.

If the hen wants to toss on a fur coat and go hang out in the fox den, I'm not going to stop her. If the fox glues feathers to his head and waltzes into the henhouse, I think he should be evicted immediately. The situations are not equivalent, and the risk exposures aren't the same. The hen-to-fox transitioner is taking on risk only for herself - she is no danger to the foxes. The fox-to-hen transitioner places all hens at risk.
Click to expand...
The problem is not what risks they choose, but what risks you force. We've already seen violence against FtMs forced to use the women's.
 
Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Emily Lake said:
Elixir said:
Emily Lake said:
ACTUAL enacted fascist laws and rules in place.
Click to expand...
Why bother with that, when you can simply designate your political opposition terrorists,
Click to expand...
Examples? Which political party has been designated as a terrorist organization? Which politicians have been designated as terrorists?
Click to expand...
Are you not aware of Antifa being designated as a terrorist organization? Despite the fact that it's not even an organization in the first place.
Click to expand...
Is antifia a political party now?
Click to expand...
It's not an organization of any type, it's a position. It doesn't have membership.

Thus it is a means for declaring anyone a terrorist.
Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The J6 pardons are not remotely like typical pardons. When has there ever been a blanket pardon of participants in a specified criminal act?
Click to expand...
Up until recently, we've also never had a president preemptively pardon someone for crimes that haven't yet been discovered either.
Click to expand...
We've never had someone expected to use the system to prosecute opponents, either.
Emily Lake said:
I actually oppose ALL presidential pardons. I think it's a disastrous notion and is likely to be abused in horribly partisan ways. But it exists, and it's been practiced to varying extents for a long time. I'm not going to cherry pick which pardons I think are good and which are bad, when they're all cases of the executive branch overriding the judicial.
Click to expand...
The pardon system exists to provide a means of correcting injustices.
Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
And the J6 pardons gave a strong indication that if you're doing what Hair Fuhrer wants you'll be pardoned.
Click to expand...
Sure, and Biden's pardons gave a strong indication that if you're related to a president, you can do whatever you want with no consequences.
Click to expand...
No. He did those after The Felon indicated an intent to prosecute the individuals despite having no basis to do so. They're insane, but a reasonable response to the expected insanity. And note that his decision has been proven correct--The Felon is witch hunting opponents.
 
Emily Lake said:
Elixir said:
Emily Lake said:
Democrats have used language that treats Republicans like terrorists.
Click to expand...
Kind of unavoidable if we are to be honest.
The Republican regime is terrorizing American cities, brutalizing and disappearing people.
Democrats, contrary to Republicans propaganda, are doing no such things.
Click to expand...

Holy canole.

Dems: They're Fascists and Nazis and an Existential Threat to Democracy and We Have to Stop it At Any Cost!!!!!!
Reps: They're Acting Like Terrorists!!!!1111!!
Click to expand...
Terrorists engage in terror. Show me the acts of terrorism.
Emily Lake said:
Dems: Oh the Huge Manatees! They're Treating Us Like Terrorists, it's the End of the World, how could they be so Cruel!
... But it's totally okay if we continue to treat them like terrorists and tyrants and nazis and fascists, that's cool.

Look, I get it. You want to be allowed to be meanies to people you don't like and stir up hatred against them, based on how you perceive them and what you believe about them. But you think it's unacceptable for people to be meanies to you and stir up hatred against you, based on how they perceive you and what they believe about you.

Me, I think all of youse need to stop being meanies and stirring up hatred.
Click to expand...
Both sides are allowed to call names. It's that The Felon is going from namecalling to violence.
 
Politesse said:
Noted anti-trans activist complains that people are disrespecting her chosen name and pronouns, update at 11.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

1) I'm not anti-trans. I'm anti-males-in-female-spaces-and-services-and-sports
2) I wasn't complaining. Maybe Jimmy intended it as a joke rather than just a brain-fart.
3) I don't give a single fuck about what pronouns you want to use for me.
4) It's well past 11 my time.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
You completely misunderstand the comparison.

You want to effectively ban them from society because you are afraid of some of them. Exactly like wanting to remove the bad parts of town.
Click to expand...
Exactly what part of my views can be interpreted by a reasonable and rational person as wanting to ban transgender people from society as a whole? Be specific.
Click to expand...
By painting targets on them. Targets we already know bring violence down on them.
Click to expand...
Again... Exactly what part of MY VIEWS paints targets on them?
 
Emily Lake said:
Jarhyn said:
Wow what disingenuous tripe.

Protest, and not allowing the to drag us away to camps, that is not terrorism, and acting like it is is a great indicator whether someone is a Nazi.
Click to expand...
Nobody is dragging you off to a camp. Put your persecution complex away for a while.
Click to expand...
El Salvador says otherwise.
 
Emily Lake said:
bilby said:
Emily Lake said:
There have been dozens of instances of democrats referring to him as an enemy of the country, that he's going to destroy democracy and set himself up as a tyrant, and is an existential threat to democracy. They've been saying this, in escalating forms, for nearly a decade - it started when we was running the first time, and it has never stopped. He's been repeatedly referred to as a russian asset, a spy, in Putin's pocket, and many other ways that insinuate that he's a traitor who should be barred from running for office and should be in jail.
Click to expand...
... and there's not one hint nor shred of evidence that any of these accusations are untrue or unfair.
Click to expand...
There's also not one hint or shred of evidence that it's untrue that a teapot is orbiting Mercury.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is.

Remember the fate of the first Mercury orbiter? The solar wind kept clawing at it, eventually it ran out of stationkeeping fuel and it splattered itself across the planet at periapsis. A teapot would meet the same fate in time.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Your link certainly doesn't show they're certainly not over-represented -- its numbers are way too ambiguous to get certainty from. Some obvious problems jump out at me.

​
The Violence Prevention Project at Hamline University defines a mass shooting as “four or more people shot and killed, excluding the shooter, in a public location, with no connection to underlying criminal activity, such as gangs or drugs.” By that more restrictive measure, the project’s mass shooter database identifies 201 mass shooters between 1966 and 2024, and only one of them – Audrey Hale, the 2023 Nashville school shooting suspect – was transgender ...​
He said of the 201 mass shooters in the database, “196 (97.5%) are cisgender men,” “4 (2.0%) are cisgender women,” and “1 (0.5%) is a transgender individual.”​
​
196 + 4 + 1 = 201. I.e., zero are men or women of unknown gender identity. In statistics going back to 1966! We're supposed to seriously believe that the cops who arrested a mass shooter in 1966, when transgenderism was barely in the public consciousness and most trans people were as deeply closeted as gays were, took care to thoroughly investigate and record whether the perp thought of himself as a woman? There's no plausible deniability here -- the VPP is plainly simply taking for granted that if they don't know a shooter is trans then he's cis.
Click to expand...
If they're going to go out with a bang you think they wouldn't be dressed as desired? I think it's a reasonable assumption.
Bomb#20 said:
Also, if we take the numbers at face-value it would mean the 1% of biological females who are transmen account for 20% of the mass shootings committed by females, suggesting being trans makes a female twenty times more likely to commit a mass shooting. That's implausibly high -- it immediately raises the question of whether Hale was taking testosterone supplements as gender-affirming care. The article doesn't say. If she was, it would seem much more likely she went out of control due to testosterone poisoning than due to being trans.
Click to expand...
Another explanation: cis females don't get the persecution by society that trans ones do. Besides, wasn't that 1 a MtF, not a FtM?

Realistically, though, we shouldn't be drawing conclusions from such a small data set.
Bomb#20 said:
​
The Gun Violence Archive, an independent organization that tracks gun-related violence in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which there are “a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.” Under this standard, there were 5,748 mass shootings between Jan. 1, 2013, and Sept. 15, 2025, according to the GVA. “OF THAT NUMBER OF INCIDENTS, there have been FIVE CONFIRMED Transgender shooters,” ...​
​
I.e., there average about four hundred and fifty mass shootings a year. The VPP's definition says three and a half -- over a hundred times fewer. Can't tell from the link just how much of the difference is due to one definition counting wounded and the other only counting killed, but it's clear from other sources that those 450 annual mass shootings are heavily dominated by drug and gang violence. I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb to point out that gang culture and drug dealer culture are macho as all hell. They might not be the most welcoming spaces for an out-of-the-closet transwoman. To the extent that transwomen are excluded and/or put off by the culture and therefore aren't in gangs, or stay in the closet when they join so the police don't find out they're trans when they participate in shootings, their contribution to the statistics is artificially depressed.
Click to expand...
I find this irrelevant. Gang conflict is not what people generally mean by "mass shooting".

Bomb#20 said:
Bottom line: there are too many confounding factors. Anybody who claims to know whether being trans makes you more or less inclined to commit a mass shooting, or has no effect either way, is overestimating his ability to extract signal from noise.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there isn't enough data to mean anything. And be especially leery of data sets of 1.

Personally, I would expect trans to be overrepresented because most mass shooters have had troubled lives and being trans can make your life troubled.
 
Jarhyn said:
Elixir said:
So what? We already have sexual assault, rape, fraud(34x), insurrection, etc etc etc.
why would what Pootey has to offer make one bit of difference?
Click to expand...
Actual proof that can't be tossed as mere she-said/he-denied.

Eventually, the train is going to derail, and there will be consequences.

Maybe I'm wrong; I sure hope not, but maybe it wouldn't matter...

Of course there's always Plan B with Russia ala Defenestration.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt it would be possible for there to be evidence that we would consider trustworthy at this point. What could Pootin possibly produce that was unquestionably not fake? Data can be proven fake by finding something impossible (such as with Hunter's laptop--timestamps from when he was in rehab) but how do you prove it's genuine? A lot of fakes can be detected because people want to believe and don't treat the evidence with enough scrutiny--there simply isn't the need to put the effort into making everything correct. That doesn't mean it's beyond what a nation could do, though.
 
Oh my God, she's literally doing the thing, gaslighting at the direction of the administration.

I mean they are literally calling trans people terrorists, RN.

She has repeatedly called me psychotic for having a philosophy that (checks notes) expects people to not unilaterally harm others though interference in their activities.

Literally the only reason to oppose specifically that philosophy is if you wish to unilaterally harm others with interfering in their activities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom