#ProudToBe [YouTube Spotlight/Huge Shitstorm in the Comments] - General

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570814]You liberals use the same logic on gun control: If we take away all guns there will be no mass shootings. Well on the downside now you left innocent people defenceless because you took away their guns. How is that any different? [/QUOTE] lol. thats it everyone. if you didn't already realise this was a completely pointless argument, it's very clear now

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570844]I can't but help notice everyone here is either 1.LGBT themselvs or 2.liberal. I'm not the only person arguing this and you know that. Too bad I fighting a 1 v 100 army here.[/QUOTE] You get pissy to the enth fucking degree as soon as guns come up in the discussion BUT you spend an entire thread talking down, talking shit about, and COMPLETELY disregarding the people who would be affected by such a law Do you understand?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570868]No, not all all. That political topic has the same logic [B]Take away something that will hurt one side but make the other side feel safer[/B]. It's very relevant.[/QUOTE] But you're being a baby about guns jumping to the "FUCKING LIBERALS" line of thinking as SOON as your pet topic comes up. But god forbid people who are going to be effected by a law unjustly say anything when they're fucking faggots, right?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570648]Because a straight man can do the job without trying to hire a woman to do it. [B]A man can't just walk into a women's bathroom, but with this law they technically could without consequence.[/B][/QUOTE] iirc there have never been any laws that prevent a man from entering a woman's bathroom and vice versa if someone was really uncomfortable with it they'd probably ring up security to escort you out but afaik you can't be arrested for entering a woman's bathroom, using the stall, washing your hands, and then walking out

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570882]Do you understand that the law hurts everyone involved. I and quite frankly most of the government would rather risk the minority than the majority.[/QUOTE] But no majority will be harmed. You're a hypocrite through and through. A gun loving, "rights*" loving, hypocrite. *Rights are for straights only.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570773]You liberals sure like taking guns away, i'm surprised you said that in a bad light. What is more important: risking the majority or risking the minority? No one wins in this situation. Would you rather kill 100 people for 1 person or 1 person for 100?[/QUOTE] im saying youre trampling the rights of minorities because you think something bad might happen. while we are at it, lets segregate the blacks since they might rape my precious white women. this is literally how you are acting right now. im all for the right of owning a gun to protect yourself, but you cannot sit on that and then cry when a minority gets civil rights also. its a free country, and everyone should have the freedom to do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570856]Read through the thread, I am not going to explain my 40 posts all over again.[/QUOTE] It was more of an rhetorical question, since you still aren't able to explain properly how allowing transgender people access to the preferred bathroom suddenly makes small offences easier. For example, what hinders a cis person from dressing like a woman and doing those offences right now?

[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;50570894]It was more of an rhetorical question, since you still aren't able to explain properly how allowing transgender people access to the preferred bathroom suddenly makes small offences easier. For example, what hinders a cis person from dressing like a woman and doing those offences right now?[/QUOTE] Nothing. Literally nothing.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570814]It is easy to not get caught with minor offences like taking a picture will a secret camera. Those offences will mostly go unnoticed. You can also do a legitimate change in the locker room with the bonus of exposed women and you're not breaking any laws there.[/QUOTE] Yeah, they could. But, like I've said repeatedly, they can also be reported to the staff and ejected. Loitering in a locker room is also a good way to get ejected from the premises regardless of whether or not you're breaking any bathroom laws You're still conjuring a flimsy bogeyman, you're talking it up as though some guy can just waltz into a women's locker room and hang around with impunity but nothing really changes, creeps can and will still get ejected or arrested for being creeps regardless of this so-called loophole you keep claiming is such a huge threat

guys guys i understand now all these years that gays have been in men's bathroom they've just been raping boys and sneaking pictures of willies!

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570911]I can say the exact same with you "liberals" and your "transgender law".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] It was more of an rhetorical question, since you still aren't able to explain properly how allowing transgender people access to the preferred bathroom suddenly makes small offences easier. For example, what hinders a cis person from dressing like a woman and doing those offences right now?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Nothing. Literally nothing.[/QUOTE] I'm a pro gun person myself, but I find it disgusting how you'd thinly veil your homophobia like this to punish transgender people when [B][U]YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCES REBUKE YOUR STATED ARGUMENT[/U][/B]. It can only be taken as you having a problem with that group of people. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570919]What is more important to you? Hurting a person's feelings because they can't use the bathroom they want or risk the majority with sexual predators, violent or not.[/QUOTE] Again, there are sexual predators now who can do what you're afraid of without rebuke. These laws change nothing. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] If this was 40 years ago, Transgender would be "Black" and you'd be arguing things in the exact same tone being sure to reiterate "I'M NOT A RACIST!"

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570919]What is more important to you? Hurting a person's feelings because they can't use the bathroom they want or risk the majority with sexual predators, violent or not.[/QUOTE] you are aware, ton of trans individules are raped and murdered for being in the wrong bathroom right?

It's kind of impressive how he's been arguing for 5 hours now.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570973]I think this is the whole problem: Because I have these opinions you will just call me a bigot, a racist, gun lover etc. and not look at the facts. You are acting like there is 0% risk involved and I am just a bigot who hates trannies so I don't want them to get their way. I am (and many others except this forum is very liberal ) legitimately care for others safety and privacy. I feel that criminals will abuse your law (I understand why it seems like segregation) for evil and sickening purposes. Tell me, is there a risk or no risk involved because it just seems like you ignore my articles and call them bias and cherry picked. I could have a article from the CDC and you will still argue. There is really no end to this except name calling. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] I really care about this topic, I am not just some troll bigot to make you guys mad for fun.[/QUOTE] There is no chance that this will increase the rate of incidences in any significant manner as your own statistics bear out. You keep touting those as if they prove what you think they do, but they don't so it's just sad to watch you not even understand your own evidence.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570919]What is more important to you? Hurting a person's feelings because they can't use the bathroom they want or risk the majority with sexual predators, violent or not.[/QUOTE] That looks suspiciously like a false dichotomy to me, may I take it to assume you haven't actually got a counterpoint on hand? My concern, if you're actually interested rather than just asking loaded questions to try and avoid having to address my point, has much to do with civil rights and disproportionate, reactionary measures I do not think that something as simple as a piece of legislation legally allowing transgendered individual to use their preferred facilities is going to serve to enable sex offenders any more than the more current legislation serves to prevent them I do not think conjuring this bogeyman of questionable individuals exposing themselves in the women's locker room or loitering with hidden cameras or whichever concern you choose next is any sort of basis for blocking such legislation I personally don't see the same risk of sexual predation that you do. I have confidence in my fellow human beings to identify these potential creepers you seem to concerned about and take the appropriate measures to have them ejected from the premises and legally prosecuted if necessary

You're freaking out about people being able to get away with minor incidences in exchange for the lives and comfort of hundreds of thousands. You're acting like every body is going to run out, and fuck kids, rape kids, take pictures of them and do horrible things in public bathrooms because this law "Let them"? Nothing you've ever said shows that to be the case. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] Hey, yeah, that is a false dichotomy! Here's the inverse of that false dichotomy, lets see what you answer hawk If you had to give up all your guns for the safety of the majority, would you?

In your OWN FUCKING ARTICLE IT SAYS "Certainly this is a rare and unusual incident," he said.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571036]I got 5 articles lined up supporting my beliefs. I will take it 1 by 1 so I can see what you think is wrong with them. I have fully read them myself. Here is the first one: [URL]http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=110753[/URL][/QUOTE] Article predates any of the current bathroom laws currently under debate, far as I know, and the individual fled the scene when confronted for taking pictures Article states that it is: [quote=UCPD Lt. Alex Yao.][URL="http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=110753"]Certainly this is a rare and unusual incident[/URL][/quote] Article seems to be lending credence to my point that someone entering a women's locker room for creeping purposes is more likely to be noticed than not

Like if your method of getting me to agree with you is going to be posting cherry picked articles that seem vaguely to enforce your point, you're not going to get anywhere. At all. There's no articles written about the wealth of times this DOESN'T happen so by definition, there's nothing to argue about here besides outliers. Outliers should not dictate legislation. You wouldn't let it dictate your life, I'm not sure why you think the trans and LGBT community at large should do something you wouldn't do yourself.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571057]That article is from 2010 so during that time is was rare. [B]I still think it is a bit rare today in 2016 but if this law is fully accepted I believe it will skyrocket.[/B] Anything else to point out or continue to article 2?[/QUOTE] Oh, this just raises an entirely new line of questioning Chiefly among them, what on Earth makes you think an already uncommon occurrence is going to become more common just because of some perceived loophole in a piece of legislation? Do you seriously think that it's the law alone that's preventing people from doing shit like this? [editline]FUCK[/editline] Goddamn it this is why I should never try to automerge

If you think a law is preventing crime, you're an idiot. A law punishes crime once it's committed. This law will not allow more crime. There is literally, LITERALLY, nothing else to talk about in regards to this. You're arguing statistical nonsense.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571057]That article is from 2010 so during that time is was rare. I still think it is a bit rare today in 2016 but if this law is fully accepted I believe it will skyrocket. Anything else to point out or continue to article 2?[/QUOTE] but there is places that already accepted it, like in those articles, that have low to nonexistent harassment. you keep posting proof that actual trans people are not committing the harassment, its people who are against it in the first place. can you be any more blind.

[QUOTE=Paige;50570598]I had to go through an RLE(Real-life Experience) in therapy, which means I had to do x amount of months living as a female without hormones.[/QUOTE] holy fucking shit this sounds terrifying

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571088]According to internet forums and boards like 4chan there is quite the popularity for creep shots and voyeurism. I wonder how they got those pictures....[/QUOTE] by violating current laws because the laws your so afraid of don't really exist yet so they're abusing current laws making your fears literally retarded as you're afraid of something that's currently illegal, will stay illegal, and is already completely abusable without enforcement, which is what all this comes down to, enforcement. You want a feel good law that violates the RIGHTS of thousands of people because of statistical outliers that exist in the current legal scheme, which your argument would suggest is impossible, but isn't.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571088]According to internet forums and boards like 4chan there is quite the popularity for creep shots and voyeurism. I wonder how they got those pictures....[/QUOTE] by taking pics with their phones without no one noticing like 90% of creep shots?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571088]According to internet forums and boards like 4chan there is quite the popularity for creep shots and voyeurism. I wonder how they got those pictures....[/QUOTE] Public areas that aren't protected by bathroom laws, usually. Doesn't take much time to figure that one out

[video=youtube;2DZ9XLNKBH8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZ9XLNKBH8[/video] A picture into the world of SkateHawk. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571111]You're just being ignorant of anything I bring up. You asked me for article, I gave you articles and you still are not happy. You will literally criticize anything that comes out of my mouth. You're right there is no point in arguing anymore.[/QUOTE] Yes I'm going to criticize whatever you say when whatever you say is empty, and thoughtless and easily criticized. Just saying something doesn't mean it's a fool proof concept, and not one of your arguments so far holds sand let alone water. Cherry picked articles don't mean shit to me, just like cherry picked articles about gun violence won't mean shit to you. You're intellectually dishonest if you think the arguments you've used hold any sway. You want to create a segregated society based on statistical outliers. That's not okay.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50570919]What is more important to you? Hurting a person's feelings because they can't use the bathroom they want or risk the majority with sexual predators, violent or not.[/QUOTE] I don't remember Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech being "I have a dream that one day people won't hurt my feelings." Seriously, if you're going to see the issue as being about just hurt feelings, you're a brick wall. You may not be anti-trans, but that doesn't mean you automatically even know the first thing about it. Hell, I don't even entirely understand transgenderism from a scientific perspective. If you're so ignorant of it though that you're going to equate it to a toddler being upset because he didn't get any ice cream, you're kinda drifting into asshole territory at that point.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571153]It does not take a Harvard education to know that Teenage boys + Transgender law loophole + women's lockeroom = bad [url]http://www.mrctv.org/blog/university-dumps-transgender-bathrooms-after-peeping-incidents[/url] I have even overheard that some classmates of mine went into the girl's locker room during P.E. just to get a few good looks. The girls reported it but because of lack of evidence of any laws or policies being broken they were let go free. This is actually how I got into this controversy in the first place.[/QUOTE] "Because of lack of evidence" like what the fuck kind of world do you want to live in where "Lack of evidence" is enough to get someone into trouble? Boys have done that for the literal length of human history, and here you are, in 2016, still not able to grasp the basic concept that you can't really stop these things with laws as you want to? How old are you even that you're in school and classmates are doing what amounts to high school kid esque bullshit?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50571153]It does not take a Harvard education to know that Teenage boys + Transgender law loophole + women's lockeroom = bad [url]http://www.mrctv.org/blog/university-dumps-transgender-bathrooms-after-peeping-incidents[/url] I have even overheard that some classmates of mine went into the girl's locker room during P.E. just to get a few good looks. The girls reported it but because of lack of evidence of any laws or policies being broken they were let go free. This is actually how I got into this controversy in the first place.[/QUOTE] The incident in this article doesn't even have any bearing on the bathroom law under debate, though. It was a gender neutral bathroom, not a women's locker room. It was open to both genders regardless. And even in your own anecdote they were [I]noticed and reported[/I]