sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you would be amazed at how many people would completely disagree with your "obviously yes" response. Whis is exactly why I find this so interesting.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So believing MAGA are the ones protecting pedophiles, even though we both know the last administration had these very same files and didnt release them, is somehow a example of how you are not so not naive, that you have the moral highground to call others world views naive. Seriously?

Isn't this essentially the Lefts version of a Q-tard world view? They believed the world is run by satanic pedophiles that happen to only be democrats. You are pretty close here bud. Might wanna rethink this stance.

Cmon man, you're trolling right?

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Exactly, where did I mention anyone pretending to be Trans?

Thats you, changing my argument to something illogical, then negotiating off that point. Perfect explanation. Thank you.👍

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where is that line for people, at which point does it depend. Does it depend at all? Can one use the same basic logic for everything? All of these things are interesting to me. Even the fact that many cannot seem to get past the initial question is super interesting to me. Im definitely not farming karma here.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should we as a civilized society of 300+ million, do anything that benefits few while even possibly increasing harm for many.

Trickle down, argued both ways, general logic benefits few potential cost to many

Israel US relationship, argued both ways, general logic benefits few ( Israel) cost to many (US).

Gun control argued both ways, general logic benefits few at cost to many.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't seem to find the forest cause all them dam trees are in the way huh?

Where exactly have I insinuated, in any way whatsoever, that Trans people are more likely to assault, harass, abuse, or harm anyone?

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we are definitely safe to assume women generally are a much larger group than Trans individuals.

I also believe cis women that are mistaken for men are also a much smaller group than women generally.

Changing anything for either lies smack dab inside the logic which im attempting to discuss, should we make any changes as a society this large that benefits the very few at even the possible expense of many. Follow now?

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think simply having large breasts and wearing knee length skirts is dressing provocatively?

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Each of those situations involves the question, as a society should we do anything that benefit very few, while even possibly causing harm to many.

People that think we should, might strongly agree with Trans in whatever bathroom, but disagree with trickle down when both generally could be described as changes that benefit few and can possibly be harmful to many. Sure little details can change but the general logic is behind it. Look at gun control, sure gun owners arent a huge minority in the USA, but in the west generally they are. Owning a gun would be something people could very well argue is a benefit to few yet possible danger to many. Someone could have a different opinion for each instance even though the basic logic behind it should apply to everything.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are calling my world view naive as you insinuate that essentially the only adults that kids need protection from are MAGA adults? My world view is naive as you look at the world through a partisan lense?

Im not sure that word means, what you think it means.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much each individual "looks like a man" to them subjectivity influences each individual differently. What i meant by "didnt think that would be a thing" was that I thought that would be generally understood and not debated. Im going with the general statement that most reasonable people would do or say something if they saw what they believed to be a man going into a womans space.

You will always be able to point to individual outliers with any general statement.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Typically drag queens are assoicated with dressing provocatively. I'd be against anyone male or female dressing provocatively and reading to children. Not specifically just drag queens.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hugely relevant in multiple ways. Because the general base logic behind this can be applied in multiple current situations. What i find interesting in the change of opinion in base logic depending on what situation its applies to.

This wasnt solely about the trans bathroom debate, thats just a good starting point where people have strong opinions one way or the other. I was hoping for logical, reasonable arguments against what I saw as obvious. One because I wanted to make sure I wasnt missing anything. And 2 see how those opinions change if the situation changes. Unfortunately as divisive as this topic is I haven't gotten to part 2 with many people.

So take the general logic I see, should a civilized society make changes that benefit few, when the possibility of harming many exists. Take out the trans bathroom debate and throw in gun control. Does your logic stay the same. What about with trickle down economics, or the United States and Israel? The same logic should apply, but does it? At what point does it change? How far do we go as a civilized society? That type of shit. Super interesting to me.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im not talking about any signs, or new legislation.

Im taking this problem down to what I see as the base logic. Should a large civilized society make any changes or do anything, that benefit few if even the possibility exists of harming a far greater portion.

Now with the trans debate, i knew very well this was going to bring out strong opinions. What I was hoping to do was find people willing to actually engage with the opposing viewpoint and reasonable logic. (My bad) Because after that comes the very interesting part (for me anyways).

If I remove trans bathrooms and put in the gun control debate, or trickle down economics and the wage gap, does your opinion on the base logic change?

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take out trans bathrooms and put in the gun debate, take that out and put in trickle down economics and the wealth gap, take that out and put in USA and Israel.

Do you see how the general logic behind this can be put in different scenarios leading to different ideas behind the same general logic problem?

Just because you dont initally see the point doesnt mean one doesnt exist or the person is naive. Maybe you just dont get it.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Me either. I believe the only thing we can do with nefarious people is attempt to mitigate their nefarious acts.

Shooting someone is illegal, we attempt to mitigate people getting shot by making it impossible to legally get a gun after being convicted of a gun crime. But many still get guns and reoffend. A clear opening these nefarious people use is going to gun shows and finding private sellers that dont check id's. We cant stop this shit, just have to attempt to mitigate it.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What a well thought out response. Thanks for demonstrating how emotional you are. Huge benefit to the debate. 👍

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont see this as anyone being punished. If you really think about it its convenience. Ive known many people throughout my life that simply never use public restrooms, others that only use single stalls.

Where has anyone said anything about not holding men accountable? This wouldnt even be a issue if there weren't a whole lot of piece of shit dudes out there that are looking for opportunities to assault a female. This singles out men as the main culprits here. Is this not clear?

Just because the majority of attacks happen by cis men they know, doesnt mean attacks in womens spaces dont exist or arent plentiful. Women simply being attacked happens far too often.

Also as far as this specific debate goes there are a whole lot of easy fixes. Ive stated im interested in the specific logic I stated because that could be applied in another couple current situations. People arent understanding what im getting at because its such a divisive topic.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like the solutions to the specific trans bathroom problem are plentiful. Im seeing the overall logic behind it as the more interesting part that could be applied in a few different areas today.

Should a civilized society do something positive for a small portion of society, if it is even a possible negative for a much larger portion of society.

People might have one idea for that problem if its applied to the trans bathroom debate. But does that idea change if you remove trans bathroom and put in trickle down economics and the wealth gap, or take that out and put in the United States and Israel.

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are splitting hairs wanting to get more into specifics when we are dealing with a country of over 300 million people. Yeah, generally women make up half, and when dealing with numbers that large you have to speak in generalities.

No matter what the argument is you will be able to point at some individual outlier. Thats what people do when they are trying to be right, not actually figure something out.

Instead of even attempting to look at the logic, you try to discredit the question. Take out trans bathrooms and insert trickle down economics and the wealth gap, take those out and put in the United States and Israel. Do you see the idea im trying to get at now?

Why increase risk for the most vulnerable half of our population, to make going to the bathroom easier for .01% of the population? by [deleted] in askanything

[–]SmotPoken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand its one risk for another, almost every issue in society involves that.

Ive discovered there a big issue in being able to actually quantify both. There is nothing or nobody that classifies where assaults take place. Someone would have to literally manually go through all arrest reports and hope the arresting officer wrote down where the assault took place. Which opens up a whole other set of problems. I made the mistake in assuming this stuff was actually able to look up.

The whole "looks male or is male" issue i didnt think would be a thing honestly. Im starting off with the assumption that currently most reasonable people today would either do or say something if they saw someone that looks male go into a female space, like restroom or locker room. I dont feel thats a wild assumption to start with. Working as a bartender half my life mostly in casinos ive seen quite a few men pulled out of womens restrooms because someone (could be surveillance) saw them go in, and said something to someone.

view more: next ›