BC_chick Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 They are only a crime today because they are considered abhorant but that does not mean it will always be so. Being gay used to be crime and based on your logic it should have never been 'normalized' because it was a 'crime'. Still not getting it. The reason being gay is no longer a crime is because there is no victim. Same thing with being transgender. Your slippery slope argument does not stick when you're comparing gays and transgenders to a crime involving perpetrators and victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) Same thing with being transgender.There are victims when children are told that they 'should consider a sex change when they are older'. But progressives have simply decided that such abuse does not count because sex changes are 'normal'. When it comes to animals the definition of 'victim' get quite hazy considering we kill animals all of the time for food or convenience. Edited May 20, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 There are victims when children are told that they 'should consider a sex change when they are older'. But progressives have simply decided that such abuse does not count because sex changes are 'normal'. When it comes to animals the definition of 'victim' get quite hazy considering we kill animals all of the time for food or convenience. I don't want to veer into another discussion about the absurdity of not beating the animals you are about to kill. As far as this discussion is concerned, there is another entity involved when abusing an animal whereas no such entity exists for transgenders. They do not harm others. Even in your version of reality where they're coerced into thinking they're transgender, they are still the victim, not the perpetrator. That's the big difference you don't seem to get. It does not rationally follow that protecting people who are victims (at worst) or victimless (at best) will lead to the protection of those who commit crimes and leave behind victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) Even in your version of reality where they're coerced into thinking they're transgender, they are still the victim, not the perpetrator.Ah but in the progressive view of the world filling kids with nonsense about how they are predestined to live a life confused about their gender is not abuse. In fact, some of these abusive pricks are actually trying to make it illegal for anyone to suggest to a kid that they should simply be happy with the body they have. It quite disgusting - as least as disgusting a bestiality but progressives insist on making it "normal". My point is times change and just because you think something is beyond the pale today that does not mean that someone will not try to argue it is "normal" in the future. Edited May 20, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 Still not getting it. The reason being gay is no longer a crime is because there is no victim. Same thing with being transgender. Your slippery slope argument does not stick when you're comparing gays and transgenders to a crime involving perpetrators and victims. What is your view on incest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 Political correctness is starting to get ludicrous. Social conservatism is the polar opposite -- it is taking the most prudent path practicable. Towards becoming quaint? No it is not, social conservatism is clearly kicking and screaming every painful inch of the way. I agree about political correctness, but it's just getting ludicrous whereas social conservatism started getting ludicrous decades ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 Acknowledging basic biology isn't social conservatism. It's called science. But the scientific fact that I'm an Earthling only seems to piss social conservatives off when I try to identify as one. There's apparently more than just science getting under their skin but what I don't know. Is it like the hang-up they have about sex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 Also, can someone identify as a different race? If not why not? They can if they want but it won't carry much legal weight because we've made a political decision to have our government distinguish us, amongst other things, according to race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 (edited) What is your view on incest?It has the potential to create victims (inbreeding) so I understand why it's illegal. Otherwise, there should be room for exemptions. It's not really my place to judge other people's choices if they are not hurting anybody. ETA - on second thought for the sake of simplicity I think the only criminal element should be reproduction. As long as everyone is a consenting adult and no potential victims are involved (offspring) then it's really not anyone's business. Edited May 21, 2016 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 It has the potential to create victims (inbreeding) so I understand why it's illegal. Otherwise, there should be room for exemptions. It's not really my place to judge other people's choices if they are not hurting anybody. ETA - on second thought for the sake of simplicity I think the only criminal element should be reproduction. As long as everyone is a consenting adult and no potential victims are involved (offspring) then it's really not anyone's business. So, now "on second thought", you're ok with incest? Great! Alright, now that incest is OK, what about pediphilia? I mean, if we are ok with letting pre-teen kids choose their sexuality, are we really in a position to tell them that they can't have sex before a certain age? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 Far more reasonable that fictionkin. ALL of it is fictionkin. You are what your DNA says you are. The rest is just extreme cosplay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) So, now "on second thought", you're ok with incest? Great! Alright, now that incest is OK, what about pediphilia? I mean, if we are ok with letting pre-teen kids choose their sexuality, are we really in a position to tell them that they can't have sex before a certain age? You seem to have a difficult time grasping the concept of 'consenting adults' and 'victimless crimes'. And I'm not 'ok with incest' as in hey everyone should have a little incest in life. It's downright disgusting, but the only *criminal* aspect is reproduction because it creates a *victim*. Edited May 22, 2016 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 It's downright disgusting Who are you to say that incest is disgusting, while homosexuality or transgenderism isn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 Who are you to say that incest is disgusting, while homosexuality or transgenderism isn't? Homosexuality is not disgusting to me but it is to a lot of people. That's exactly my point. Disgusting to some is not reason for making something illegal. The only thing that's should be illegal is acts that create victims. IOW, not trangenderism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 Out of curiosity, why do you find it disgusting but not homosexuality? Could you explain your reasoning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) What difference does it make? My point is that there is no slippery slope between gays/transgenders to something like pedophilia/bestiality because the former are victimless and the latter aren't. Edited May 22, 2016 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 I'm just curious... Never understood why people have such a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 23, 2016 Report Share Posted May 23, 2016 You seem to have a difficult time grasping the concept of 'consenting adults' and 'victimless crimes'. And I'm not 'ok with incest' as in hey everyone should have a little incest in life. It's downright disgusting, but the only *criminal* aspect is reproduction because it creates a *victim*. What about contraception, homosexuality, sterilization of incestual people? Would it still seem disgusting? And, so what about birth defects anyway, the topic is way overblown and besides, are special needs people not people? Are they not worthy of love? So what if they have some small deficiency? Are you against people that have special needs children? Face it, incestual people have every right to live as they want. Do you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted May 23, 2016 Report Share Posted May 23, 2016 So, in summary, incest is relative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) What about contraception, homosexuality, sterilization of incestual people? Would it still seem disgusting? And, so what about birth defects anyway, the topic is way overblown and besides, are special needs people not people? Are they not worthy of love? So what if they have some small deficiency? Are you against people that have special needs children? Face it, incestual people have every right to live as they want. Do you agree? I have never given the topic of incest this much thought, I have to admit. It would be interesting to start a thread about it and discuss the topic. As far as this thread is concerned, I still stand by what I said: the slippery slope argument toward pedophilia and bestiality has no grounds in a discussion about victimless issue like transgenderism. Edited May 24, 2016 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 I have never given the topic of incest this much thought, I have to admit. It would be interesting to start a thread about it and discuss the topic. As far as this thread is concerned, I still stand by what I said: the slippery slope argument toward pedophilia and bestiality has no grounds in a discussion about victimless issue like transgenderism. Just answer the question! Or, is this another one that you know any answer makes you wrong - again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) #StopThreadDrift Edited May 24, 2016 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 #StopThreadDriftIt is not thread drift. You repeatedly indicated that personal belief that transgender are wrong is not enough to justify discrimination in law. You have been asked why is this any different from incest which many find equally disgusting. I assume you are avoiding the question because it undermines your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 It is not thread drift. You repeatedly indicated that personal belief that transgender are wrong is not enough to justify discrimination in law. You have been asked why is this any different from incest which many find equally disgusting. I assume you are avoiding the question because it undermines your argument. It's a thread drift because I already answered his question and it was consistent with everything I've said about victimless crimes. Not shockingly, it seems to have gone over your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) It's a thread drift because I already answered his question and it was consistent with everything I've said about victimless crimes.Who is the victim when a brother and sister hook up? Edited May 24, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.