Vrede too wrote:Shhhh, nobody tell Seth Milner that he's been sharing bathrooms with gay men and some women transitioned to men his entire life.
So how long have you been sneaking in? You should have introduced yourself.
It appears that my remark "Out of sight, out of mind . . . " went over your head. Call up your dance partner, he'll explain it to you. As always, Vrede too resorts to childish stupidity when "he" can't formulate a coherent response.
Last edited by Seth Milner on Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
O Really wrote:
But let's put it in a real world context. Most transgendered people are not recognizable as such unless they tell you or for some other reason (like Caitlin Jenner) it's public knowledge. If a person looks like a woman (or man) and goes into the public restroom that matches their clothing, probably nobody will ever notice. Certainly nobody is going to come up with an easy way to screen them. (TSA guys patting down at the door to the loo?) That's my point.
I You still didn't answer my question I asked you.[/color]
No, that's not your point. You want (or support) laws against something that is not shown to be a significant problem and, in most instances, violations are not recognizable without totally nogonnahappen measures.
is the question you asked the one about my wife and the cross-dresser? If so, I can tell you that in the typical womens' public restroom, there are stalls for all. I'm pretty sure that she could care less about the costume or gender of the person in the next enclosed and locked stall next over. Now if the person in the next stall sets his/her purse down on the floor, or, as in a recent case, let's his/her earbuds rest on the floor, she'll come out going "ewwwww - you won't believe what s/he did in there! And then didn't wash their hands... ewwwww, ewwwww!" Of course, if the restroom did not have stalls and just had toilets all in a row, she'd not like it no matter who was sitting beside. But I don't think there are many if any of those anywhere.
rstrong wrote:... No matter how righteous and just your cause - Christianity, America, freedom of the press, civil rights, bacon...
(stupidity not deleted):Yeah, I know. There's no place in society for common decency and common good sense anymore.
Your fear and bigotry is decent and sensible? Whatever, your dishonesty, childishness and cowardice make you the least decent poster here.
you'll always find a monster who supports it too.
As evidenced by your rebuttal to my post.
There's an rstrong under Seth Milner's bed and there are trannies in his anxiety closet.
That doesn't make your cause any less right and just. It doesn't mean that you and everyone else should abandon the cause.
> :?: <
Over your head or just too wussy to admit the point?
Just think of what it would mean for Christianity alone, given its wealth of sex offender ministers and priests. Including the one in your story.
Who's side are you on?
What another former poster harped on and you screaming liberals downplay: "Just because someone calls themselves . . "
rstrong didn't "downplay" the fact that bad people sometimes join good causes, he just said that they remain good causes. In contrast, the former poster conveniently denied that the bad people were part of Christianity at all. Seth Milner fails English comprehension yet again.
If you want to achieve greatness stop asking for permission.
1312. ETTD. 86 47.
billy.pilgrim wrote:If the subject is about different sexes peeing in the stall next to you and has nothing to do with race, then how come the single "colored only" bathroom isn't about all the different sexes peeing in the stalls next to each other. I didn't live as an adult in that era; I can't answer that.
And what about the repug wide stance senator, where does he pee? I can't answer that either; I don't keep up with repugs, demrats, or senators.
didn't realize you were such a youngster, or so lacking in American history.
Have you ever noticed that the older gas stations throughout the south have three similar doors, one for men, one for women and then there is that sort of out of place 3rd door (often around the corner from the 1st two) with no sign, or maybe a storage room sign? well that 3rd door once had a label saying "colored".
I could care less who is in the stall next to me - as long as it ain't some republicon homophobic gay senator like Larry Craig trying to hit on me while I'm taking a shit, but I do find it curious that the same group of conservatives who herded African American men and women into the same bathroom now have their panties in such a wad about who is in the stall next to them.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Anti-LGBT extremists in the General Assembly are at it again. This time they are threatening to call a $42,000-a-day special legislative session in order to override Charlotte's recently passed nondiscrimination ordinance, which protects LGBT people and others from discrimination in public accommodations.
Tell your House representative to oppose the special session and support laws that extend equal treatment to LGBT North Carolinians.
The special session is Wednesday. Maybe Seth Milner can hold a bigot solidarity bake sale to help cover the costs.
If you want to achieve greatness stop asking for permission.
1312. ETTD. 86 47.
Vrede too wrote:As always, Seth Milner resorts to childish stupidity when he can't formulate a coherent response.
In his defence, he'd be a mime otherwise. No-one wants that.
Speak for yourself , if it weren't for y'all quoting him that's what he'd be to me . . . as long as this doesn't become a video forum.
Isn't this just the sweetest thing you've ever seen? Vrede too and rstrong; you're inseparable; defend each other, totally agree with each other; think alike, smell alike (oops! ), and dance very well together!
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
billy.pilgrim wrote:
didn't realize you were such a youngster, or so lacking in American history. Just got caught in a little white lie . . . That is a shameful era in American history.
Have you ever noticed that the older gas stations throughout the south have three similar doors, one for men, one for women and then there is that sort of out of place 3rd door (often around the corner from the 1st two) with no sign, or maybe a storage room sign? well that 3rd door once had a label saying "colored". I'm well aware of that. I've seen a number of those old gas stations and downtown department stores (the old five and dime) that had restrooms downstairs for whites and restroom(s) upstairs for "coloreds".
I could care less who is in the stall next to me - as long as it ain't some republicon homophobic gay senator (Explain that one: a homophobic, republican, gay senator . . . ?)
like Larry Craig trying to hit on me while I'm taking a shit, but I do find it curious that the same group of conservatives who herded African American men and women into the same bathroom now have their panties in such a wad about who is in the stall next to them. How do you know they were conservatives? Democrats do not have a lily-white history.
The argument is not as much as against transgenders as much as it is the possibility of impostors.
Here's the thing: as Vrede too pointed out; gays and transgenders have used their respective restrooms since there was such a thing as a "transgender" ; nobody paid them any attention. Now, a convicted sex offender has brought the issue out into the open for no just reason; nobody has been denying transgenders the right to go pee; now that "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" subject has been put under the spotlight. The thought of a man in women's clothing hanging out in a restroom is what has people upset. Whatever their politics, homosexuals, deviants, pedophiles, and pretend youth ministers, come in all colors, shapes and sizes.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
Yes, it's possible that some pedophile or rapist would dress as a female and hang out in the restroom looking for victims. But if a rational response to that is to start passing all sorts of laws about who can pee where, then follow the logic: We can't have teachers anymore, because some teachers abuse their students; we can''t have priests anymore, because some priests abuse their young parishioners; we can't have coaches anymore, because some pedophiles have become coaches and abused their players. Extreme examples? Sure, but logically exactly the same as the big whoop over how people dress in the restroom.
O Really wrote:
No, that's not your point. You want (or support) laws against something that is not shown to be a significant problem and, in most instances, violations are not recognizable without totally nogonnahappen measures. Counselor, I'm not wanting or supporting anything; I'm merely voicing an opinion. I don't wish to take a dump with a woman in the next stall in a public restroom. I don't see the need for this "law" when there's not been any issues or problems until this convicted pedophile creep conjures up a novel way to ogle some young boys. That, Counselor, is my point.
is the question you asked the one about my wife and the cross-dresser? Yes
If so, I can tell you that in the typical womens' public restroom, there are stalls for all. I'm pretty sure that she could care less about the costume or gender of the person in the next enclosed and locked stall next over. Suppose that "woman" in the next stall was a man wearing a dress and he was peeping on your wife? The whole gist of my argument: persons of the one gender have no business being in the restroom of the opposite gender. The "law" paves the way for that to happen; that's what the public is up in arms about.
Of course, if the restroom did not have stalls and just had toilets all in a row, she'd not like it no matter who was sitting beside. But I don't think there are many if any of those anywhere. Not in the U.S. that I'm aware of, but it wouldn't surprise me if in a few short years . . .
Ever been to India? Holes in the floor, no toilet paper.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
O Really wrote:Yes, it's possible that some pedophile or rapist would dress as a female and hang out in the restroom looking for victims. But if a rational response to that is to start passing all sorts of laws about who can pee where, then follow the logic: We can't have teachers anymore, because some teachers abuse their students; we can''t have priests anymore, because some priests abuse their young parishioners; we can't have coaches anymore, because some pedophiles have become coaches and abused their players. Extreme examples? Sure, but logically exactly the same as the big whoop over how people dress in the restroom.
No, those aren't extreme examples. The liberal left such as the majority found right here would welcome those instances with open arms. What do the liberal lefties want? Let's see: Homosexual teachers, Scout leaders, sports coaches, uni-sex toilets, etc., but no, none of those groups would EVER have pedophiles or sexual perverts; however, if the liberals had their way, there would be no worrying about priests, because if they could get their way, there will be no priests, or religion for that matter.
Now, because I expressed opinions on this subject, I suppose I'm now a homophobe.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
O Really wrote:Yes, it's possible that some pedophile or rapist would dress as a female and hang out in the restroom looking for victims. But if a rational response to that is to start passing all sorts of laws about who can pee where, then follow the logic: We can't have teachers anymore, because some teachers abuse their students; we can''t have priests anymore, because some priests abuse their young parishioners; we can't have coaches anymore, because some pedophiles have become coaches and abused their players. Extreme examples? Sure, but logically exactly the same as the big whoop over how people dress in the restroom.
No, those aren't extreme examples. The liberal left such as the majority found right here would welcome those instances with open arms. What do the liberal lefties want? Let's see: Homosexual teachers, Scout leaders, sports coaches, uni-sex toilets, etc., but no, none of those groups would EVER have pedophiles or sexual perverts; however, if the liberals had their way, there would be no worrying about priests, because if they could get their way, there will be no priests, or religion for that matter.
Now, because I expressed opinions on this subject, I suppose I'm now a homophobe.
I don't know if you're a homophobe or not, but you might want to look up what percentage of homosexual people are pedophiles compared to the percentage of heterosexual people who are pedophiles. Unless, of course, the risk of a loose pedophile isn't really your real issue.
O Really wrote:
I don't know if you're a homophobe or not, but you might want to look up what percentage of homosexual people are pedophiles compared to the percentage of heterosexual people who are pedophiles. Unless, of course, the risk of a loose pedophile isn't really your real issue.
I have no real issues, Counselor. I'm simply expressing an opinion. As far as the percentages of homosexuals, yada, yada; I could care less how many does what, under whose window, or for how much.
Vrede too wrote:
That'll be the day, Seth Milner isn't capable of looking up anything real that and a homophobe wouldn't want to.
Unlike your life "Mr." Vrede too, my life doesn't revolve around activist activities, who's homosexual and who's not, who's liberal and who's con, how much the earth is shrinking, etc. I express an opinion. If I want to research it first, I will if I feel it's a subject serious enough to "debate". Your petty drivel is boring.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
, if it weren't for y'all quoting him that's what he'd be to me . . . as long as this doesn't become a video forum.
