CRUZ CALLS TRUMP THE "PC POLICE"

[Lyin' Steve]

Trump is right on this.  When has this been a problem?  We already have laws against perverts and child molesters.  If a man wants to go into a women's restroom to molest little girls, some law about which bathroom he's allowed to use isn't going to stop him.  The argument Cruz seems to be making is that this law prevents him from using "I was feeling like a woman that day" as a legal defense.  I don't think that's a legal defense as is.  But more to the point, this is something that has never happened to my knowledge, and most trans people just want to use the bathroom where they won't be treated differently.

[Lyin' Steve]

Trump is right on this.  When has this been a problem?  We already have laws against perverts and child molesters.  If a man wants to go into a women's restroom to molest little girls, some law about which bathroom he's allowed to use isn't going to stop him.  The argument Cruz seems to be making is that this law prevents him from using "I was feeling like a woman that day" as a legal defense.  I don't think that's a legal defense as is.  But more to the point, this is something that has never happened to my knowledge, and most trans people just want to use the bathroom where they won't be treated differently.

Yeah, but here's the thing: If a transgender person looks like a woman, and goes into a stall in the women's bathroom to do his/her business, is there any problem? From what I see, the only people making an issue out of this is in fact the transgender folks. And if anyone were to ask me which bathroom they should use, my answer would be this: if you have a penis, use the men's room, otherwise, use the women's room. Where's the problem?

It's Cruz et al who made it an issue.  If you go back to 2014 the only people who cared about trans bathrooms were silly teenagers on tumblr posting about how not having gender-neutral bathrooms is a hate crime.  Everyone got along just fine and nobody serious was making an issue out of this until NC and friends decided they needed these stupid laws to prevent an imaginary scenario.

[Lyin' Steve]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it's an imaginary scenario why are you trying to cram it down North Carolina's throats?

What are you talking about?  If I make a law saying we should require mandatory monthly innoculation of all Texans because one of them might contract vaccine-resistant smallpox and kill millions of Americans, and you say "that's stupid, no Texan has smallpox and there's no reason why they would", would I be in the right to accuse you of trying to cram smallpox down my throat or saying you're in favor of smallpox (as Ted Cruz would)?

[Lyin' Steve]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, I wouldn't have taken you for an anti-Vaxxer.

There are good reasons to require mandatory vaccines, such as MMR, etc. So yes, I would agree with a requirement for Texas children to be vaccinated for DPT and for MMR.

This is for adults, who already have the smallpox vaccine.  So everything is fine with them.  Forget the vaccines, let's change the example and say I wanted to restrict Texans from traveling to other parts of the country or something equally inconvenient or silly.
The point is that when the status quo is fine, and you create some stupid inconvenience or punishment to try to rescue us from an imagined threat to the status quo, opposition to that inconvenience/punishment by arguing that the status quo is fine is not in any way equivalent to forcing the threat on people, because the threat is imagined.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, why are you trying to cram it down North Carolina's throats. If it's an issue of no importance, then there's no reason to attack North Carolina. Instead we see just the opposite.

Obviously you believe it to be an important issue. Why?

Your side is the side trying to make the change.  Clearly it is of some importance to you because your side is trying to jam through legislation to change it at great economic and social expense.

To me, it is of no importance.  What is important to me is that it should stay unimportant -- I don't want these fools to make it an important issue by creating all these silly laws.  This is something that everyone was completely fine with, and now you're trying to pull a problem out of thin air to start another culture war.  All I'm saying is, don't start a culture war.

Anyway, this conversation is pointless because you're clearly arguing in bad faith, and I would ask the mods to move all the posts related to it to a separate thread so we can get back to making fun of Ted Cruz for his silly strategy.