sampan

IMO those that came up with the idea for the decree, and those that support the decree by Obama, lack common sense - so I thought I would make it clear what that is:

Common Sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.

Common Sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

I just cannot understand how anyone would not have enough common sense to realise that passing any law/decree that makes it legal for a male (any male) to enter a female toilet (for whatever reason), is something that should not be done without great care and attention to the details of implementation and possible negative outcomes. These are examples of Inintended Consequences (Wikipedia) and IMO this decree by Obama would result in similar outcomes (more bad than good):

In 2003, Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for posting a photograph of her home online.^[45] Before the lawsuit had been filed, only 6 people had downloaded the file, two of them Streisand's attorneys.^[46] The lawsuit drew attention to the image, resulting in 420,000 people visiting the site.^[47] The Streisand effect was named after this incident, describing when an attempt to censor or remove a certain piece of information instead draws attention to the material being suppressed, resulting in the material instead becoming widely known, reported on, and distributed.^[48]

Passenger-side airbags in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s as small children were being hit by deploying airbags during collisions. The supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions.^[49]

The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. This was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward, but eventually enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, they scrapped the reward program, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse.

Theobald Mathew's temperance campaign in 19th-century Ireland (in which thousands of people vowed never to drink alcohol again) led to the consumption of diethyl ether, an intoxicant much more dangerous due to its high flammability, by those seeking to become intoxicated without breaking the letter of their pledge.^[50] (I will add here the disaster that was Prohibition in the USA).

It was thought that adding south-facing conservatories to British houses would reduce energy consumption by providing extra insulation and warmth from the sun. However, people tended to use the conservatories as living areas, installing heating and ultimately increasing overall energy consumption.^[51]

A reward for lost nets found along the Normandy coast, offered by the French government between 1980 and 1981, resulted in people vandalizing nets to collect the reward.^[52]

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, the Federal Canadian government gave $2.25 per day, per psychiatric patient to the Catholic church in Quebec for their cost of care, and only $0.75 a day per orphan. The perverse result is that the orphan children were diagnosed mentally ill so the church could receive the larger amount of money. This psychiatric misdiagnosis affected up to 20,000 people, the children are known as the Duplessis Orphans.^[53][54][55]

Abstinence-only sex education has been shown to increase teenage pregnancy rates, rather than reduce them, when compared to either comprehensive sex education or no sex education at all.^[56]

There are more and more examples available of the folly of humans without common sense - unfortunately they are everywhere (and they vote).

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

Another posting that shows a complete lack of common sense - you are a newbie, but maybe you should grow up a little before trying to join in with the adults.

I will just throw somehting back at you and let you/others think about what you said exactly: This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense.....

Your Honour - the prosecution rests it case.

I am wondering if you are able to back up your very common non-sense statement that your status of over 300 posts makes your statements more credible that those of someone with fewer posts. I have noticed on this thread a number of your posts where you ask then answer your own questions, invariably including the clear and obvious bias of your complete unwillingness to allow LGBT people the right to dignity. This kind of approach does, I guess mean that you can win your own debates.

You have claimed the common sense ground. You may not stray into the world of exceptional sense. You claimed to be common and you are now stuck with it. If you are to claim this ground then arguing that other posters lack this requires evidence and justification and some kind of rationale.

"Maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agin" or for those with no Latin "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

You ad hominem waffle and self-congratulatory celebration do not meet this standard. I very much doubt you have the capacity to do so.

Perhaps you might address the issue of the right of LGBT people to not be defined by people like you?

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

The rules proposed are also about locker rooms and showers and would allow genetic men to get naked with genetic women.

While I personally don't have a problem with this I can understand how some ladies might. I believe what you are proposing is to let gay men determine who heterosexual females get naked with. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You are wrong. Your insistence on the the concept of genetic men is based on the same ignorance as the drafters of the North Carolina hate legislation HB2 who use the term biological sex.

Straight white men and religious nutbags do not get to define transgender people. Fortunately, the issue of the application of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the courts and as with the case of LGB people, it will be found that the Constitution does not allow States to discriminate against LGBT people.

Your insistence on the shower room angle merely continues the beat up of the scaremongering started by the religious nuts in their ongoing war on LGBT people. The crux of HB2 is not lockerooms but the definition of groups protected by North Carolina law and LGBT people are not included in this definition.

The Tranny argument, the men in dresses, the male sexual predators, the men showing with women - all of this is nonsensical alarmism being spread by people who are wilfully ignorant of LGBT people, their right to dignity and their right not to be defined by those who are biased against them. Transgender use of public facilities is not at all the same thing as men in female showers. You should not be telling transgender people what they should do until you understand and appreciate their position. LGBT people conform to their biology. it is the lack of respect for their dignity that creates the mental health issues in some of the LGBT community.

The Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/27/north-carolina-governor-says-media-lying-transgender-law/

You asked to be corrected if you were wrong. I did that yet you retreat to further misinformation and alarmism. I don't think you can be taken on good faith.

Have you actually read the laws or do you just repost right wing alarmist garbage? I made reference to HB2 in my reply. Here is the text http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf Please refer to Part III, Section 3(a). For the Charlotte Ordinance, you are aware that it deals non discrimination in commercial contracts, public accommodations and vehicle hire? Please read the actual text from the ordinances http://charlotteequality.strikingly.com

Breightbard, you and countless others with an agenda push the alarmist crap about showers and toilets.

Charlotte Council passed a non discrimination ordinance. Religious bigots who promote hatred against LGBT people have turned a non issue about transgender females toilet access into a hysterical expression of bigotry fanned by the natural prejudices of straight white men against transgender and other LGBT people.

Just how many times does it need to be demonstrated by actual evidence that you are and continue to be wrong?

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

The rules proposed are also about locker rooms and showers and would allow genetic men to get naked with genetic women.

While I personally don't have a problem with this I can understand how some ladies might. I believe what you are proposing is to let gay men determine who heterosexual females get naked with. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You are wrong. Your insistence on the the concept of genetic men is based on the same ignorance as the drafters of the North Carolina hate legislation HB2 who use the term biological sex.

Straight white men and religious nutbags do not get to define transgender people. Fortunately, the issue of the application of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the courts and as with the case of LGB people, it will be found that the Constitution does not allow States to discriminate against LGBT people.

Your insistence on the shower room angle merely continues the beat up of the scaremongering started by the religious nuts in their ongoing war on LGBT people. The crux of HB2 is not lockerooms but the definition of groups protected by North Carolina law and LGBT people are not included in this definition.

The Tranny argument, the men in dresses, the male sexual predators, the men showing with women - all of this is nonsensical alarmism being spread by people who are wilfully ignorant of LGBT people, their right to dignity and their right not to be defined by those who are biased against them. Transgender use of public facilities is not at all the same thing as men in female showers. You should not be telling transgender people what they should do until you understand and appreciate their position. LGBT people conform to their biology. it is the lack of respect for their dignity that creates the mental health issues in some of the LGBT community.

IMO those that came up with the idea for the decree, and those that support the decree by Obama, lack common sense - so I thought I would make it clear what that is:

Common Sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.

Common Sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

I just cannot understand how anyone would not have enough common sense to realise that passing any law/decree that makes it legal for a male (any male) to enter a female toilet (for whatever reason), is something that should not be done without great care and attention to the details of implementation and possible negative outcomes. These are examples of Inintended Consequences (Wikipedia) and IMO this decree by Obama would result in similar outcomes (more bad than good):

In 2003, Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for posting a photograph of her home online.^[45] Before the lawsuit had been filed, only 6 people had downloaded the file, two of them Streisand's attorneys.^[46] The lawsuit drew attention to the image, resulting in 420,000 people visiting the site.^[47] The Streisand effect was named after this incident, describing when an attempt to censor or remove a certain piece of information instead draws attention to the material being suppressed, resulting in the material instead becoming widely known, reported on, and distributed.^[48]

Passenger-side airbags in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s as small children were being hit by deploying airbags during collisions. The supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions.^[49]

The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. This was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward, but eventually enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, they scrapped the reward program, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse.

Theobald Mathew's temperance campaign in 19th-century Ireland (in which thousands of people vowed never to drink alcohol again) led to the consumption of diethyl ether, an intoxicant much more dangerous due to its high flammability, by those seeking to become intoxicated without breaking the letter of their pledge.^[50] (I will add here the disaster that was Prohibition in the USA).

It was thought that adding south-facing conservatories to British houses would reduce energy consumption by providing extra insulation and warmth from the sun. However, people tended to use the conservatories as living areas, installing heating and ultimately increasing overall energy consumption.^[51]

A reward for lost nets found along the Normandy coast, offered by the French government between 1980 and 1981, resulted in people vandalizing nets to collect the reward.^[52]

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, the Federal Canadian government gave $2.25 per day, per psychiatric patient to the Catholic church in Quebec for their cost of care, and only $0.75 a day per orphan. The perverse result is that the orphan children were diagnosed mentally ill so the church could receive the larger amount of money. This psychiatric misdiagnosis affected up to 20,000 people, the children are known as the Duplessis Orphans.^[53][54][55]

Abstinence-only sex education has been shown to increase teenage pregnancy rates, rather than reduce them, when compared to either comprehensive sex education or no sex education at all.^[56]

There are more and more examples available of the folly of humans without common sense - unfortunately they are everywhere (and they vote).

This was garbage the first time it was posted. Nothing at all to do with the topic. Correcting one factual inaccuracy has not made it any better or any more relevant to the discussion.

The common in common sense represents in this case, the mundane and the ignorance of common men who do not understand LGBT people and who have psychological difficulties with the idea of gender non conformism (the idea of chopping off the penis really frightens such common men) and also a weird perspective of what bathrooms are for. This issue requires exceptional sense, not common sense and such exceptional sense is sadly lacking with the right wing transphobes who keep telling trans people who they are and how they should act.

Any male that does not have a child/daughter should preclude themselves from this discussion - this is something you dont understand (yet).

Anyone who is not LGBT should preclude themselves from this discussion - this is something you just don't understand. (and will never)

*chirping crickets*

Maybe because most sensible people know that market cap is meaningless. It's the revenue that counts and that's going strong.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/target-transgender-bathroom-2/