Posted by tangplay on 8/19/2018 12:01:00 AM (view original):
That was not my argument. One SHOULD be ABLE to if they choose. THAT is my argument. Hypocrisy of some should not diminish the liberty of others.
Fair enough.
Prior to all of this, the transgender person went to the bathroom that best suited their needs without any problems or notice and I am sure they wish it would have stayed that way.
Transgender people have been using the bathroom they wanted to for years. I am perfectly fine with it staying that way.
When it got to the point where men looking like men and who are not part of the LBGT community can decide they will enter women's dressing rooms we have created a problem rather than solve anything.
That's obviously terrible but people can do that regardless. As in there aren't security guards guarding a bathroom. Anything illegal they do is illegal regardless. I don't see how a regulation affects a chance of any of this happening.
It isn't overblown at all. Are we getting our heads chopped off? Of course not. But there can be restrictions and erosion of freedoms without beheadings.
Just to be clear, you are also OK with other religions doing this as well, right?
Massive failure except for the fact that they successfully expelled the Muslim hordes from the European continent.
They must not have done a good job, because there were still Muslims in Turkey and Spain and most of the decrease was before the Crusades.
When you quote Matthew 5:38-39, do you believe that you are not to defend yourself?
I don't know. I have never been in a position where I would have to defend myself to protect others. My best guess would be maybe if you did as minimally as possible as to try to have the least people hurt, with yourself being the person to get hurt if anyone were to?
I'll stand by belief here, that without centuries of Muslim aggression the Crusades would have never happened
That's true. That also doesn't make the Crusades justifiable.
Let's say our definition of religious freedom is 'Ability to practice religion without law taken against you in a public space'. You can change the definition if you want.
I agree that examples 1 and 2 are wrong, but I wouldn't put them under the category of religious freedom. #3 and 5 could be in the category, but I would need more info that it was due to religion and not other factors. I don't know what the answer is to #6, as I think both have fairly valid arguments, but again I just wouldn't be an ******* to people. Your last example I flat out disagree with, that isn't religious freedom as I understand it. You are talking about a group prayer before a legislative assembly? Please elaborate. I completely agree that #4 is a violation of religious freedom. So what now. What would defending religious freedom look like and when will it start happening?
No I had but one choice, and that was to vote Trump.
So you have explained why you like Trump, but why do you hate Hillary so much?
IRAN:
Ok, so the options here are
A. Don't sanction Iran in return for a promise of no nuclear activity, has the benefits of surveillance and at least a chance of success, along with less chance of a deadly war or revolution.
B. Sanction Iran, allows them to build nukes whenever they want, no surveillance, making people suffer even more with a chance of a collapse that history has already shown would be catastrophic.
I like option A better.
They don’t have the tech or money to build nukes. You give them money and they ll build em while giving the UN inspectors the runaround and use that money to fund Hezbollah and Hamas.