Slashdot Mirror

What do you think prisoners are going to do if they can vote? Elect Lex Luthor as president?

Yeah, pretty much. As a quick web search demonstrates, it's well known that most convicts vote Democrat by large margins, which is why they want to get them to be able to vote as soon as possible.

I was kind of curious so I did some quick Google searches. There was one article based on a report about which states are most susceptible to corruption. The top state was curiously enough North Dakota which apparently is due to the fact that they have few laws or regulations in place designed to prevent it. Texas was 1 of 16 states with a passing grade in that report.

Another article discussed the results of a study that looked at convictions for federal anti-corruption laws to establish rankings. Here the most corrupt state was Mississippi. I had to click through to the study since Texas wasn't in either the top or bottom 10, but it's listed as the 18th least corrupt state in the rankings.

One article that did report Texas as corrupt (it only came in 15th) was one which cited a report that looked at laws in systems each state has in place to prevent or curtail corruption. In this case the worst rated state was Wyoming.

FiveThirtyEight also has their own article from a few years back that delves into the topic. Texas does have a lot of corruption convictions, but on a per capita basis, it's in the top third. In this assessment, Louisiana is the most corrupt based on convictions per capita, Kentucky had the worst reporter rating, and Georgia is indicated in having the greatest lack of laws to prevent corruption. Oregon, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are respectively the least corrupt states based on those same categories.

In conclusion, you can apparently measure corruption in several ways and get a variety of results. Texas seems to be pretty middle of the pack in an overall sense.

Yeah, because everybody follows the law, right?

Someone should make a law against that. Cause, you know, everybody follows the law.

Private prisons account for less than 10% of the overall prison population. We've had this problem far longer than we've had private prisons. It might be trendy to hate on companies, but they're hardly the only interested parties in keeping people locked up for silly reasons.

The rise in private prisons has merely been a direct result of the government owned facilities getting overcrowded and the inability for states to secure funding to build additional prisons. Of course these private prisons want guaranteed minimum occupancy rates so there's further incentive for the state to keep locking people up. There've even been a few stories of judges getting kickbacks, so the whole system is pretty much a racket.

I suspect that with marijuana being legalized in more and more states, we'll start to see a sharp decline in prison population. There are a sizable group of prisoners who are there for no other reason than possessing slightly too much of a particular plant or other substance. We're wasting a lot of money locking up people who could otherwise be paying taxes.

you do realize that /. is a conglomerate of more than just US citizens and therefore any and all political discussion on here is, technically speaking, coming from foreigners trying to influence political opinion. Its a very thin line where one draws a distinction between illegal and legal when first amendment rights are in question. Even fewer have the ability to see such a distinct line. If you react too broadly, you risk opening the door to suppression of free speech, if you do nothing you risk foreign-state sanctioned election tampering. Also, stop drinking the cool-aid, Jim Jones is already dead. There is no 'sides'. Both Democrats and Republicans are playing the same games, taking money from the same corporate elite. They both engage in insider trading without fear or prosecution. Neither party actually does a damn thing about the shit they campaign on (Repealing obamacare, amnesty, Repealing the Patriot Act, curtailing immigration, etc) once they get into power. If they solve those problems you have no reason to continue to elect them. Better to blame someone else and keep promising to fix it 'this time'. They are two sides of the same coin. Its a game and apparently someone has convinced you that you're fighting alongside Joan of Arc. There's no fucking Joan of Arc's on either side, just a bunch of generals doing the bidding of some behind-the-scenes Nebuchadnezzar. This is never going to stop repeating itself until people realize that this is a back-and-forth game being played to achieve a long-term strategy. Look at what things stay in existence despite the constant back-and-forth (FISA, Patriot Act, PIPA, NDAA) all things one party criticizes when the other has majority control, and yet these things pass with votes like 98-0. If people keep electing insiders and falling for the cool-aid, things will only continue and never reverse themselves.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
https://mic.com/articles/20835...
https://thehill.com/homenews/s...

can PewDiePie handle prison / jail or will buy his way out? or the very least fight fight extradition??
https://mic.com/articles/10913...

You are reported to HuffPost.

https://thumbs.mic.com/MjczMWQ...

But also many members on Congress who voted for this law, and against prostitution, can be considered "SJW" types.

I'm clearly understanding something very different from the term "SJW types" than you are if you think anyone in congress is remotely close to as far left socially as the group I understand from the term "SJW types". If any of them qualifies, it's surely some in the small subset that voted against FOSTA-SESTA.

(I also have literally never encountered the anti-erotic-cosplay sentiment you're describing. I've seen plenty of discussions about cosplay: nearly all of them related to the "cosplay is not consent" movement which is explicitly in favor of people being able to wear whatever they want.)

They had to vote on the ACA bill first before they could find out what was in it.

Yes... the Democrats passed the ACA after 79 hearings, and about two months of discussion, including multiple amendments from Republicans: https://mic.com/articles/17630...

I was paying attention to the Republican complaint at how "quickly" ACA was passed right up until I saw how they decided to do in the "repeal and replace" bill, which was NO hearings, a bill written in secret, and an attempt to pass the bill before the budget office even stated what the cost would be.

Not to mention provisions being added to the bill handwritten in the margins overnight before voting... which no senators or representatives actually admitted to adding https://www.vox.com/policy-and....

The Republicans did everything that they accused the Democrats of doing, but even more so.

When you have the WAPO of all places saying that Antifa are just as bad as nazi's, you're in the wrong fucking neighborhood of support.

Oh and you want an example of Antifa killing americans? This one will do just fine. 26 dead at a church. Self-identified as a "UAF" that's "united against facsism" was a hardcore leftist who hated christians, and a extreme atheist to boot. UAF is a splinter of antifa.

So the idea that access to contraceptives and sex education prevent abortions is foolish

...except that the evidence disagree with you.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. It's right there in copious links you not so mysteriously excised from your reply:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://rewire.news/article/20...

...and then there's this other side....

https://mic.com/articles/98886...

Abstinence education: There's almost no getting around it. States with abstinence-only education have the highest rates of teen pregnancies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.

It's all there. You cut it out. That speaks volumes.

Obviously, sex education and contraception can help reduce unwanted pregnancies, but you attributed high US pregnancy and abortion rates to their lack of availability in the US, and that explanation doesn't work.

Except it does. Sorry, but the evidence already cited clearly shows that states with an adamant opposition to contraception and sex education are correlated with higher US pregnancy and abortion rates than the states that don't have such social policies.

I know it's bothersome to you, that the actual evidence-based research indicates otherwise, but really, you should control your reactions and accept the reality of being wrong. All your blustering protests do is demonstrate your paucity of character, they don't create a grounds for dispute.

Abortion in the US is widely available and has been legal for forty years, so that argument also doesn't make sense.

Like it or not, the evidence indicates that it's the case. I know you're desperately protesting, but the very vacuousness of your reply demonstrates how fundamentally false your position is.

You can't even have a rational argument with someone who is pro-choice without become abusive and hostile.

No, you're a troll, oolorie, and that's entirely your own fault. Is it really surprising that people recognize your fallacious style of argumentation even if they don't know of you admitting to your behavior?

Fundamentally, people are reacting to your deliberately obnoxiousness, and that's because your choice of method has a consequence.

I know it's going to be hard for you to admit, but people are going to be repulsed by your lack of integrity. It's too obvious. The evidence doesn't lie. Your pustulence is just too odious.

Abortions rose rapidly in the US in the late 1960's, along with a massive ease of access to contraceptives and sex education.

You mean... about the time it became legal, and started to be reported.... yeh, that kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

So the idea that access to contraceptives and sex education prevent abortions is foolish

...except that the evidence disagree with you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://rewire.news/article/20...

...and then there's this other side....

https://mic.com/articles/98886...

Abstinence education: There's almost no getting around it. States with abstinence-only education have the highest rates of teen pregnancies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.

And let me fix this for you....

The real problem is that since the 1960's, the US has been massively subsidizing irresponsible sexual behavior and childbearing: families that can't afford to have children, single mothers, etc. And that's the fault of people WHO TRY TO FORCE WOMEN TO HAVE CHILDREN WHEN THEY GET PREGNANT.... you know, the stupid fucking pro-forced-birth conservatives.

And the amount of harm people like you have been causing to women and children is staggering.

You don't give a fuck about women or children, only fetus's. The first fucking thing out of your mouth is a lie, followed by complaining about how much money it costs. Hey dipshit, read the article from Colorado. Fewer unwanted pregnancies = less cost and fewer abortions. Anyone with a fucking brain can look at the data and see that where abstinence only is the only thing taught, unwanted teen pregnancy is the highest. Colorado solved that... how? By make contraceptives available; and that also reduces abortions.

You want to talk about harm done... stupid idiots like you, who can't live in reality and believe your bullshit fantasy... that's what's fucking up this country.

Absolutely all political views are fungible and will be changed to meet the demands of defending or attacking whoever needs to be defended or attacked in a given moment. This isn't partisan, it's universal. A lifelong commie Berniebro-type may suddenly find themselves defending massive corporations if it means opening up an angle to attack Trump, or on the other hand he may start voting Trump and exploring white identitarianism after one too many idiots call him a nazi white supremacist for drinking milk or posting decade-old frog memes. On the other side, a conservative may flip his position on Obamacare provisions depending on whether Obama's name is attached, and a limited-government type may openly endorse a stealth coup by unelected bureaucrats just because he doesn't like who was elected.

Politics is about tribalism, not issues. Hating or liking someone is more important than agreeing or disagreeing with them. Once you realize this, all political discourse becomes infinitely more understandable and less enraging (or, at least, enraging in different ways). Apparent doublethink or hypocrisy aren't logical flaws that can be used to defeat arguments, they're merely irrelevant side effects of the basic rules of the game.

And when someone innocent gets accused of something?

You know that *everyone* commits some type of crime or infraction of something..

First page hit on google, but there are many similar examples:
https://mic.com/articles/86797...

Nobody can know and follow all laws and regulations for everything and commit infractions all the time.. Imagine when they realize that they could use this system to catch everyone, and make everyone pay a bunch in fines...

So we have people that commits crimes without knowing it and then we have the false positives where someone completely innocent is accused of a crime..

If someone gets accused of a crime it will take a shitload of money, and probably loosing their job if they cannot post bail or accused of something not accepted by society.
Loads of people take plea-bargains to reduce the risk of spending too much time behind bars and spending a fortune in an attempt to defend themselves..

There is a reason why we don't want warrant-less searches..

You misread him. It isn't that they are " insisting that space exploration be a government monopoly." It is that they couldn't conceive of any for-profit company putting in the long term investment on something that doesn't give an immediate boost to the quarterly reports.

Here is a couple examples:
https://mic.com/articles/2267/...
http://bgr.com/2015/12/03/neil...

“Private enterprise will never lead a space frontier,” Tyson told me in a phone interview. “In all the history of human conduct, it’s as clear to me as day follows night that private enterprise won’t do that, because it’s expensive. It’s dangerous. You have uncertainty and risks, because you’re dealing with things that haven’t been done before. That’s what it means to be on a frontier.”

Imagine a meeting between a space-obsessed entrepreneur and a venture capitalist, Tyson suggested. “We want your investment.” For what? “To go to space.” Why? “We want to put humans on Mars.” How much will it cost? “A lot. People might die.” What’s the return on investment? “Probably nothing in the short term, but later on you’ll make money.”

It’s not a perfect comparison, since the likes of Bezos and Musk have deep enough pockets to fund much of what they want to do, but the larger point remains.

“The government is better suited to these kinds of investments,” Tyson told me. “They have a longer time horizon. They’re not shackled to quarterly reports like you see in a private enterprise.”

It's not uncommon for a spouse to die shortly after their partners passing. It's been known to happen within hours or days.

There's a bunch of studies linked in this article for you to ignore.

If Obama can get the Peace Prize and bomb Syria, I'm pretty sure Trump can bomb Syria and at least hold on to office.

Obama never bombed Syria. He kept the US out of Syria because the last you want to do is get involved in another country's civil war. Unlike past Republican presidents, Trump may not get a bounce from blowing shit up.

https://mic.com/articles/173543/did-obama-ever-bomb-syria-here-s-how-president-obama-handled-the-syrian-crisis

Well its obviously Islamophobic as are so many things like, for example, not wanting to live under Sharia law.

Yes, pretty much.

When you're making up cities and fabricating excuses, you're pretty much confirmed as suffering a delusion.

We are not talking about institutional bias here. We are talking about women being harassed in the workplace. Do you think they should have to put up with being propositioned for sex when they're just trying to work? Probably not. So I do think some sort of institutional response is warranted.

Actually what is wrong with just saying no, and if it continues then yes it becomes sexual harassment, As far as I am aware work place relationships are quite common. According to this https://mic.com/articles/11206... 17.9% of marriages start at work so at some point someone must proposition the other.

Do you challenge the notion that white men, generally speaking, are still dominant in society? I think that is fairly common knowledge. Did I make an assumption based on that fact? Absolutely.

Yes I do what evidence do you have, there are lots of assumption people make that have no evidence in fact. e.g. you should drink 8 glasses of water a day.

If we are talking about interpersonal relationships, from what I have seen is that it really depends on the relationship between two people sometimes its the woman sometimes its the man. Just because one works does not mean they are the dominant individual.

>I'm 100% sure the gay jewish guy is not the Nazi in this picture
And the SMART people in the room know that whether you are a NAZI is defined by what you say and do, not by who you are. Hell, I would argue that Israel has become a NAZI state ! And this too, is not unusual - history is full of oppressed people turning around to commit those exact same atrocities against somebody else. My own ancestors were the first people ever to experience concentration camps and the victims of the 20th century's very first genocide (and one of the only white-on-white genocides). 50 years later they invented apartheid.

And in your little fantasy version of history Fash-Bashing was never a thing ?
Throughout the history of the world for every fascist breaking shop windows... there were anti-fascists punching the fascists.
https://mic.com/articles/16020...

The REAL question is - is it worth it ? The standard answer is "no" because it never stopped any NAZI or other fascist movements. In fact they tended to take getting punched as an excuse for greater atrocities.
But I think that answer doesn't apply - because this is a unique situation. These fascists have not yet secured their positions of power. The checks and balances are still in place. They haven't had their Reichstag moment yet, their hold on society is not yet absolute. We can still PREVENT them getting there. Fash-bashing has never ended their reigns of terror - but perhaps it can prevent it. I hope so - because it's the only chance America (and the world) has. Perhaps this unending, unyielding resistance from day one - can keep Fuhrer Trump in check... or at least, in check enough for us to survive the next 4 years.

No other time in history has somebody like him failed to become a dictator, authoritarians NEVER have ENOUGH power, they will always try to grab more. The only reason we have to hope it won't happen this time... is all those people out in the streets, and the fact that they were there right from the start. For once, the anti-fascist resistance may not come too little too late. Either that or, for the first time in their history, America will actually show up on time for a world war.

I have no intentions at all of burning anything down or committing any violent acts, but this is still a scary development.

You can avoid a lot of the "spew all minutia of your life to the cloud!" insanity that's taken over the world, but if you need a pacemaker, well, you need a pacemaker. It's nothing something you can easily opt out of, well except for the usual "exercise eat right try to stay healthy" bit, but eventually, age catches up with everybody.

Sometimes you can opt out of other people's stupidity. With medical care, not so much. Ditto when it comes to the security of your medical records, where de-anonymization of them is a massive industry now.

And IBM will running the systems to list and round up that people to be put it just like the past.

https://mic.com/articles/14299...

> The *worst* outcome is when the "laws" are secret or unknowable and enforced arbitrarily.

We are heading in that direction (if not there already).

There are a bajillion laws and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", also there are various regulatory agencies that make regulations which have the force of law.

There are so many laws that you are probably violating something that you don't know about, and some things you know about but figure no one will care about.

"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."

https://mic.com/articles/86797...

http://wayback.archive.org/web...

https://www.cato.org/events/te...

> while Hillary actually supports, and got financed by, Wahhabi regimes

Since you brought up Trump...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-donald-trump-made-millions-saudi-government-article-1.2777211
https://mic.com/articles/130070/here-are-some-of-donald-trump-s-middle-east-business-ventures

Clinton took money from the saudis because they were giving it away.
Trump does business with them.

You didn't actually read through any of the data on those sites you linked to, huh? If you had, you might have discovered:

1. The voting dead turn-out to be just three individuals in Colorado, one of which administrators at the Secretary of State's office admit may have been due to a mistake by an election judge.
2. The list of 438 voter fraud convictions is across all 50 states, and some of those convictions go back to at least 1982. However, it does include Republican Charlie White, the former Indiana Secretary of State, who was convicted of voter fraud, -- among other crimes -- back in 2012.

Overall, the data you've cited actually supports what most experts are saying regarding voter fraud; not that voter fraud doesn't ever happen, but that it happens so infrequently that it's not affecting the results of elections.

Of course, if you look at the statistics behind recent voter ID laws, you'll see that these laws are aimed squarely at black voters, in an attempt to suppress the black voter in favor of white voters, who are more likely to vote Republican.

see? this is how I know were in a coma for the past 8 years:
100% delusional statements like that one, completely disconnected from reality.

read, and be edumicated:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
https://mic.com/articles/22662...
http://www.liberalamerica.org/...

You want to know why software never really gets better? It's because "old timers" are deliberately flushed from the system, so there is no institutional memory.

Um, software does get better, it's why most of us prefer new software to old software. And it gets better precisely because young people with new ideas find better ways to do things.

Out of interest, if Software is getting worse, when was it exactly that you think software peaked? It didn't just so happen to be when you we're younger per chance? And you don't find that a huge co-incidence at all?

If you think computer aided productivity gains haven't peaked, then by all means go invest in your money in startups that make business and productivity software. You won't do it.

So if overall productivity is NOT increasing, then what are we getting with software that gets more complex every year? Well, you're creating more IT jobs, I'll give you that, but better software?

You want to know why software never really gets better? It's because "old timers" are deliberately flushed from the system, so there is no institutional memory.

Um, software does get better, it's why most of us prefer new software to old software. And it gets better precisely because young people with new ideas find better ways to do things.
Out of interest, if Software is getting worse, when was it exactly that you think software peaked? It didn't just so happen to be when you we're younger per chance? And you don't find that a huge co-incidence at all?

In 1989 a solar event caused a widespread long duration blackout in Quebec. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea...

If an event like the 1859 Carrington solar event occurred today, our modern infrastructure would be devastated. The geologic record indicates that these occur at least every few hundred years https://mic.com/articles/11774... . At our current state of readiness most of the US could be without power for an estimated six months. The spare parts to repair our power grid simply do not exist. Because so much of our economy runs on technology dependent credit (not cash) the world would face a rapid economic collapse. No phones, no internet, no fuel and soon no food - no joke. http://news.nationalgeographic...

Fortunately this is an unlikely event so we roll the dice and are happy in our ignorance. I would estimate the risk of this issue to be more than a 1000 times that of terrorist attack. The cost of insuring against this risk is not high. The logic for being prepared is unassailable. Hopefully as an open minded intelligent well educated person such as yourself, now armed with the facts you will draw the same logical conclusion.

This is not about politics, it's about the duty of a functional government.

I've nothing more to add on this topic, so this will be my final reply.

Stop hiring males, only hire white women, and a token Asian woman to fetch coffee. You'll see the complaints stop immediately.

So wait, Are you talking about the 2 guys at the 1 polling place in Philadelphia? Because I can't really see that as wide spread voter intimidation and even the guy who took the video said it was a non-story. https://mic.com/articles/18580...

It came from here: https://8ch.net/pol/index.html. Feel free to browse that channel and decide for yourself whether or not it is anti-Semitic.

But he probably got it from the racist/anti-Semitic twitter feed FishBonehead1, which has since been deleted.

anti-semitic imagery taken from neo-nazi sites.

Ok, first a six pointed star alone is not anti-Semitic. Nothing in that picture was anti-Semitic. You are an idiot if you think a basic shape == racist!

Second, the "neo-nazi site" was 8chan/pol. It wasn't Stormfront. It was a fucking image board on /pol.

I seriously hate having to defend Trump like this but seriously the misinformation is incredible.

I challenge you to thank these people when they smash in the windows of your car, or loot the local CVS in their neighborhood.

Where in my comments did I say "thank you" was an appropriate reaction for violent behavior?

Are you willing to condemn white people for rioting in the streets after a sporting event?

https://mic.com/articles/105198/9-photos-of-white-people-rioting-put-the-ferguson-demonstrations-in-perspective

"People people" rank high on the sociopath description.

Or more precisely, biased against certain pigmentations that appear on certain racial groups.

So for all the people who just say, eh, what's the problem, the real question is, why do you think they chose certain parameters for their filter?

Now maybe you think this won't be a problem, but maybe it will.

Bernie is literally the only candidate in the US since the very creation of Israel to EVER suggest that support for Israel be contingent on them not committing atrocities. That makes him the least zionist candidate the US has had since 1948.

What a fucking moron you are.

Ron Paul UNAMBIGUOUSLY called for an end to foreign (or what he calls - paraphrasing - taking from the poor in rich countries and giving to the rich in poor countries).

So Ron Paul would end the financial "support" DEAD STOP. He would not make it "CONTINGENT" on some BS checklist. Which is least Zionist? Sure as fuck it's not Bernie Sanders.

http://mic.com/articles/19608/...
http://www.newsmax.com/Headlin...

You may reasonably disagree on who is less Zionist. Your contention that Bernie is somehow a special snowflake - "only candidate in the US since the very creation of Israel to EVER" (Jesus fucking Christ, you actually wrote that) - is unsubstantiated bullshit spewn from a dumb-ass motherfucker.

I'm not sure why Disney is seen as a hated agent of the left by the crazy end of the right, but it's not about the Marvel movies.

Wait, I thought Disney was a hated enemy of the left. I'm confused. Won't someone please tell me what is acceptable and who I should hate?

The references I got all say "rape is down since the introduction of porn on the web" Which either means that porn doesn't cause rape, or there is some incredibly powerful confounding effect from somewhere else that not only counters porn's rapewaves but completely overpowers them, so even though porno mind-control rays are ordering men to go violate 16 year old girls with baseball bats, they are being held back by some greater force.

Pornography is rampant and extremely harmful to one's psyche and seriously impacts the life of those obsessed with it.

Impacts them how exactly? The leading claim I've seen for this is that men are somehow having trouble "settling" for "normal" girls. Funny thing is, though, we've got a massive research project going on right now where people are shown pictures and profiles of people of all kinds where they can be "liked" or not. That research has shown the top 78% of women on Tinder are "liking" the top 20% of men.. I guess women must be getting mass "erototoxin" poisoning from all that manly pornography just laying around. Oddly, all the research seems to be about "how hard it is for a guy to get a girl" I can't find any similar statistics analysis that shows how hard it is for an average girl to get a guy, though apparently men swipe right 48% of the time, which likely means the female 5's out there have a match just waiting for them, if they'll settle.

Yes, I did couch it that way because that's exactly how it is.

No, thats a lie. All of the evidence shows that when transgender people are given the right to use facilities corresponding to their gender expression, no-one's safety is compromised.

The women's safety is not at risk, as all the data show.

Basically, you're asking me to put myself in real danger in order to avoid other people being made uncomfortable because of ungrounded fear.

That Daily Caller article refers to a stunt by some guy who did it explicitly to oppose laws that protect transgender people. So not much of an example.

The data from multiple jurisdictions show that these non-discrimination rules are simply not a problem in practice and any abuse is statistically insignificant.

And also, everyone's forgetting about trans guys. In North Carolina, this guy would be forced to use the ladies' room.

The 2012 GOP platform clearly endorses alternative, renewable energy.

And by "endorse", I assume you mean, "doing everything they can to kill renewable energy".

http://usuncut.com/news/solarc...

http://www.scholarsstrategynet...

https://newrepublic.com/articl...

http://mic.com/articles/130336...

Plus, both of the leading GOP candidates for president, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, are climate deniers.

https://youtu.be/J_xVWfGjk0o

https://youtu.be/KyulquUwi1Q

It may surprise you to learn that you completely and totally miss the point.

You are missing the point because you are focusing on such a specific scenario because it's the only one that supports your argument. A rapist could easily hide in a bathroom and wait for someone to show up - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily enter a bathroom after someone has already gone in - probably happens a lot. A rapist could easily do a dozen other things that aren't made any less difficult by allowing transgender people to fully be their gender in society.

Also, here's an unintended consequence of the laws you are defending (look at the tweet after the first two paragraphs).

Actually, no. No he can not.

What's there to stop him?

And yes, it is a myth

Congratulations, you've defeated a strawman. Your link explains, how improbable (though not impossible) it is to be attacked in a bathroom by a transgendered. But that's not, what I was talking about. Which was the treat posed by a heterosexual man pretending to be a woman in order to get into and stay in women's bathroom. And that has happened...

Am I insane because I identify as a woman?

Yes, one's elevator does not reach all the way to the top, if he considers himself a woman. But, as I wrote once before, we really ought to define terms before continuing. I am now asking you once again to post your definitions for the terms "man" and "woman". Further responses missing this information will be returned unopened. Thank you.

Sure. And it all happens long before birth.

So? So what?

Certainly an opportunistic heterosexual voyeur, stalker (or even a rapist) can put on a dress and prey on women in bathrooms all day.

Actually, no. No he can not. Voyeurism, harassment and rape are all illegal, you know. Staying out of my life and letting me go to the bathroom I look most appropriate in doesn't magically legalize rape. And yes, it is a myth that the rules will be abused.

...you are yet to explain, why Evangelicals are especially responsible for the decision you dislike

They are the driving force behind these sorts of discriminatory laws, many of which are couched in the language of "religious freedom", a point I mentioned but you ignored.

Am I insane because I identify as a woman? No, I'm not. Believe me, I've talked to psychologists and counselors and no-one has thought I was anything but sane. Furthermore, I function very well in society, running a company successfully, employing people, providing for my family, contributing to my community, paying taxes and being a good citizen. The fact that my gender identity doesn't match my biological sex is just one facet of who I am. You want a definition of a "man" or "woman"? Well, it depends if you're talking about sex or gender, which are two different things. It's also the case that one's brain can be a different sex from one's body; Swaab and others have demonstrated sexual dimorphism in the brain and that the brains of transgender people are in many ways closer to the sex they identify as than the sex one naively expects from their chromosomes. All this is to say that sex and gender are more complex than you make out.

Opposing special treatment of a certain group is not equivalent to attack on the group.

We are not asking for special treatment. What's special? We just want to be left in peace. And in the context of the bills in the USA, LGBT people simply want the right not to be refused housing, employment or accommodation because of who they are - exactly the protections enjoyed by every other person in the US.

...I deem this particular contention self-evident...

People who vehemently contend something do usually see it as self-evident... that's hardly exciting news.

Every_single_day there are stories published about people being murdered with guns in Chicago. If you were keeping up with current events, you wouldn't have to ask for proof of that.

http://mic.com/articles/127842...

http://chicagoist.com/2013/01/...

http://america.aljazeera.com/w...

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chic...

Now, presuming that those links satisfy your need for a citation - let me ask something. Can you point to any instance of prohibition in this country that has worked? Prohibition of alcohol and Chicago added up to an Al Capone. Prohibition of cannabis and Chicago adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars in cannabis trade, annually. Prohibition of firearms and Chicago adds up to thousands of dead people, annually.

Get rid of stupid damned laws, and let the people sort it out. A law abiding citizen will seldom use his weapon in an unacceptable manner. A crook will often use his weapon inappropriately. Sooner or later, the crook will meet a law abiding citizen who is armed, willing and able to put the crook in his grave. Eventually, all but the very stupidest people will figure out that a life of crime always results in being shot.

Dump the stupid laws. Chicago is incapable of enforcing any kind of prohibition - so give the guns to law abiding people!

There are many articles about the poor ratio of intended targets vs. "collateral damage" or civilian deaths.

http://mic.com/articles/16949/...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/...

But you know that because you can Google too.

The US now prefers killing poor people in 3rd world countries with robots. Not very brave or noble. Not very good for our standing in the world. Not good for poor people in 3rd world countries.

In fact, it isn't good for anyone but defense contractors.