| Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Target takes stand on transgender bathroom controversy; No more waiting at the check out counter :) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 21 2016, 06:00 AM (1,109 Views) | |
| Demagogue | Apr 22 2016, 12:18 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Administrator
|
It is not an absurd scenario. If males are not permitted into the women's room then the guy has zero reason to ever be in there which means that it is not the word of an adult vs the word of a child. The scenario assumes that the perv just fondles the child in a way that does not leave physical evidence. In that situation the laws that allow anyone to pick the bathroom of their whim would protect the pervert and the guy would probably walk free and sue the city for discrimination against his alphabet soup special rights. Whereas in a place like NC the pervert would be arrested for assaulting the girl based on the fact that he was in a room he had zero right to be in and therefor if he was in there then he was up to no good. |
| People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm. | |
![]() |
|
| Opinionated | Apr 22 2016, 08:05 PM Post #22 |
|
It's still the word of an adult versus the word of a child. Your hypothetical video shows him entering the bathroom. It does that if there is no law against his using the bathroom or if there is. If there is a law against his using the bathroom, the video doesn't prove that he molested the girl, only that he entered the bathroom. The same thing it would prove if there were no law against his using the bathroom. It is always, barring there being other witnesses, going to come down to the defendant's word against the victim's. Making it illegal for him to be in the bathroom to begin with doesn't change that. |
![]() |
|
| clone | Apr 22 2016, 08:10 PM Post #23 |
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
|
I suggest the mods move this thread to the SEXUALITY & ATTRACTION thread... it's right here...http://unitedstates.com/forum/3275068/ waving it's sordid freak flag in clear violation of Zetaboard rules.... |
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence. | |
![]() |
|
| CautionaryTales | Apr 22 2016, 08:23 PM Post #24 |
|
Taft is reborn, for now.
|
|
Have you paid your internet taxes? | |
![]() |
|
| clone | Apr 22 2016, 08:36 PM Post #25 |
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
|
Another entitled poster mocking the rules... |
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









8:20 PM Jul 10