Archive

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

  • sleeper
    jmog;1795914 wrote:Comparing transgender's wanting to go into a different bathroom than their genetics/anatomy is plumbed up for is not in the same universe as "separate but equal" schools/fountains/buses, etc.

    Anyone with a logical brain understands this.
    They are both cases of treating each person with equal rights and basic dignity. Don't need any more logic than that to compare the two.
  • sleeper
    jmog;1795915 wrote:
    So the science can/is on both sides here and needs to be figured out before we go all "civil rights! just like separate drinking fountains!" on everyone.
    Interesting that you don't apply this thought process to your religious belief. No one is really sure, but you just went ahead and said "JC is our lord and savior and my god created everything and there is a heaven and gays are bad" before letting both sides of the debate settle.

    Tell me more about your logic though!
  • QuakerOats
    Unlike the obama regime which thrusts its beliefs onto The People, forcing The People to act in ways they do not wish, most of us do not thrust our religious belief's onto others and force them to comply.


    Good luck.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1795923 wrote:Unlike the obama regime which thrusts its beliefs onto The People, forcing The People to act in ways they do not wish, most of us do not thrust our religious belief's onto others and force them to comply.


    Good luck.
    The people voted for Obama.

    Sorry the people are doing things against your wishes!
  • jmog
    sleeper;1795920 wrote:They are both cases of treating each person with equal rights and basic dignity. Don't need any more logic than that to compare the two.
    Actually no, the transgender already has the same rights as a non-transgender, to go to the bathroom where their biology says they should. They are not being discriminated against due to the color of their skin and forced to drink from a different fountain than non-transgenders.

    Your analogy is something from MSNBC not from a logic/reasoning background.
  • jmog
    sleeper;1795922 wrote:Interesting that you don't apply this thought process to your religious belief. No one is really sure, but you just went ahead and said "JC is our lord and savior and my god created everything and there is a heaven and gays are bad" before letting both sides of the debate settle.

    Tell me more about your logic though!
    1. I have never said "gays are bad", so you might want to edit your post.
    2. You have no idea the amount of research/logic/reasoning I did to form my religious beliefs. If you believe I just said "forget all evidence and just say Christ is Lord" you obviously have never read a thing I have posted on here.
  • sleeper
    jmog;1795927 wrote:Actually no, the transgender already has the same rights as a non-transgender, to go to the bathroom where their biology says they should. They are not being discriminated against due to the color of their skin and forced to drink from a different fountain than non-transgenders.

    Your analogy is something from MSNBC not from a logic/reasoning background.
    That's like arguing gay people have the same rights as others to marry the people of opposite sex.

    Whatever helps you sleep at night though!
  • sleeper
    jmog;1795928 wrote:1. I have never said "gays are bad", so you might want to edit your post.
    2. You have no idea the amount of research/logic/reasoning I did to form my religious beliefs. If you believe I just said "forget all evidence and just say Christ is Lord" you obviously have never read a thing I have posted on here.
    Gays aren't bad but they shouldn't have the same rights as others!

    And yes I do know the research/logic/reasoning because there is nothing. There is literally nothing.
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1795925 wrote:The people voted for Obama.

    Sorry the people are doing things against your wishes!

    Some people did, but that doesn't give him the right to rewrite laws and definitions in order to thrust his beliefs onto The People. Obviously you knew that though.
  • QuakerOats
    Again though, it is just his way of deflecting attention from the real problems of the day and his horrific record.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1795933 wrote:Some people did, but that doesn't give him the right to rewrite laws and definitions in order to thrust his beliefs onto The People. Obviously you knew that though.
    Not some people, the majority. He won both the popular vote as well as the overwhelming majority of votes in the electoral college.

    Again, sorry the people want things you don't want. Maybe you can get the Republican Congress to do something about it?
  • QuakerOats
    He took an oath to uphold the constitution; just a minor detail. He has not the power to rewrite laws and definitions.


    God bless.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1795939 wrote:He took an oath to uphold the constitution; just a minor detail. He has not the power to rewrite laws and definitions.


    God bless.
    Then we will look to the Republican Congress to provide their balance. I'm sure they are doing a great job!
  • fish82
    sleeper;1795901 wrote:It's a valid comparison. You not liking the comparison doesn't make it terrible.
    It's not the worst comparison ever, but it's a little on the weak side.
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1795945 wrote:Then we will look to the Republican Congress to provide their balance. I'm sure they are doing a great job!
    maybe familiarize yourself with the suit filed by NC.
  • Con_Alma
    sleeper;1795945 wrote:Then we will look to the Republican Congress to provide their balance. I'm sure they are doing a great job!

    How would congress keep the President from acting outside of his constitutional powers?? Wouldn't the Justice Department have to address that from an unlawful behavior perspective?
  • Con_Alma
    QuakerOats;1795948 wrote:maybe familiarize yourself with the suit filed by NC.
    This would be another route to address Executive Branch overreach. This would force a level of the judicial branch to rule on said action(s).
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1795952 wrote:This would be another route to address Executive Branch overreach. This would force a level of the judicial branch to rule on said action(s).
    And it's why the Supreme Court nominations is flying under the radar. The left would like to make it all about social issues like gay marriage, abortion and transgenders....but the more insidious and dangerous issue is a left-leaning SCOTUS rubber-stamping Executive overreach designed to circumvent Congress on serious economic questions of regulation and taxes.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1795914 wrote:
    Anyone with a logical brain understands this.
    Our resident scientist who constantly talks about logic and fallacies seems to be missing that his reasoning here is illogical and fallacious.

    OC still brings quality lulz IMHO.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1795928 wrote:1. I have never said "gays are bad", so you might want to edit your post.
    2. You have no idea the amount of research/logic/reasoning I did to form my religious beliefs. If you believe I just said "forget all evidence and just say Christ is Lord" you obviously have never read a thing I have posted on here.
    You said in the past that you raised an evangelical christian. Ad hoc belief confirmation is not the same as belief formation. It is a sin to lie.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1795915 wrote:I just last night read a paper from a doctor that recently resigned from the American Psychiatric Assoociation due to disagreements in the new DRM-5 standards. In the previous release (DRM-4) transgender was a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, similar to anorexia. Now, it is only a symptom of a possible anxiety disorder (basically if societies treatment of you causes you anxiety, or your body, etc).

    His paper suggested that the reason for the diagnoses forever was similar to something like anorexia. You look in the mirror, you are obviously skinny but your brain 100% believes you are fat and you NEED to (have an irrational compulsion to) lose weight. Your brain is seeing something totally different than physical reality.

    For the previous transgender diagnosis, you look in the mirror, you see one sex but your brain 100% believes you are the opposite sex and you NEED to (have an irrational compulsion to) change your sex. Your brain is seeing something totally different than physical reality.

    His paper talked about how the ONLY reason that the DRM-5 diagnosis changed was due to the LGTB lobby pushing for it to change and not be a mental diagnosis anymore.

    I have also read since then that there have been studies sense that compare those with eating disorders and their "psychosis" levels with disbelief of what they see vs transgender's and that the transgender's "psychosis levels" were MUCH lower than those with eating disorders.

    So the science can/is on both sides here and needs to be figured out before we go all "civil rights! just like separate drinking fountains!" on everyone.
    Post the name of the quack doctor, the paper and the derpy link you clicked on Facebook that led you to it.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1795953 wrote:And it's why the Supreme Court nominations is flying under the radar. The left would like to make it all about social issues like gay marriage, abortion and transgenders....but the more insidious and dangerous issue is a left-leaning SCOTUS rubber-stamping Executive overreach designed to circumvent Congress on serious economic questions of regulation and taxes.
    And the pubs are going to fail to nominate the moderate Garland and Hillary will nominate a transgender leftist confirmed by Ted Strickland and co. Hahaha #TrumpTrain

    Or , you could always have Trump nominate his leftist sister lol
  • jmog
    sleeper;1795932 wrote:Gays aren't bad but they shouldn't have the same rights as others!

    And yes I do know the research/logic/reasoning because there is nothing. There is literally nothing.
    What rights have I said homosexuals should not have?
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1795998 wrote:You said in the past that you raised an evangelical christian. Ad hoc belief confirmation is not the same as belief formation. It is a sin to lie.
    Sleeper was raised Catholic, and his "journey" led him to believe all religions are a hoax. I was raised Christian as well. Many people on here that have stated they are atheist/agnostic were raised Christian. So it is quite obvious from the OC anecdotes that confirmation bias isn't as strong in the OC as you believe.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1795999 wrote:Post the name of the quack doctor, the paper and the derpy link you clicked on Facebook that led you to it.
    So your logical reasoning is to already attack the source rather than the argument before you know the source?

    I guess we all can't just be logical on these touchy subjects, some have to immediately jump to the emotional and flip out...on both sides of the argument.

    Just a 5 second Google search that I am sure you could do led me to:
    Dr. Paul McHugh
    Dr. Keith Ablow