@kilroy70 saidIt's fine if you disagree with my views on what is and isn't discrimination and what is and isn't demonization in the public domain, but I do wonder why you feel the need to lie while propagating your views. The same goes for Earl of Trumps.
@FMF
Why do you suppose blue states also seek to "discriminate against, harass and demonize trans people"? Why are so many left wing legislators willing to go along with this, or are afraid to oppose it?
Could it be that many of those laws seek to protect children and other individuals? If so, then how do laws designed to protect children from overzealous medical professions and teachers qualify as discrimination against trans people?
@fmf saidHa! Way to go there, genius. You just went and told on yourself.
There was no whoosh. I knew you were lying the moment I read your post about laws supposedly discriminating against Christians and Republicans.
So you knew I was simply making a point, but pretended (and kept up the pretense) that it was meant literally.
Better luck next time.
@kilroy70 saidYou posted a debating point that was clearly false and I called you out for it. And now you have conceded that what you said was untrue. The only point you made is that you can't be straight-up about discussing something like this.
Ha! Way to go there, genius. You just went and told on yourself.
So you knew I was simply making a point, but pretended (and kept up the pretense) that it was meant literally.
Better luck next time.
@mchill saidIt has become particularly trendy since unemployment has dropped so low, since millions of new jobs have been created, since petrol prices have come down so much, since inflation has started to fall, since talk of a recession has subsided, since business investment has risen sharply, since GDP has increases to new levels, and since new money has started to be invested in infrastructure. Yes. The trans topic has been brought to the fore.
Is the trans topic "trendy" now?
@kilroy70 saidIs that gonna be the hill you die on in this?
@FMF
Btw, why do you suppose blue states also seek to "discriminate against, harass and demonize trans people"? Why are so many left wing legislators willing to go along with this, or are afraid to oppose it?
Could it be that many of those laws seek to protect children and other individuals? If so, then how do laws designed to protect children from overzealous medical professions and teachers qualify as discrimination against trans people?
Because that's actually not happening.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121960
18 Jul 23
@earl-of-trumps saidWhy are you taking this up with FMF instead of with mchill?
We have gone way too far for a thread like this. And I know you are growing it ever more. I suggest you open it in Debates,
if you wish to keep it going, as this is not the right venue.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121960
18 Jul 23
@earl-of-trumps saidIn your post which I replied to you made a jazz-handed fluff-ball about not wanting to “go fetch”, I’m just pointing out to you that all you had to do was open it.
Ok, so FMF knows where to find it. Good.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121960
One thing we have in these exchanges is evidence that Earl of Trump [yes he’s a Trump supporter, not as he likes to claim, a “Libertarian”] has the smarts to duck out of a conversation where he doesn’t want to be exposed for what he is in here, as he is in debates.
Whereas @Kilroy70 (aka @Lemon-Lime) doesn’t even have the wherewithal to start his argument from a position of fact.
@kilroy70 saidThis sounds just like the kind of things Alex Jones, Owen Shroyer, Gavin Hamilton, Candice Owens, Stephen Crowther, Dave Rubin, and Ben Shapiro say.
Do you support the hundreds of laws that have been passed across numerous liberal states in recent years that seek to discriminate against, harass and demonize christians and republicans?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29893
@earl-of-trumps saidA baker isn't in servitude. They run a business where the customer should come first. If we inhabited a world where businesses could pick and choose who they served, based on religion, sexuality, political views, age, race, football team, it would be a depressing world indeed.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said - "Could they, for example, refuse to serve customers of different religions or people without a faith? "
----------------------------------------------------
That's a tough one to swallow, but it is private property, and I don't like slavery
Ben Affleck wouldn't get served anywhere.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNot even if admitting he ruined his character in "Good Will Hunting"?
A baker isn't in servitude. They run a business where the customer should come first. If we inhabited a world where businesses could pick and choose who they served, based on religion, sexuality, political views, age, race, football team, it would be a depressing world indeed.
Ben Affleck wouldn't get served anywhere.
18 Jul 23
@fmf saidWhy were you lying about how many laws there are discriminating against trans people?
It's fine if you disagree with my views on what is and isn't discrimination and what is and isn't demonization in the public domain, but I do wonder why you feel the need to lie while propagating your views. The same goes for Earl of Trumps.
You said "There are already 79 [laws] that have been passed in 2023 alone. 356 in the process of being passed. 561 altogether."
Saying that 356 [bills] are in the process of being passed does not automatically mean they are laws. And you are getting ahead of yourself when you presume all 356 of those bills will pass and become laws. So claiming there are 561 laws altogether is absurd.