Ya you're totally OK with killing unarmed people that pose no imminent threat of serious bodily injury and/or death, but an ineffectual punch that blows off steam delivered to a consenting target is beyond the pale?
I am not. You may disagree with my conclusion about whether particular circumstances posed such a threat, but I absolutely think that this is a requirement.
Wait. Is this a scenario where you let her spar with you with boxing gloves, something like that?
Nope. Just let her throw a couple. I've spent most of my adult life in sparring gear (not so much nowadays), recreationally. She hadn't. I can take whatever she dishes out, barring the obvious dangerous targets.
I'm saying there are interpretations beyond your childishly simplistic chosen ones. You don't know and don't care about the truth. You choose what to believe based on a favored narrative.
How you doing on addressing the direct and factual challenges presented, Captain Honesty?
Of course.
Not only false, but meaninglessly cryptic.
False. I have unswervingly held that in areas where nudity is expected, sex segregation rules. Since we already have gender neutral multi occupant restrooms, I'm not sure how touchy that should really be.
Another untruth. You applying for Team Lie-a-Lot?
I'm struggling to come up with an explanation for your consistent defense of the TRA positions and criticism of gender critical positions other than you're actually mostly on the TRA side.
He thinks he's playing seven-dimensional chess as he comes up with some ultra-nuanced position that is too complicated for us mere peasants to understand. Either that, or he suffers from anterograde amnesia.
Still trying to clumsily change the subject? This is getting sad.
It seems to me that men who are passionate about getting into women's safe spaces, and who resort to violence when their passions are inflamed, should probably be near the top of the short list of men who should never be allowed into women's safe spaces.
I based it on a news report which hasn't been verified. I'm no longer using that claim. What else are you expecting? An apology?
Agreed. And?
No, I asked you to address the criticism. Instead, you kept ignoring it and tried to call me to the carpet for completely random things, which is not only cowardly, but dishonest.
No I'm not. I've said... repeatedly... that I oppose California and NJ's laws which allow males to enter women's changing areas. I don't support Freeman doing so.
You should really hear yourselves. "Women are too weak to handle a rare non-conforming person in their restrooms. Leave that to the real men, and ◊◊◊◊ those girly trannies". Then you call others misogynistic. It's a freaking hoot.
Excusable? It's imaginary. Are you not keeping up again?
And you pay lip service to agreement, while arguing the opposite.
You've read me arguing that someone resorting to violence over access is okay? I don't recall that. Are you applying for Team Truth Indifferent too, or did you have a quote in mind?
And yet, you constantly defend them and attack any arguments against them. Nobody actually believes you oppose these laws, because you keep defending them.
Why was your first instinct to come up with reasons why she shouldn't have complained, rather than agree with the complaint that he shouldn't have been there?
Now you're not being honest about your own argument. Only part of what you said was disputing facts. You also argued that she didn't need to use the changing room. That wasn't a dispute about facts, that was a statement of values. You didn't value her ability to use the changing room without him being present.
You routinely lie about me, I don't take this accusation seriously.
Your current position is that this event didn't happen. But before you took that position, you did in fact excuse it.
Another lie. I don't defend the laws; I dislike them. What I argue is the reasons your team presents for also disliking the laws. You can dis/like a law for good or bad reasons. Your side most often argues with very bad ones, and that's where you meet with pushback.
Because she lives in a state where it is legal. She can complain, she can do a lot of things. What she can't do is claim to be a victim.
I was asked what alternatives she had to getting naked around strange males, if she objected to it yet knew it would happen. I ticked off the obvious alternatives. No one really needs to get electively naked in public, in an area where they know mixed sexes will be naked. You have to set that ◊◊◊◊ up to make it happen.
I think she should. But if she puts herself, willingly and electively, in a situation where she can be confident he will be legally present, she gots responsibility there.
I confront you with facts and news reports. You weasel for pages to duck it. I ain't taking you seriously anymore either.
Pepperidge Farm have a quote? I have a feeling Pepperidge Farm's comprehension is on select fire again.