lol. Just lol.

I want some recognition or response from you on this as well as I find this so template of activist types where they try to ignore broader context and boil everything down so they can 'label' and 'demonize'.

Do you see it is 'wrong', or someone 'supporting desegregation', and the types of language you use if a day after slavery was abolished and constitution applied to all people including POC there was debate over how quickly to push young kids into segregated schools and hot to do so safely?

if you say no, you do not see it as a wrong, you can understand why society would not just push that, then i want to explain in the context of how you replied to me how you would justify anyone advocating for a more cautious approach.

And know that i will use your same words 'you then support continued segregation' if you do and expect you to draw the distinction.

This is not pedantic and is intended to show how disingenuous it is to try and boil issues like this down to 'ok you support segregation' as if one cannot oppose segregation but also consider real world harm and ramifications in forcing things too quick.

You guys are desperate to create a false narrative that is tied to trying to shame someone into silence when you cannot out debate them and need to instead try to silence them.

Absolutely.

I just don't care about the moral high ground the internet warriors would feel when they say 'send all the children in', and when the kids end up dead they then say 'not our fault. We were in the right'.

You are exactly making my point as that is the only thing activists often care about. They are right so consequences and whoever bears them be damned.

Don't worry about your dead kids as we will point fingers and shame the bad people after.

I say that earnestly as much of todays activism has become seen as devoid of real consequences and cost as if it all just exists as internet flame wars.

They take those internet battle skills and think they can apply them in a black and white way in to real life.

That leads people like you to say 'send in all the kids because if they die it won't be your fault, it will be the bad peoples fault' as if that should be enough.

And then worse, when someone speaks up and says 'no I don't force that action and reaction because of the very real consequences', you then challenge them saying 'oh so you are for continuing segregation then' and treat them as if bad people as is this issue is so black and white.

We've managed to go from you pointing out a perceived trans issue into you making some broader point about your dislike of common law systems. It's not the craziest take with respect to courts, I think Germany works on that kind of system, but it means this whole segue about waxing was not actually a trans issue at all.

Otherwise it sounds like you're saying "If punitive damages were awarded in this case then that would've been bad", which nobody disagrees with and even the courts admonished Yavin for filing it.

Is that it? It would've been bad if the court made a decision that ran contrary to the law and the merits of the case? "Like duh obviously" comes to mind. The fact that they didn't do any such thing nor has it caused any real issues for businesses going forward, nor is it something trans people as a group care about, is somehow bolstering a point that none of us can coherently interpret.

My guess is you went to an example you knew nothing about and are now doing mental gymnastics to somehow make it relevant.

This from the guy who cited a case he knew nothing about to try and make an argument about how difficult it is to accommodate trans people, the risk it poses to businesses, and how activists are going too far.

This has to be among the most unhinged perversions of someone’s point I’ve ever read on the internet.

Sure, Cuepee, we are team dead kids. Whatever makes you feel like you are winning.

Yeah, this is the biggest disagreement I had with Cuepee early in this thread when it was more transgender athlete-focused. I think there are potentially some legitimate concerns with top level athletes, and there is likely a need for some hard and fast rules there, but I see no need for those with young kids. Quite the contrary - I think they'd be harmful. Inclusion is far more important at younger ages in school.

Sure. Your stated claim is that it is wrong for a court to "attach a punishment" for harms coming from discrimination against trans people, at least not for a while. This is outrageous for many reasons, but one specific one you've failed to meaningfully address is that when you eliminate the potential for a legal punishment for discrimination, you embolden the transphobes. They know they can discriminate without risk of punishment from the judicial system. The level of discrimination against trans people in society is already horrifying, but loosening the legal protections for this minority group is strikingly illiberal.

I agree and think that for pro athletes there has to be some kind of either compensation or extra ruling for this.

In this particular case of Hubbard, this is what a competitor said.

"Last month, Belgian weightlifter Anna Vanbellinghen, who is competing in the same category, said that if Hubbard were to compete in Tokyo it would be unfair for women and "like a bad joke".

"She said that while she fully supported the transgender community, the principle of inclusion should not be "at the expense of others".

"Anyone that has trained weightlifting at a high level knows this to be true in their bones: this particular situation is unfair to the sport and to the athletes," she said in May. "Life-changing opportunities are missed for some athletes - medals and Olympic qualifications - and we are powerless."

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57549653.amp

(Sorry if this was posted already)

My ENTIRE point i made that generated outrage was that...

'I hope this area is one that does not end up generating punitive damage awards as I think that could lead to activists/opportunists abusing the courts and backlash by other citizens setting this necessary movement back. I think these things do need to be taken to courts and settled so everyone knows the new and evolving rules of the road, but i just don't want to see punitive damages awarded in most cases.'

So your guess is wrong. What in fact happened is I made a very reasonable statement that changes in NO WAY based on the merits of the case as it NEVER had anything to do with any case, which you now seem to agree with, and it was attacked reflexively and wrongly.

Again my point, MY ONLY POINT, of not wanting punitive damages is no way impacted by the merits of that specific case. I NEVER commented on the merits. Those never matter to my point. And despite the Trans woman laughing a frivolous lawsuit in this case and that helping to MAKE my point even if this was a meritorious lawsuit that would not matter to my point.

Logic does not care about your emotional response.

What that poster is saying is abundantly clear. It is either said as a tactic or out of ignorance. The problem is it fails on logic.

It is the crafting of a false narrative of 'if you have other considerations you also value the you are pro segregation'. As if there cannot be nuance and two things can be true at the same time that you can want the segregation to end but also see some challenges and the need for a slightly moderated path.

This entire thread is nothing but those type of false narratives such as you attacking me because I have an opinion that while these things should go to court, this is an area i hope does not award punitive damages for the reasons i cited. For the exact reason shown in the Brazilian wax that it can attract nuisance suits that create headlines that right wings seize that make things worse for everyone.

To a larger degree (agree with the decision or not) that is why Nelson Melda in part chose to have that same aspect (re damage awards) not in the Truth and Reconciliation hearings.

That does not mean Mandala 'did not believe people deserved compensation'. What it meant was he saw that the pursuit of that could slow or harm the process he hoped for of 'reconciliation.

A child like approach acts as if that approach means 'he does not believe people deserve it'. When both can be true but he can choose the more moderate approach anyway.

YOu are again being dishonest which just goes to prove you know I am right and you cannot argue against what I said so you know you need to change it and then argue against that to try and have a leg to stand on.


This is what I said (my opening fleshed out post on this)...


That is merely my opinion or view. I am not attaching 'right' or 'wrong' to it as if definitive. I explain why I think it.

You don't just say 'agree to disagree' and make your point which would be fair and instead feel the need to attack as if wrong, personalize it to me suggesting it is indicative of a bad person, and then create a bunch of strawman arguments to try and prove it.

That inevitably leads us in to these flame wars (your true goal almost undeniable as the pattern suggests) as it cannot be wrong as it is just my opinion on a matter.

And it one that now, as is almost always the case you guys later concede I was right by agreeing with my point (as Blades does above0 but pretend that was never my point so you don't have to admit it.

You've made numerous allusions to this case and repeatedly posted about waxing and genitalia and the difficulty it poses.

It's not actually a guess with regard to you knowing nothing about it. You didn't. You brought it up and were making a point about how such things are a problem for businesses and accommodating trans people. The case in question actually shows how incredibly easy it is to accommodate trans people in this regard and that in fact it was already being done without a problem.

The case can't be an example of the problems of awarding punitive damages if no such judgement was awarded. Again, it's the nut worst example you could've gone with. You picked a case where a racist troll was found to have no leg to stand on and idly speculated as to how no one could've predicted the outcome. You were laughably wrong about that because you just vaguely remembered a story and assumed it must've been a big deal.

If all you were saying is you don't like punitive damages then how is the waxing case relevant at all?

And all of those points are 100% accurate.

What does not matter to my point is whether the litigant was filling a nuisance suit or a legit one.

All my points would be made EITHER way.


Right because it is IRRELEVANT to my point. I don't need. As I said either way my point stands so that aspects of the 'merits' is meaningless.



Right, and I was CORRECT and that example highlights my point.

My point was NEVER about only meritorious complaints and I specifically raise the idea that this would FURTHER confuse the situation as cases with no merit might be brought in this period where not everyone is clear on the rules. That some opportunists/activists, etc might try to target the confusion to make money thus harming the real efforts for progress.

This spurious case goes directly to my point. A trans woman seeking a payday with a nuisance suit.

But if it was a valid suit and the person won, my point would be the same and still correct. As the result of the suits or merits of the case was NEVER my point.




Strawman.

My point was about how the PURSUIT of that could prompt these type of cases putting business owners, many trying to do the right thing and navigate this space with good intentions in tough spots.

This person does not have to win for my point to be correct. And it WAS correct.

False.

No amount of lies by you or spin by you, when I quote my original view above, will change that.

A specious suit is exactly one of the elements I identifies as to why punitive damages at this time in this area can make things worse as some dishonest/disingenuous/activist people might pursue them.

We have a case where that in fact happened and you say that is the worst example to make my point that it might happen WHEN IT DID HAPPEN.

Gaslighting pure and simple.

You know you were wrong and cannot admit it so you are desperate to change my argument into something I never said.

bwahahahahahahahahhahahah. I love how you accuse me - yet again - of being dishonest. For what? Because I used the exact word you used when I paraphrased your course. These unforced errors are really starting to hurt you bud!

But notice something much more important: In your outrage that I properly quoted you, you didn't actually address - once again - the actual point that was raised:

Remember how mad you just got at me when you thought I mischaracterized your post by adding the word 'wrong' (it turned out I just quoted you using it)? Remember all the paragraphs of angst that induced your to type out at the thought someone would have done the tiniest of mischaracterizations?

Well read this:


What?!?!??! Who says this?
No it isn't. Nobody said these things. Nobody said anything remotely close to these things. Nobody even talked about kids or children in the civil rights era but you. Nobody suggested any ambivalence to them.

So quote that. If you are going to make these utterly outlandish characterizations of people, can you find ANYTHING that suggests this in the slightest? I read back through the thread and the closest I could find to "Don't worry about your dead kids" was this:
Of course, this has nothing to do with dead kids, but it was after this post you started talking about it as if you had won something, so I presume this is what triggered you.

You really, really, really need to stop reading things people say in these most outlandish ways. Most of the outrage you exude ITT is against not even a strawman, its against something purely disconnected from what anyone else has actually said. A trans person came in and tried to share her views with you, and you've left thinking she doesn't worry about dead kids. Out of nowhere. It's sad.

I will just highlight for all how incredibly dishonest uke is when he knows he is wrong and how he will lie, misrepresent and false quote to try and make himself look right when he knows he is wrong.

I want to notice how he edits out a part of my direct quote above.

I made the point that I was offering my OPINION only and NEVER trying to represent this as a matter of fact.

See below how he removed the part that shows i SPECIFICALLY point this is 'my POINT in GENERAL' and not a fact or not a definitive statement so he can then laugh as if he caught me. Anyone who sees me post knows I have no issue with saying 'this is FACT' when i am representing a fact and i am careful to leave opinion in that realm with room for people to 'agree to disagree'.


I don't think any more need be said about uke. Nothing he says or does is in good faith or honest.

Can you....stop? Seriously? I paraphrased you using the exact same words you used and you STILL accuse me of lying. Zero part of me was trying to do that. At all.


I don't really know what to do at this point. I don't want this thread closed. But I also don't want blatantly inappropriate accusations of dishonesty and lying to be continually thrown at me and left unanswered.

Cuepee, even in cases where you genuinely believe someone is mischaracterizing your view, can you find a way to express that without accusing them of lying?

I honestly don't see the point in me going through that whole post if you're arguing black is white here.

It can't possibly be that waxing is an example of a difficult area to navigate if the only example we have of it even supposedly being a problem turned out to be nothing of the sort.

Lol at paraphrase.

You edited a quote to remove the part that shows I was clearly offering my view and at every stage in this discussion I have made clear this is just my opinion. And you did so, so you could say 'lololol, got you for representing this as fact'.

If that is not dishonest, what is?

I am one of the first guys to say my point was fact, FACT when it is. I have no shyness about about. One of my biggest pet peeves in forum land is when people present their opinion as fact when its not.

This has never been, nor represented as anything other than my view 'in my opinion punitive damages should not apply here'.

My opinion rustled you. You called it wrong and trying to spin and demonize and mispresent it at every instance. And you were wrong and now realize it and are desperate to recast the argument so you can save face. Those are the facts. FACTS.

Except, I didn't. I'm fully aware you were giving "just [your] opinion", and never thought otherwise. I didn't say anything about whether it was a 'fact' or an 'opinion'. I thought your opinion is a poor one, and had hoped you would respond to my critique of it, but instead you accused me of lying for the following interchange, which I'm happy to add the full quote in not that I can see how it changes its meaning.

Even with the extra clause about "in general", it seems my paraphrase was pretty fair. I read it first and made sure to use the exact words you used. YOU were the one that introduced the word "wrong" and I quoted YOU when I said that.

For this, you accuse me of lying. Of being dishonest. You say it three posts in a row, despite me asking if there is a way you could frame your arguments without this accusation. I genuinely, honestly, was not in any way being dishonest. I thought my paraphrase was fair. I STILL think my paraphrase was fair. But even if you are right, and there is some important nuance in my paraphrase that I didn't fairly capture, that still doesn't mean I was lying or trying to be dishonest in any way!

Ultimately you can choose to accept that or not. Regardless, all I am asking is you to please post in a way where you don't accuse people of being dishonest over and over again, even if you think they are.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/...ary-injunction

Tldr, Tennessee passed a bill requiring businesses that allow trans people to use the correct bathroom post a sign on the bathroom saying that is the case, with specific language that must be used. The ACLU was just granted an injunction blocking it as a violation of the 1st amendment, cause the government is only allowed to compel speech in very narrow cases.

I am curious if anyone actually thinks that was a good bill? It seems pretty obviously unconstitutional, and I'm surprised republicans were supportive of government regulation like this

That is very unfortunate. If the GOP was remotely ideologically consistent, then compelled speech like this would never make it to law. However, wedge cultural war issues where trans people are the unfortunate victims is completely in their wheelhouse, ideologically princples be damned.

He can't stop himself. He does this in virtually every interaction he has in this Forum.

I was on my phone last night so I'll flesh out a better response.

Given the merits of the case, and that the case in fact demonstrated quite clearly that the salons were already accommodating trans people, it's utterly bizarre to me that you think waxing is an actual problem. You want to have it both ways here, where it's an example of a problem that places don't know how to deal with and might lead to legal troubles, but when it's pointed out that the case in question shows the exact opposite then somehow the facts of the matter are irrelevant.

It can't be both. It can't be an example of a problem but also the facts that show it's already been solved are irrelevant. And when pushed on this, you retreat into this idea that you were only ever expressing a scepticism towards punitive damages. But that's not all you said. You also repeated that nobody could've predicted the outcome of the case...that was a bold assumption given you knew nothing about the case and also very far from the mark.

I've tried to give you an out as to whether this is just some broad point that you don't like nuisance lawsuits or punitive damages, but then that means you're not actually talking about a trans issue. You're talking about your take on the legal system in general.

Again, nobody likes frivolous lawsuits. Nobody likes malicious attempts at suing. But this isn't a trans issue. This goes on with things like copyright trolling and the likes. And the suit didn't go anywhere. The judgement was scathing of Yaniv's attempt. It's not representative of some trans issue or anything the LGBT lobby is concerned about. You keep saying that waxing is some tough issue, your example shows the opposite.


[quote]Strawman.

My point was about how the PURSUIT of that could prompt these type of cases putting business owners, many trying to do the right thing and navigate this space with good intentions in tough spots.

This person does not have to win for my point to be correct. And it WAS correct.[quote]

It's so odd to call it a strawman and then make an argument where my objection still applies. The business wasn't in a "tough spot", and it can't possibly prompt others to try the same trick if the judgement was to laugh Yaniv out of court. How could it possibly? You think other trans people will see how gloriously she failed and think "there's my payday"? Someone attempted to sue, the court found it was a groundless claim, and now everyone knows you can't sue for that and the businesses in question had suitable policies in place. That's how the system's supposed to work.

I'm sure you'll call this gaslighting too but if you find that you're calling every person a liar (and not only in this thread) it could actually be that you have an incoherent position. It could actually be that it's a bad idea to cite examples that you know nothing about. It could even be that people sincerely disagree. If this is another tactic from your debate class then I guess it was a bad class.

Frivolous lawsuits aren't a good thing. Nobody's disputing that. What's in dispute is that you can point to a frivolous lawsuit that was rightly found to be frivolous as an example of a problem in the system. Lawsuits are a part of how our society functions - some disagreement between parties is taken to the court to arbitrate whether a legal violation occurred. A suit like this getting thrown out is how it's supposed to work and so it's inane for you to point to a failed lawsuit as some kind of trans issue.

If you just want to debate how you don't like common law systems and punitive damages then it's not a crazy position, it's just so far away from being a trans issue that I don't know why we're talking about it here.