You are 100% wrong about your assertion.

 

Snide comments don't help an open dialogue.

 

When I see multiple threads and spirited discussion about little girls being assaulted by people they know - and it happens every day - I might change my mind. Until then...

When I see multiple threads and spirited discussion about little girls being assaulted by people they know - and it happens every day - I might change my mind. Until then...

 

Maybe instead of having spirited discussions, some of us are out there trying to protect those little girls and seeing to it those that harm them are not able to harm them again.

A few people dress in drag or whatever, and perv on some girls in a Target dressing room and it's no big deal because three is not an epidemic. No changes needed to that policy. Perhaps people should be more concerned with those that are molested at home by people they know.

 

On the other hand a few black guys get shot by cops and it's racist pigs, profiling, brutality and such a major problem. But what about all that black on black crime in Chicago? Well that argument is ignorant.

A few people dress in drag or whatever, and perv on some girls in a Target dressing room and it's no big deal because three is not an epidemic. No changes needed to that policy. Perhaps people should be more concerned with those that are molested at home by people they know.

 

On the other hand a few black guys get shot by cops and it's racist pigs, profiling, brutality and such a major problem. But what about all that black on black crime in Chicago? Well that argument is ignorant.

The question was, how long before a young girl is assaulted in a Target. My reply was I didn't know but we do know there are girls assaulted by people they know all of the time. Once someone is assaulted in Target, then we can discuss that.

 

As it relates to the other topic, we do have assaults on blacks by police. The question there is not how long before it happens...it already has. The question instead becomes, were the assaults warranted.

 

Additionally, no one said that discussing black on black crime was ignorant.

Maybe instead of having spirited discussions, some of us are out there trying to protect those little girls and seeing to it those that harm them are not able to harm them again.

 

I would hope so. That would be time infinitely better spent than trailing transgenders or crossdressers.:thumb:

The question was, how long before a young girl is assaulted in a Target. My reply was I didn't know but we do know there are girls assaulted by people they know all of the time. Once someone is assaulted in Target, then we can discuss that.

 

As it relates to the other topic, we do have assaults on blacks by police. The question there is not how long before it happens...it already has. The question instead becomes, were the assaults warranted.

 

Additionally, no one said that discussing black on black crime was ignorant.

 

According to Clyde it is ignorant to bring up Chicago when discussing police shooting of black men. By the same standpoint, why bring up molestations, by family members, etc. when discussing perverts at Target. Sure it's a bigger problem, but so is black on black crime as compared to police shootings.

 

Just think it's funny how some people bursh one thing off as an isolated incident, while another issue while just as isolated is a symptom of a much larger problem. People will see what the want to see, but find it comical that both sides deflect to other issues as it suits their purpose.

 

For years now we've heard "well what about all of the blacks killing blacks in Chicago" reply to anything to deal with Black Lives Matter and/or any time a shooting involving an officer and a black male is questioned.

 

One man's opinion on why the argument is ignorant.

According to Clyde it is ignorant to bring up Chicago when discussing police shooting of black men. By the same standpoint, why bring up molestations, by family members, etc. when discussing perverts at Target. Sure it's a bigger problem, but so is black on black crime as compared to police shootings.

 

Just think it's funny how some people bursh one thing off as an isolated incident, while another issue while just as isolated is a symptom of a much larger problem. People will see what the want to see, but find it comical that both sides deflect to other issues as it suits their purpose.

You are missing the point. Plantmanky's question was "how long until a young girls is assaulted at Target?" Has that happened yet? No. When it does, then it becomes a problem to be dealt with, separate from assaults by acquaintances. If it hasn't happened yet, it isn't a problem, is it?

That's like saying nuclear bombs aren't a problem cause no ones ever used one. I have two daughters. I think some guy peeping on them is a problem. But I guess as long as they aren't assaulted I should worry about conditions that give predators easier access to a Target bathroom or dressing room.

That's like saying nuclear bombs aren't a problem cause no ones ever used one. I have two daughters. I think some guy peeping on them is a problem. But I guess as long as they aren't assaulted I should worry about conditions that give predators easier access to a Target bathroom or dressing room.

Except we have used nuclear bombs.

 

You are welcome to your perspective and opinion. I'd just appreciate you representing what was said accurately.

I'm sorry, I thought nuclear bombs were a step above atomic bombs, perhaps not. Otherwise I don't feel that I'm off in my point.

I'm sorry, I thought nuclear bombs were a step above atomic bombs, perhaps not. Otherwise I don't feel that I'm off in my point.

I'm a chemist. . I can go into those details, if you want. Seriously, I love discussing nuclear science.

 

I'm only asking that you be accurate in what you post as regards what other people say.

Liberals saying no law would have prevented this....right?

 

No need to ban any guns then......

^ Consider for a moment why this incident is news.

 

'Cause it's so rare.

^ Consider for a moment why this incident is news.

 

'Cause it's so rare.

 

And shootings are in the news because they are so rare?

I'll try one more time, although I probably shouldn't.

 

1. Laws are already on the books criminalizing the behavior of sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. These crimes occur right now in bathrooms of both sexes, and both in the "correct" bathroom and in the "incorrect" bathroom.

2. Thus the only behavior that is likely to be affected by a law preventing a transgender person from using the bathroom, is transgender people using the bathroom. Unless you believe transgender people are the ones committing these crimes, this is a feel good law only, and discriminatory.

3. This law does not make access easier for criminals. Its always been easy to walk or especially sneak in and no law changes that. And the fact that a transgender person has access, does not give any person the right to be in there and commit a crime.

4. No law regarding transgender people will have any effect on the prevention of crimes committed by the same sex using the correct bathroom, which does happen regularly.