McDonalds transgender beating

[Trajicomic]

Your saying that if one of your best friends got attacked and beaten to death on the street, you wouldn't even be upset about it?

I'm not going to answer that question publicly, sorry.

[Trajicomic]

My fucking reply just got cut off and lost, fuse.. it was a beauty too, how sad.

Instead you'll just have to accept this short response instead.

Do you not think for yourself? I don't argue that men ought to be weak or feminine or whatever...I argue that it's horrible to treat a human being or passively watch a human being be treated in the manner this transgender woman was treated.

You like The Sopranos, don't you fuse? This clip should explain my point rather profusely.

Men who cry are faggots. And the entire western society of about 2 billion? people, men, women, and children agree with me. Now if you want to say that men can cry too, then by all means, go ahead and cry in front of people. Just don't come to me, angry or sad, that they have lost all sense of respect and dignity for you.

Did I make the world this way? Did I dictate human morality and human instinct? No, I'm male just like you.

If you don't like it, then I recommend a transgender operation.


Furthermore, a male who goes into the women's bathroom is a pervert and ought to get his ass kicked.

Imagine if you walked into a women's bathroom. Are you ignorant enough to say that you shouldn't get your ass kicked, or that you would be surprised by the negative consequences? Don't be so naive!

Am I wrong here???

[Trajicomic]

Here's another McDonald's transgender beating waiting to happen, ouch..

"Young boy wishes to join Girl Scouts."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/youn ... 30922.html

Should I contact this kid's mother and warn her to keep him/her/it out of McDonalds?

[fuse]

Here's another McDonald's transgender beating waiting to happen, ouch..

"Young boy wishes to join Girl Scouts."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/youn ... 30922.html

Should I contact this kid's mother and warn her to keep him/her/it out of McDonalds?

So a person gets beat up at McDonald's and the best solution you can think of is to warn people about McDonald's?


There's nothing left to discuss. According to you, nobody did anything wrong (except the victim who should have put up more of a fight) and nothing can be done about it.

[Stoic Guardian]

Men who cry are faggots.

What does the word faggot mean here?

[PavlovianModel146]

It doesn't matter. As long as it's not directed at anyone, hate speech is free speech, in my book.

[Trajicomic]

I meant that a grown man is seen as weak if he cries. Media, culture, popularity, ethics, education, almost everybody agrees with this.

I don't know how you guys have become so deluded into believing that a man, crying like a woman, is acceptable in today's society?

Talk about emasculation. Real men are not "allowed" to show weakness by their peers, including women. Women lose respect for men who cry in public. Save it for when nobody's looking, at least.

[Stoic Guardian]

It's definately not seen as something a man should do in most circumstances.

But what if a soldier cries for a fallen comrade or civilian?

What if a Man cries over the death of his Wife or Children?

Are they "weak" because they show human emotion.

Stoicly, people should not be too emotional. But a Stoic isn't going too call someone a "faggot" if they Cry.

Besides I could care less what the "popular" outlook to things are, unless there is reason behind it.

I cried at my sisters wedding, I didn't want too but the emotion got too me, think I care if someone thinks less of me for it?

[Trajicomic]

There are degrees of course. But the more respected the man is, and the position of higher social value he is, within a community, the least he can show tears in public. The higher one goes up in terms of reputation, publicly, a man has to become depended on not to cry or become emotional. Rather his mentality becomes like a resolute weapon, and his emotions are repressed, and reasserted in more effective ways. For example, in a crisis, men are depended upon to remain calm, lead people, and direct action. That is a trait subconsciously directed toward men, and we expect of men. To have a nation of men who "feel comfortable" crying in public, and in a national emergency, are breaking down in tears on the street, is not good.

I realize that many men do and will cry. And some women are more Resolute than these men, and therefore, are more Masculine than them in a way.

However, it is still expected that, at the top of social hierarchies, it is more socially acceptable that a woman can cry, and the man cannot.

I don't know why this concept is so foreign to people on this forum. I learned this lesson in grade school, when I was 7 years old. I don't know where you all really came from, but we must have grown up in quite different settings. By teaching young males that it is "okay" and "acceptable" to cry in public, others, around the world, and in other societies, probably will see our men as weaklings. That is, if this thing is common throughout the world? I've never heard of cultures where it's acceptable for men to cry like this, in a position of power that implies responsibility.

What does it signify when a man cries, except that he's emotional???

I mean, this is a philosophy forum. So what do philosophers usually say when it comes to Reason versus Emotion? Reason is the difference. Men ought to repress our emotions, so that we don't show weakness to others. Our families are counting on us to be men, and to be strong, in a very difficult world. Well that's debatable that the world is 'difficult' anymore, but you should know what I mean. Life is hard. And somebody has to harden the shit up, suck it up, and grab your sack. You know what I mean? "Man up." Life doesn't get easier, for those with increasing responsibilities.

[Stoic Guardian]

No, I don't think people should repress there emotions. They should try and control them through reason.

The differance being that repression is being emotional and hiding it while control is understanding the situation better in order to control your "displays" of emotion.

[Trajicomic]

And I'm not saying that if you're comrade and best friend dies in combat beside you, that you shouldn't go berserk in a tearful fit of revenge.

I'm merely saying that generally, men are not expected to cry, and when they do, it is almost universally a sign of weakness. However, the flip side is that a man becomes so emotionally detached that he cries for nobody else. What would that imply?

I think I've gone off topic enough though.


As for the transgender heshe, I still think it's perverted for males to go into girl's bathrooms. I'm surprised that you guys are not surprised by this.

[Stoic Guardian]

Numbskull! Your not hearing me over your preconceptions, I'm not saying its "acceptable" for a man to just cry in public, but I believe there are exceptions and there is a differance between mourning for a fallen comrade and getting overly emotional and unstable.

[fuse]

This thread deals with morality. Morality necessarily involves prescription. People value and want the world to conform to their values. Trajicomic, you talk as if you have no values of your own. All you have been doing in this thread is describing the values and expectations of others and playing along. "Society expects x...men are not allowed to do y...z is the way the world is."

Did I make the world this way? Did I dictate human morality and human instinct? No, I'm male just like you.

I am part of the world. I have values. And I act on them. I have a say, however small, in the way the world becomes.

The human orientation in the world is necessarily prescriptive. Take care to notice when your thoughts describe or prescribe. From latin, de-scribe means to write after, pre-scribe to write before. You are writing after. You are documenting and excluding your own visions and values. What is truly weak is to ignore, discount, or give up on one's own valuations and the power to evaluate.

[Trajicomic]

Why would I talk about my personal opinions as if anybody gave a damn? I wanted to reiterate the popular social conceptions so you could judge for yourselves how people ought to act, or react, in these types of situations of a confusion of gender. Crying is what people expect of women and girls. The transgender beating occurs because a guy, with a penis, goes into the girl's bathroom.

Let's strike this one down as a trajedy, shed our tears, and then wonder why, why god dammit why, did this happen??? As if the cause wasn't looking us right in the face. But here is where Pride steps in, ignorance, and people would rather turn a blind eye toward a truth, then address it head on, and completely. We could really get into the causes of why these things occurs, but it may hurt some feelings. And I don't think anybody is willing to take that risk. As such, these types of violence will repeat "uncaused" and people will be left scratching their heads.

Why, after a male walks into a girl's bathroom, did he get beaten up, it makes no sense?!

Kind of like segregation. This is "Gender Segregation" here. Therefore, I propose unisex bathrooms, and unisex everything, instead of perpetuating the Evil of gender separation. In fact, we should all just force ourselves into "One gender", since One is better than Two. And any difference must become made into one. Screw those Dualists and Pluralists out there!!! Let's all become Monists!


Just kidding. What I really mean to say is, don't hate your gender. But some people have low self esteem, and feel the need to change things. I call this "Grass is Greener (on the other side)" Syndrome. A male believes being a female is easier in life, and that it will make a boy happy to castrate himself, then why not? Get rid of that penis and become a girl! Or if you're a girl, get a makeshift penis from the transgender clinic. Do they even have those yet?

After all, it's all interchangeable. Nothing is biological anymore, nothing is genetic, nothing is permanent. Change it around if it makes you feel happy.

I think those McDonalds bullies need to become more open-minded and accepting, right? I'd like to confront this notion, but I'm honestly scared of becoming silenced toward this end. I know the limits of what is acceptable.

So I'm forced to side with this transgender malefe, or shehe, or whatever we're calling these things nowadays. Do they have a name yet? I don't want to be rude. I was brought up with those outdated concepts of "he" and "she".



This was my generation. That is what I was brought up with. Sorry that I'm not "up to date". It looks like a need to reeducate myself, yet again. This video was from the 90s. That's like a millennium ago. Boys no longer have a penis. And girls no longer have a vagina.

They're just interchangeable, robotic parts. We're posthumans after all. Gender is just a fashion trend.

[PavlovianModel146]

I'm actually going to go a little bit along the lines of Tragicomic, though not to such an extreme and without deviating from the topic of transgenderism.

Personally, I really don't care what an individual does with respect to being a transgender person. However, I do think that there is a certain level of responsibility a transgender person must take for what is, ultimately, a deliberate, conscious and informed decision. For instance, the decision to go to the plastic surgeon and have your genitalia rearranged is a knowing decision, but what else does the transgender know about?

The most obvious negative aspect, and that is, negative from the POV of the transgender, is that it is not widely socially accepted to the extent that the transgender may be subject to more random and/or wanton acts of violence then an individual from any other, "Class," of people. Obviously, assault is illegal wherever you go, but a potentially transgender person could very quickly search the laws regarding his/her decision to find that there are many other sanctions that they can legally face.

For instance, in the majority of U.S. States, Trasgender is not a protected class of people. In other words, an employer may refrain from hiring a transgender person for only that reason, and an employer may also terminate employment upon finding out that an individual is transgender. In many states, the employer probably would not explicitly state that as a reason and would not have to. For instance, Ohio is an, "At-will," State which means an employee may be terminated at any time, for any reason or none at all, absent a contract stating otherwise. Of course, in Ohio, you could legally terminate for Transgenderism AND tell them that's why.

Transgender people may find themselves surprised at many of the other laws that they will find themelves exposed to. For instance, in many States, (Ohio included) a transgender may NOT change the gender that is on his/her birth certificate. As a result, the transgender (legally) would remain whatever gender he/she was born into. That makes perfect sense to me because it seems like changing a birth certificate would effectively be an attempt to change history. You were either born with a penis or you were not. However, there are a few States (specific examples escape me now) that will allow you to change your birth certificate, and therefore, your gender.

Federal law takes no position on the matter other than Federal law permits the changing of one's name to whatever one wants his/her name to be. Therefore, you can also change your SSN to reflect that name, but SSN's, in and of themselves, have nothing to do with gender.

Transgender people should also be aware that, in States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, they will not be able to marry an individual that is the same-sex as their birth sex, which is to say the opposite of their chosen sex.

Anyway, I would not suggest that transgenders outwardly chose to be ostracized, but I would suggest that transgenders made a conscious decision under the conditions by which it was reasonable to believe that they should have known about the possibility of ostracization.

I'm not saying such ostracization up to and/or including physical assault is necessarily right, I'm saying I don't feel a damn bit sorry for someone who made a conscious decision knowing what the potential results would be. That's the point. While they are occasionally victims of crime, I don't necessarily view them as victims in the general sense because they are victims of their own conscious decisions.

I should probably go ahead and reiterate one last time, I'm not talking about what's right, I'm talking about what is.

[Flannel Jesus]

Let's edit this post to show some other implications of Pav's line of thinking:

Black people should also be aware that, in States that have many KKK members, they run the risk of being ostracized or even beaten to death.

Anyway, I would not suggest that blacks outwardly chose to be ostracized or murdered, but I would suggest that blacks made a conscious decision under the conditions by which it was reasonable to believe that they should have known about the possibility of ostracization or murder.

I'm not saying such ostracizatio/murdern up to and/or including physical assault is necessarily right, I'm saying I don't feel a damn bit sorry for black people who made a conscious decision to move to a state with lots of racists knowing what the potential results would be. That's the point. While they are occasionally victims of crime, I don't necessarily view them as victims in the general sense because they are victims of their own conscious decisions.

I should probably go ahead and reiterate one last time, I'm not talking about what's right, I'm talking about what is.

[PavlovianModel146]

Flannel Jesus,

First of all, I would respectfully request that my handle be removed from that Quote Box immediately. You can make your point without effectively misquoting me. I don't necessarily have a problem with the use of a quote box, either, I have a problem with the appearance of that being actually what I said.

Secondly, with all due respect, your argument is out-of-context, strawman, bullshit.

For one thing, and to the first paragraph, African-Americans, as it were, did not make the choice to be African-Americans. That's not to say that they would not make that choice, given the option, just that transgender people made the choice. I would think that you would have gathered from the language of my post, "Willful, conscious decision," that was the overall thrust of my point.

To the second paragraph, I reiterate, that no choice was made.

To the third paragraph:

1.) They did not necessarily move to that state.

2.) It could happen in any State, though admittedly, some are more likely than others.

3.) They did not make a conscious decision to be categorized amongst a class of people, that class being, African-American.

Would you like your argument not to be a strawman argument? That's possible. You can prevent your argument from being a strawman argument by conclusively proving to me that an African-American individual had a choice to be born other than African-American.

An individual that was born male and would like to avoid such ostracization has an obvious choice, namely, to remain a male. The same goes for a female in the vice-versa case.

I respect you as a person, poster, occasional adversary and occasional ally in Debate, Flannel Jesus, but your comparison lacks any merit whatsoever.

[Flannel Jesus]

but if they did choose to move to that state, you wouldn't feel bad for those that got brutally murdered, right?

[PavlovianModel146]

but if they did choose to move to that state, you wouldn't feel bad for those that got brutally murdered, right?

Wrong. They still did not choose to be born, key word, born African-American. Besides, murder is an entirely different line altogether. I would probably feel sorry for a transgender were the individual murdered. That's a reaction that I could not understand (while stating that I would not necessarily tolerate any hate based reaction, I could understand physical revulsion and a desire to avoid that which may make one uncomfortable). In a way, I also understand physical hostility towards a transgender and, while not condoning it at all, would still maintain that's a reasonably predictable risk of becoming a transgender.

I do not think murder is a reasonably predictable risk.

I reiterate my request for my handle to be removed from that quote box.

[PavlovianModel146]

I respectfully request that you again alter that Quote box unless you can demonstrate to me that someone actually made that direct quote, word-for-word, prior to this post. That quote should not be attributed to anyone because it does not exist.

Furthermore, you conveniently failed to address any and all statements I made concerning legal rights. Would that be because African-Americans ARE, in fact, a Universally protected class in the United States?

[Flannel Jesus]

...would still maintain that's a reasonably predictable risk of becoming a transgender.

and it's equally maintainable that it's a reasonably predictable risk of moving to a racist area if you're a disliked race. it's the same logic.

[Flannel Jesus]

your counter arguments aren't really making much sense. we're both talking about a choice that involves risk, and your argument is that if that choice comes with some relatively large amount of risk of being treated like a sub-human, you wouldn't "feel bad" for the person who's treated like that.

also, i don't care about what's legal. what's legal has nothing to do with anything. what's legal is just a reflection of some peoples' opinion, not actually relevant here.

[PavlovianModel146]

and it's equally maintainable that it's a reasonably predictable risk of moving to a racist area if you're a disliked race. it's the same logic.

It's the same logic applied to a different situation. You cannot always solve an alegbra problem using geometric logic.

That's true, but the actual act of being African-American is not a chosen one. Why should we restrict social mobility, particularly for reasons potentially of employment, because one is born a certain race?

However, I do see your point to a certain extent and will concede to a certain extent. If racially motivated violence occurred to the actual individual (i.e. head of household) that chose to move to a racist area, I would not feel terribly sorry for that person given the fact that they made a conscious decision aware of the potential consequences.

Although, I would point out:

1.) A-A's are a protected class.

2.) It would be a hate crime.

3.) A-A's have greater support in numbers from one-another, and I would assume, from the community at large.

[PavlovianModel146]

your counter arguments aren't really making much sense. we're both talking about a choice that involves risk, and your argument is that if that choice comes with some relatively large amount of risk of being treated like a sub-human, you wouldn't "feel bad" for the person who's treated like that.

You have failed to address my main counter-argument (born as) to any appreciable extent.

also, i don't care about what's legal. what's legal has nothing to do with anything. what's legal is just a reflection of some peoples' opinion, not actually relevant here.

I believe that I mentioned talking about what is as opposed to what should be. Therefore, if you do not care what is legal, we are having the same conversation in some aspects of this discussion and an entirely different conversation in other aspects.

[PavlovianModel146]

BTW,

The night guy called off, and now my relief is here. I will be back later.