US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2605

On December 05 2015 08:31 KwarK wrote:

If any of them start sexually harassing others then that can be addressed in the exact same way it would be if a gay student was sexually harassing or sexually harassed by someone who they shared a locker room with.

This fight isn't an elaborate way to oogle girls.

PARIS — As delegations from nearly 200 countries gather in Paris to hammer out an agreement over stemming worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases, the U.S. delegation said any agreement coming out of the talks will have only a “legal character” and will not be legally binding in its entirety. It is the latest comments indicating that the White House will likely not seek ratification of any climate deal by the GOP-dominated Senate.

Paul Bodner, the senior director for energy and climate change at the National Security Council and a member of the U.S. delegation negotiating in Paris, said in an interview on Thursday that the U.S. advocated for countries to be legally mandated to put forward pledges to reduce emissions — and for those pledges to undergo periodic reviews — but “we don’t support [emission] targets themselves to be legally binding,” he said.

In Paris negotiators from 195 countries are trying to forge a global agreement that would sufficiently reduce emissions to limit average warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from preindustrial times, the amount agreed to in earlier negotiations. Under the current round of talks, each country submits voluntary pledges to reduce cuts rather take on specific mandatory emission targets, as was the case under the Kyoto Protocol. That 1997 climate agreement is largely considered a failure — in part because the treaty was not ratified by Congress, leaving the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases out of the agreement.

In 2007, China surpassed the U.S. in carbon dioxide emissions.

“What we are trying to do is to create a framework for climate action at the multilateral level that will endure and be effective in the decades to come rather than create what comes to another stopgap solution that forces us all to return to the negotiating table in five or 10 years,” said Bodner.

Asked whether the U.S. is opposed to a legally binding treaty because of opposition in Congress, he said, “It’s not a narrow political calculus at all. It’s a broad assessment over how you get the major emitters on board, including the United States” and developing nations like India.

Last month Secretary of State John Kerry caused controversy in France when he said that any new deal in Paris would “definitely not be a treaty.” The EU and many other countries have argued that the agreement should be an international treaty with legally binding measures to cut emissions. His comments prompted French President François Hollande to respond, “If the deal is not legally binding, there is no accord, because that would mean it’s not possible to verify or control commitments that are made.”

Speaking at the opening day of the climate talks, President Barack Obama said the United States “not only recognizes our role in creating this problem — we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”

“What should give us hope that this is a turning point, that this is the moment we finally determined we would save our planet, is the fact that our nations share a sense of urgency about this challenge and a growing realization that it is within our power to do something about it,” he said.

Despite the political momentum this week in France, Obama faces a tough task selling a new treaty back home.

On December 05 2015 09:03 AngryMag wrote:


My guess would be that many black dudes are fucking furious over this, It is a slight difference whether you fight for your rights in a system of Apartheid or if one individual wants to visit another bathroom because of his changed identity.
I don't even

On December 05 2015 09:07 Wegandi wrote:


Feel free to use this argument as well about gun rights, but I'll be holding my breath. It just seems to me that there are so many people who advocate this "preventative" non-sense as if that's justification for their positions to revoke rights. I just wanted to put people on record that espouse this preventive ideology in one sphere, but not in another sphere, which you know, is a conflict with their personal preference espousal. In any event, I stand by my people are too prudish here in the US, and treating people like kids until they're well into their adulthood. Hell, we used to have "kids" fight in wars when they were younger than 13 (James Farragut comes to mind).

On December 05 2015 09:08 KwarK wrote:

I have no idea what you mean by this. None at all.

But to reiterate, a shitton of ignorant racist parents were really against integrated schools and their fears were far more serious than "what if it looks at my daughter". They were told to deal with it.

On December 05 2015 09:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.

On December 05 2015 09:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I think it's more of a sex/ rape issue. Parents are worried that their daughters being naked around boys will lead to sex/ rape/ pregnancy, whereas a white daughter changing with a black girl at least has no chance of getting pregnant (although they could still experiment sexually). While racism is farrr from cured (even in schools), parents and administrators tend to get even more worked up over sexual precautions than racial ones.

On December 05 2015 09:12 AngryMag wrote:


To reiterate your pretty misplaced comparison implies the equation of the black rights movement which fought against a system of Apartheid with an individual who wants to go to another bathroom.

On December 05 2015 09:15 KwarK wrote:

What did you think the parents who were against integrated schools were afraid of? Jesus.

News just in. Racists think the black thugs are going to rape their white daughters.

The fear of rape was far, far more of an issue for integrating schools than it is now. Additionally their daughters are probably already fucking boys and probably not that into the girl who was born with a penis, unless, you know, they're into that. No girl in a locker room is going to be going about her innocent business until, for the first time ever, she sees a penis and just has to have it inside of her immediately and damn the consequences. Seeing a penis isn't addictive, they're not going to see a glimpse of it in a locker room and escalate to bukkake a few weeks later. That's not a real fear.

On December 05 2015 09:09 KwarK wrote:

Could you explain what you mean by this? I have no idea how we got from allowing trans people to use the right facilities to sending James Farragut to war over his right to bear arms.

On December 05 2015 09:18 KwarK wrote:

It's not even slightly misplaced. I don't know if you're unaware of this but blacks in the United States were routinely forced to use separate facilities because the whites didn't feel comfortable around them. That is a perfect 1:1 comparison for this situation. We have a girl who is being told she is not allowed to use the girls locker room because the parents of the other girls feel uncomfortable.

This exact battle was fought in the desegregation of schools. The comparison could not be more apt. She is demanding her civil rights.

On December 05 2015 09:15 AngryMag wrote:


She will be done the second some bad teen cries "sexual harassment". Her life will be destroyed by the accusation alone, regardless from wrong or right. What do you think who will be seen as the pervy? The dude wearing women clothes or blondie with tears in her eyes ( that is not necessarily my view but this is how it would be seen by general society).

On December 05 2015 09:20 m4ini wrote:


So what makes the uncomfortableness of the transgender more important than the uncomfortableness of the girls she wants to change with?

I don't see any rights infringed as long as he is technically still a dude. Where does it stop? Can a person simply state "i'm a girl", and then play in the female national team of any sports? Because i'm pretty sure that's not going to happen without corrective surgery first.

On December 05 2015 09:24 Simberto wrote:


So what are you advocating for? Forcing a girl to use the boys locker room? Building dozens of different locker rooms? (This could actually work, just have stalls for everyone instead of two big locker rooms. More expensive though) Just ignoring the whole situation and hoping it goes away on its own?

Fact is, it is hard to be trans. Do we really have to try to make it harder for them? I generally like the idea of compassion. Just be nice to people.

On December 05 2015 09:20 Wegandi wrote:


1) You justify revoking gun rights using preventative ideology instead of the laws all ready on the books (e.g. murder, larceny, manslaughter, et. al) that cover aggressive violent acts
2) You then crucify preventative ideology (in this case, sexual harassment worries - as this has been expanded to ludicrous levels in recent years) in this case with your post that there are all ready sexual harassment laws on the books so no need to prevent this transgender person from using the girls restroom/locker room.

You don't see your own cognitive dissonance here? Purposefully perhaps.

My second point was a general observation of contemporary society and its mores. You see shit like parents getting arrested and their kids taken by CPS for letting them play outside by themselves and shit, and the whole helicopter parent and radical safety at all costs ideology that is so prevalent today that treats kids like property instead of living breathing human beings with their own rights. This was in my lambasting of those who want to shelter their children from "the world" so to speak. It creates a very unhealthy environment and generation - which you see with the 15-22 year olds (safe zones, anti free-speech, censorship of different values, etc. that was just big news not that long ago on insert X and Y campus here).

By the way I agree with your argument - that there shouldn't be a preventative rider argument to stop a person from exercising their rights - now hopefully you will take a moment to reflect and perhaps apply that principle universally, but I don't hold out hope.

PS: My Farragut reference was how Americans used to be raised and treated, to how they are now like spoiled, sheltered, babies far into their 20s. It's really quite the phenomena.

On December 05 2015 09:30 AngryMag wrote:


As long as biologically a dude= guy's bathroom
When biologically 100% girl= girls bathroom

Any other suggestion will open up the transgender's destruction by wrong or right accusations by other teens. What do you think? This decision will hardly be unanimous and without opposition. Some teenage girl might just scream sexual harassment ala the dude grabbed my tits and then his life on that institution will be over.