You’ll forgive me, in that my present methodology stems primarily from Machiavelli, in that the firm conviction I hold is the ability to adapt to fortune. It is why I could not put myself in a position wherein I would never change.
I suppose one could interpret that to mean that I would be unchanging in my conviction of always being changing, but it becomes somewhat paradoxical.
I’m reading a lot these days and trying to understand how others think. It’s complicated, especially because many interpret the presence of an alternative perspective as an act of condemnation FOR the alternative perspective, and communication gets muddied. I ask questions seeking to understand, but 9 times out of 10 people assume I do so because I already know the answer.
I don’t. That’s about the smartest thing I can say about myself.
Are you suggesting that if a homosexual pervert were lolling around the ‘proper’ BR leering at other patrons, making lewd comments, exposing himself, etc, that he could not be prosecuted in most municipalities? That the police, once notified, would simply shrug their shoulders and say ‘Sorry, he’s breaking no laws staring at children’s penises–you’ll just have to put up with it’? Color me skeptical.
I apologize if you took that to be an insult, as it was not my intention. I found your comment humorous, as I assume you intended it to be. Like I said, I admire your conviction.
Not playing coy. Simply demonstrating (to your satisfaction, apparently) that there are already laws on the books against the sort of sexual harassment you’re concerned will be perpetrated by male perverts who may be tempted to exploit TG protection laws to dress as women in order to gain access to female facilities.
Absolutely. I could not do it. I also admire those that go through spec ops selection, and I find the prospect of it terrifying. I do not find the 2 concepts mutually exclusive.
You agreed above that the police would not be handcuffed (so to speak) when it comes to intervening in cases of sexual harassment in intimate facilities. That agreement provided the basis/justification for the claim that I had demonstrated the existence of laws against such behaviors “to your satisfaction.”
To say we should do something a certain way because that’s the way it’s been done for 6,000 years (even if the claim is true, which I doubt) is not to make a stand on principle. ‘Because we’ve always done it that way’ is not a principle.
