ESPN Fires Curt Schilling after Facebook Post
I wonder what Ayn Rand/John Galt would think about this silliness.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
1) In the privacy of your home strip naked.
2) Stand before a mirror.
3) Objectively observe the configuration between your legs.
4) If you see a penis, use the men's room. If you see a vagina, use the lady's room.
If for some reason (and I don't care what it is) you have a vagina and you think you're Napoleon or if you have a penis and you think you're Josephine see step 4 for what to do.
You could also not think about a donkey right now as well.
If someone's messing with my children, private parts aren't on my mind.
Indeed, I think we are of the same mind with that scenario.
You won't believe this:
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/stude...
and get immensely wealthy as a human x-ray machine! -- j
.
my dreams include lots of females and their included
gorgeousness! . it's only natural, wonderful, delicious......... -- j
.
What kind of enabling screwed up mentally sick namby pamby bizarro madhouse environment do libtards expect us to live in anyway?
Oh, never mind. Just figured out my answer by looking at my question. Stared at what I wrote.
I just know there has to be pervs out there who are at least thinking of dressing up like women for the very first time in their evil lives.
In all 50 states!
"Oh, never mind..."
Nailed it, Dino!
I do not think bathroom restrictions protect children from perverts.
It appears to me like we're in the midst of an automation and information revolution. I don't claim to know what motivates people, but it feels (feelings can be very wrong) like people unnerved by that turn their attentions to the bathroom. Even if this feeling is wrong, it doesn't matter. People have a right to be left alone in the bathroom regardless.
As for my (if not just not just rational) afterthought above, it occurred to me that even a homosexual would want his mother, sisters, female cousins and platonic female friends to able to use the restroom with some less amount of risk.
Your unstated premise is that laws controlling bathrooms in some way reduce risk. I have no evidence for this premise. In any case, reducing risk is not in itself sufficient reason for creating criminal penalties.
"let's think about that one for a while." -- mccannon
I have thought about it a lot and get fired up about it.
Despite crime having gone down, things I did at age seven, just playing in the neighborhood, meeting new kids, figuring out who was nice, are now considered too dangerous for kids to do alone. It's like we took that phrase, "if saves even one child then keep kids away from X" to its conclusion, and now we keep our kids away from everything--- evening trifling things like losing a soccer game. They say both teams win b/c the point is to have fun. So we know have people who are 25 years old struggling to make their own decisions without their parents, which 20-somethings sometimes call "adulting".
I'm on about this regarding kids, but the same thing goes for adults. "But if it saves just one adult..." leads to all of us living in a very safe jail, because going outside and doing something entails risk.
I believe laws should be simplified to ban only variations on outlawing physical violence and stealing. This requires people to step up a little and be more "adult" in monitoring for perils. But it also means the vast majority accept the laws on the books and can work with the police to stop the few serious criminals.
So eliminating many criminal penalties and accepting some increased risk is at the core of how I few gov't and law.
Obviously it's up to the parent, but I encourage my kids to do thing by themselves. I encourage them to talk to strangers in public places (not the bathroom, obviously) and never go off alone with anyone. We live in this wonderful time of low crime by historic standards and lower crime than when I was a kid. My kids is 7, so I'm right outside, but I encourage him to use the bathroom alone and to think ahead to just a few years when I hope he and his friends can ride to the park or store together without parents hovering over them.
If you got a ding-a-ling, go to the same sex rest room.
If you ain't got one, go to the same sex rest room.
It's common freaking courtesy!
And there are laws about indecent exposure!
HEY! It's Bizarro world!
"It's a Bizarro World after all!"
Are you responding to my rant about having too many laws and being too risk-averse esp with children? Or are you saying we've gotten off the topic, which I guess is the bathroom and pervs. Can we at least make a shower instead of the toilets? I first thought of this topic when I saw the shower scene in Supergirl at a kid in the mid 80s. It's odd I can still remember it at age 40.
I thought about it again when my wife and I were at the gym 10 years ago. I said could hear the showers from the women's dressing room, and it was odd to think that on the other side of that wall were a bunch of women walking around tightly wrapped in towels and taking them off to use use loofahs in the shower area. She said the women's change room is absolutely nothing like what I imagined. I never tried to sneak in there though. I think this topic is silly.
Every time one of them comes on stage...they should play dueling banjos.
Time for Curt to start his own fishing and hunting show. Then he can take a sports market away from the a$$es at ESPN.
This reminds me of the firing of Howard Costell for racism for an innocent remark made while commenting during a football game. Cosell had spent his career being equally insulting to all races.
(I didn't know that!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_th...
Fired him for a so called racist comment.
We are devolving into a race of idiots, are we not?
Hypothetically, the reverse set of positions would generate the opposite consequences. Imagine a person supporting transgender bathrooms being fired. The result would be a lawsuit and government intervention SUPPORTING the employee! This is a real problem!
Recently a black female assaulted a white male for having cornrows at a San Francisco college. Apparently, this isn't considered a situation that needs to be remedied. But I bet if the situation was reversed, the male would be expelled and there would be protests to eliminate the racist elements on campus.
Reversing the situation as seen is always a good method to expose the double standards of PC and race card politics. For example, as you watch TV ads that depict white people (especially white males) as idiots and fools and the sage of the ad is not, reverse the color/gender and see if it will still fly without protest or lawsuit.
I think firing is under-rated. If someone were uncomfortable with my support for LBGT issues, I would rather they not have me work on a project than to work with me grudgingly. Similarly, most bigots probably wouldn't want to do a project for me. Pressuring bigots and non-bigots to work together might seem to supporting one side or the other, but pushing people to work with people they're don't like is not helpful to anyone.
I think it's more I don't know the right word for people against gender equality. "Bigots" is value-laden, but maybe that's okay because sorting people into identity groups and placing restrictions on them is repugnant to me.
As sentient human beings males and females are certainly due equal treatment under the law. Physically, however, after millions of years of evolution the genders are not the same and, therefore, are not equal. No amount of PC social engineering and propaganda will change that. Male and female are identity groups whether you like it or not and for what should be obvious reasons the male group should be restricted from invading the female restroom space and vice versa. This isn't repugnant, it's common sense.
This sexes, as groups, are different, but humans beings have a right to be treated as individuals.
Yes. Everywhere where I wrote bigotted, just replace it with "Islamist-like". It works perfectly.
I'm not sure anyone has suggested that anyone should be forced to work with anyone else.
Personally, I don't care who comes into a men's bathroom.
However, you have conveniently defined bigots and non-bigots, in a manner suiting yourself. You are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, but the government should not take sides, and the very definition of politically correct is a problem.
Your post mentioned (critically) a hypothetical "lawsuit and government intervention SUPPORTING the employee". I agree and am saying that type of support doesn't support anyone. I don't want to work with redneck jerks, and they probably don't want to work with me. Firing and quitting are under-rated IMHO. There are so many more people and projects than a human lifespan gives us time to work on. I see no value in spending time on projects with bigots, identity collectivists, jerks, or whatever we're going to call them.
Huh??!!! I think the guy writing the story may need to go back to Journalism class....or maybe English. The above quote suggests that Mr. Schilling disagreed with the NC state law, but his comments [and ESPS's over the top actions] suggest he was in support of it. A little clarity may be in order here.
I joke that if I could have showered in the girls' locker room after every football practice when I was in school you know I'd have been there every night. Born 30 years too early.
Of course, the right answer to the "trans" question is to make all bathrooms one-person-at-a-time, so nobody has to share one. (Or at least extend the partitions to the floor and ceiling.) The transaction cost of a technical solution to this problem is much lower than of solving it by passing laws.
The "absolute" of nature is what your were born with. If you can't deal with that, you need help from a mental professional.
P.S. We must be upsetting someone...you and I have been "downgraded" to 0's. Guess the truth hurts...
If I see a guy follow my little daughter into the bathroom I'm pulling him out by his ear.
I do not think the people focused on bathroom patrol are purposely promoting child abuse, and I doubt forcing people into a bathroom for a gender they don't identify with is going to cause them to abuse children. Child abusers have other issues. I think the bathroom-focused people are just lowlifes, and one of their ways of feeling better about themselves is to try to make them use a bathroom they feel uncomfortable in. I stand up to them categorically, but not because I buy the notion they're fighting a war against parents. That's aggrandizing them. They're just jerks.
That's my own personal line in the sand - the safety of children. A person would probably be safer smacking a grizzly cub in front of its mama than if they harmed a child in front of me...The mama grizzly probably won't go so far as to eat the perp's liver...
THIS IS MOB RULE...rule by the MINORITY!
But you want rights decided by democracy, by the majority.
By this logic, it seems like we could pass laws that try to make rural people live like urban people because urbanites are the majority and there's nothing in the Constitution about protecting rural people. The politician tells the urbanites we all know rubes are the source of our problems, so we're going to ban tractor-pulls and encourage rural people to attend the opera or ballet where they feel uncomfortable. While they're uncomfortable, the urbanites can taunt them, "Who's the pansy now, rube? I made you do something uncomfortable for you. ha ha." This is a disgusting spirit.
We'll never see eye to eye, if I understand what you're saying right, because we're starting from different places. I believe individual rights, without regard to group membership, trump the will of the majority.
Like we said in the old days..."get a room", keep it to yourself and everything will be fine. Today we might respond: TMI...
Couldn't resist...
I'm not talking about someone born with both sets of genitals and the doc and parents made the wrong decision.
Remember, the vast majority have been buggered when they were kids and circumstances have made them either rebel or decide that this behavior is ok.
I actually have no idea on the science, but I'm content to focus on my own cells and body and respect others' rights to be let alone.
In the time of AS, media was limited. Now anyone can start website, blog, video channel, or podcast.
I Avoid it like the plague, because it appears to me those that use it experiences brain leakage. Not to mention job loss. But then again, if your job is at jeopardy because of a "tweet", maybe it's a sign that a career change is in order.