(April 27, 2016 at 2:52 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 2:04 pm)The_Empress Wrote: What are "project people" exactly?

People I help with various life projects...

One guy is 60 and has regressed mentally to 16... not a modern 16 but a 16year old when he was originally 16. And he live with his mom till she finally kicked him out last year. So i work with him. I give him projects to do like hold a job for 6 months and then we will do something he likes, or I will help him fix something.

Another guy is having problems with his married life, and I help him break down basic fundemental marriage stuff into little manageable pieces and he does those. we have coffee every week and he updates me on what works/what he did and did not do.

I had maybe 1/2 dozen people on line I've help with their spiritual needs over the years. (long term/years of correspondence.) All of which was broken up into small projects for them to complete.

what did you think I meant?

Well, I have friends whom I help work through stuff too... but I call them "friends", not "projects" and it's mutual; sometimes they help me too. I wonder how your "project people" would feel if they knew you used that descriptor on them. It's pretty awful.

(April 27, 2016 at 2:57 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 2:52 pm)Drich Wrote: People I help with various life projects...

One guy is 60 and has regressed mentally to 16... not a modern 16 but a 16year old when he was originally 16. And he live with his mom till she finally kicked him out last year. So i work with him. I give him projects to do like hold a job for 6 months and then we will do something he likes, or I will help him fix something.

Another guy is having problems with his married life, and I help him break down basic fundemental marriage stuff into little manageable pieces and he does those. we have coffee every week and he updates me on what works/what he did and did not do.

I had maybe 1/2 dozen people on line I've help with their spiritual needs over the years. (long term/years of correspondence.) All of which was broken up into small projects for them to complete.

what did you think I meant?

Well, I have friends whom I help work through stuff too... but I call them "friends", not "projects" and it's mutual; sometimes they help me too. I wonder how your "project people" would feel if they knew you used that descriptor on them. It's pretty awful.

'Project people' is pretty awful.

With the exception of the mentally regressed 60-year-old, I'd be tempted to go with 'Sad-sack, pathetic motherfuckers who need the likes of Drich to straighten out their lives".

(April 27, 2016 at 2:57 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 2:52 pm)Drich Wrote: People I help with various life projects...

One guy is 60 and has regressed mentally to 16... not a modern 16 but a 16year old when he was originally 16. And he live with his mom till she finally kicked him out last year. So i work with him. I give him projects to do like hold a job for 6 months and then we will do something he likes, or I will help him fix something.

Another guy is having problems with his married life, and I help him break down basic fundemental marriage stuff into little manageable pieces and he does those. we have coffee every week and he updates me on what works/what he did and did not do.

I had maybe 1/2 dozen people on line I've help with their spiritual needs over the years. (long term/years of correspondence.) All of which was broken up into small projects for them to complete.

what did you think I meant?

Well, I have friends whom I help work through stuff too... but I call them "friends", not "projects" and it's mutual; sometimes they help me too. I wonder how your "project people" would feel if they knew you used that descriptor on them. It's pretty awful.

A one way friendship is not a friendship. In these relationships I give period. there is rarely a acknowledgement or thank you. I am simply doing my job to help out those in need. They own me nothing. no money, no loyalty no obligation. I stay and help so long as they keep up their end. once they stop I stop. It's like how I work with you guys. My effort closely matches your own. I maybe in a flaming hot debate with you in one thread, and here i might be matter of fact. why? because emotion is not apart of what I do when I am helping people. Because I need to make good uninfluenced decisions to best serve those in whom i help.

For instance after you and i went at it last year and I was bann if you were to come to me for help an hour after all the bad stuff that was said I would have done whatever I could. why? because the emotion i display is directly proportionate to those i am dealing with in the situation I am dealing in. If the situation changes the emotions get reset for the next task.

With friends I get to be needy or I get to be angry or what ever I am feeling. with project people I have to be who ever they need me to be.

As far as what they'd think... they can think anything they like. again they owe me nothing. If they get hurt they are free to move on, or if they see what I do helps them title aside then I will continue to help when and where I can.

(April 27, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 2:57 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Well, I have friends whom I help work through stuff too... but I call them "friends", not "projects" and it's mutual; sometimes they help me too. I wonder how your "project people" would feel if they knew you used that descriptor on them. It's pretty awful.

'Project people' is pretty awful.

With the exception of the mentally regressed 60-year-old, I'd be tempted to go with 'Sad-sack, pathetic motherfuckers who need the likes of Drich to straighten out their lives".

You and everyone else on this message board are not a "project person" because????

(April 27, 2016 at 3:13 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: 'Project people' is pretty awful.

With the exception of the mentally regressed 60-year-old, I'd be tempted to go with 'Sad-sack, pathetic motherfuckers who need the likes of Drich to straighten out their lives".

You and everyone else on this message board are not a "project person" because????

I assume your 'projects' in real life take you seriously. Here, on the other hand . . .

(April 27, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 2:57 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Well, I have friends whom I help work through stuff too... but I call them "friends", not "projects" and it's mutual; sometimes they help me too. I wonder how your "project people" would feel if they knew you used that descriptor on them. It's pretty awful.

A one way friendship is not a friendship. In these relationships I give period. there is rarely a acknowledgement or thank you. I am simply doing my job to help out those in need. They own me nothing. no money, no loyalty no obligation. I stay and help so long as they keep up their end. once they stop I stop. It's like how I work with you guys. My effort closely matches your own. I maybe in a flaming hot debate with you in one thread, and here i might be matter of fact. why? because emotion is not apart of what I do when I am helping people. Because I need to make good uninfluenced decisions to best serve those in whom i help.

For instance after you and i went at it last year and I was bann if you were to come to me for help an hour after all the bad stuff that was said I would have done whatever I could. why? because the emotion i display is directly proportionate to those i am dealing with in the situation I am dealing in. If the situation changes the emotions get reset for the next task.

With friends I get to be needy or I get to be angry or what ever I am feeling. with project people I have to be who ever they need me to be.

As far as what they'd think... they can think anything they like. again they owe me nothing. If they get hurt they are free to move on, or if they see what I do helps them title aside then I will continue to help when and where I can.

I knew you were delusional, but it's worse than I thought if you think you "work with" us or "help" us in any way.

(April 27, 2016 at 3:19 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Drich Wrote: A one way friendship is not a friendship. In these relationships I give period. there is rarely a acknowledgement or thank you. I am simply doing my job to help out those in need. They own me nothing. no money, no loyalty no obligation. I stay and help so long as they keep up their end. once they stop I stop. It's like how I work with you guys. My effort closely matches your own. I maybe in a flaming hot debate with you in one thread, and here i might be matter of fact. why? because emotion is not apart of what I do when I am helping people. Because I need to make good uninfluenced decisions to best serve those in whom i help.

For instance after you and i went at it last year and I was bann if you were to come to me for help an hour after all the bad stuff that was said I would have done whatever I could. why? because the emotion i display is directly proportionate to those i am dealing with in the situation I am dealing in. If the situation changes the emotions get reset for the next task.

With friends I get to be needy or I get to be angry or what ever I am feeling. with project people I have to be who ever they need me to be.

As far as what they'd think... they can think anything they like. again they owe me nothing. If they get hurt they are free to move on, or if they see what I do helps them title aside then I will continue to help when and where I can.

I knew you were delusional, but it's worse than I thought if you think you "work with" us or "help" us in any way.

If nothing else i have shammed you all out of the typical atheist circle 'self gratifying' arguments that are mainstays in other atheist web sites. That has 'helped' you become less cookie cutter and has forced a few of you to actually think on their own rather than puppet back predigested questions and answers.

(April 27, 2016 at 2:37 pm)Drich Wrote: And Again the objection I have is what you identify as a 'right' more often than not isn't one.
spaking for instance. No where in the United states is it illegal to spank your child.
And it is not legal in all 50 states for transgender people to use the 'wrong' bathroom.
A right is a universal freedom guaranteed by the government. Everything I have argued is indeed sanctioned by the current laws. So if your defination requires a complete disregaurd of other people and their rights, then an honest assessment would exclude me from your 'professional' diagnosis.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Rights do not flow from the government, some are inalienable (yes, they say "unalienable", but that's not technically correct) and natural rights, among which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". There is a growing recognition, among those of us without social prejudices based on our religious outlook, anyway, that transgendered and gay people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, same as the rest of us, and so we are chipping away at those who would use their religion to curtail those natural rights for people we recognize are entitled to them.

Rights are individual, and must be equal or they are worthless... so your 1% figure is meaningless. If only one person in this country was transgendered, it would make no difference. The rights which are enumerated in the Constitution are not there because they are for the majority; they are there because people would wish to take them away from the minority or other disfavored group/individual. We have a right to Free Speech, for instance, because some people will say things that are unpopular, and there are those who would stop them from saying it, if they could.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...angladesh/

(April 27, 2016 at 2:37 pm)Drich Wrote: Which can be true in say a republic where a 'douche' is so intent on arguing for something like the ablity for a man to put on a dress and go into the wrong bathroom he can "erode a person who naturally respects the rights of others and empathizes with them until they treat others who are different from what the program says is "okay" with a level of contempt that is indistinguishable from sociopathic behavior." Meaning those people are willing to put the vast majority of the social populace in danger for their own contempt for 'traditional decency.'

"Traditional" is, of course, code for Christian domination of society, in almost every context I've heard it used. And there's no danger from transgendered people having rights to use the bathroom in the place they feel will endanger them least; all this "but then the rapists will ____" is fearmongering by using outliers as if they stand for the whole, and ignores that rapists can already access most bathrooms either directly or by disguising themselves, regardless of whether trans people existed in the first place.

To even say, "put the vast majority of the social populace in danger" tells me that you feel that the tiniest fraction of additional safety (which seems to be illusory and based on a phantom, or at least exceedingly rare, danger) above the safety of those who are gender transitioning or transitioned, simply because you think it violates "traditional decency".

Read The Federalist Papers.Part of the reason we're a Constitutional Republic, rather than a pure democracy, is that our Founders recognized the danger of allowing the majority to dictate to the minority what their rights are. When you keep citing to the 1% figure, all you're doing is saying "Well the rest of us don't care". You're completely ignoring that trans people actually ARE in danger, regardless of which bathroom they try to use, every day of their lives, from people who consider them abominations.

(April 27, 2016 at 2:37 pm)Drich Wrote: apparently not. apparently 1% of the population gets to dictate a 'modified level of protection' on the off chance they want to use the wrong bathroom in public. This behavior literally allows 1% of the population putting their own "Antisocial Personality Disorder" ahead of the wellfare of the hundreds of millions of other people, and yet when one challenges this NON-Right that person is charged with being the sociopath... How meesed up is your mind that you can not see what is going on in front of you?

Your definition requires a moral standard (A right) to be circumvented with no regaurd to those in whom this circumvention will hurt.

We have a federal right to privacy and a reasonable expectation of safety when we go into a public bathroom. This is a mandate that all public business and facilities are mandated to provide. that is why one can sue if they are not provided with bathroom access or if our privacy has been compromised. This is a standing right in the US. However this right has been circumvented by allowing the opposite sex access to the wrong bathroom. This demand by the LBGT community has absolutely no regaurd, or should I say shows contempt to all who oppose cross gender access...

Yet with your great powers of reasoning and deduction you seem to be focused on calling those who oppose the implication of this NON-right being forced on the community Sociopaths while the group of people who actually fit the literal definition gets your support.

And that is why i call you douche bag.

What the fuck is a "moral standard"? Is it your moral standard, based on a scripture? Because I'm pretty sure that can't be a law. On the other hand, you calling the people who are simply asking for their own safety to be respected, to make their own liberty-choices about what the "right" bathroom is for them, and to be free from your religious discrimination (especially since you insist on trying to make them into the monsters who are endangering others!), is the height of hypocrisy. I could take your arguments about the "danger" from the trans community and just as easily insert any of the previously-feared minorities, and make the same kind of claim... "If we let the races mix, then what's to stop black men from date-raping our daughters?" (Well, nothing, if they happen to be a rapist... but that's not a reason to ban interracial relationships.)

I am a straight, white, cisgendered male who has two children. For you to assert that I am disregarding their safety, or failing to acknowledge the privacy rights of the majority, is beyond asinine. Of course I have considered these things... but unlike you, I am actually familiar both with a large number of trans and LGBT people (because of my charity activities in the field of HIV/AIDS activism), and I know what they really are, rather than the straw-man threat conservative Christians have carefully tried to build in order to justify their bigoted actions against that community.

I am attempting to assert the right of privacy to this person, below, who simply wishes to walk into a bathroom where everyone else looks like her, even though she was born a man. It is the Christians who are attempting to deny her this liberty, and vilifying her to do it. Boy, when you guys get going with your persecution-of-the-majority complexes, you really get going!

(April 27, 2016 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 27, 2016 at 3:19 pm)The_Empress Wrote: I knew you were delusional, but it's worse than I thought if you think you "work with" us or "help" us in any way.

If nothing else i have shammed you all out of the typical atheist circle 'self gratifying' arguments that are mainstays in other atheist web sites. That has 'helped' you become less cookie cutter and has forced a few of you to actually think on their own rather than puppet back predigested questions and answers.

   

Uh, you haven't "shammed" (whatever that means) anyone, and I speak for myself just fine without your "help"... d-bag sport.