(April 27, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Bwahahahahahaha! 

"To all the Republican lawmakers out there who are so obsessed with who's using what bathroom, and what plumbing they have downtown, news flash: you're the weirdos."

I love John Oliver's take on it. All worth watching; relevant part starts at 1:56 and runs to about 3:45.

My favorite part: "Some transgender people choose to undergo hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery as part of their transition, some do not. And interestingly, their decision on this matter is, medically speaking, none of your fucking business! "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmoAX9f6MOc

(April 27, 2016 at 3:19 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

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

Again my responses here as well in life are carfully measured out. I approach you with the same effort or contempt you show me. Yes I can have fun with that, but it all ends or is fueled further with how you direct your approach.

In other words, the exact opposite of how Jesus counseled his followers to deal with people.

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

This is from the same group of men who held slaves and traded slaves, Ruled over their women, even arranged marriages for their daughters. Let alone they would not allow a "man" to retain his status as a man in good standing if he was caught dressing as a woman let alone trying to pass himself as one. Who would most likly tared and feathered this person or locked him up in public stocks for his behavior.

If cant believe that you of all people do not know that the term "all men" did not refer to all of humanity. It referred to establish gentlemen in good standing/Land owners.

Quote: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.

And if the subject is mentally Ill? and that 'happiness puts others in the community at risk of assault? What if some other person's liberty is being violated when and if the mentally Ill get their way? Do we throw away the unalienable rights of 50% of the population for the mentally ill wishes of 1%?

Quote:Rights are individual, and must be equal or they are worthless... so your 1% figure is meaningless.

That's not true. If 1%ers are infringing on the rights of 50% of the population's right to privacy from the physical oppsite sex, while in a state of undress using a public bathroom. then the will of the 1% Especially if they are mentally ill should be discarded to perserve the rights of the other 50%

Quote: If only one person in this country was transgendered, it would make no difference.

That is the dumbest thing I think you've ever said. There are people who represent less than 1% of this country's total population and they get no special dispensation to accommodate thier "happiness or personal freedoms." For instance Satanists who ritualistically slaughter animals are often times arrested for the cruel manner in which they are required to kill them. Here is an example of animal rights superseding the rights of your fellow man that is in pursuit of his religious freedoms/happiness. While animal sacrifice is permitted in a registered church, many satan worshipers do not worship in an organized/state sanctioned church and what they do is considered animal cruelty without the proper permitting. I would guess there are thousands of people in the US who "religious freedoms and right to happiness" are being squelched by animal rights of all things. So then what makes you think 1 boy dressed as a girl in the whole of a country with 400+ million people would this be an accepted and protected behavior?

Quote: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.

But again you have been given a conflict that you have yet resolved. The right to privacy in a public bathroom for 1/2 the population that was born with the gender specifics to use said bathroom, verses the 1% 'rights' to infringe on said privacy.

Quote: 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.

Yes we have free speech, but no one has the right to force 1/2 the country to listen to what we have to say especially if it is against our will to hear it. That is what you are doing here. you are forcing people and violating their rights for the perceived rights of the mentally ill.

(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.'

Quote:"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;

Untrue. in the transexual thread I started I posted 25 instances of sexual assault by men wear dresses that have taken place in the lady's bathroom. like it or not this is and will be a big problem. The ink is not even dry in some cases and sickos are already lining up to exploit a loop hole created by the untreated mentally ill.

Quote: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.

Has prison taught you nothing man?!?! There are premeditated crimes and crimes of opportunity. You take the pervs and the mentally ill men out of the ladies room and ALL CRIMES of opportunity cease.

Quote: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".

then please demonstrate your BS philosophy by providing at least 25 instances/attacks of men dressed as women, arrested for sexual assault or rape before this became a public issue.

Quote: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.

But again the federalist papers does not give the rights of a minority to infringe or outright violate the rights of a majority.

Which going back to my primary point... To have a person or a minority group do so with malice or complete disregard of the majority fits YOUR definition of a sociopath. Why don't you address this fact rather than tap dance around it.

(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.

Quote:What the fuck is a "moral standard"? Is it your moral standard, based on a scripture?

Read it again sport. when I say "moral standard" I am talking about YOUR moral standard/The law of the land.
In this case a "right" to be violated. I stated that to run though the check list of sociopathic behavior, to demonstrate that insisting putting the perceived rights of a 1% mentally ill minority over the right to privacy of literally everyone else who is genetically predisposed to use said bathroom FIT THE DEFINITION OF A SOCIOPATH.

Quote:Because I'm pretty sure that can't be a law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/inde...9.221.html

Because bathroom user safty is a not a requirement we should concern ourselves with...

Quote: On the other hand, you calling the people who are simply asking for their own safety to be respected,

It's not a safety issue if a genetic male use a male restroom.

Quote: 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.

this is not a religious issue moron. This is an issue of exploitation of laws that provide untreated mentally ill people license to live out their personal fantasy in loo of public safety

Quote: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...

So.. your saying if you put a black man in a dress and put him in a woman's bathroom he could rape someone?

I'm saying any man in a dress/who is willing to put on a dress is a potential danger, but if you want to make it just about black people, that's your call.

Quote: "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.)

so your saying you think my arguement is that men in dresses shouldn't should date our daughters?

Or are you really stretching tring to make this about race and have failed miserably?

Quote: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.

If you allow a man in a dress to follow your daughters in a rest room while you wait out side that is EXACTLY What I am saying. That and the state should take your kids for putting their safety on the line to make a philosophical point.

Quote: 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.

HEY IDIOT STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS ABOUT TRANSGENDERED ANYTHING! This is about people using this law set up for mentally ill people to exploit and prey on women and children.

Quote: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!

she was born a man?!?!? really?!?!? I would have never guessed... I must rethink everything now!

(April 28, 2016 at 9:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: In other words, the exact opposite of how Jesus counseled his followers to deal with people.

You mean do unto others as you would have them do to you?

If this is not EXACTLY that, then please explain how you think it isn't.

Again I take great care to meet you on your terms.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: This is from the same group of men who held slaves and traded slaves, Ruled over their women, even arranged marriages for their daughters. Let alone they would not allow a "man" to retain his status as a man in good standing if he was caught dressing as a woman let alone trying to pass himself as one. Who would most likly tared and feathered this person or locked him up in public stocks for his behavior.

If cant believe that you of all people do not know that the term "all men" did not refer to all of humanity. It referred to establish gentlemen in good standing/Land owners.

Of course I know that. However, our country has continuously expanded that concept to try to reach its fulfillment... why, gosh, we now recognize women, blacks, and all kinds of minorities as people, now, in a way the Founders didn't. And at every step, some asshole group tried to fight against it, citing the destruction of society. We're getting better as a society, over the protestations of assholes like yourself. Thanks for making my point for me!

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: And if the subject is mentally Ill? and that 'happiness puts others in the community at risk of assault? What if some other person's liberty is being violated when and if the mentally Ill get their way? Do we throw away the unalienable rights of 50% of the population for the mentally ill wishes of 1%?

If a person is mentally ill to the point of being a detriment to the community, they can be adjudicated and confined. However, AS WE HAVE FUCKING EXPLAINED TO YOU ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES YOU DIMWITTED BIGOTED FUCK, they are not mentally ill. They have a disorder akin to depression (several million Americans have depression, but no one calls them "mentally ill") as a result of being treated badly and not being allowed to live as they feel is natural to them, by dimwitted bigoted fucks. That is not mental illness in the manner you keep using it. If you persist in representing them as deranged because of dysphoria, I'm going to persist in calling you a dimwitted bigoted fuck, because that's the only tag that can fit a person who refuses to understand what he's talking about, and continues to use an inaccurate application of psychology to demonize a group of people.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: That's not true. If 1%ers are infringing on the rights of 50% of the population's right to privacy from the physical oppsite sex, while in a state of undress using a public bathroom. then the will of the 1% Especially if they are mentally ill should be discarded to perserve the rights of the other 50%

"In a state of undress"? WHAT THE FUCK!? Where are you going to the bathroom??? I've never seen anyone else naked in a public bathroom. Dude, if you're looking at people's junk in the bathroom, you're the problem. But I get your point... your 50% references the female half of the population, since in your mind those poor lil' darlins are just sooo he'pless and need your manly (and legal) protection from them thar weeeeeeirdos.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: If only one person in this country was transgendered, it would make no difference.

That is the dumbest thing I think you've ever said. There are people who represent less than 1% of this country's total population and they get no special dispensation to accommodate thier "happiness or personal freedoms." For instance Satanists who ritualistically slaughter animals are often times arrested for the cruel manner in which they are required to kill them. Here is an example of animal rights superseding the rights of your fellow man that is in pursuit of his religious freedoms/happiness. While animal sacrifice is permitted in a registered church, many satan worshipers do not worship in an organized/state sanctioned church and what they do is considered animal cruelty without the proper permitting. I would guess there are thousands of people in the US who "religious freedoms and right to happiness" are being squelched by animal rights of all things. So then what makes you think 1 boy dressed as a girl in the whole of a country with 400+ million people would this be an accepted and protected behavior?

Because of the term "legal standing". It only takes one person, establishing that they have a right which is being infringed upon (a "liberty interest"), and thus standing, to bring a case that can change the entire legal structure of the nation. You clearly do not understand how legal challenges to an unconstitutional statute or practice works.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: But again you have been given a conflict that you have yet resolved. The right to privacy in a public bathroom for 1/2 the population that was born with the gender specifics to use said bathroom, verses the 1% 'rights' to infringe on said privacy.

How exactly are they infringing on "said privacy"? I've never quite figured it out. I assure you, you've peed in the same room as a transgender man (a born-female, as you'd call him), on numerous occasions in your life and never known it. What you're asserting is a right to use a restroom without feeling uncomfortable by things which are different from you, or that you don't understand, and you're demonizing a group of people to do it. Gosh, man, those "colored" people want to use the "Whites Only" bathrooms. Well, what about our right to privacy!?

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: Yes we have free speech, but no one has the right to force 1/2 the country to listen to what we have to say especially if it is against our will to hear it. That is what you are doing here. you are forcing people and violating their rights for the perceived rights of the mentally ill.

Negative. I am defending a group of people against assholes like you who wish to pass laws to prohibit that which has occurred for centuries, because you've only just become aware of the existence of trans people in the wake of Jenner's publicity. The fact that you have to continue to demonize them by harping on the "mentally ill" part, despite the VOLUMES of data we've shown you that disproves your little fantasy, shows us what your real agenda is.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: Untrue. in the transexual thread I started I posted 25 instances of sexual assault by men wear dresses that have taken place in the lady's bathroom. like it or not this is and will be a big problem. The ink is not even dry in some cases and sickos are already lining up to exploit a loop hole created by the untreated mentally ill.

Um, so... the ink's not even dry, but 25 assaults have already taken place in the past, by guys who decided to disguise themselves for the specific intent of committing rape. Got it. What does this have to do with transgendered women, and why do you think that something that already happened will change without laws that target trans people? Again, you're treating outliers as if they stand for the whole, and using that to target a massive group of people (even 0.3% of 300 million, using the lowest figures possible, is still a million people).

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: Has prison taught you nothing man?!?! There are premeditated crimes and crimes of opportunity. You take the pervs and the mentally ill men out of the ladies room and ALL CRIMES of opportunity cease.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

*gasp*

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: But again the federalist papers does not give the rights of a minority to infringe or outright violate the rights of a majority.

Which going back to my primary point... To have a person or a minority group do so with malice or complete disregard of the majority fits YOUR definition of a sociopath. Why don't you address this fact rather than tap dance around it.

No, they don't. However, when rights come into conflict, there is a "balancing test". It was not "malice or contempt" of the majority that led the Courts to find that public business owners could not block black people from sitting at their lunch counters. It was not "malice or contempt" that led the Courts to declare that people who wanted to keep the races separate could be overruled by people who wanted to be free to marry any race they wanted. It was not "malice or contempt" of the majority which said that "separate is not equal", and allowed kids of any race to attend school with white kids, despite overwhelming objection in the same parts of the country now bitching about letting people pee where they feel they belong.

You completely ignored my point about allowing interracial relationships being a potential doorway to the date-rape of white daughters by black rapists (yes, this was a real argument they made, back in the 60s) ... but not being a valid reason to prohibit interracial relationships.

You also completely misunderstand how addressing and balancing rights works, and all because of your (somewhat disturbing, to me, at this point) obsession with labeling the trans population "mentally disturbed" and implying that rapists are going to be delighted that we accommodate their rights.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: Read it again sport. when I say "moral standard" I am talking about YOUR moral standard/The law of the land.
In this case a "right" to be violated. I stated that to run though the check list of sociopathic behavior, to demonstrate that insisting putting the perceived rights of a 1% mentally ill minority over the right to privacy of literally everyone else who is genetically predisposed to use said bathroom FIT THE DEFINITION OF A SOCIOPATH.

You forget, "sport", that I am in the same group/category as you are, as a white, straight, cisgendered father. I simply do not recognize that the strawman/bogeyman you're attempting to create is valid, and I don't consider my privacy rights to be violated by any trans person in the bathroom, unless they're looking at my junk. Or talking to me. I don't want anyone to do either of those things in a public bathroom. But it has nothing to do with their gender.

All I see when you insist on your "rights" is this:

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Because I'm pretty sure that can't be a law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/inde...9.221.html

Because bathroom user safty is a not a requirement we should concern ourselves with...

Um, that's a statute about how many bathrooms per number of guests the hotel can hold, and what sort of water has to be available, et cetera. What's the point here? I was talking about making Bible verses into laws. (Hint: it's illegal.)

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: On the other hand, you calling the people who are simply asking for their own safety to be respected,

It's not a safety issue if a genetic male use a male restroom.

Yes, it is. If this genetic male uses a male restroom, she could be in grave danger from those opportunists you're talking about, in their "appropriate" restroom:



If this genetic female uses a women's restroom, she could be shot by some granny packing a gun:

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: 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.

this is not a religious issue moron. This is an issue of exploitation of laws that provide untreated mentally ill people license to live out their personal fantasy in loo of public safety

For fuck's sake man, the word is "lieu". "Loo" is British slang for bathroom. Irony. And I'm not going to address anything else you say on the issue, so long as you continue to express your bigotry by calling every trans person mentally ill, in a complete and utter disregard for the actual definition and understanding of what Gender Dysphoria is.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: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...

So.. your saying if you put a black man in a dress and put him in a woman's bathroom he could rape someone?

I'm saying any man in a dress/who is willing to put on a dress is a potential danger, but if you want to make it just about black people, that's your call.

No, jackass. I'm saying your arguments are not significantly different from the arguments made by racists, not all that long ago, that our tolerance of changing the artificial divide between the races would allow for rapists to operate freely on "our" women. But thank you for stating unequivocally that, despite your Conservative groups' insistence on pretending that it's not about being anti-trans, but about protecting women from non-trans rapists who pretend to be trans by putting on dresses as a disguise, that YOUR issue is with "any man in a dress/who is willing to put on a dress". You're a bigot. Period.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: "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.)

so your saying you think my arguement is that men in dresses shouldn't should date our daughters?

Or are you really stretching tring to make this about race and have failed miserably?

I'm showing that your argument is not substantially different from that made by racists about 50 years ago.

Also, I'm saying that your argument, "well if we allow _____ it will cause _____ to be more likely", is not a legitimate reason to ban said liberty interest, even if there are cases in which criminals take advantage of the largesse.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: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.

If you allow a man in a dress to follow your daughters in a rest room while you wait out side that is EXACTLY What I am saying. That and the state should take your kids for putting their safety on the line to make a philosophical point.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you for even saying that. The safety of my children is my paramount priority. There are a million ways in which my children could be harmed that are more likely than the scenario you're describing, and I will not respect the opinion of a person who continues to refer to trans women as "a man in a dress", thereby denying everything they are. It's not to make a philosophical point, it's because I'm not scared of trans people, and you are, based on your blatant and willful misunderstanding of who and what they are.

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: 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.

HEY IDIOT STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS ABOUT TRANSGENDERED ANYTHING! This is about people using this law set up for mentally ill people to exploit and prey on women and children.

HEY IDIOT, how many times do I have to explain to you that predators can already do all of the things you're worried about, regardless of whether or not transgendered people existed?

(April 28, 2016 at 10:01 am)Drich Wrote: she was born a man?!?!?  really?!?!? I would have never guessed... I must rethink everything now!

Don't be an asshole. She looks more feminine than half the natural-born women I see walking into the bathroom at Wal-Mart, and probably 1/4th of my female relatives of that age. And I'm sure, if you weren't such a bigot, you'd acknowledge the same is true for you, too.

Quote:Of course I know that. However, our country has continuously expanded that concept to try to reach its fulfillment... why, gosh, we now recognize women, blacks, and all kinds of minorities as people, now, in a way the Founders didn't.

Dripshit thinks the constitution is like his fucking shitty bible.  He ignores 200+ years of progress and prefers to think of it as a piece of bronze age shit that can't ever be changed.

Drich thinking the Golden Rule is about responding in kind to how others behave towards him is really just hilariously perfect. I can't tell if it's the perfect troll post or if he really is that dumb. Either way, L-O-Fucking-L.

Just in case he's being serious - it doesn't say "Do unto others as they have done to you," but rather, "...as you would have them do to you." In other words, treat others the way you'd like to be treated (which, unless you're a psychopath), is with kindness. It doesn't mean tit-for-tat. In fact, Jesus warned against that kind of behavior (Matthew 5:38).

You'd think, as the master of 'biblical Christianity', that he'd get it.

(April 28, 2016 at 1:20 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Drich thinking the Golden Rule is about responding in kind to how others behave towards him is really just hilariously perfect.  I can't tell if it's the perfect troll post or if he really is that dumb.  Either way, L-O-Fucking-L.

Just in case he's being serious - it doesn't say "Do unto others as they have done to you," but rather, "...as you would have them do to you."  In other words, treat others the way you'd like to be treated (which, unless you're a psychopath), is with kindness.  It doesn't mean tit-for-tat.  In fact, Jesus warned against that kind of behavior (Matthew 5:38).

You'd think, as the master of 'biblical Christianity', that he'd get it.

Yeah, I just about fell out of my chair when I saw that. Some "teacher"!