Dawkins loses humanist title

[vulcanlogician]

No. I don't know it. I am NOT trying to misrepresent what you are saying. That's the last thing I want to do.

Sexual predators exist. We agree on that much. I actually don't have a problem with priests who AREN'T sexual predators. I disagree with them about God's existence, but, otherwise, I like them okay.

You can't discriminate against ALL transgender people just because SOME of them MIGHT be creeps. Period. If that's not what you're saying then please clarify what you're saying.

Right but where did I say we should? Can you point it out to me?
I didn't. I don't blame you for thinking it though, a certain someone has very much been looking to misrepresent me and would seem to have succeeded to some extent.

I asked, very politely at first, what the contingency against such ripe opportunity for predatory behavior is. I'm implying there isn't one but there should be one. Rather important to work that out, rather important to have a conversation about it.

"Right but where did I say we should? Can you point it out to me?"

You said:
"Well if I'm bar staff or a passerby and I noticed Mr Beardy Creepy Anarachy guy pop into the womens bathroom I might be inclined to go "Hm. Thats... huh. I should tell someone about that." If on the other hand hes wearing a cheerleader outfit and he pops in to the womens bathroom or bathroom number 3... now what?"


That's where I got it. Not from "certain someone"... I got it from you. Or (if you prefer 90s drug add references, "I learned it from you, Dad. I learned it from you!"

Word of advice: try debating ME about MY points, and my responses to YOUR points. It seems unfair for you to hold what "certain someone" said against me. I have my own views, and I'm offering them straight up.

Why are you even bringing up this "bathroom predator" shit? It's so dumb. I think you're better than this. Explain yourself.

Besides, aren't you some kind of apolitical nihilist who is watching nature unfold? Then why do you even care?