The Absurd GOP

[Fake Messiah]

Reminder: when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he's not anti-vaccine, he's lying.

Recordings from private autism conferences show Trump HHS pick Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vilifying and conspiracy theorizing about agencies he's set to lead. Videos show RFK Jr comparing CDC vaccine programs to "Nazi death camps" and calling for researchers to be jailed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...rcna181605

[Thumpalumpacus]

Exactly -- a woman is much more at risk at home, statistically.

And a woman in the bathroom with a man who wants to harm her is at much more risk there than at home, statistically.

They key qualifier is "a man who wants to harm her" being in that bathroom.

Again, do you have numbers on these incidents? Don't think I've forgotten that you haven't answered this question. It's nice you took a day or two off from shitposting, but you still are ignoring this:

You think that allowing men into a women's room, including trans women, is dangerous to women. Now present your evidence that this is so.

Present your facts already, or at least be honest enough to admit you don't have any. I'm guessing you have neither the facts nor the honesty I'm asking for.

Prove me wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still not seeing any data on how restrooms are dangerous areas for women.

You should probably go do some research on it then if you cant find it.

Probably your job to provide you own evidence.

Me, I think American Latinos supporting Trump have lower IQs. By your logic, I need not give you any evidence to argue that you're dumb.

Be it known that I don't actually think that; this is a rhetorical point that I can only hope you understand as a critique of your approach here.

If you make a claim, it's your job to provide your own evidence. No one is obliged to do your homework for you. I don't believe your claim. Convince me. Like, now.

[Ravenshire]

You should probably go do some research on it then if you cant find it.

Probably your job to provide you own evidence.

Me, I think American Latinos supporting Trump have lower IQs. By your logic, I need not give you any evidence to argue that you're dumb.

Be it known that I don't actually think that; this is a rhetorical point that I can only hope you understand as a critique of your approach here.

If you make a claim, it's your job to provide your own evidence. No one is obliged to do your homework for you. I don't believe your claim. Convince me. Like, now.

Wish in one hand, Thump.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Probably your job to provide you own evidence.

Me, I think American Latinos supporting Trump have lower IQs. By your logic, I need not give you any evidence to argue that you're dumb.

Be it known that I don't actually think that; this is a rhetorical point that I can only hope you understand as a critique of your approach here.

If you make a claim, it's your job to provide your own evidence. No one is obliged to do your homework for you. I don't believe your claim. Convince me. Like, now.

Wish in one hand, Thump.

Of course he'll neither provide evidence nor admit its absence. It still needs to be pointed out.

[TheWhiteMarten]

Again, do you have numbers on these incidents? Don't think I've forgotten that you haven't answered this question. It's nice you took a day or two off from shitposting, but you still are ignoring this:

No, because I am not going to waste my time looking for an irrelevant number that the FBI doesn't track, at least not in something that can be found in a 5 minute search.

What statistical percentage of women being assaulted in bathrooms are you willing to say is low enough that we should introduce measures that increase the odds of "men who want to hurt women" being in those bathrooms?

How many women being harmed is okay in the name of ideology?

A .05% increase?

.50%?

5%?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Again, do you have numbers on these incidents? Don't think I've forgotten that you haven't answered this question. It's nice you took a day or two off from shitposting, but you still are ignoring this:

No, because I am not going to waste my time looking for an irrelevant number that the FBI doesn't track, at least not in something that can be found in a 5 minute search.

So you're happy making a claim without any evidence whatsoever -- and even admit that facts are "irrelevant" to your point. Do you give any thought to what that says about your intellectual integrity?

What statistical percentage of women being assaulted in bathrooms are you willing to say is low enough that we should introduce measures that increase the odds of "men who want to hurt women" being in those bathrooms?

How many women being harmed is okay in the name of ideology?

A .05% increase?

.50%?

5%?

I'll answer this question when you answer my question about your evidence in a meaningful manner. But what makes you think that there's any "increase" involved? Oh, that's right, you've got nothing making you think that ... at least not in terms of facts. You're got someone selling fear, and you, sucker that you are, you're buying.

I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't so busy punishing others for your own trepidation.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Exactly -- a woman is much more at risk at home, statistically.

And a woman in the bathroom with a man who wants to harm her is at much more risk there than at home, statistically.

It's almost like you think homes don't have bathrooms.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So he has no data and he wants to punish a whole minority based on data he doesn't have  

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Again, do you have numbers on these incidents? Don't think I've forgotten that you haven't answered this question. It's nice you took a day or two off from shitposting, but you still are ignoring this:

No, because I am not going to waste my time looking for an irrelevant number that the FBI doesn't track, at least not in something that can be found in a 5 minute search.

What statistical percentage of women being assaulted in bathrooms are you willing to say is low enough that we should introduce measures that increase the odds of "men who want to hurt women" being in those bathrooms?

How many women being harmed is okay in the name of ideology?

A .05% increase?

.50%?

5%?

The chances of women being assaulted in bathrooms has absolutely nothing to do with the fearmongering right wing attempt to ban transgendered people from using certain bathrooms. The whole 'we're doing it to protect the wimmin folk' is utter bullshit. Why? Because there doesn't seem to be a push to ban transgendered people from parks, restaurants, bars, hospitals, libraries, automobiles, bus stops, car dealerships, grocery stores, open-air markets, garages, theme parks, or private homes - all places where women are sexually assaulted. You and your ilk are simply making a push to punish trans people for the sole purpose of punishing trans people.

Just suck it up and admit that 1) you don't really care what happens to women, 2) the idea of a biological male in a dress utterly terrifies you, and 3) you have a fixation with trouser tackle that is clearly unhealthy.

Boru