search results matching tag: lockers

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (56)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (7)     Comments (176)   

Tucker Carlson mad about being less sexually attracted MnMs

Dschubba (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

No sign should be needed, just a reading of the constitution that makes discrimination based on sex or sexuality a crime, a violation of civil rights. Parents can move on to another country that allows discrimination if that bothers them, I hear Russia fits that bill.

What seems reasonable if they choose to accommodate puritans might be a policy where no one is allowed to be naked in public areas including locker rooms, and add individual dressing rooms....but that's a big expense and should be up to the business, not one patron IMO.

Dschubba said:

It is not an unreasonable question for parents to ask themselves.

Businesses just simply need to publicly place signage they are trans, and/or coed friendly and parents can move on if that bothers them

Man In The Women's Locker Room Is Now The Norm

newtboy says...

IMO, no, it's not JUST her over the top attitude and total lack of manners and self control, it's also her insistence that the business support her and deny the trans woman, clearly thinking her emotional comfort should trump the trans woman's ability to participate fully in society.

It's definitely unreasonable to insist businesses break state and federal laws to provide her a penis free locker room, barring the trans woman from using the facilities. Remember, these are the same people that want to exclude not just trans people, but also gay people from not just locker rooms, but bathrooms, pools, tanning salons, anywhere you might see them partially undressed or they might see you partially undressed. I've seen people take that mentality to the public beach, telling gay men they can't be there because they might see a straight man or boy in shorts and lust after them, and claiming a mild pda (a kiss, hand holding) is illegal.

She had the problem, not the business, not the law. If she wants a penis free locker room, she should build her own.

Now I'll ask you, how is her daughter harmed by seeing a naked flaccid penis? The American puritanical mindset about nakedness is sick. There's nothing wrong with seeing a naked person, it won't hurt you.

bcglorf said:

Honest question for everyone really angry at the lady in the video. Is the problem her manner and attitude alone? That is to ask a second question, do you think it is unreasonable for a parent to not want their young daughter seeing naked penises?

Man In The Women's Locker Room Is Now The Norm

BSR says...

Perhaps the two of them could get together to promote transgender restrooms/locker rooms.
Personally not angry at all. It gives each of them something to fight about. May the best woman win.

bcglorf said:

Honest question for everyone really angry at the lady in the video. Is the problem her manner and attitude alone? That is to ask a second question, do you think it is unreasonable for a parent to not want their young daughter seeing naked penises?

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Back Of Library Smells Like Weed

Joe Biden Accused Of Sexual Assault By Former Staffer

newtboy says...

Sure...she claims an assault/harassment happened in 93, but never reported it anywhere until 2019, and again in 2020, and then only to non profit organizations with direct political ties to Biden and only after his candidacy was announced....but this isn't just a political smear, she really wants it investigated. *facepalm

I guess only Trump can brag about grabbing any woman by the pussy, anyone else is a monster if they're accused of the same by one accuser nearly 3 decades later.

Certainly doesn't sound one whit like Biden, nor does the timeline seem even close to honest. Odd she didn't come forward in 93, or even when he was nominated as VP, doncha think?

Trump, on the other hand, has >26 credible accusations of sexual assault,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-sexual-assault-allegations-all-list-misconduct-karen-johnson-how-many-a9149216.htm
l
most much worse than this one including forcible rapes, many in court now (so accusations made under oath, even though Trump and Bar tried to stop the cases or pay them off to keep silent), all corroborated by his own "locker room" admissions that he assaulted innumerable women, including friend's wives, employees, contestants, and random strangers, grabbing any he wants by the genitals and forcibly kissing them, intentionally barging in on them while they're undressed (including but not limited to underage girls at his pageants), even outright raping them, all of which he says is all fine because he's rich and famous.

Jesus, @bobknight33, you're really being dumb thinking this is an issue to attack Biden on but that Trump has no exposure with. Mind numbingly dumb.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

harlequinn says...

The document is in duplicate. Literally in the link. Yes, fingerprint card also. The cost is low. The cost of the firearm is a separate issue.

Yes, the background check. The "process" I'm referring to has context, i.e. the background check process. Obvious really.

"No one asked you that."

You asked me.

"So [do] you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal? Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?"

"Which you begrudgingly".

What language made it begrudging? I stated it was the case without any issue. Stop making stuff up.

I didn't say they can't be regulated. I said that they can't be "effectively regulated". I also stated that there are many regulations that are probably illegal (waiting for supreme court challenges). And I said that there are some regulations that do exist because the supreme court debated it and came to the conclusion that it was within the scope of the 2A.

"especially when you can verify by just scrolling up"

Yeah, exactly, so what are you on about. My comments are literally above you. Why distort them? Do you have comprehension issues? No shame if you do.

"This is a paranoid delusion."
You're entitled to your opinion. History supports their argument though.

"Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct"

Yes, there are better issues to throw money at, but the issue is they don't want to throw money at anything when there is a low cost red herring issue they can use to gain public standing instead.

"Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work."

Yes, they are all warnings. And valid ones at that. The issue is context. You don't put a "warning strong current" warning in the middle of a desert because there is nothing to warn about.

Likewise making those warnings here makes no sense. Ergo, no, these warnings don't imply anyone needs warning. They are just random warnings.

Otherwise we could continue on and I could say:

Don't be dumb and fuck your mother's dead body.
Don't be dumb and fuck animals.
Etc., etc., warnings that are truly good advice but make no sense in the given situation.

On the other hand:
"Danger, high voltage wires" on a cabinet that holds a large transformer makes sense.
"Do not dig, high pressure gas lines buried here" above buried high pressure pipes makes sense.

Do you see the difference?

"Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose"

Well, everyone is welcome until they're not. And they're not welcome pretty quick here.

"but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person"

Funny about that, that's what I'm doing.

newtboy said:

Not in my experience. I've known many people who tried in Texas and Nevada, all failed. They said it was about 3 pages in triplicate (4 with cover page, totalling 12), fingerprints, photos, a pristine criminal record, chests of cash (the guns cost thousands or tens of thousands), a Class 3 FFL dealer willing to sell to you, 9 months to a year waiting for approval, and no local ordinance against it (local police will be notified).

I said the background check is similarly difficult to pass, not the entire process.

No one asked you that. We balked at your claim-
"The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available."
...and I then gave you the federal definition of "firearms" which you begrudgingly admitted trumps yours, but still cling to the concept that firearms can't be regulated (even though they clearly are). I'm surprised you recall it so differently, especially when you can verify by just scrolling up.

This is a paranoid delusion. Because that's a possibility in a future where the 2a is repealed, they think that's enough reason to ignore any positive uses, like knowing if the person just diagnosed with schizophrenia has an arsenal, or the person who's stalking your 15 year old daughter, or the man who beats his wife. Also, taken to conclusion, that argument is basically "It might make it harder for me to break the law. That's unacceptable." Hardly a reasonable argument imo.

? Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct?!

Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work.

Because I post here doesn't make me the big dog...I'm not even top 20. Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose, but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person. That's called being an upright citizen. I guess you prefer those who shrink away from that obligation....so hit ignore. That's what I'm doing.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

newtboy says...

Not in my experience. I've known many people who tried in Texas and Nevada, all failed. They said it was about 3 pages in triplicate (4 with cover page, totalling 12), fingerprints, photos, a pristine criminal record, chests of cash (the guns cost thousands or tens of thousands), a Class 3 FFL dealer willing to sell to you, 9 months to a year waiting for approval, and no local ordinance against it (local police will be notified).

I said the background check is similarly difficult to pass, not the entire process.

No one asked you that. We balked at your claim-
"The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available."
...and I then gave you the federal definition of "firearms" which you begrudgingly admitted trumps yours, but still cling to the concept that firearms can't be regulated (even though they clearly are). I'm surprised you recall it so differently, especially when you can verify by just scrolling up.

This is a paranoid delusion. Because that's a possibility in a future where the 2a is repealed, they think that's enough reason to ignore any positive uses, like knowing if the person just diagnosed with schizophrenia has an arsenal, or the person who's stalking your 15 year old daughter, or the man who beats his wife. Also, taken to conclusion, that argument is basically "It might make it harder for me to break the law. That's unacceptable." Hardly a reasonable argument imo.

? Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct?!

Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work.

Because I post here doesn't make me the big dog...I'm not even top 20. Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose, but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person. That's called being an upright citizen. I guess you prefer those who shrink away from that obligation....so hit ignore. That's what I'm doing.

harlequinn said:

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

Figuring Out A Master Lock Combination just by looking at it

When you get too Swole

scientist air cannon prank

SFOGuy says...

I mean; unless this is a prank video and they didn't actually push him that hard into the lockers; this seems nuts.
Or grounds for an assault charge.

WE ARE NASA!

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh Testify

ChaosEngine says...

I didn't like Hillary either, but it doesn't change the fact that people looked at Hillary, looked at Trump and decided "you know what, I'm going to vote for the guy that admitted to sexually assaulting women".

And if you buy that "locker room talk" nonsense, I have a bridge to sell you....

Mordhaus said:

Honestly, had anyone but Hillary been running I think it would have sunk the S.S. Donald. The election interference didn't help, but Hillary is a non-electable candidate for a lot of people. I'm fairly certain that as long as the Dems don't somehow fuck up massively and allow her to run again, that Trump will be a one and done candidate.

man assaults teen in gym



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon