The only statement anyone needs to make about Roy Moore

Donald Trump has backed Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore remaining in the election race despite multiple claims of sexual harassment of teenage girls.

Mr Trump believes that “Alabama should take the decision” about their next senator and that Mr Moore should only quit if the allegations are proved.

Weird that it’s The Donald making it but still.

The important concept under discussion is “democracy.” That means that it’s the voters who get to say. There are no – barring actual proved criminal activities – preconditions upon who they may decide among. Because that’s what the system is, the voters getting to decide. Maybe they do care about a bit of ephebophilia, maybe they don’t – as with the Ten Commandments stuff for which he was rightly fired as a judge, not a politician – but it is up to them what they care about.

31 thoughts on “The only statement anyone needs to make about Roy Moore”

  1. The people saying Moore should quit are the same people who spend decades defending Bill Clinton against the far more credible claims that he was a serial rapist, and deriding the women who made the claims against him.

    One or two of them have now started to edge Clinton closer to the wheels of the bus, but that’s because he’s now elderly and expendable, and they want his mrs to fuck off out of the 2020 race.

  2. How convenient that such claims emerge just as a victory for Moore seems possible.

    The scum of the Quisling Right (to use Sean Gabb’s phrase) ie the mainstream GOP trash hate Moore as much as the Demosludge if not more.

    And also we see here how a load of femmi-poison that began as a condemnation of leftist sex-hypocrisy in Hollywood is being morphed into a useful weapon by the same leftist femmi-scum. The left have no shame and will ignore/minimise their crew involved in sex scandals while trying to twist the narrative in an “All white men are sex criminals” direction.

  3. Mr Ecks: It’s worse than that- Moore’s victory was certain, he was polling better than 15% ahead in some polls.

    The disgusting thing is that he may well now lose, simply because cunts are allowed to vote, and they don’t like having it implicitly pointed out that a man would be have to be mad- heaping up his own funeral pyre mad- to wed a 32 year old when he could a 16 year old (or a 22 year old as Moore did).

  4. Paul Rain–other surveys suggest that not many voters are inclined to believe the left’s oh-so-convenient cockrot in any case so there is still hope.

  5. @Ecksy, Rainman

    “Mr Ecks: It’s worse than that- Moore’s victory was certain, he was polling better than 15% ahead in some polls.”

    C’mon you two- you see what’s happening here, surely?

    Get the accusation of misdeeds in before the polls.

    He either loses- thus job’s done- or he wins and they force him from office because “standards of behaviour for those in public life need to be impeccable”.

    The left are not abolishing elections, they are making them irrelevant.

  6. Most of those females who oh-so-conveniently were dredging up ancient claims against Trump seem to have shut up now.

    Maybe Moore did do something ; I have no idea. He has been a public figure for a long time, so the idea that these women have just conveniently remembered or decided it worth mentioning is somewhat implausible.

  7. Or he really is a child molester and the party of family values and protecting public toilets from evil transgender people just doesn’t care.

  8. Moore does come across as a slimy bastard, though. His interview with Hannity didn’t help him much, and he really ought to fire his lawyer. If this is the best the Republicans have to put forward as senator, it says a lot. Not that the Democrats are any better, but Moore isn’t someone I’d want to vote for. If I was in Alabama and eligible to vote, I’d hope the GOP would put up a better candidate.

  9. Most of those females who oh-so-conveniently were dredging up ancient claims against Trump seem to have shut up now.

    Something’s a little off about this Moore business, though. For a start, the woman in question and her husband are Trump supporters, and she doesn’t come across as your usual headcase wheeled out just before an election.

  10. It may not be the best the Republicans have to put forward, but primary voters are pissed at the GOP’s Establishment

    Absolutely. Sane republican voters are facing two ruthless enemies: the Democrats, and establishment Republicans.

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Maybe Moore did do something ; I have no idea. He has been a public figure for a long time, so the idea that these women have just conveniently remembered or decided it worth mentioning is somewhat implausible.”

    Perhaps they just wanted a quiet life but seeing him as a Senator is a step too far? Could be the same with some of those women who came out of the woodwork when Trump became a serious presidential contender.

  12. If these women are so outraged how come they always wait until a time propitious for the left to start complaining.?

    Matthew L–men committed enough to their crazy cause to have their dicks lopped off should be allowed to use the Ladies. Those with dicks attached however should not. Because that opens the door literally to large numbers of heterosexual perverts out there (homos would hardly be trying to get at women ) who will be only too happy for a chance to have a go with a massively reduced security profile. Such as arresting people who dare to complain about men in women’s toilets.

    Don’t bother with all the NiV-style cockrot about how all the pervs keen on perving are already doing so. If you believe that then campaign for all home security methods–locks, CCTV, alarms –to be made illegal. Because all those with a taste for burgling already are burgling– and the sudden arrival of vast new fields of easy plunder can’t possibly bring any more to the table or even stimulate a feeding frenzy in those already on the job.

  13. @Ecks

    “men committed enough to their crazy cause to have their dicks lopped off should be allowed to use the Ladies. ”

    In fairness, they ain’t gonna rape no one.

  14. I’m not following the who did what to who in the Moore case that closely.. but whoever the woman was who used her yearbook as corroboration as to meeting Moore (the “evidence” presented by Gloria Allred) is full of shit.

    The Roy Moore signature was copied from the legal documents of her divorce when RM was the judge. His yearbook signature has DA appended to it, just like when his secretary who has the initials DA used a robo signer on the court docs.

  15. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “Or he really is a child molester and the party of family values and protecting public toilets from evil transgender people just doesn’t care.”

    The Republicans really do care. That is why these accusations work when the Left makes them. And why the rapist and murderer Teddy Kennedy was called the Lion of the Senate.

  16. @Matthew L

    ‘Or he really is a child molester and the party of family values and protecting public toilets from evil transgender people just doesn’t care.’

    That’s why we have courts, and trials, and juries, you silly cunt. If he’s charged and convicted and they still support him, get back to us.

  17. I find that chaps sexually harassing teenage girls, especially when in a position of authority, often leave a signed piece of evidence with their victims.

    Otherwise, how would the other guys know how alpha you are?

  18. “Matthew L–men committed enough to their crazy cause to have their dicks lopped off should be allowed to use the Ladies.”

    Well, that’s something.

    “Those with dicks attached however should not.”

    And how, pray tell, when you see someone going into the toilet, are you going to be able to tell the difference? Inspectors at the door?

    “Don’t bother with all the NiV-style cockrot about how all the pervs keen on perving are already doing so.”

    I think my issue was that there’s nothing currently to stop them. Plumber’s branded overalls and a tool bag are just as effective. And a lot easier to run away in afterwards than 4-inch heels!

    “If you believe that then campaign for all home security methods–locks, CCTV, alarms –to be made illegal.”

    Ummm. So how often do you see all that stuff used on the doors to the ladies’? How come, if they’re so necessary?

  19. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    Mr Trump believes that “Alabama should take the decision” about their next senator and that Mr Moore should only quit if the allegations are proved.

    Partisan bullshit and insincere white knighting from Lefties who either molest women themselves – or wholeheartedly support bringing in hordes of clit-snipping rapists to do it for them – aside, I can’t see what else President Trump should do.

    He already endorsed Moore’s Republican opponent in the primary, but the local party went for Moore, as is their right.

    The guy strenuously denies the allegations against him, there’s certainly good reason to think they’re politically motivated, and there’s an election next month where Alabamaians will indeed get their say one way or t’other.

    Conservatives fuming that Moore should resign or be forced out seem to want to give feminist lawyers a veto on any Republican candidate running for high office, but then conservatives haven’t spent the last 60 years on an uninterrupted losing streak for no reason.

  20. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    Perhaps they just wanted a quiet life but seeing him as a Senator is a step too far?

    Could be. Maybe they decided that it was OK for him to successfully run as Alabama Chief Justice – twice. And OK for him to successfully run against incumbent senator Luther Strange in the primary.

    But as soon as he’s headed into the election – wait a minute, that guy shagged me 40 years ago!

    It’s possible, but like the bizarre allegation that Cliff Richard supposedly touched someone at a concert 30 years ago – what are we supposed to do with such claims?

    Could be the same with some of those women who came out of the woodwork when Trump became a serious presidential contender.

    Sure.

    Weird how they all shut up after Trump won the election, and the media – which has been desperately trying to get the President removed by any means possible – never bothered doing any sort of follow-up on those conveniently-timed and previously Super Serious allegations.

    But sure. Maybe they just forgot.

  21. NiV–““Matthew L–men committed enough to their crazy cause to have their dicks lopped off should be allowed to use the Ladies.”

    Well, that’s something.”

    I’ve already said that several times on the various threads that your lunacy has clashed with my reason.

    ““Those with dicks attached however should not.”

    And how, pray tell, when you see someone going into the toilet, are you going to be able to tell the difference? Inspectors at the door?”

    Well this IS a difficult issue–so best that no trannies at all go in the Ladies after all. Thanks for the insight and the endorsement .

    ““Don’t bother with all the NiV-style cockrot about how all the pervs keen on perving are already doing so.”

    I think my issue was that there’s nothing currently to stop them. Plumber’s branded overalls and a tool bag are just as effective. And a lot easier to run away in afterwards than 4-inch heels!”

    Dumb as they are the cops would manage to spot that one as it has been tried out by lots of pervs and indoor plumbing photographers going back to the late 19th century. And “the Bog Inspector” and many others that security people can doubtless tell you about. The difference is that the cops are still landing hard on pervs caught out. If they stop and withdraw from the lists, so to speak, is that going to discourage established weirds as well as new starters or not?

    Also the drag “era” won’t last long.

    Very soon some creep will stand up in court and say that he identifies as a woman but because of the horrid homophobo world he lives in he has to dress and look like a man. Such bullshit will be accepted by our Bedlamite courts. After all if having a dick attached to your body is not enough to disqualify you from claiming to be a woman then wearing men’s clothes has no chance of doing so. So then males who look and dress like males will be using the bog along with the women. Easy then to do the crime and flee, certain that you look normal and can run and mix easily into the crowd. No 4 inch heels or Desperate Dan in drag nonsense needed.

    ““If you believe that then campaign for all home security methods–locks, CCTV, alarms –to be made illegal.”

    Ummm. So how often do you see all that stuff used on the doors to the ladies’? How come, if they’re so necessary?”

    Now you are just being daft. The lock suggestion is to create a comparison with your “All the pervs are already at it” tripe. If there were no locks would burglars be encouraged or discouraged? Lazy and less competent burgs would cease to be marginal and get more involved and the richer pickings would both stimulate those already on the job and those thinking about it but not fancying the risk/odds.

  22. “Dumb as they are the cops would manage to spot that one as it has been tried out by lots of pervs and indoor plumbing photographers going back to the late 19th century.”

    What, you mean the police will arrest a male plumber who goes into the ladies toilets to fix the plumbing? On what charge?

    And how exactly will they “spot” that, unless they post police guards on every public toilet in the country?

    “The difference is that the cops are still landing hard on pervs caught out.”

    And so they should. Our argument is about whether they should be landing on non-pervs who are simply going to the toilet, something that does no harm to anyone.

    It’s about the Group A Group B trick. The authoritarian wants to persecute the generally harmless group A, but lacks public support. So they find a Group B that everyone hates, points out that Group A overlaps with Group B, and therefore we have to apply restrictions to Group A to prevent Group B getting away with it.

    Thus, feminazis hate men, but it’s really difficult getting laws passed to persecute them. So they point out that all rapists are men, and in order to stop the rapists, we have to introduce restrictions on men, take away their right to a fair trial and so on, in order to catch the rapists. And everyone goes along with that, because who wants to be seen defending a rapist?

    Likewise with disarming the public because of nutters with guns, banning people carrying kitchen knives in public because of nutters with knives, banning drinking in public because of nutty drunks starting fights, and all the other authoritarian rubbish. It’s just an excuse

    The basic principle is that you should make the harmful behaviour your concerned about itself illegal, and prosecute those shown to have actually done it. You don’t prosecute people who are innocent of any wrongdoing for the crimes of others, or to prevent other people being criminals, or because criminals might pose as them.

    ” If there were no locks would burglars be encouraged or discouraged?”

    Your theory is, I think, that if there were no locks on people’s houses, millions of burglars (if they existed) would naturally move in and steal everything. But the same logic implies that if there were no locks on ladies toilets, the millions of male heterosexual, cis-gender perverts would inevitably move in and perv at all our women. The problem with this theory being that there are in fact no locks on ladies toilet doors.

    You’re claiming that somebody so lost to morality and legality as to plan a sexual assault would be utterly thwarted in their ambitions by a simple sign on the door. No locks, no barriers, just a social convention. But the similar social convention (and laws) that forbid them assaulting women they’ll blithely ignore. They don’t mind taking the risk of being spotted and her screaming, or spraying him with mace, or being hunted down by an angry mob if they’re caught perving. But they’ll be totally put off by the risk of being seen and challenged during the couple of metres walk between door and cubicle (like you can’t wait and watch until there’s nobody else around). It’s insane.

    It’s just an excuse for persecuting people you don’t approve of.

    Well, by the same logic, since all these perverts you’re worried about are heterosexual, cis-gender males, we ought to just lock up all heterosexual, cis-gender males in prisons just to be safe. If you don’t, then all those heterosexual, cis-gender male perverts will be free to roam the streets, getting up to who knows what mischief. It would be a lot more effective at reducing crime. So when do you plan to go to jail?

  23. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    The toilet thing is a red herring, and it’s typical of conservatives – who haven’t successfully conserved anything since about 1918 – to furiously defend their pointless Maginot Loo when the social justice warriors have long since blitzkrieged their way to Gay Paree and are now aggressively proselytizing trannyism to toddlers.

    A more relevant question is whether it’s right to ‘treat’ people who suffer from crippling paraphilias by mutilating them with drugs and surgery and then browbeating the rest of society into pretending that they’re now laaaydees (or unconvincingly feminine blokes, as the case may be).

    Gender madness didn’t come out of nowhere though. It’s just the inevitable latest stop on the crazy train of egalitarianism, albeit made more obnoxious by the complete and catastrophic collapse of morality and courage in Western societies. An atomised, materialistic, hedonistic society that no longer understands, or has the confidence to assert, the biological realities of sex and race is like an HIV patient – its ravaged immune system can no longer fight off monstrous absurdities such as relocating the most primitive and violent tribesmen on the planet to its midst or familiarising innocent tots with dildos and buttplugs.

    Chesterton and Yeats and the Manic Street Preachers were right.

  24. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Our argument is about whether they should be landing on non-pervs who are simply going to the toilet, something that does no harm to anyone.”

    No it isn’t because that assumes that the transsexuals are non-pervs. Which is the entire issue at point. They are mentally ill and we do not help them by endorsing their mental illness.

    “But the same logic implies that if there were no locks on ladies toilets, the millions of male heterosexual, cis-gender perverts would inevitably move in and perv at all our women. The problem with this theory being that there are in fact no locks on ladies toilet doors.”

    But any number of people are arrested and prosecuted for violating female toilets. In fact South Korea is having a massive crack down as we speak.

    “So when do you plan to go to jail?”

    If I said some of the things I said here on a street corner in Edinburgh I would be in jail already. You are focusing on the trivia and missing the real point. They are already jailing people for defending normalcy. The liberal world where we can agree to say what we like has disappeared. The only question is which side of the barbed wire do you want to be on. Personally I would prefer to be on the outside with transsexuals on the inside. But YMMV.

  25. Jesus another 3 million words of shite NiV. Do you think you will win by attrition? Cos you won’t.

    ““Dumb as they are the cops would manage to spot that one as it has been tried out by lots of pervs and indoor plumbing photographers going back to the late 19th century.”

    What, you mean the police will arrest a male plumber who goes into the ladies toilets to fix the plumbing? On what charge?

    And how exactly will they “spot” that, unless they post police guards on every public toilet in the country?”

    From:”The Big Lebowski:
    Maude:(talking about the “Logjammin” porn movie) “You can guess where it goes from here”

    The Dude: “He fixes the cable?”

    Again you just get sillier NiV. A plumber going in to do work will likely put a sign outside saying “bog out of use”. Since this will keep women out a perv would likely not do that. And so any women going into the toilet and finding some bloke pottering with the pipes while expecting them to carry out their ablutions around him should indeed report him to TPTB. Public–state-run bogs–are less well-tended than private ones of course with security types.

    It is possible that some kind of perv might get his kicks by actually fixing the plumbing in the women’s toilet–hence the Big Lebowski quote- above but I think that is unlikely. Once in the main purpose of pervs will be perving, photographing, exhibiting, wanking, assault, rape, robbery etc. All of which will be enhanced by the free and easy access that SJW-stooges like you seek.

    ““The difference is that the cops are still landing hard on pervs caught out.”

    And so they should. Our argument is about whether they should be landing on non-pervs who are simply going to the toilet, something that does no harm to anyone.””

    No that is your attempt to shift the terms. The chopped-dicks are a tiny number and altho’ there are a few crims in their ranks they are not the main danger in themselves. Allowing them opens the gates to all males and will allow far better access to a perv crew (who already try regularly to get in and regularly suffer for it) to get in easily. This in turn will bring out many marginal creeps who do not now fancy their chances by reason of risk and punishment.

    “”It’s about the Group A Group B trick. The authoritarian wants to persecute the generally harmless group A, but lacks public support. So they find a Group B that everyone hates, points out that Group A overlaps with Group B, and therefore we have to apply restrictions to Group A to prevent Group B getting away with it.””

    Just your standard bullshit NiV. As I have said on countless occasions –and will continue saying as long as I live–I don’t give a shit what weirdos do so long as it hurts nobody else. Invading women’s bogs IS a harm to most women and frankly piss on your idiot opinion to the contrary. Your bleeding heart SJW bollocks shows you don’t actually give a shite about the real dangers women and girls may to face because of your mental aberration.

    “”Thus, feminazis hate men, but it’s really difficult getting laws passed to persecute them.””

    Tell that to Cliff Richard and Rolf Harris.

    ” “So they point out that all rapists are men, “”

    Wrong again.

    “”and in order to stop the rapists, we have to introduce restrictions on men,””

    There already are restrictions such as not being allowed to walk around someone else’s living room uninvited at 3 am in the morning. And not being allowed to forcibly strip and penetrate women without their consent. These laws are adequate to deal with real rapists.

    “” take away their right to a fair trial and so on, in order to catch the rapists. And everyone goes along with that, because who wants to be seen defending a rapist?””

    Just piffle. Femmi-bullshit /SJW attempts to have rape redefined as a white man looking sideways at a woman are at the back of attempts to strip men of their right to a fair trial.Except the real imported rape culturists are most often ignored or treated with kid gloves

    “”Likewise with disarming the public because of nutters with guns, banning people carrying kitchen knives in public because of nutters with knives, banning drinking in public because of nutty drunks starting fights, and all the other authoritarian rubbish. It’s just an excuse””

    The above examples have some merit. But the toilet example does not. There is no right for either sex to demand entrance to areas where the opposite sex–or any private group for that matter- do not wish to be intruded upon. The fact that I can’t decide to wander around your house and take stuff at 3 am or any time you are absent is a defence of your rights NOT an attack on mine.

    “”The basic principle is that you should make the harmful behaviour your concerned about itself illegal, and prosecute those shown to have actually done it.””

    It is a bit late if the poor cow is lying dead on the toilet floor in a pool of her own blood or traumatised for good in a puddle of his semen. And of course laws promising punishment mean that nobody would ever do anything nasty to you anyway and thus all precautions and steps towards self-protection are just silly paranoia.

    ” “You don’t prosecute people who are innocent of any wrongdoing for the crimes of others, or to prevent other people being criminals, or because criminals might pose as them.””

    Not allowing men to go in the Ladies is none of the above.

    “” If there were no locks would burglars be encouraged or discouraged?””

    “”Your theory is, I think, that if there were no locks on people’s houses, millions of burglars (if they existed) would naturally move in and steal everything. But the same logic implies that if there were no locks on ladies toilets, the millions of male heterosexual, cis-gender perverts would inevitably move in and perv at all our women. The problem with this theory being that there are in fact no locks on ladies toilet doors.””

    You must be smoking something. I used a metaphor to help refute your claim that all those who want to perv are already perving. No locks allowed would indeed create an epidemic of thieving. Males to go freely into women’s toilets would –even if NO new marginal pervs joined in, itself a VERY unlikely circumstance–bring out a frenzy in those frustrated crew who have been pursued and punished for trying to do what they would now be able to do easily.

    And of course women’s toilets have locks–in the cubicles. If the main door was locked then they would be no use as toilets would they.

    “”You’re claiming that somebody so lost to morality and legality as to plan a sexual assault would be utterly thwarted in their ambitions by a simple sign on the door.””

    No that is what you’re claiming. I’m saying that ongoing public disapproval of men in the Ladies plus illegality plus public shame together with police/jail/ etc will help keep women much safer and more able to go to the lavie without running a gauntlet of perverts.

    “” No locks, no barriers, just a social convention. But the similar social convention (and laws) that forbid them assaulting women they’ll blithely ignore.””

    They are quite possibly numbers more men who might assault and rape women but who are kept out of that caper by fear of consequences and the difficulty of success. Removing such fears will do nothing to reduce the number of offenders and will likely bring forward numbers of those with a marginal propensity to offend.

    “They don’t mind taking the risk of being spotted and her screaming, or spraying him with mace, or being hunted down by an angry mob if they’re caught perving.”

    Some don’t that’s true. And most do everything they can to get their jollies while minimising the risk of the above consequences landing on their heads. And yet more will be grateful to bleeding heart mugs like you for lining up circs where they can act out their nasty urges with a lesser chance of bad consequences for themselves.

    “” But they’ll be totally put off by the risk of being seen and challenged during the couple of metres walk between door and cubicle (like you can’t wait and watch until there’s nobody else around). It’s insane.””

    They have to not be noticed going in. And avoid outside cameras. They have to reckon with the number of women in there. And they have to reckon that a man trying his luck stands a good chance of being seen and caught. If you think it is so easy give it a try and either you or the newspapers will tell us how it worked out.

    “”It’s just an excuse for persecuting people you don’t approve of.””

    Sick of saying that I don’t care what trannies do so long as their activities are not making life worse for others. Mostly that is done by SJW scum attacking and brainwashing 6 year olds or twits like you who don’t give a shite about women.

    “”Well, by the same logic, since all these perverts you’re worried about are heterosexual, cis-gender males, we ought to just lock up all heterosexual, cis-gender males in prisons just to be safe.””

    Marx-feminism 101 again. No one is suggesting trannies be locked up. Just that SJW trannie-suckers not be allowed to set women up for a shitload of obvious trouble while the SJWs pursue their evil agendas.

    “” If you don’t, then all those heterosexual, cis-gender male perverts will be free to roam the streets, getting up to who knows what mischief. It would be a lot more effective at reducing crime. So when do you plan to go to jail?””

    Sheer rodomontade and piffle. Even you must be tired of regurgitating the same stale clichés by now.

  26. “Jesus another 3 million words of shite NiV. Do you think you will win by attrition? Cos you won’t.”

    We should never give up fighting evil.

    But no, I’m not trying to “win”. The purpose of any debate is to present and test the best arguments the respective adherents can construct for each position. Anyone watching can then better decide for themselves who is right. It’s also important that we don’t give the impression that right-wingers are *all* racist, sexist, homophobic bigots, or that they are not willing to criticise members of ‘their own side’ when they decend into moral depravity. That sort of thing just tells independent observers that the SJWs are absolutely *right* about the right, and supports their arguments for cracking down on them.

    I wouldn’t want you to stop. You make it so easy for me to make my points! The drama makes it a powerfully educational demonstration.

    “Again you just get sillier NiV. A plumber going in to do work will likely put a sign outside saying “bog out of use”. Since this will keep women out a perv would likely not do that.”

    Yes they would. It stops anyone else coming in to potentially rescue their victim.

    Although frankly, I’ve no idea what you think a perv could do in a toilet that they couldn’t do elsewhere. For hidden cameras, keeping everyone else out would be good. If you tried peeking over partitions you’d be spotted pretty damn fast, and would be unlikely to see anything, anyway. And as for kicking down doors and applying out-and-out assault, I really don’t see how having an excuse to go from the door to the cubicle would help their case, and that’s something that could be done anywhere. It sounds like paranoid, ‘moral panic’ crap to me.

    What exactly is it that you think these pervs are going to do?

    “Once in the main purpose of pervs will be perving, photographing, exhibiting, wanking, assault, rape, robbery etc.”

    Apart from photographing (for which, as I said, the plumber disguise seems perfectly effective), which of those is specific to toilets?

    “All of which will be enhanced by the free and easy access that SJW-stooges like you seek.”

    If you let men walk the streets freely, you give male criminals free and easy access to all our stuff. So is anyone who doesn’t want all men to be jailed and “SJW stooge”? Quite the reverse, I would have thought.

    “No that is your attempt to shift the terms. The chopped-dicks are a tiny number and altho’ there are a few crims in their ranks they are not the main danger in themselves.”

    Wonderful! So glad to see you acknowledge it!

    So you’re basically punishing a group you admit are not a danger, because of the crimes of others, right? How is that just?

    “Allowing them opens the gates to all males and will allow far better access to a perv crew (who already try regularly to get in and regularly suffer for it) to get in easily.”

    “Most males” are not interested. It wouldn’t normally occur to normal people. You seem suspiciously well-informed about their motivations.

    “ust your standard bullshit NiV. As I have said on countless occasions –and will continue saying as long as I live–I don’t give a shit what weirdos do so long as it hurts nobody else.”

    Cool! That’s all I’m arguing for.

    “Invading women’s bogs IS a harm to most women and frankly piss on your idiot opinion to the contrary.”

    Going to the toilet is not harmful to women. You go in, do your business, wash your hands, check your make-up, and get out. Where exactly is the harm in that? You already acknowldeged above that TGs themselves are “not the main danger in themselves”. And most women agree.

    Assaulting or perving at women *is* harmful, and it should be and is already illegal. I’m not objecting to measures being taken against anyone shown to have done so. The problem is when you attack Group A, while acknowledging that they’re not the danger, because of Group B. That’s a dangerous precedent to set.

    “Tell that to Cliff Richard and Rolf Harris.”

    I said difficult, not impossible.

    And stirring up moral panic about pervy men invading toilets to perv at the women sound to me like more of the same. It’s only going to make it easier for them.

    “Wrong again.”

    So can you cite any femminazis who emphasise the tiny number of exceptions?

    “There already are restrictions such as not being allowed to walk around someone else’s living room uninvited at 3 am in the morning.”

    Don’t change the subject. Not all crimes are committed at 3 am in people’s homes. It’s simple truth that it would reduce crime if you put all men in prison. That’s what your argument justifies. That’s how batshit insane it is.

    “Just piffle. Femmi-bullshit /SJW attempts to have rape redefined as a white man looking sideways at a woman are at the back of attempts to strip men of their right to a fair trial.”

    And you’re busily trying to redefine rape/assault as a TG going to the toilet. Same thing.

    “There is no right for either sex to demand entrance to areas where the opposite sex–or any private group for that matter- do not wish to be intruded upon.”

    Segregation, you mean?

    Excellent! So I want you to fuck off out of all public spaces. I don’t want to share the air you breathe. You’re not allowed on the same street as us, the same bus as us, in the same shops or workplaces as us. We don’t want any filthy transphobes intruding on the spaces we inhabit. You have no right to go out of your own house.

    It’s already the case that 72% of the population (more women than men) think anti-TG prejudice is always or mostly wrong, and only 4% say it is rarely or never wrong. 72% of women don’t have a problem with TGs using their toilets. Public opinion is shifting rapidly in the direction of greter tolerance of TGs, and transphobes are becoming a tiny, disliked minority. If the public decided they weren’t going to tolerate it any more, and decided to apply the same sort of restrictions to transphobes that the transphobes had formerly advocated applying to TGs, why wouldn’t that be poetic justice?

    Never advocate for any instrument of social control that you would not be willing to see your enemies use against you. Because one day they will. Yes, sure, people should have the right to exclude any groups they like from their own property. But that includes transphobes. You are entirely reliant on their goodwill for them not to do so. So it helps to voluntarily show some goodwill and tolerance yourself.

    “It is a bit late if the poor cow is lying dead on the toilet floor in a pool of her own blood or traumatised for good in a puddle of his semen.”

    Amazing! You want to prosecute criminals before they commit their crimes?! 😀 Did you ever read ‘Minority Report’?

    “Males to go freely into women’s toilets would –even if NO new marginal pervs joined in, itself a VERY unlikely circumstance–bring out a frenzy in those frustrated crew who have been pursued and punished for trying to do what they would now be able to do easily.”

    Falsified by the evidence. There are already a bunch of places where TGs are allowed into the women’s toilets, and there’s been no change in crime rates. The Americans in particular have looked at the question in detail:

    “Over 200 municipalities and 18 states have nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people’s access to facilities consistent with the gender they live every day,” according to the coalition. “None of those jurisdictions have [sic] seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws. Assaulting another person in a restroom or changing room remains against the law in every single state.”

    For that matter, TGs are also allowed into women’s toilets in the UK – since the Sex Equality Act 2010. I’ve not noticed any “frenzy”.

    On the other hand, about 70% of transgender people report having been harassed or assaulted going to the toilet. If you genuinely want to prevent people getting assaulted, you might want to do something about that.

    “I’m saying that ongoing public disapproval of men in the Ladies plus illegality plus public shame together with police/jail/ etc will help keep women much safer and more able to go to the lavie without running a gauntlet of perverts.”

    That’s exactly what I said you said. Social conventions.

    “They are quite possibly numbers more men who might assault and rape women but who are kept out of that caper by fear of consequences and the difficulty of success.”

    Evidence?

    The consequences of raping women are the same, whether you do it in a toilet or a railway carriage. Pushing on a door and walking an extra few metres through ‘forbidfden’ space (like someone willing to ignore the fact that rape is also forbidden would care) is not a barrier to success.

    I think you’re just making up hypothetical bullshit to try to defend your indefensible points.

    “If you think it is so easy give it a try and either you or the newspapers will tell us how it worked out.”

    It worked out fine, thanks for asking.

    “Sick of saying that I don’t care what trannies do so long as their activities are not making life worse for others.”

    Except that you obviously *do* care, or we’d not be having this argument.

    “Sheer rodomontade and piffle. Even you must be tired of regurgitating the same stale clichés by now.”

    You mean, you don’t like it when I keep on using arguments you’ve got no coherent answer to, and would like me to stop.

    The same stupid argument you’re using could be used to jail all men. I’m just pointing it out to make it clear how stupid it is. But as you demonstrate, there’s no argument so stupid that you can’t find people who will swallow it, and that’s dangerous. If we tolerate it only when our side uses it, how are we any different to the other side?

  27. SmFS: All this shit from NiV is just typical faggot shit.

    Yes, it is possible for a man wearing plumbers overalls to go into the ladies and sexually assault a woman. It would also be surprising if such a man didn’t at least, you know, knock first. If he didn’t, I would rightly expect any man in the area to question him about what his intentions were.

    As should happen with any tranny faggots who do the same (though of course such people have no good reason to be entering the ladies).

  28. “… just typical faggot shit …”

    Thanks, Paul, for proving my point.

    It’s homophobic hatred motivating this, not any sort of “white knight” concern for women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *