Thursday, August 07, 2008

Bad-Brain Mailbomb

Weird, somebody is mailbombing our Inbox with news stories. I read the first two. In the first one, a registered sex offender was caught molesting some kids. In the second one, a registered sex offender dressed up as a woman and changed his clothes a couple of times in the women's locker room, in front of some children.

We don't know why this person sent this. Do they think we would be surprised to know that there are perverted, dangerous individuals out there committing sex crimes?

The people in these news stories broke laws and were arrested, as they should be. The cross-dressing exhibitionist was charged with one count of invasion of privacy, one count of misuse of a public restroom and one count of failing to register as a sex offender. Pretty good, I don't think he'll see the light of day for a while. The other guy was charged with two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, theft, and criminal trespass.


You do see, don't you, that these crimes had nothing at all to do with discrimination against transgender people. We at Teach the Facts abhor predatory sex criminals, and we abhor bigotry and discrimination. There are people, like whoever sent this stuff, who seem to believe that discrimination is necessary, or sex-crimes will proliferate. Those people have other issues, let's just say.

These criminals would have been arrested in our county, too, even with the new nondiscrimination law in place.

We are advocating the implementation of a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity. I can't believe that this needs to be said, but we do not advocate sexual predation of any kind. We are in favor of personal liberty and respect for good, law-abiding citizens.

We cannot let ourselves be dragged into an argument with people who think this poorly. It is simply wrong to discriminate against people because their gender identity is hard to understand. Transgender people need to be able to work to support themselves, they need to be served in a restaurant when they're hungry, just like everybody else. Transgender people have nothing at all to do with these kinds of deranged perverts who expose themselves to children and molest them, there is simply no connection.

Looking on the bright side, I did learn something. I learned how to go into the server and block email from a particular source. Pretty cool, the torrent of email stopped. just. like. that.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey wingnuts:

If you want to prove your point about sexual predators, here's what you need to do. You need to find a situation

(1) in a jurisdiction with a transgender rights law

(2) where a man dressed up as a woman and went into the women's locker room or dressing room at a public facility,

(3) was asked to leave by the staff of the facility,

(4) responded by saying "hey, don't you know there's a law that allows me to do this?"

(5) the staff of the facility then left him alone,

(6) he proceeded to commit sexual crimes in the women's room, and

(7) the gender identity law served to shield him from prosecution.

Anything else has nothing whatsoever to do with the gender identity law. Right now, sexual crimes are being committed all over the country by depraved individuals. Usually, they are prosecuted and jailed. That will not stop nor will it be encouraged by a transgender rights law.

Without ALL of the above (well, upon reflection, (7) is probably optional), you have precisely no argument. Bring me that situation, and we have something to talk about.

August 07, 2008 10:18 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

They're not trying to make a cogent argument, they're trying to appeal to some people's aversion to others who are different by saying that the latter group are dangerous criminals. They did it with african-americans, they did it with European and Irish immigrants, they did it with Jews, they're doing it now in Prince William County in Virginia with Latino/a immigrants. Anita Bryant made a second career going around labelling gay men as predators-on-children.

Bigotry is repetitive. The essential reason, of course, for the legal appeal Jim described in the previous post (many thanks to Jim for all the research he does on this matter) is to prevent such fear-mongering in a county-wide referendum campaign. NotMyShower indeed.


August 08, 2008 12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In one of those cases Jim cited above, a guy was arrested for dressing like a woman and going in the women's locker room and changing in front of minors. Wouldn't he be free to do so under 23-07?

Just asking.

Anyway, here's Dinesh's thought about atheists for this week:

"What is the source of that liberty, equality and fraternity that are now the guiding principles of the West, if not the modern world?

Historians note the anomaly that these principles originated and developed only in Western civilization. In this sense, they are not universal. Of late, however, these principles are being exported to the rest of the world. One may say they are Western in origin but universal in their application.

But where do the principles come from? With the death of Heidegger and Sartre, Jurgen Habermas is now regarded as perhaps our leading living philosopher. Habermas is also an atheist. Yet when Habermas found out that the European Union in its charter gave full acknowledgement to ancient Greece and Rome, but none to Christianity, he erupted in learned outrage.

Habermas's argument is that it is philosophically illiterate to locate the roots of the West in Athens but not in Jerusalem. In fact, Habermas argues that Jerusalem--by which he means Judaism and Christianity--is far more responsible than Athens for the modern principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. In "A Time of Transition," Habermas writes:

For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.

Habermas's point is that there is too much arrogance in contemporary atheism. Even the atheist is standing on mountain erected by Christianity. How ungrateful it is to scorn the mountain that is still holding you up! How ridiculous the posture of the man who cannot acknowledge the very foundation that sustains him from below!

This is what Christians mean when they say that America is a Christian society. This is not a call for theocracy or "rule of the priests" but rather a call for a public acknowledgement of the historic role of Christianity in shaping our institutions, our values and our culture. The opinions of several leading Supreme Court justices on church-and-state issues would benefit greatly from a slight familiarity with the history that Habermas is talking about.

Habermas's argument would have struck a chord with the greatest atheist of modern times, the philosopher Nietzsche. Nietzsche argued that if you want to get rid of the Christian God, at least have the honesty and the guts to repudiate the Christian ideals of human dignity, human equality and human liberty.

Yet our village atheists want to have it both ways. They want to reject God but preserve at least certain core aspects of the Christian legacy. Nietzsche would have had nothing but scorn for these little men of unbelief, Lilliputians hurling their tiny javelins at the Christian God while they continue to live off His inheritance."

August 08, 2008 7:18 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Q: Wouldn't he be free to do so under 23-07?

A: No, of course not


August 08, 2008 7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why not?

he's expressing himself as a female

August 08, 2008 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I have astonishingly little interest in what Dinesh has to say about atheism?

At what cow college did he learn this stuff?

Is anyone else here interested?


August 08, 2008 9:00 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Exhibitionism is a crime, as is peeping, with or without the new law. Further, if the person is molesting or touching anyone, that's a crime, too. This incident happened in Portland Oregon, which has a law similar to what was passed here. It didn't stop police from arresting the person and prosecuting them.


August 08, 2008 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

why not?

Because Bill 23-07 does not cover bathrooms. The language that did cover them on Page 6, Lines 111-114 was pulled. Also Bill 23-07 expressly states on Page 5, Lines 89-90 that it "does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal."

Is anyone else here interested?

I'm not interested in them either, Robert. I don't read Anon's D'Loser posts.

August 08, 2008 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At what cow college did he learn this stuff?"

He went to Dartmouth, Robert. How about you?

He is currently a Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

He's also currently embarassing the best debaters the atheist world can throw at him.

This whole topic of faith and its effects has been a regular topic here.

Lots of people are interested in the arguments of those who oppose them.

I know I am.

Ever read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu?

Here's an excerpt:

"If you know yourself and don't know your enemy, with every victory will also come a defeat.

If you know yourself and know your enemy, you need not fear the outcome of a thousand battles."

Wouldn't you like that, Robert?

August 08, 2008 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Exhibitionism is a crime,"

Is dressing in a locker room considered exhibitionism? If so, it's observed about as well as speeding laws.

"This incident happened in Portland Oregon, which has a law similar to what was passed here."

I'd like to see that. I doubt if they went for that "expressing" language.

"It didn't stop police from arresting the person and prosecuting them"

On what basis? Getting dressed in a locker room?

"Because Bill 23-07 does not cover bathrooms."

Ridiculous. We've already gone through this a gadzillion times.

August 08, 2008 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I was teasing; Mr. D'Souza was a classmate of mine.

We knew him as Distort D'Newza.

In my opinion, he and his newspaper brought the college a bad name, and hurt undergraduate applications.

August 08, 2008 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I should say that, while I find the comments of Jesse's Anonymous Incarnation empty of content and designed primarily to provoke people, the responses by people such as Bea, Jim, Cynthia, Dana, and others, that contain references to real-world information, are very interesting and useful. Many thanks to those who research and share such information.


August 08, 2008 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Robert and Aunt Bea...I don't care at all what Dineesh D'Souza has to say about religion and I care even less what the various "Anonymous" trolls have to say here. Their words are meant to incite hatred, bigotry, and intolerance against a group of citizens in our County. That, in itself, is enough to merit Mr. D'Souza's attention as something that needs to be cured!

August 08, 2008 4:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home