Eleven States sue over federal Transgender Bathroom policy

[Noraika]

The strong have no need to prove themselves to the weak. It's in your best interest that we keep our activism to non-criminal methods.

Wait...didn't you just say you didn't want to waste your time convincing the enemy?

Well if you want to prove yourselves to the weak, I'd assume a part of that would be to describe and explain the reasoning behind your positions, so I also await your answer to my previous question.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

ITG

The strong have no need to prove themselves to the weak. It's in your best interest that we keep our activism to non-criminal methods.

Look out, we got a badass over here.

[Traditionalism]

I have no intention of convincing the enemy of anything. It's impossible.

Well I never said you had to convince me, or that you should try. I am merely asking you for your reasoning in the question I stated before. Surely you have your reasoning for it, which you can state as to what makes you personal conviction of 'Truth' objective, and what is the reasoning to suppose that this definition of "Truth" is the objectively correct one? And how are other views false? Right?

No need to feel obliged to 'convince' me. Just asking for you to state it.

>Well I never said you had to convince me, or that you should try.

You literally said "why we should accept such reasoning?"

>. I am merely asking you for your reasoning in the question I stated before.

I already did tell you my reasoning. It's against the structure of the Cosmic Order.

>which you can state as to what makes you personal conviction of 'Truth' objective, and what is the reasoning to suppose that this definition of "Truth" is the objectively correct one? And how are other views false? Right?

Because it aligns with the Bible.

Other views are false because they have false foundations.

[Wisconsin9]

So a few tanks built from scrap in some Ukrainian backwater means you can conquer the world. Got it.

We can defeat anyone. Even the whole world.

Yeah, that worked out real well last time.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well I never said you had to convince me, or that you should try. I am merely asking you for your reasoning in the question I stated before. Surely you have your reasoning for it, which you can state as to what makes you personal conviction of 'Truth' objective, and what is the reasoning to suppose that this definition of "Truth" is the objectively correct one? And how are other views false? Right?

No need to feel obliged to 'convince' me. Just asking for you to state it.

>Well I never said you had to convince me, or that you should try.

You literally said "why we should accept such reasoning?"

>. I am merely asking you for your reasoning in the question I stated before.

I already did tell you my reasoning. It's against the structure of the Cosmic Order.

>which you can state as to what makes you personal conviction of 'Truth' objective, and what is the reasoning to suppose that this definition of "Truth" is the objectively correct one? And how are other views false? Right?

Because it aligns with the Bible.

Other views are false because they have false foundations.

The Bible is a false foundation.

Checkmate, atheists Christians.

[Noraika]

Well I never said you had to convince me, or that you should try. I am merely asking you for your reasoning in the question I stated before. Surely you have your reasoning for it, which you can state as to what makes you personal conviction of 'Truth' objective, and what is the reasoning to suppose that this definition of "Truth" is the objectively correct one? And how are other views false? Right?

No need to feel obliged to 'convince' me. Just asking for you to state it.

>Well I never said you had to convince me, or that you should try.

You literally said "why we should accept such reasoning?"

>. I am merely asking you for your reasoning in the question I stated before.

I already did tell you my reasoning. It's against the structure of the Cosmic Order.

>which you can state as to what makes you personal conviction of 'Truth' objective, and what is the reasoning to suppose that this definition of "Truth" is the objectively correct one? And how are other views false? Right?

Because it aligns with the Bible.

Other views are false because they have false foundations.

Which false foundations are those, and why is the Bible the only legitimate foundation? What objective factors make all others objectively illegitimate? In addition, why should we care about this Cosmic Order you speak of, and whether things align with it or not? All of this sounds like we should just take your word for it, but I'd like to imagine you have a more solid reasoning than that.

[Traditionalism]

>Well I never said you had to convince me, or that you should try.

You literally said "why we should accept such reasoning?"

>. I am merely asking you for your reasoning in the question I stated before.

I already did tell you my reasoning. It's against the structure of the Cosmic Order.

>which you can state as to what makes you personal conviction of 'Truth' objective, and what is the reasoning to suppose that this definition of "Truth" is the objectively correct one? And how are other views false? Right?

Because it aligns with the Bible.

Other views are false because they have false foundations.

Which false foundations are those, and why is the Bible the only legitimate foundation? What objective factors make all others objectively illegitimate? All of this sounds like we should just take your word for it, but I'd like to imagine you have a more solid reasoning than that.

>why is the Bible the only legitimate foundation?

Because it's the word of God.

>What objective factors make all others objectively illegitimate?

By going against the Truth.

[Traditionalism]

We can defeat anyone. Even the whole world.

Yeah, that worked out real well last time.

We value principles, not success. That is why even if we are totally wiped out and defeated, we still have victory.

[Noraika]

Which false foundations are those, and why is the Bible the only legitimate foundation? What objective factors make all others objectively illegitimate? All of this sounds like we should just take your word for it, but I'd like to imagine you have a more solid reasoning than that.

>why is the Bible the only legitimate foundation?

Because it's the word of God.

>What objective factors make all others objectively illegitimate?

By going against the Truth.

Which God? There are literally thousands of different Gods. What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others? Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth? Let's dive a little deeper shall we.

[Imperializt Russia]

So a few outdated Soviet tanks means you can conquer the world. Got it.

Azov Battalion produced these tanks themselves and have plans and designs for a new one too.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-tour ... nk-factory

I thought you had to go?

[Wisconsin9]

Yeah, that worked out real well last time.

We value principles, not success. That is why even if we are totally wiped out and defeated, we still have victory.

This is the most hilarious absolute disconnect from reality I've ever seen.

[Gauthier]

(Image)

Heresy. The only worth efforts are those undertaken for the God-Emperor of Mankind.

Well if all those Bugs had been wiped out they wouldn't have evolved into Tyrannids.

[Traditionalism]

>why is the Bible the only legitimate foundation?

Because it's the word of God.

>What objective factors make all others objectively illegitimate?

By going against the Truth.

Which God? There are literally thousands of different Gods. What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others? Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth? Let's dive a little deeper shall we.

> There are literally thousands of different Gods.
no

>What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others?

Because he's God.

>Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth?

Because his word, the truth in it is recognizable.

[Vassenor]

Which God? There are literally thousands of different Gods. What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others? Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth? Let's dive a little deeper shall we.

> There are literally thousands of different Gods.
no

>What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others?

Because he's God.

>Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth?

Because his word, the truth in it is recognizable.

So you're up to "I'm right because I said so".

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Which God? There are literally thousands of different Gods. What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others? Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth? Let's dive a little deeper shall we.

> There are literally thousands of different Gods.
no

Yes.

Zeus, Ares, Astarte, Thor, Amaterasu, Izanagi, the Abrahamic one, Xenu...

The list goes on and on.

>What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others?

Because he's God.

How does that matter?

Where's the evidence that he is God?

Why should we listen to him?

>Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth?

Because his word, the truth in it is recognizable.

It's a book dating back to when people thought disease was caused by spirits. It's not really a source for anything.

[Noraika]

Which God? There are literally thousands of different Gods. What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others? Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth? Let's dive a little deeper shall we.

> There are literally thousands of different Gods.
no

>What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others?

Because he's God.

>Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth?

Because his word, the truth in it is recognizable.

None of those explain the 'why' behind your beliefs. For example, as an Animist, for me there are literally thousands of Gods, and that claim is equally legitimate to your claim that there is only one God, at this time. I'm asking you to provide your reasoning that, objectively there is only one God, and this god is the God of the Bible, and that this Bible properly reflects the words of this God, and is not reflected in any other religion or spirituality? Surely you have more proof and reasoning than "Because he's God", if you're going to use this as a basis for your political beliefs, and I'm interested in knowing what they are.

How is the truth recognizable? What qualities does it have that make it objectively determinable as Truth?

Zeus, Ares, Astarte, Thor, Amaterasu, Izanagi, the Abrahamic one, Xenu...

The list goes on and on.

Yay! A few of the Kami were mentioned. Very happy to see that for once! Also would like an answer to the questions in this quote.

[Quokkastan]

Can I point out that this is due to the fact that the policy was forced down by executive fiat and that's why the states are suing?

You can try, but it will make you look foolish.

[Linux and the X]

Because it's the word of God.

No it's not.

[Quokkastan]

Because it's the word of God.

No it's not.

According to my empirical research, the word of God is "fuck."

Or, at least, the two appear to have been used interchangeably in our umm... "experiments."

[Traditionalism]

> There are literally thousands of different Gods.
no

Yes.

Zeus, Ares, Astarte, Thor, Amaterasu, Izanagi, the Abrahamic one, Xenu...

The list goes on and on.

>What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others?

Because he's God.

How does that matter?

Where's the evidence that he is God?

Why should we listen to him?

>Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth?

Because his word, the truth in it is recognizable.

It's a book dating back to when people thought disease was caused by spirits. It's not really a source for anything.

>Zeus, Ares, Astarte, Thor, Amaterasu, Izanagi, the Abrahamic one, Xenu...

Those aren't God. They're manmade idols.

>How does that matter?

Uh, he's the supreme being and creator of life?

>Where's the evidence that he is God?

You're not going to find evidence of an Immaterial being from a Temporal perspective.

>Why should we listen to him?
Because he's God.

>It's a book dating back to when people thought disease was caused by spirits. It's not really a source for anything.

There's nothing to say they're not caused by spirits.

[Zoice]

Which God? There are literally thousands of different Gods. What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others? Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth? Let's dive a little deeper shall we.

> There are literally thousands of different Gods.
no

>What makes this one particularly special enough that their words should be taken above all the others?

Because he's God.

>Also how do you know that the Bible is objectively the word of God, and that the god of the Bible is legitimately objectively Truth?

Because his word, the truth in it is recognizable.

In other words...

I know the Good Book's good because the Good Book says it's good /
I know the Good Book knows it's good because a really good book would /

[Imperializt Russia]

>Where's the evidence that he is God?

You're not going to find evidence of an Immaterial being from a Temporal perspective.

>Why should we listen to him?
Because he's God.

>It's a book dating back to when people thought disease was caused by spirits. It's not really a source for anything.

There's nothing to say they're not caused by spirits.

Except everything.

[Wisconsin9]

No it's not.

According to my empirical research, the word of God is "fuck."

Or, at least, the two appear to have been used interchangeably in our umm... "experiments."

Well, "go forth and multiply," close enough, yeah?

[Farnhamia]

*looms ominously* Back on topic, people. The thread is not about God, fascism, the Avoz Battalion or the Iron March. It is about the suit brought by eleven states against the administration's directive on bathrooms.

[Noraika]

To return to topic, it does always interest me how different things are about LGB+ people in most places, and especially in regards to the generation that's grown up, over the last decade. Seems that transgender people, although 10 years behind, are well on their way to being just another normal part of natural human diversity. Remember the greatest and most vocal opposition to gay marriage came right before support from public opinion crashed.

Pretty sure these states are, once again, the last breathe of strong opposition before the pendulum swings in the other direction...against them.