North Carolina Passes "Anti-LGBT" Bill

[Grenartia]

That statement makes no sense. And why are you "opposed" to this "population"?

1. The attitudes you've described which summarize the bill, are precisely why I support it.

2. I am opposed to the LGBT population because they go against Traditional beliefs, and I'm a Traditionalist.

1. That pretty much makes you a bad person.

2. And? Some "traditions" are stupid. Others, inefficient. Still others, blatantly harmful (putting lit candles on Christmas trees, for instance). I'll say it again, tradition for tradition's sake is a fallacy.

[Traditionalism]

>What exactly does this bill accomplish?

1. It helps to marginalize the LGBT community and 2. show them that this kind of immoral behavior isn't favored or will be tolerated.

>What problems does it solve

3. It fights against progressiveness and the loss of traditional values.

> least harmful solution possible to said problems?

All legislation concerning divisive issues will always be harmful to some degree. 4. My objective is not the least harmful but the most reactionary and symbolic.

>Do you support this bill because you believe in this baseless "men pretending to be trans in women's restrooms" fearmongering, or because you have an animosity towards trans people themselves, and see any piece of legislation that restricts their rights as a public good?

5. The second part.

1. You say that like its an inherently good thing.

2. Of what "immoral" behavior do you speak, and why is it immoral? And by all means, refrain from using that tired old "becaws jay-sus" line, because I've debunked that load of horseshit 6 ways to Sunday and back again. I want actual facts and logic.

3. What in particular about that is bad? Also, tradition for the sake of tradition is a fallacy.

4. Again, you say this like its an inherently good thing.

5. Why?

>1. You say that like its an inherently good thing.

If the shoe fits.

>2. Of what "immoral" behavior do you speak, and why is it immoral? And by all means, refrain from using that tired old "becaws jay-sus" line, because I've debunked that load of horseshit 6 ways to Sunday and back again. I want actual facts and logic.

Homosexuality and the entirety of the LGBT community is immoral and anti-traditional. It goes against the cosmic truth of God.


>3. What in particular about that is bad? Also, tradition for the sake of tradition is a fallacy.

Because it's anti-traditional, materialist, physical, and again, works again the cosmic order.

>4. Again, you say this like its an inherently good thing.

To you it may not be, and that is why we are opponents.

>5. Why?

Because, they are opposed to the truth. They violate the structure and cosmic order instituted by God.

[Grenartia]

The attitudes you've described which summarize the bill, are precisely why I support it.

I am opposed to the LGBT population because they go against Traditional beliefs, and I'm a Traditionalist.

So is Governor Mccory, who has openly stated that this law was a bad idea on his part, and that of his people.

Your 'Traditionalism' had wasted billions of dollars, caused a crapton of businesses to leave my home state, brought international ridicule upon us, and put the safety of the transsexual community at risk.

Why? What the Fuck does this accomplish that could possibly be worth the shitstorm it has created? The DA has completely refused to back this bill for chrissakes!

"At least I have chicken tradition."

[Grenartia]

Given the obscenely high rates of violence against transpeople, and transwomen in particular, its actually not that much of a stretch.

I'll look into it, I'm not accusing you of being false, I just don't like slippery slopes.

Look at this: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/r ... s_full.pdf

[Linux and the X]

>What exactly does this bill accomplish?

It helps to marginalize the LGBT community and show them that this kind of immoral behavior isn't favored or will be tolerated.

>What problems does it solve

It fights against progressiveness and the loss of traditional values.

> least harmful solution possible to said problems?

All legislation concerning divisive issues will always be harmful to some degree. My objective is not the least harmful but the most reactionary and symbolic.

>Do you support this bill because you believe in this baseless "men pretending to be trans in women's restrooms" fearmongering, or because you have an animosity towards trans people themselves, and see any piece of legislation that restricts their rights as a public good?

The second part.

Back to the RP forums with you! NSG is OOC.

[Liriena]

yes. From your perspective they haven't done anything wrong, and are innocent.

Of course they are innocent. They haven't actually hurt anyone. The only thing they appear to hurt, from your perspective, are your incredibly thin-skinned personal values. Those are abstract, intangible, lifeless things... and you are putting them above the lives of your fellow human beings.

From my perspective, they're not malicious.

You are actively and knowingly supporting legislation that hurts others and puts them at serious risk. That's malice right there. It's the only possibility left, because you can't plead ignorance on this matter, and deliberately trying to make the lives of countless innocent strangers more difficult out of spite towards some vague threat you feel they represent to your own personal values cannot possibly be construed as well-meaning.

[Traditionalism]

The attitudes you've described which summarize the bill, are precisely why I support it.

I am opposed to the LGBT population because they go against Traditional beliefs, and I'm a Traditionalist.

So is Governor Mccory, who has openly stated that this law was a bad idea on his part, and that of his people.

Your 'Traditionalism' had wasted billions of dollars, caused a crapton of businesses to leave my home state, brought international ridicule upon us, and put the safety of the transsexual community at risk.

Why? What the Fuck does this accomplish that could possibly be worth the shitstorm it has created? The DA has completely refused to back this bill for chrissakes!

>Your 'Traditionalism' had wasted billions of dollars, caused a crapton of businesses to leave my home state, brought international ridicule upon us, and put the safety of the transsexual community at risk.

None of this means anything to me, I have no interest in the economic health of this 'nation' nor do I have any interest in who is ridiculed or not, and I have no interest of the safety of the transsexual community.

[Traditionalism]

yes. From your perspective they haven't done anything wrong, and are innocent.

Of course they are innocent. They haven't actually hurt anyone. The only thing they appear to hurt, from your perspective, are your incredibly thin-skinned personal values.

From my perspective, they're not malicious.

You are actively and knowingly supporting legislation that hurts others and puts them at serious risk. That's malice right there. It's the only possibility left, because you can't plead ignorance on this matter, and deliberately trying to make the lives of countless innocent strangers more difficult o.ut of spite towards some vague threat you feel they represent to your own personal values cannot possibly be construed as well-meaning

>Of course they are innocent. They haven't actually hurt anyone. The only thing they appear to hurt, from your perspective, are your incredibly thin-skinned personal values.

Physical harm isn't the only condition necessary for 'hurting'

Their active ideology is harmful towards my traditional views and traditionalism in general. In the long run, their micro culture harms the truth because it is anti-traditional and works against my beliefs, therefore it is harmful.


>You are actively and knowingly supporting legislation that hurts others and puts them at serious risk. That's malice right there. It's the only possibility left, because you can't plead ignorance on this matter, and deliberately trying to make the lives of countless innocent strangers more difficult o.ut of spite towards some vague threat you feel they represent to your own personal values cannot possibly be construed as well-meaning

I never said I had well-meaning intentions towards this group of people, because I don't. However, I disagree that it is malice. To me, I'm fighting for truth.

[Holy Marsh]

It is pretty obvious that Traditionalism is posting at this point just to get a rise out of people. Why give him the privilege? Let people like him stroke their egos over this. They are isolated victories that will stand out as special cases in the sands of time.Those views are literally dying off and will be overturned and left where they belong, in the history books.

[The Forsworn Knights]

So is Governor Mccory, who has openly stated that this law was a bad idea on his part, and that of his people.

Your 'Traditionalism' had wasted billions of dollars, caused a crapton of businesses to leave my home state, brought international ridicule upon us, and put the safety of the transsexual community at risk.

Why? What the Fuck does this accomplish that could possibly be worth the shitstorm it has created? The DA has completely refused to back this bill for chrissakes!

>Your 'Traditionalism' had wasted billions of dollars, caused a crapton of businesses to leave my home state, brought international ridicule upon us, and put the safety of the transsexual community at risk.

None of this means anything to me, I have no interest in the economic health of this 'nation' nor do I have any interest in who is ridiculed or not, and I have no interest of the safety of the transsexual community.

So, you chain to be proud of the state of North Carolina for placing this bill in place, yet say you have no care for it when a resident actively lists since of the massive negative effects that have already cost North Carolina jobs, money, and the respect of the nation?

[Traditionalism]

I don't hate them, but I see the system that encourages them as dangerous and any kind of blow to said system to me is a victory, especially if it is as reactionary and overt as this.

I mean, I wouldn't slaughter LGBT on the streets indiscriminately, it takes a lot for me to get physical about anything, something as petty as orientation won't force me to physical violence, but I dislike the amount of influence they have, and I see it as dangerous.

What do you mean by "encourages them"?

If it doesn't oppress them, if it's not working against them, and allows it to spread, then it encourages them.

[Linux and the X]

What do you mean by "encourages them"?

If it doesn't oppress them, if it's not working against them, and allows it to spread, then it encourages them.

Your posts encourage me to transgend harder.

[Ifreann]

Usually people try to hide the fact that they're just hatefully trying to ruin other people's lives.

He gets props for being honest

Nah, not really.

[Thermodolia]

What do you mean by "encourages them"?

If it doesn't oppress them, if it's not working against them, and allows it to spread, then it encourages them.

I think I just became gayer by that post.

[Traditionalism]

>Your 'Traditionalism' had wasted billions of dollars, caused a crapton of businesses to leave my home state, brought international ridicule upon us, and put the safety of the transsexual community at risk.

None of this means anything to me, I have no interest in the economic health of this 'nation' nor do I have any interest in who is ridiculed or not, and I have no interest of the safety of the transsexual community.

So, you chain to be proud of the state of North Carolina for placing this bill in place, yet say you have no care for it when a resident actively lists since of the massive negative effects that have already cost North Carolina jobs, money, and the respect of the nation?

Traditionalism's perspective is first from the metaphysical, and temporal and physical fulfillment are secondary. This is a metaphysical victory from the Traditionalists standpoint, it's setting the stage for some actual momentum for a movement.

As for North Carolina's jobs, money, and the other materialist aspects of its vile Capitalism, I don't care. Material things don't mean much to me, if the spiritual side is ruined.

[Holy Marsh]

If it doesn't oppress them, if it's not working against them, and allows it to spread, then it encourages them.

I think I just became gayer by that post.

I'm a married man but I'm sure if there are any willing females my wife would be into it. And traditionalism is making me think about some nice men I know.

[Thermodolia]

He gets props for being honest

Nah, not really.

At least we don't have to figure out if he's a bigot or just stupid.

[Grenartia]

1. You say that like its an inherently good thing.

2. Of what "immoral" behavior do you speak, and why is it immoral? And by all means, refrain from using that tired old "becaws jay-sus" line, because I've debunked that load of horseshit 6 ways to Sunday and back again. I want actual facts and logic.

3. What in particular about that is bad? Also, tradition for the sake of tradition is a fallacy.

4. Again, you say this like its an inherently good thing.

5. Why?

>1. You say that like its an inherently good thing.

If the shoe fits.

>2. Of what "immoral" behavior do you speak, and why is it immoral? And by all means, refrain from using that tired old "becaws jay-sus" line, because I've debunked that load of horseshit 6 ways to Sunday and back again. I want actual facts and logic.

1. Homosexuality and the entirety of the LGBT community is immoral and 2. anti-traditional. 3. It goes against the cosmic truth of God.


>3. What in particular about that is bad? Also, tradition for the sake of tradition is a fallacy.

Because it's 4. anti-traditional, 5. materialist, 6. physical, and 7. again, works again the cosmic order.

>4. Again, you say this like its an inherently good thing.

8. To you it may not be, and that is why we are opponents.

>5. Why?

9. Because, they are opposed to the truth. They violate the structure and cosmic order instituted by God.

1. It cannot be immoral if it causes no harm.

2. And? So? Why is this a bad thing?

3. I told you not to go down that road. No, God has no problem with LGBT people on any level, I can assure you.

4. Again, not seeing the inherent problem with that.

5. Still not seeing a problem.

6. "Day 107: Still no signs of any problems."

7. Can you prove this? Also, I can already tell you it doesn't. Two dudes making out hasn't thrown the planets out of orbit yet, and it never will.

8. So it seems.

9. And what "truth" is that? How do we "go against God"? And before you say anything, full and fair warning: I can and will refute anything and everything you say, and everything you cite.

[Linux and the X]

-snip-

Ha, ninja'd.

[The Forsworn Knights]

So, you chain to be proud of the state of North Carolina for placing this bill in place, yet say you have no care for it when a resident actively lists since of the massive negative effects that have already cost North Carolina jobs, money, and the respect of the nation?

Traditionalism's perspective is first from the metaphysical, and temporal and physical fulfillment are secondary. This is a metaphysical victory from the Traditionalists standpoint, it's setting the stage for some actual momentum for a movement.

As for North Carolina's jobs, money, and the other materialist aspects of its vile Capitalism, I don't care. Material things don't mean much to me, if the spiritual side is ruined.

I have an entire state here which works disagree with that notion.

Mostly cause we like living, and would much prefer that prime like you kindly take your own advice and give up material things.
You know, computers and food. I hear that Adam and Eve were going commando.

[Thermodolia]

Ha, ninja'd.

I saw your post, before I posted.

[Traditionalism]

>1. You say that like its an inherently good thing.

If the shoe fits.

>2. Of what "immoral" behavior do you speak, and why is it immoral? And by all means, refrain from using that tired old "becaws jay-sus" line, because I've debunked that load of horseshit 6 ways to Sunday and back again. I want actual facts and logic.

1. Homosexuality and the entirety of the LGBT community is immoral and 2. anti-traditional. 3. It goes against the cosmic truth of God.


>3. What in particular about that is bad? Also, tradition for the sake of tradition is a fallacy.

Because it's 4. anti-traditional, 5. materialist, 6. physical, and 7. again, works again the cosmic order.

>4. Again, you say this like its an inherently good thing.

8. To you it may not be, and that is why we are opponents.

>5. Why?

9. Because, they are opposed to the truth. They violate the structure and cosmic order instituted by God.

1. It cannot be immoral if it causes no harm.

2. And? So? Why is this a bad thing?

3. I told you not to go down that road. No, God has no problem with LGBT people on any level, I can assure you.

4. Again, not seeing the inherent problem with that.

5. Still not seeing a problem.

6. "Day 107: Still no signs of any problems."

7. Can you prove this? Also, I can already tell you it doesn't. Two dudes making out hasn't thrown the planets out of orbit yet, and it never will.

8. So it seems.

9. And what "truth" is that? How do we "go against God"? And before you say anything, full and fair warning: I can and will refute anything and everything you say, and everything you cite.

>1. It cannot be immoral if it causes no harm.

Clearly we have different definitions of morals.

>2. And? So? Why is this a bad thing?

Traditionalism is the pursuit of the metaphysical truth of the cosmic order and the universe. If it's adverse to the truth, then it's wrong, and it contributes to the destruction and degradation of the human spirit and as a result the physical world.


>3. I told you not to go down that road. No, God has no problem with LGBT people on any level, I can assure you.

Homosexuality is a sin. It can't be encouraged.




>5. Still not seeing a problem.

Materialism is anti-traditionalist. It's the basis of the degeneracy of the modern world and separates humanity from our spirit.


>
7. Can you prove this?

Homosexuality is a sin, thus it works counter to the cosmic order.


>9. And what "truth" is that? How do we "go against God"? And before you say anything, full and fair warning: I can and will refute anything and everything you say, and everything you cite

Because you are encouraging a culture which is totally against God and His order.

[Grenartia]

Of course they are innocent. They haven't actually hurt anyone. The only thing they appear to hurt, from your perspective, are your incredibly thin-skinned personal values.


You are actively and knowingly supporting legislation that hurts others and puts them at serious risk. That's malice right there. It's the only possibility left, because you can't plead ignorance on this matter, and deliberately trying to make the lives of countless innocent strangers more difficult o.ut of spite towards some vague threat you feel they represent to your own personal values cannot possibly be construed as well-meaning

>Of course they are innocent. They haven't actually hurt anyone. The only thing they appear to hurt, from your perspective, are your incredibly thin-skinned personal values.

Physical harm isn't the only condition necessary for 'hurting'

1. Their active ideology is harmful towards my traditional views and traditionalism in general. 2. In the long run, their micro culture harms the truth because it is anti-traditional and 3. works against my beliefs, therefore it is harmful.


>You are actively and knowingly supporting legislation that hurts others and puts them at serious risk. That's malice right there. It's the only possibility left, because you can't plead ignorance on this matter, and deliberately trying to make the lives of countless innocent strangers more difficult o.ut of spite towards some vague threat you feel they represent to your own personal values cannot possibly be construed as well-meaning

4. I never said I had well-meaning intentions towards this group of people, because I don't. However, I disagree that it is malice. To me, I'm fighting for truth.

1. If facts and reality threaten your worldview, maybe you should change your worldview.

2. I'm going to put this bluntly. The truth doesn't give a single fucking shit about tradition.

3. So, its bad because it threatens your "traditions", which is bad because it threatens your worldview, which is bad because it threatens your "traditions". Circular logic.

4. But you're objectively not fighting for truth.

[Grenartia]

What do you mean by "encourages them"?

If it doesn't oppress them, if it's not working against them, and allows it to spread, then it encourages them.

You know, your very statements are only going to push people more in support of us than anything else. In that regard, you'd be considered to be encouraging us, since you're not oppressing us, not working against us, and allowing us to spread.

[Linux and the X]

>Of course they are innocent. They haven't actually hurt anyone. The only thing they appear to hurt, from your perspective, are your incredibly thin-skinned personal values.

Physical harm isn't the only condition necessary for 'hurting'

Their active ideology is harmful towards my traditional views and traditionalism in general. In the long run, their micro culture harms the truth because it is anti-traditional and works against my beliefs, therefore it is harmful.


>You are actively and knowingly supporting legislation that hurts others and puts them at serious risk. That's malice right there. It's the only possibility left, because you can't plead ignorance on this matter, and deliberately trying to make the lives of countless innocent strangers more difficult o.ut of spite towards some vague threat you feel they represent to your own personal values cannot possibly be construed as well-meaning

I never said I had well-meaning intentions towards this group of people, because I don't. However, I disagree that it is malice. To me, I'm fighting for truth.

Yes, yes, we get it, your character is a horrible bigot. But this isn't an RP forum; please take it to one.