Transgender [Serious]

[Dad]

It goes back to my point, if you look at someone like Hina or Kate who really puts a lot of work into being convincing, you can't tell. A pervert troll would be obvious to spot

 

Common sense goes a long way

 

I mean, I thought the whole 'one bad apple ruins the bunch' was what the whole LGBT movement was against.  

[Slinky]

It goes back to my point, if you look at someone like Hina or Kate who really puts a lot of work into being convincing, you can't tell. A pervert troll would be obvious to spot

 

Common sense goes a long way

 

There's a problem with your theory. A large problem at that.

 

Common sense isn't common.

[VCR_CAT]

We're going to get guys who pretend to be transgender just to gain access to the girls bathrooms, and people aren't going to be able to prove them wrong

 

This is a very real concern for the issue. In all honesty, I'm more in support having the option of unisex bathrooms (and by "unisex bathrooms", I mean the kind of single-person bathrooms where you lock the door) in public spaces. A lot of spaces do this, which is fine by me (and a nice option to have in case you're concerned that your business is going to be quite loud and you'd rather not have people hear).

 

But, a question I have regarding this issue is how current standards combat this? If someone is peeping in a bathroom to the point that it's a significant problem, is the thing they're going to get tried for that they're in the wrong bathroom, or will they be tried for sexual assault? Allowing transgender individuals access to the bathroom of choice shouldn't significantly change current societal views towards bathrooms. So, again, I'm not sure what kind of huge difference this makes for perverts beyond their ability to get into the bathroom in the first place; but if they actually cause a problem it's not like them being in the wrong bathroom is going to be their main concern in the face of sexual assault.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

When did I ever move away from that position??

 

@cowcow 

 

Honestly no idea, they've been building this road for 6 months now, and there's strikes a fair bit. I don't really trust the Nashville government to do anything right. 

 

University finally started building unisex bathrooms, and my tuition bill strangely went up. I'm lucky since scholarship pays for my tuition, but it still went up

I meant more that you said basically the exact same thing earlier and then people said "Well no because" and then you said it again so the point is that...Literally in all this talking there was no headway in this discussion. I've given my reasoning for why that opinion (That you can't have both) is wrong and now, instead of either disproving/debating my reasoning or coming up with another reason you just...said it again.

If we wanna actually talk constructive criticism here goes.

There's no point in discussion if you're going to take in the arguments and then just post the same thing you posted earlier. It's basically saying (as an extreme example) "2 + 2 = 5" and someone saying why it's not. And that going on for several minutes. And you retorting with just saying "2 + 2 =5" again. (And no I am not saying the two things are similar just using it as an example.)

I really don't know how I'm supposed to discuss something with this kind of pattern.

 

Just read this page and now I feel awkward

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You guys are being kinda sexist tbh

 

Male on Male and Female on Female rape do happen

 

There's actually theories that Male on Male happens as much as Male on Female

 

"assault" in bathrooms is silly

 

We just simply cannot afford luxuries as the national budget stands

 

---

 

Sorry, I don't think the sexual assault reasoning has merit, but that's not to say y'all can't think it does

 

 

I meant more that you said basically the exact same thing earlier and then people said "Well no because" and then you said it again so the point is that...Literally in all this talking there was no headway in this discussion. I've given my reasoning for why that opinion (That you can't have both) is wrong and now, instead of either disproving/debating my reasoning or coming up with another reason you just...said it again.

If we wanna actually talk constructive criticism here goes.

There's no point in discussion if you're going to take in the arguments and then just post the same thing you posted earlier. It's basically saying (as an extreme example) "2 + 2 = 5" and someone saying why it's not. And that going on for several minutes. And you retorting with just saying "2 + 2 =5" again. (And no I am not saying the two things are similar just using it as an example.)

I really don't know how I'm supposed to discuss something with this kind of pattern.

 

Just read this page and now I feel awkward

Um, so Giga's pt? Raising taxes to accommodate? Could work, but if you want to grow the GDP, you have to be very careful who you tax

 

Taxing the middle class is a stupid stupid thing to do

 

You could tax Donald Trump, (not Trump Inc. messing with companies is also terrible) and maybe get away with it

[Tourmaline]

It goes back to my point, if you look at someone like Hina or Kate who really puts a lot of work into being convincing, you can't tell. A pervert troll would be obvious to spot

 

Common sense goes a long way

I appreciate this.

 

As well, people who commit crimes will be prosecuted regardless of if they look like the designated sex of the bathroom. If the issue is prevention, the safety of a victim holds more weight than the dysphoria of having to use one's bathroom. I wouldn't let someone homeless in my room until I had proof I could trust them. The burden is not on us to trust transsexuals but for them to earn trust. It's a non-factor in any who pass since they won't be detected in the first place, of course.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

There's a difference between a private home and a public bathroom. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Re Giga

 

 

 

---

 

There's a pretty simple way to look at this.

 

There's something called a multiplier effect, when the government cuts taxes or raises government expenditure, the change in GDP isn't a 1:1 ratio.

 

For Tax cuts it's approximately equal to the MPC (marginal propensity to consume, ie how likely you are to spend the money you get)/(1-MPC)

 

Basically you want a large MPC. (For gov exp, it's just 1/MPC)

 

When Trump talks about cutting taxes for the middle class, but not overall for the upper class, he's not pandering here. He's being quite smart. MPC is often wrongly homogenized. There's a very clear distinction in MPC between wage classes. Typically the richer you are, the lower your MPC is. The ideal would be to personalize each person's tax breaks based on their individual MPC to get the best results, but that's infeasible. 

 

Offering Tax Cuts to the very rich, offsets any gains made by the middle class spending.

 

The principle that Trump is betting on is an equivalence statement. 

 

x% of y = 1/2 x% of 2y

 

He wants to increase GDP with his tax cuts (and later gov exp) enough to offset the loss of revenue from the tax cut. It's quite doable to go to a 5-6% growth rate if we play this right. And to do that is to cut off the decaying limbs on the MPC, ie the rich

 

It's debatable weather taxing the rich is actually smart here.

 

Right now the goal is to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes and leave the rich untouched, but taxing the rich and lowering taxes on everyone else (gag socialism) would potentially work too

 

There is an important distinction to be made here. I'm talking income taxes here. Corporate taxes are a different beast and need to be dealt with by a SSE method

 

The goal of gov exp in some part is tied into this, MPC/(1-MPC) is an approx

 

the real value is 

 

Complex Tax Multiplier = MPC /(1 − (MPC × (1 − MPT) + MPI + MPG + MPM))

Where,
MPC is marginal propensity to consume;
MPT is marginal propensity to tax;
MPI is marginal propensity to invest;
MPG is marginal propensity of government expenditures; and
MPM is marginal propensity to import.

 

MPC Goes up

MPG goes up

MPT goes down

 

MPI/MPM are more complicated

 

---

 

 

This hold true in reverse too, a tax increase on the middle class too would multiply...only it would be negative and really hurt GDP

 

You do NOT mess with people that have the high MPC rate, it's the exact sorta sheet that ended up sinking the USSR

 

---

 

This isn't really about me being selfish, yes I would hate my taxes to go up, but it's bigger than me. What Giga is suggesting would funk a lot more people than just me, and it would funk a lot of people less fortunate than me harder than it would me

[Aerion Brightflame]

Um, so Giga's pt? Raising taxes to accommodate? Could work, but if you want to grow the GDP, you have to be very careful who you tax

 

Taxing the middle class is a stupid stupid thing to do

 

You could tax Donald Trump, (not Trump Inc. messing with companies is also terrible) and maybe get away with it

 

I'm sure if you just got the right amount of tax from the 1% and up then you'd be able to afford a lot of extra things.

 

And even then, it's not like tax and federal money can't grow the economy through subsidies and infrastructure. It might not be clear cut, but it has really beneficial long term effects through sheer quality of life increases and increased mobility and such from that.

 

Even then, I am sure you can find enough money lost just to missmanagement to fund something like this, because I can't imagine it's that costless.

 

The GDP will grow more slowly, but it's not like you can't tax everyone at a fair rate without destroying the economy. And with enough room in the budget to accomidate sheet like this.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm sure if you just got the right amount of tax from the 1% and up then you'd be able to afford a lot of extra things.

 

And even then, it's not like tax and federal money can't grow the economy through subsidies and infrastructure. It might not be clear cut, but it has really beneficial long term effects through sheer quality of life increases and increased mobility and such from that.

 

Even then, I am sure you can find enough money lost just to missmanagement to fund something like this, because I can't imagine it's that costless.

 

The GDP will grow more slowly, but it's not like you can't tax everyone at a fair rate without destroying the economy. And with enough room in the budget to accomidate sheet like this.

Maybe, bit so far neither the GOP nor Dems have been good at stealing money from the 0.1%

 

As for the bolded

 

The US could actually use sales tax records to reverse engineer each person's MPC and have individual tax rates for everyone to maximize the growth of the country. 

 

That's the the utopia fusion of fascism and communism I personally hope to see occur some day

 

When you do this, you'll not see me complaining about trans bathrooms and w/e they want, because the gov cannot go under if you do this. I'm just not willing to torch* 60% of the country for 0.3% getting their pissing rights

 

*potentially torch, but in reality, they'll find a way to mess it up

 

A nationwide reconstruction of gender fluid bathrooms? That would cost more than what it did in reconstruction to make black and white bathrooms. You can squeeze Trump and ilk dry and there won't be enough money for that

 

You're gonna have to tax the middle class