God is made up. But people identify as Christians.
It isn’t as if as a society we haven’t set a precedent for letting people be something they are biologically not.
So “checking under the hood”, as you so eloquently put it, is not a foolproof method for discovering the legal gender of a suspect in police custody
The police have procedures for finding out a person’s legal gender, just as they do for finding their legal name
The booking officer is not the person to carry out those procedures
Skin in the game refers to having at risk in a game.
Two fighters in a UFC fight have skin in the game.
The person on the couch stating they should have done this, they should have done that, with no at risk does not.
It has nothing to do with preserving a narrative in many, if not most cases.
Rather the reverse.
People with skin in the game have to play in real games, with real consequences, usually in real time, under conditions of uncertainty.
People without skin in the game, put forward narratives, often with the benefit of hindsight, and without the responsibilities and stressors, that real participants in a game with risks in play have.
After arrest, people put in lock ups, ie jails, after arrest, are routinely searched, including stripping down and checked for contraband, before they are locked up.
This is pretty routine.
That process would certainly make it clear whether a cock (real or fake), or a vagina was present on the person being locked up.
Clearly, don’t a lock up a vagina (fake or otherwise) with anyone that appears to have a real penis.
It would be stupid to do otherwise.
Not to imply that female inmates don’t commit sexual assault as much or more than male inmates, because by the numbers sexaul assault by female inmates on female inmates is at least as large a problem as sexual assault by male inmates on male inmates.
Thank you captain obvious
Apparently this is not so obvious to some people.
Are you trying to outstupid Doofa now?
You are so fucking stupid, it’s beyond belief. Just stop, OK?
You know the rules B
The first person to say stupid looses
Except in cases when one is the first person to call out stupid when stupid is present.
Then the first person to call out stupid wins, and is the winner.
The first person who can’t spell “loses” is stupid.
2 Likes
Nope. Not how your definition works. Sorry. That is how I would have defined it. But you argued it wasn’t the case.
Your definition was how a criminal case might create laws that adversely effect your ability to buy stuff.
You are not the UFC fighter in that example. You are the guy who wanted to walk around with a Tapout shirt.
So here if we change the narrative from men rape to rapists rape. Then it dilutes the message and makes it a harder sell.
If you were some sort of screaming man hating feminist. This would probably make your head explode.
No. You are.
I mean hey. If we are going primary school arguments. Let’s really go there.
First, you don’t get to define my definitions.
Second, you don’t or didn’t understand my definitions, then got frustrated.
Incorrect.
A criminal case may create precedents, that affect:
how I may carry my firearms,
how I must teach others to carry firearms as one of the people in my State certified to give those classes for them to qualify for carry permits,
how I and others may use our firearms in self-defense,
May affect substantial property and investments I have already made regarding firearms,
And may also affect, my ability procure goods and services from the supply chain, that I may need or want.
I am the professor at my university tasked with giving the firearms permit class to the criminal justice majors, to other faculty, and to other university students, who want that class or permit, because I have that certification to do so.
I am also someone that has carried a firearm on my hip for 30 years, and who carries shotguns or rifles for home self-defense, and for hunting, who lives on a rural property of several acres, and who goes hunting in areas where emergency response times might take a couple hours.
And, I am the guy that supplies firearm training equipment to some of the armed professionals where I live, when they train firearms, such as the armed school guardians, among others.
So, tell me again, how I am the guy “wearing the tap out” shirt?
Are you sure that isn’t the guy who plays airsoft, that was telling the people on the forum who have firearm expertise, including the poster who wears a firearm at work everyday as an officer of the court, that the people on the forum who have firearm expertise, including the armed court officer, and who carry firearms, that they are “larpers”…?
Greg, you are being ridiculous again. And were then, as well.
It’s going over your head, for obvious reasons.
Sorry. You are the guy who sells the Tapout shirts.
The metaphor would be you have no personal involvement other than being able to make a buck off someone.
So. Not personally involved but able to make a buck.
@gregaquaman , I do not charge money to the university folks when I teach that course.
Nor do I charge the armed school guardians to use my firearm training equipment.
Those are charitable community service activities for me.
Once again, you are shooting your mouth off, without aiming, nor regard for accuracy.
Wrong on both counts.
I can make a buck, but usually donate my time and equipment to support worthy community initiatives.
And, I certainly have personal at risk, when it comes to U.S. firearm laws, regs, and precedents.
The buck was a meta comment.
You could be earning clout or have some evangelical cause or just getting laid. It doesn’t matter.
The point is(and to keep the metaphor.) You are not one of the fighters, you are not the ref or the promoter, you were not in the crowd, you never knew a single person involved in that activity. You did not know that activity even happened untill you saw the results on the news. You will not put a single cent towards anyone involved in the promotion.
Your skin in the game is your concern about what advantage you can make from the situation without giving anything back to any of the people involved in the situation.
And to jump back on topic.
And same as rampant feminist. She doesn’t care if Jane doe gets raped by a man, a woman or a wombat. So long as the story provides her(or him I suppose) with the narrative that allows her to gain advantage.
This might be as basic as supporting her outrage at a gender. Or to fleece actual money from people who see her as a solution to a problem.
She doesn’t know the victim or the perpetrator and she doesn’t want to. People don’t matter. The story is what matters. Because the story is what will earn her a buck.
Which means the concern is that if the story changes. It effects her. And that is the cause for the outrage.