• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trans Bathroom issue easily explained.

Jane said:
sangha said:
Actually, you have to get consent, in which case there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
Click to expand...

You are wrong. To put it more politely, you are extremely uninformed on this subject (well, except where you said you misspoke :)) The law regarding privacy of communications is controlled by the individual states and varies widely. The information at the link will help you become better informed. You're welcome.

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf
Click to expand...

Not in my state! :lol:
 
Jane said:
You are wrong. To put it more politely, you are extremely uninformed on this subject (well, except where you said you misspoke :)) The law regarding privacy of communications is controlled by the individual states and varies widely. The information at the link will help you become better informed. You're welcome.

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf
Click to expand...

TO put it politely, even your link says that every state requires consent, as does Federal law
 
sangha said:
TO put it politely, even your link says that every state requires consent, as does Federal law
Click to expand...

No, and not all states require consent from more than one party.
 
AGENT J said:
Then people should leave it alone, I agree what we are already doing is a good workable system. Transgenders have been using the restroom of their choice our whole lives no need to change that. But since people are trying to change that and discriminate against them we now have to look at protecting them. common vs rare doesn't factor in to that equation nor should it. if there was only 100,000 white people in the country or Christians would we allow discrimination against them based on their numbers? of course not. And yes I already know you feel its not discrimination but facts and the dictionary disagree
Click to expand...

As I have said we are not going to agree on this one. There would have been no issue if a few activists had not demanded that all of America change their policy to make a very tiny minority happy. I will always oppose that kind of activism
 
calamity said:
Women should have a reasonable expectation that a man is not sitting in the stall next to her, listening to her pee. Radical idea. I know. :roll:
Click to expand...

Why? They have no right to know who is sitting in a bathroom stall next to them. Nor should they have such a right.

"Oh my god! That man heard me pee, oh the drama!"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Why? They have no right to know who is sitting in a bathroom stall next to them. Nor should they have such a right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Then do away with the signs altogether. I believe I brought that up with you once before.
 
AlbqOwl said:
99% of those grow up as the gender they or their parents chose for them. But the very rare anomaly is going to exist no matter what system or set of laws we adopt for anything. We deal with those individual cases as they come up, but it is wrong to change a good workable system for the vast majority in order to accommodate the rare anomaly.
Click to expand...

Do you have any numbers to prove this? I've read differently. There is a reason that they are generally leaving this up to the person now when they are older rather than "choosing".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
sangha said:
IOW, every state requires consent
Click to expand...

No, not every state requires consent. Also, can you substantiate your claim that federal law requires this and does not delegate that power to the states?
 
sangha said:
Actually, you have to get consent, in which case there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
Click to expand...

You don't have to get consent for audio... this is evidenced by video recordings with audio. Secretly taping audio in your pocket is not allowed.
 
sangha said:
TO put it politely, even your link says that every state requires consent, as does Federal law
Click to expand...

Dear me. I'm really sorry to see that now you are trying to be intentionally deceptive about what you claimed earlier. Just saying thanks for my information would have been more than sufficient. Let me refresh your memory about what you said:

"It is illegal to record conversations unless parties to the conversation consent."

Ooops! That litle "s" that signifies plural which signifies both sides of the convo.

Of course, the party RECORDING the convo is consenting. Please stop being silly.

Edit: Unless you are indicating that you honestly don't understand anything about these laws. If that is the case, you're still wrong, but I will admit to feeling kinda sorry for you.
 
AlbqOwl said:
As I have said we are not going to agree on this one. There would have been no issue if a few activists had not demanded that all of America change their policy to make a very tiny minority happy. I will always oppose that kind of activism
Click to expand...

But what you describe factually didn't happen.
Activists demanded any "policy change"
 
roguenuke said:
Do you have any numbers to prove this? I've read differently. There is a reason that they are generally leaving this up to the person now when they are older rather than "choosing".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No numbers. Just some experience with folks in that boat. Very rare. The bottom line is that you figure out how or whether a tiny minority will need special consideration but you don't change a perfectly acceptable and sensible policy for the 99% of other people just to make that tiny minority happy.
 
sangha said:
TO put it politely, even your link says that every state requires consent, as does Federal law
Click to expand...

uh-hum...

“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to
intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is
a party to the
communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior
consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose
of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the
United States or of any State
.


From Her Link.
 
Jane said:
Edit: Unless you are indicating that you honestly don't understand anything about these laws. If that is the case, you're still wrong, but I will admit to feeling kinda sorry for you.
Click to expand...

He is trying to take my Title.
 
sangha said:
Every state requires consent



See the link Jane posted (or do I have to read it to you out loud?)
Click to expand...

I saw the link Jane posted, and apparently you missed my state. See Vermont, which is listed as having "no definitive statute."
 
Jane said:
Dear me. I'm really sorry to see that now you are trying to be intentionally deceptive about what you claimed earlier. Just saying thanks for my information would have been more than sufficient. Let me refresh your memory about what you said:

"It is illegal to record conversations unless parties to the conversation consent."

Ooops! That litle "s" that signifies plural which signifies both sides of the convo.

Of course, the party RECORDING the convo is consenting. Please stop being silly.

Edit: Unless you are indicating that you honestly don't understand anything about these laws. If that is the case, you're still wrong, but I will admit to feeling kinda sorry for you.
Click to expand...

So you're getting so desperate you're going to depend on pedantry?

Not surprised
 
Bodhisattva said:
uh-hum...

“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to
intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is
a party to the
communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior
consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose
of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the
United States or of any State
.


From Her Link.
Click to expand...

Your quote even says that consent is required
where one of the parties to the communication has given prior
consent
Click to expand...
 
Celebrity said:
I saw the link Jane posted, and apparently you missed my state. See Vermont, which is listed as having "no definitive statute."
Click to expand...

You apparently missed "The case law is also lacking in this area and has made a clear indication as to if Vermont
is a one-party or all-party consent state."

Vermont requires consent to record a conversation

Or perhaps you missed
. Under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) requires only that one party give consent.
Click to expand...
 
AlbqOwl said:
No numbers. Just some experience with folks in that boat. Very rare. The bottom line is that you figure out how or whether a tiny minority will need special consideration but you don't change a perfectly acceptable and sensible policy for the 99% of other people just to make that tiny minority happy.
Click to expand...

Then you don't really know. There is some speculation on this though that it is not rare at all for intersexed people to feel not quite right as the gender they had chosen.

And if it does no real harm to others, then it shouldn't matter. And having laws that call for absolute segregation, cause harassment and potential harm to more than just transgenders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
sangha said:
You apparently missed "The case law is also lacking in this area and has made a clear indication as to if Vermont
is a one-party or all-party consent state."

Vermont requires consent to record a conversation

Or perhaps you missed
Click to expand...

You apparently missed "There is no state statute that regulates the interception of telephone conversations."

To put it politely, you are wrong again sangha. Chalk it up to one more oversight on your list of blanket statements that ultimately proved to be without merit.

Can you prove that 18 U.S.C. § 2511 overrules state law, or that 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) requires any consent whatsoever, from any party, especially insofar as Vermont v. Brooks is concerned?

Here is the statute:

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
Click to expand...

Saying that it is criminal to eavesdrop, if it is for the purpose of committing any criminal act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) would be a circular argument.

Now, if you are claiming that it's illegal to record in Vermont, please, prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom