Yet Again, At Planet Fitness...

[Chesterton]

Perhaps we should take a different tack. If we don't have "Western Christian Civilization" now in the US, when and where *did* we have it?

Some years ago, when the New Atheism was fading away, even atheists like Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Eric Weinstein and the Jew Ben Shapiro began conceding that Christian culture had value. When they looked at the insanity and absurdity and violence of the late 20-teens, they realized that there was nothing better to replace Christian culture, even though they may have many disagreements with it. You may want to tear down a system you don't like, but you'd better have something better than anarchy to replace it with. I also read a quote from someone that said "If you don't like the religious Right, just wait till you see the irreligious Right". The irreligious right is the Left, just as the anti-fascists are the fascists.

 

[rjs330]

The point is that in Rome the “toilets” were open air benches with holes that everybody used.

So we should just all adopt the Rome way of doing things? Should we still crucify people.too? The.part of ancient societies that were bad, we usually reject. If there were such a thing as open air benches were men and women just plopped down next to each other to deficate then that's one we rejected. People used to say they had public baths too as a reason for sharing locker rooms except that researching the subject I discovered even the Romans had mens and women's separated baths. So I doubt they had men and women deficating together.

 

[rjs330]

Here’s the thing, what they think of themselves is not their “problem” either.

Yes it is. It's a psychological disorder. That's a problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think western civilization has been influenced by Christianity, which has dwindled over time.

That makes it hard to assess if the "Christian" version of "Western Civ" was better or worse than the secular one. (Though I do agree with both the "influenced by Christianity" and "dwindled" parts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The irreligious right is the Left, just as the anti-fascists are the fascists.

This is just doublespeak. It is not doubleplus-good. (It would help to not violate the law of non-contradiction.)

 

[Ceallaigh]

That was John the Baptist. And it wasn't approving of war or violence, but an admonition against extortion, something that wasn't unheard of for Roman soldiers to do.

While God probably didn't approve of worldly armies, as he disapproves of worldly things, he did make Israel into an army. First Samuel and then David had an army that God directed. The OT is full of armies under God's direction. Many such instances featured the Angel of the Lord who was probably pre-incarnate Christ. The Roman Catholic Church has had a military force since the 11th century.

 

[Chesterton]

This is just doublespeak. It is not doubleplus-good. (It would help to not violate the law of non-contradiction.)

I'm not using doublespeak, I'm decoding it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

That makes it hard to assess if the "Christian" version of "Western Civ" was better or worse than the secular one. (Though I do agree with both the "influenced by Christianity" and "dwindled" parts.

Many see western civilization declining as Christian values decline.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Many see western civilization declining as Christian values decline.

And some of us think Western civilization is finally recovering.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not using doublespeak, I'm decoding it.

Your post included something equivalent to saying "anti-communism is communism" or "anti-capitalism is capitalism" or "anti-theism is theism". All are equally nonsense.

 

[Ceallaigh]

And some of us think Western civilization is finally recovering.

I'd have to call that being in denial.

 

[Chesterton]

Your post included something equivalent to saying "anti-communism is communism" or "anti-capitalism is capitalism" or "anti-theism is theism". All are equally nonsense.

...or like saying a man can be a woman.

 

[RileyG]

Yes it is. It's a psychological disorder. That's a problem.

Why should anyone accept transgenders "identity" when they can't even accept themselves? It makes no sense.

 

[RileyG]

...or like saying a man can be a woman.

A biological male has ZERO business being in woman-only spaces. It's not his right to force himself anywhere because he says he's a woman. Every chromosome in his body is still male, he still has a male body with a male brain. Period.

 

[FireDragon76]

While God probably didn't approve of worldly armies, as he disapproves of worldly things, he did make Israel into an army. First Samuel and then David had an army that God directed. The OT is full of armies under God's direction. Many such instances featured the Angel of the Lord who was probably pre-incarnate Christ. The Roman Catholic Church has had a military force since the 11th century.

It's a question of how one understands the source texts and biblical hermeneutics. I reject the notion that God endorses violence.

 

[rturner76]

Private showers with private lockers and toilets....

Essentially tiny little rooms with lockable doors at the gym that include a locker, toilet, shower, etc...

For as many members as can use the gym at any one time.

I'm not going to say it's impossible it just seems extremely wasteful (of both space and materials) and likely to be expensive, which I'm sure you know will be passed onto the consumer.

Why exactly does a gym need to recreate the locker rooms and showers and everything again? Because some people don't think the rules should apply to them?

Why would there be a need for a private locker? You gan get your clothes out of the locker and bring them to your private shower OR you can wear a towel or robe to your locker and change there. I don't understand why the concept of a private shower is so inconceivable to a conservative.

I see it as a non-issue now if everyone just ignores these insane demands.

What is insane about wanting a private shower? Can you explain that to me? In my progressive opinion, it is perfectly reasonable to want to take a private shower. Is there some tenant of conservatism that states we have no right to shower in private? Is there a preference conservatives have where they prefer getting naked in a room full of people rather than having privacy? What is it about conservative ethics that push for us to have no right to privacy when we shower? I mean is it that we are not capable of providing private showers while we do seem to be capable of blasting telescopes out into other galaxies and somehow doors and screws are an unavailable technology? Personally, I would prefer a private shower rather than a shower with 13 other guys showing us how they wash their buttocks and genitals. Is it somehow a personal preference for conservatives to get naked together? I wouldn't think so but I guess anything to make it easier on businesses to save money is the preference. At a simple gym like LA Fitness, private showers are provided (at my location anyway). Are they somehow out of order for providing this privacy or could it possibly be more advantageous to provide them because people want them? Capitalism which conservatives worship would seem to dictate that it is more profitable to provide people what they want rather than checking people's genitals as they enter the lockerroom. Is that line of thinking also insane? Or is it more insane to accept people as they are?

 

[rturner76]

Just more false assertions. You are full of them. Gaslighting seems to be your standard at this point.

Is it "gaslighting" to infer that people would prefer privacy when they shower? I think you have no leg to stand on in your argument to discriminate. so you want to attack me for "gaslighting" whatever that is.

 

[rturner76]

Your conservative friends have been using locker rooms and bathrooms for forever as they are and have never demanded specialized privacy EXCEPT for sex separation. In fact ALL of society demanded it. So you could actually say it was not JUST conservatives.

So have my progressive friends including me. I remember my camp counselor forcing all of us boys into the shower which was called a KYBO (keep your body orderly). I was shy but I did it. We all got naked and went into the communal showers. It's not really a matter of being progressive, it's a matter of the times changing and people wanting privacy when they shower. Quick story, my mother told me how when she was forced to shower after gym class, she shared the shower with the other girl who had physically developed into a woman. The other kids still had their itty bitties but she felt more comfortable with her. I'm sure she would have felt even more comfortable in a private shower.

Secondly why are you demanding private rooms again? Where was all your concern and desire for private rooms many years ago? Where you all calling for private rooms and showers for women before the trans issues raised it's ugly head? I seriously doubt it. Don't be disingenuous. The only reason you are suddenly concerned is because of the trans issue. Let me ask you another question.

I'm not DEMANDING private rooms, I am advocating for private showers. In the conservative utopia like capitalism should bear out the fact that people want privacy. If you can't adjust to that you just go out of business. That's the capitalist way, adapt or close down. I'm not advocating for new laws to be passed requiring private showers. I'm saying that if I have a choice, I'm going to a gym with private showers regardless of the genitals contained in the next shower. It seem to only be conservatives that want to shower in the midst of a dozen other boys. Maybe it's so we can all see what the other boys have, I don't know but there seems to be resistance to anything that provides privacy. I wonder why that is.

Are trans people demanding these private places?

I don't know but it would help them be able to shower at a gym without people staring at their genitals. Why is that so wrong?

Look I know you are trying to be accommodating. You are not trying to just allow men into women's spaces and leaving it at that. Conservatives are not against these little rooms you want. However we are against requiring businesses to build them. The cost is enormous for a business to retrofit for it. Consider the gym. In order to create such a space you need spaces for all your customers. Instead of one room to change 50 men in you need 50 rooms. And thats not an exaggeration for some places.

I AM trying to be accommodating and a business that knows what sells should also be accommodating wouldn't you say? Like I said, I'm not for making new laws that force businesses to retro fite private showers, I'm saying that the ones who don't shouldn't be surprised when the gym down the street DOES make these accommodations andputs them out of business.

But I am all for business doing it if they want to. Why would I be against that?

I would hope not as I agree that business should do it if they want to, they also shouldn't be surprised when they are put out of business by one who does.

 

[rturner76]

Who's really clamoring for these rooms? Is it women? Have women been demanding to have all individual bathrooms and showers and changing rooms? Have men? Have trans people?

Is there a survey of trans people who say they are all for this? What's their attitude about it? This smacks of nothing more than some liberals thinking it's a good idea without actually finding out what women and trans people have asked for.

No, but it clearly makes sens when conservatives are so determined to know what genitals everyone is carrying

 

[BCP1928]

Is it "gaslighting" to infer that people would prefer privacy when they shower? I think you have no leg to stand on in your argument to discriminate. so you want to attack me for "gaslighting" whatever that is.

It's interesting to consider this discussion in light of how personal standards of modesty have changed in recent times. It is within living memory, for example, that men could not go topless on a public beach. Now, apparently, it is OK for men to be naked together and women be naked together, which would have been scandalous less than a hundred years ago in the US. At the same time, men and women in other cultures see each other's genitals on many different occasions such as public bathing.

But now it is asserted that under no circumstances should a woman see male genitals, as if it was a law written in stone forever, instead of merely a superficial aspect of current culture, subject to change as all things like that are.