ThreePointTakedown

https://abc7news.com/post/san-jose-police-officer-fired-allegedly-sharing-flock-camera-data-suspect-domestic-violence-case-authorities-say/19825592/ "When an officer violates the public's trust this severely, my responsibility is clear: that person cannot remain in a position of police authority, and they cannot wear the San Jose badge. This technology is new; the standard is not." This will begin an arms race. Cops that need/want to circumvent the rules and take advantage of this technology will start to probe for weaknesses. And they will educate the rest, like prisoners in a jail. They are separated by tiniest line and similar motivations. One group breaks the rules to further their needs and motivations. Does this describe cops or robbers?

Honest question, cuz I don't know much about Ilhan Omar outside of politics, why do you all think she is a bad person?

If you can't think of one just highlight the space between HERE BECAUSE GHISLAINE MAXWELL WAS SENTENCED ON JUNE 28, 2022 AND SUBSEQUENT APPEALS DIDN'T CONCLUDE UNTIL AFTER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WAS OUT OF OFFICE, SO IT COULD TAINT THE CURRENT CASE, BE PROFESSIONALLY UNETHICAL AND LEAD TO ANY ATTORNEY TO BE DISBARRED, AND POSSIBLY TAINTING FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS OF AN ONGOING CASE... MORON! and here.

Can you offer some proof that you are asking this question in good faith by telling us a legit(legal/ethical) reason why the Biden administration didn't release the Epstein files? if you can’t I’ll happily offer one on the next post for you to look at. AND

Which church, specifically, is under attack?

https://www.wbtv.com/2026/10/12/racist-texts-officers-leads-internal-cmpd-investigation/ These are people that are trusted to protect the public. As well as investigate themselves for potential violations of that trust. Cops as a group have too much power and must be reigned in. Transparency and strict punishment should be the ONLY recourse for any and all violations by police. BTW, this was only brought to light because one of them was abusing their authority by using FLOCK cameras to help someone involved in a drug investigation. They help each other get away with denying civilians their civil rights or worse. Then brag about it. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXR5HLodsT8

What is going on with the coaching carousel at UPenn? From 2022 they've had BJ Futrell(AAx2), Bryan Pearsall, Mark Hall(NC), Darian Cruz(NC), and Tyler Berger(AAx2) Granted Byrd is a good get coming right out of college but is that a good trade for Cruz? . Its 6/5 if he can grow into a decent coach. Wolak is also young, having just left VA Tech two years ago. Kiernan seems like quite a step down from the names listed above. C'mon Penn! Should they be worried? Seems like good candidates are not interested in being associated with this program anymore. They might not see it as a feather in their cap but rather an anchor. Maybe its the same reason that there is a curious absence of coaches listed, starting just before Covid. With the exception of Mike McMullan but that seems easy to defend. I've heard good things.

More and more the members of the GOP and conservatives in general are turning into people that would be welcomed on the Cornell (5)7's group chat and for all the reasons you'd think: Spineless Eager to please Hateful of women Defend and/or Celebrate predatory behavior Willing to do anything to avoid consequences

And so this is where it all starts to fall apart. You can't be seen as being for real justice in this case because of all the cases you've ignored or downplayed or made excuses for or, let's be honest, you laughed at because you don't take this subject too seriously. Why would you? It doesn't affect you. You know why it doesn't affect you? Because you've never cared enough to ask anyone. 81% of women have report to have experienced so form of completed or attempted sexual assault or sexual harrassment. That's more than 4 of 5. You may care very much but this subject is so intense that to even think about broaching it seems too daunting. I get it. But why don't we support them? Why don't we believe them? You're all shackled to the fact that you defended or continue to defend a rapist and now you either don't care to move to the right side or you won't give the other side a 'W' by admitting you were wrong. I think its for a similar reason why the police are looked at from both extreme ends of the spectrum. Back the blue. They do a hard job and need the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of whether they are responsible for holding their own accountable and it is rarely a transparent process. Or Cops protect other cops. That's the unwritten rule. Back the blue. If you don't actively support the police you could find yourself in a situation that reminds you of how much passive authority the police could have on your life. This is true of elected officials as well as members of the public. If a cop wants to make your life miserable they can and not get in much trouble for it either. Similarly, cops must back their buddies. If they don't then bad things could happen. Isn't that awful to think about? You must support a person even if you know they're guilty or corrupt because if you don't they could find a way to kill you or worse. If for no other reason then they don't want to be caught and go to jail themselves. Do we listen to the people that are victimized by this group the most? Nope, we sure don't. Because if reform comes to the police then those groups that feel and ARE most protected by them will aggressively push back. I think its similar in the case of rape in general and the Cornell 7 in particular. Men with a history of questionable interactions with women and cowards are hesitant to call out other men. I think because they fear either retribution, the cowards, or someone pointing out that they have done similar things. So rather than owning up to it, apologizing, facing the consequences, and making a better world they stay silent or aggressively work to defend predators and attack their victims. Which also means they attack supporters of victims. Anyone that might work to shed light on their sketchy past by holding accountable the sex pests of the present.

Are you trying to equate an industry standard(aka a socially constructed and agreed upon criteria) to policy or law or biology to differentiate sex and gender? and the Own Goals keep coming. Why am I even on the field anymore? Y'all are doing the work for me. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

Let's all remember that cis-gender heterosexual white men commit the most crimes in the USA. To follow your logic: OMG! THEY NEED TO BE KEPT AWAY FROM ALL CHILDREN! Just a reminder that the groups you are terrified of, that include a vanishingly small % of the population, commit crimes at lower rates per capita than... (look up there dummy) cis-gender heterosexual white men. JK is a piece of shit. She ripped off star wars and swapped a lightsaber for a wand. And now she's trying to stay relevant by being a bigger and bigger bigot. Not someone I'd hitch my wagon to. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

Tell me you yell this into your pillow every night before you fall asleep crying without telling me you yell this into your pillow every night before you fall asleep crying. This all reeks of someone simply terrified of change and desperately begging for anyone to listen. It makes me so happy that you are pulling your hair out every day because you know the genie will not go back in the tube. Yet you are still able to muster the courage to outwardly hate a group just because they dare to push the limit of what is, in your mind, 'normal'. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

You can keep begging that to be true. And that’s exactly what you’re doing because you have no evidence. Its not any closer to being true than it was the first time you posted this particular prayer. Considering all the evidence there is that you are incorrect and that you have not provided evidence in favor of your proposition, in fact the evidence provided recently is bunk, it’s silly for you to continue this farcical journey. At this point all you're doing is chasing dopamine. A reasonable adult needs evidence in support of their position. You have none. Just your feels. I think you know you're wrong and you are just struggling with what that means. Best of luck. If you had evidence you could possibly convince anyone other than yourself. Again, best of luck. Trans-men are men Trans-women are women See how silly we look now? But I have evidence. ;-), TPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPPB Wanna join the Pen15 club? And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

I don't think you have any idea of what this study purports to have proven. I doubt you can recognize the flaws in the methodology of which there are several. Nor do I believe you actually care about trans people, kids in particular, because you don't care to read or learn even a little bit about the subject. You just keep volunteering your prejudices masquerading as 'But we must protect the children'. My guess is that no one calls you out on it when you put lipstick on that particular pig because we all want or at least should be in the business of protecting kids. But you don't want to protect ALL kids. Which is obvious based on the anti-trans rhetoric you continue to post. You just want to protect the 'normal' kids. And torture the 'abnormal' kids into either removing themselves from the game or conforming to being 'normal'. You don't care about kids. Because kids need empathy and compassion. You have shown to have neither of those traits. So you should not be allowed around kids nor should your opinion be considered in discussions about what is 'best' for kids. Especially marginalized kids. You are pathetic. And a liar. And a horrible person. Its just sad that you are so excited to prove that over and over each time you post this drivel. Here's a link that tells you exactly why you are wrong. But since you, likely, didn't read the study in the first place. You probably won't read the thing that tells you how dangerous your ideas really are. Old habits I guess. Search prompt: ACTA PAEDIATRICA STUDY 1996-2019 https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-new-finnish-study-does https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1124043 https://wng.org/sift/study-finnish-youth-more-likely-to-see-psychiatric-specialists-after-gender-treatments-1775852830 Sorry there were more than one. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

I am unconvinced that it is a fact. Provide your source? And if you can't be bothered to spell the word correctly how can you expect the question to be answered? Hateful, bigoted, and ignorant people are everywhere. People are killed in the USA for being gay and we are overwhelmingly christian. You are trying to paint a certain demographic in a negative light to deflect from taking accountability or holding accountable the people whom you support. That's why you all pivoted to this. In the hopes of changing the subject. Nazis and members of the KKKK overwhelmingly support candidates from the GOP. Three groups that traditionally do not jibe with diversity, equity, and/or inclusion. Dems have quite recently and possibly to the determinant of a winnable senate race, forced a candidate with a questionable past to step down. I would be interested to know of a similar situation happening from the GOP. Y'all stayed with the 'legitimate rape' guy in Missouri Stayed with the judge with a history of perving on high school girls when he was in his 30's, in Alabama of all places. You lost a race in Ala-fucking-bama. Because you couldn't find a decent candidate. Stay with Hershel Walker in Georgia Ken Paxton Re-elected a 34 count felon that was held civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation. And will likely be held to account for the classified docs they tried to keep in the bathroom. You all don't give a shit. Don't pretend like you care or have any shame. You're willing to do what Dems aren't. That's not something to hang your hat on tho. Cuz usually its some pretty heinous shit. And like I have mentioned before, you're locked into the 'if you're not with us you're against us' mentality. And you can justify doing anything to defeat your enemies. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

Please don't do that. This is, entirely, bad faith. Quite dishonest. The question is overly broad. Which means its functionally useless. Because you are a rapist and a murderer because you belong to a group that has at least one rapist and murderer. See how useless that is? I think the OP was asking the question in bad faith. In an attempt to get a 'gotcha'. Its not surprising they needed such a broad question in order to make a bad point because bad points are all they have. Or they'd be able to ask a specific question that ALSO helps to make their point. I would welcome a question like that. Won't hold my breath. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

No it is not true. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/man-convicted-2020-downtown-seattle-mass-shooting-released/E6TXGSHJVFFU3CWSQQM4HLT6PQ/ Seems like you didn't read the article so here's another version of the story. Was anyone convicted of murder? Could be a little inaccurate to call someone a murderer if they weren't convicted by a jury. I remember someone making a similar defense of another defendant recently. And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

Yes it includes 100% all that should be included and excludes 100% that should be excluded. Which means its an adequate definition and should be adopted. And you have no reason why it shouldn't other than your feelings. Which don't count. I don't have to prove to you that there is no difference. I've put forth a definition. You can refute it. But you'd need more than, 'I think you are talking about feelings' Since you don't have anything else then this definition is sufficient. Thank you for the conversation. Go make your money. I know you don't agree. But you still have no discernable reason to disagree other than, 'Nu uh' and 'feelings'. Which tells me you only believe based on feelings.

I don't think I said that 'feels' are the only way people categorize things. Did I say that? Where? This still seems like 'Nu uh' is your best rebuttal. 'An XY person USUALLY has internal male organs and can produce testosterone after puberty, and lacks certain reproductive female organs' It is not 100%. You seem to be attempting to categorize based on stereotypes. That's not how it works. In this situation if it isn't 100% then you have to change your definition. My definition encompasses 100% of people in this category. You have not been able to point out where it fails other than trying to squeeze 'feelings' into it. And even 'feelings' doesn't disprove or defeat the definition. Why should the presence or lack of organs used as determining factors? And what does it accomplish?

It seems as if YOU need this to be true. It would help if you could provide evidence for that claim. I won't hold my breath. So I'll just ignore your irrational and emotional claim as the tantrum of child that is in desperate need of attention and emotional regulation. I'll try to help... It seems as if you're having some big feelings. Do you need some time in the 'calm down corner' or would you like to tell me about your thoughts and feelings on this subject? And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

I think you misunderstand what it is we are talking about. Its not just how a person feels about themselves in a vacuum. It also encompasses those things that THAT person feels is associated with a category. In this case man/woman. Those categories don't really change from day to day. Do you entirely change your mind about what characteristics something must or mustn't have to be categorized as a dog? No. Or a car? No. A man? No. A woman? No. You might add or subtract things here and there but 100% shift. That doesn't happen. The CATEGORY is the issue and how a person feels they fit into it. If it represents who they feel they are. THAT is gender. The parts we're born with are sex. And the parts we're born with can be found both in XX and XY people. So what good is it to say that X or Y is the sole factor in determining anything? And especially why it should be used to exclude people from a category? And since you've provided no sources or science why should this definition be used because it is purely based on emotion?

All definitions are made up and they change(hint, literally literally no longer means literally). Definitions are not prescriptive(determinative of how a word MUST BE used). But how a word is CURRENTLY used. If you insist on using an old definition that no longer applies then you are choosing to not live in the world as it is, currently. And since there are no characteristics that you have provided at least that definitely makes a woman a woman. (XX with a penis) Can you provide a source for the definition of man/woman that is based on 'science'? Interesting that you think its a hoax. Why? People categorize themselves all the time in an 'infinite' number of ways. A girly girl or tomboy. An effeminate man or Alpha male. They do the things and wear the things and say the things that helps them fit into these groups. There are no cut and dry characteristics that we all agree that would include or exclude a person from any category.

Thanks for the unsolicited insult. I think you mean to call my memory into question. I read the words just fine. I understand this conversation probably makes you uncomfortable. Kinda more evidence that even some 'grown-ups' don't possess the maturity to be categorized as an 'adult'(man/woman). Care to weigh in and make a substantive contribution to the conversation? And as always.... HAPPY PRIDE XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX