Gender Dysphoria - GREAT article.

[League Champion 1,790]

 

[Sagging Scrot 44]

They all need to be committed 

[League Champion 1,790]

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,163]

On 7/19/2023 at 12:15 PM, jerryskids said:

In the end, the decision of what to do with kids needs to rest with parents, unless you want it to rest with either the kids themselves or the state.  So part of the solution is getting them accurate information.  Other parts include severely limiting medical interventions (i.e., the options available to those parents) except in the most extreme of cases, and significantly reducing the social positives our youth culture places on declaring yourself trans.

They will all be the most extreme of cases. You know this. The surgeries and the blockers need to be banned for minors. 

[jerryskids 6,165]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They will all be the most extreme of cases. You know this. The surgeries and the blockers need to be banned for minors. 

My concern with absolutes is that they are so darn absolute.  The Left loves to find corner cases and legislate to them.  For abortion there was that alleged 10 yr old rape victim in Ohio.  For voting integrity there was death by dehydration in Georgia.

To continue the abortion analogy I like to take a "zero plus" approach -- the default is zero abortions, but make your case for edge situations.  (The opposite, for pro-abortion people, is "infinity minus" btw).  I'm trying to be similar for the trans stuff.  The default is zero for kids, but make a case of why some edge scenario should be allowed.  Maybe there aren't any; honestly I can't think of one.  But if you just say zero, the Left will shut down conversation and just call you a magaturd transphobe.

Also instead of minors I would make it age of medical consent.  I think @MDCbrought this up a while ago and it makes sense.  If a state says you can make medical decisions at 17, well, this is a medical decision.  The state is welcome to change the age if it doesn't like it.

[MDC 6,754]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

My concern with absolutes is that they are so darn absolute.  The Left loves to find corner cases and legislate to them.  For abortion there was that alleged 10 yr old rape victim in Ohio.  For voting integrity there was death by dehydration in Georgia.

To continue the abortion analogy I like to take a "zero plus" approach -- the default is zero abortions, but make your case for edge situations.  (The opposite, for pro-abortion people, is "infinity minus" btw).  I'm trying to be similar for the trans stuff.  The default is zero for kids, but make a case of why some edge scenario should be allowed.  Maybe there aren't any; honestly I can't think of one.  But if you just say zero, the Left will shut down conversation and just call you a magaturd transphobe.

Also instead of minors I would make it age of medical consent.  I think @MDCbrought this up a while ago and it makes sense.  If a state says you can make medical decisions at 17, well, this is a medical decision.  The state is welcome to change the age if it doesn't like it.

I did say that. The age ranges from I think 14-17 depending on the state, 16/17 in most places. 

[League Champion 1,790]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

it makes sense.  If a state says you can make medical decisions at 17, well, this is a medical decision.  The state is welcome to change the age if it doesn't like it.

IT'S NOT A MEDICAL DECISION. ITS CHOICE

Cutting your wang off because you're mentally ill does not warrant a medical issue. 

And it needs to be 100% out of pocket, not paid for by the Government or insurance companies. 

[dogcows 1,030]

8 hours ago, jerryskids said:

My concern with absolutes is that they are so darn absolute.  The Left loves to find corner cases and legislate to them.  For abortion there was that alleged 10 yr old rape victim in Ohio.  For voting integrity there was death by dehydration in Georgia.

To continue the abortion analogy I like to take a "zero plus" approach -- the default is zero abortions, but make your case for edge situations.  (The opposite, for pro-abortion people, is "infinity minus" btw).  I'm trying to be similar for the trans stuff.  The default is zero for kids, but make a case of why some edge scenario should be allowed.  Maybe there aren't any; honestly I can't think of one.  But if you just say zero, the Left will shut down conversation and just call you a magaturd transphobe.

Also instead of minors I would make it age of medical consent.  I think @MDCbrought this up a while ago and it makes sense.  If a state says you can make medical decisions at 17, well, this is a medical decision.  The state is welcome to change the age if it doesn't like it.

I strongly disagree that we should start with a default of women not choosing what to do with their pregnancies. Same on transgender procedures.

Are we a free country or not? If we are, then stop telling women how to handle their own pregnancy and stop telling parents what medical intervention they can or cannot seek for their children. You can disagree with abortion and transgender care all you want. But stop forcing that belief on others. Best method is evangelism. Convince others, don’t force them.

As for “corner cases” and voting integrity: getting hit by lighting is more common than voter fraud. And on abortion, we hear the “abortion up until birth” silliness which never happens either. Both sides find extremes to try and prove their points.

[League Champion 1,790]

8 hours ago, dogcows said:

strongly disagree that we should start with a default of women not choosing what to do with their pregnancies. Same on transgender procedures.

 

 

[League Champion 1,790]

You're a sick F if you find this acceptable

 

 

[League Champion 1,790]

 

[jerryskids 6,165]

18 hours ago, dogcows said:

I strongly disagree that we should start with a default of women not choosing what to do with their pregnancies. Same on transgender procedures.

Are we a free country or not? If we are, then stop telling women how to handle their own pregnancy and stop telling parents what medical intervention they can or cannot seek for their children. You can disagree with abortion and transgender care all you want. But stop forcing that belief on others. Best method is evangelism. Convince others, don’t force them.

As for “corner cases” and voting integrity: getting hit by lighting is more common than voter fraud. And on abortion, we hear the “abortion up until birth” silliness which never happens either. Both sides find extremes to try and prove their points.

Well dog, we are free, but with most rights come responsibilities.  We happen to disagree on a few things.  I believe that an unborn fetus is a human life, so I disagree with killing it because you have a trip to Hawaii planned in March and you want to look good in your bikini, as that is tantamount to killing a child.  You sleep easier at night by fooling yourself with an arbitrary point for killing a developing baby for convenience, so congrats on that I guess.  Having and raising children is the primary reason living beings exist, so I'm comfortable with my position on preserving the sanctity of life.

For trans children, "medical intervention" can comprise a lot of things.  If a person believes they should be blind, we can take out their eyeballs.  But we don't.  Just because we have the medical technology to accomplish something doesn't mean it should become SOP, particularly for a child who has not yet completed all of the complex and often confusing transitions to adulthood.  

Your voter fraud comment is silly, I'll just ignore it.

[dogcows 1,030]

57 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Well dog, we are free, but with most rights come responsibilities.  We happen to disagree on a few things.  I believe that an unborn fetus is a human life, so I disagree with killing it because you have a trip to Hawaii planned in March and you want to look good in your bikini, as that is tantamount to killing a child.  You sleep easier at night by fooling yourself with an arbitrary point for killing a developing baby for convenience, so congrats on that I guess.  Having and raising children is the primary reason living beings exist, so I'm comfortable with my position on preserving the sanctity of life.

For trans children, "medical intervention" can comprise a lot of things.  If a person believes they should be blind, we can take out their eyeballs.  But we don't.  Just because we have the medical technology to accomplish something doesn't mean it should become SOP, particularly for a child who has not yet completed all of the complex and often confusing transitions to adulthood.  

Your voter fraud comment is silly, I'll just ignore it.

Thanks for sharing your moral views. I do not have a problem with you believing them. I also don’t have a problem with somebody else believing that abortion is for the best in their situation, or that their transgender child should undergo medical treatment.

Let’s publicly share our moral views on these topics. Buy billboards. March and hold up signs. But passing laws to force those beliefs on others? Why? If your beliefs are superior, you should be able to win in the marketplace of ideas.

[jerryskids 6,165]

1 minute ago, dogcows said:

Thanks for sharing your moral views. I do not have a problem with you believing them. I also don’t have a problem with somebody else believing that abortion is for the best in their situation, or that their transgender child should undergo medical treatment.

Let’s publicly share our moral views on these topics. Buy billboards. March and hold up signs. But passing laws to force those beliefs on others? Why? If your beliefs are superior, you should be able to win in the marketplace of ideas.

Moral views make up the majority of our laws and customs.  We get together and agree on them as the basis of our laws.  We agree that stealing is wrong, even though the thief may really feel he needs that car more than you do.  Who are you to decide he is wrong?  Should we eliminate all laws against theft and instead buy billboards and hold up signs to convince thieves not to steal things?  

[Strike 4,802]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Moral views make up the majority of our laws and customs.  We get together and agree on them as the basis of our laws.  We agree that stealing is wrong, even though the thief may really feel he needs that car more than you do.  Who are you to decide he is wrong?  Should we eliminate all laws against theft and instead buy billboards and hold up signs to convince thieves not to steal things?  

In SF they pay thieves not to steal.  That's working out really well!!

[Fireballer 2,597]

 

[dogcows 1,030]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Moral views make up the majority of our laws and customs.  We get together and agree on them as the basis of our laws.  We agree that stealing is wrong, even though the thief may really feel he needs that car more than you do.  Who are you to decide he is wrong?  Should we eliminate all laws against theft and instead buy billboards and hold up signs to convince thieves not to steal things?  

Yes, we should have consensus on moral views if we’re going to enshrine them into law. So let’s look at abortion from that perspective.

Most people don’t agree that abortion should be banned. It’s a minority view. That’s even borne out in “red” states like Kansas where they put the question directly to voters…. It was 60%-40% against banning abortion.

 

[Fireballer 2,597]

16 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Thanks for sharing your moral views. I do not have a problem with you believing them. I also don’t have a problem with somebody else believing that abortion is for the best in their situation, or that their transgender child should undergo medical treatment.

Let’s publicly share our moral views on these topics. Buy billboards. March and hold up signs. But passing laws to force those beliefs on others? Why? If your beliefs are superior, you should be able to win in the marketplace of ideas.

Do you agree with any age related restrictive laws?  

[jerryskids 6,165]

3 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes, we should have consensus on moral views if we’re going to enshrine them into law. So let’s look at abortion from that perspective.

Most people don’t agree that abortion should be banned. It’s a minority view. That’s even borne out in “red” states like Kansas where they put the question directly to voters…. It was 60%-40% against banning abortion.

 

I didn't mean to go down this rat hole on abortion, although I'm confident that the 60-40 is in the context of eliminating all abortions, and we could find a majority that would agree with much more restrictive scenarios.

Anyway, now do trans.  Where are we on public perception of surgeries and hormones for kids?

[dogcows 1,030]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I didn't mean to go down this rat hole on abortion, although I'm confident that the 60-40 is in the context of eliminating all abortions, and we could find a majority that would agree with much more restrictive scenarios.

Anyway, now do trans.  Where are we on public perception of surgeries and hormones for kids?

So abortion beliefs aren’t absolute? They are various shades of grey? You don’t say! Almost seems like we should just leave it to each person’s conscience then. 

As for transgender care for kids. We are very far from consensus on that as well.

Quote

Forty-three percent of Americans now say they support laws that criminalize the act of providing gender-transition-related medical care to minors

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-reject-anti-trans-bills-but-support-for-this-restriction-is-rising

 

[jerryskids 6,165]

24 minutes ago, dogcows said:

So abortion beliefs aren’t absolute? They are various shades of grey? You don’t say! Almost seems like we should just leave it to each person’s conscience then. 

As for transgender care for kids. We are very far from consensus on that as well.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-reject-anti-trans-bills-but-support-for-this-restriction-is-rising

 

I didn't say they were absolute.  I advocated "zero plus".  If they were absolute I would advocate "zero."  Regardless, my zero-plus is what put a bee in your bonnet.

About the only thing I've learned in this thread is that you advocate majority-rules.  There are probably some jurisdictions in the south happy to learn they can re-institute slavery or Jim Crow laws.

Objection to such medical care has increased from 28% to 43% in two years, a > 50% increase.  As people become more aware of how the process has changed in recent years to rubber stamp such devastating procedures, I'm confident it will pass 50%.

ETA:  And recall I said zero-plus for this, which is the whole reason I brought that concept up.

[dogcows 1,030]

30 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I didn't say they were absolute.  I advocated "zero plus".  If they were absolute I would advocate "zero."  Regardless, my zero-plus is what put a bee in your bonnet.

About the only thing I've learned in this thread is that you advocate majority-rules.  There are probably some jurisdictions in the south happy to learn they can re-institute slavery or Jim Crow laws.

Objection to such medical care has increased from 28% to 43% in two years, a > 50% increase.  As people become more aware of how the process has changed in recent years to rubber stamp such devastating procedures, I'm confident it will pass 50%.

ETA:  And recall I said zero-plus for this, which is the whole reason I brought that concept up.

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that majority rule is how democracy is meant to work. Also, I said consensus when it comes to imposing moral laws on people, which to me is stronger than majority. Especially if we are going to pass laws about personal decisions such as abortion and transgender medicine.

We have a bill of rights and other amendments to protect minority groups from oppression by the majority. I’m sure we agree that such protections are critical in any democracy. Embryos don’t have rights in our constitution though. The constitution also doesn’t confer a right to put value judgments on other parents’ medical care for their kids.

You may wish for a nation in which banning most abortions is supported by almost everybody. Same for banning most transgender care for children. But that isn’t the nation you live in. Attempting to force minority views of morality upon the entire populace is not an effective strategy for winning future elections. 

If you’re offended by the proverbial tyranny of the majority, how much more offended should I be at the contention that a minority’s moral beliefs should be imposed upon the majority who don’t believe them?  Abortion bans and transgender care bans remove rights from people. I am advocating that people should have rights. So to compare my stance to slavery or Jim Crow laws is nonsensical.

The main issue I have with “zero plus” on these issues is that you start from a place of zero rights, and then add as little as possible. I think it should be the other way around. At least my way doesn’t force anything on anybody.

[jerryskids 6,165]

19 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that majority rule is how democracy is meant to work. Also, I said consensus when it comes to imposing moral laws on people, which to me is stronger than majority. Especially if we are going to pass laws about personal decisions such as abortion and transgender medicine.

We have a bill of rights and other amendments to protect minority groups from oppression by the majority. I’m sure we agree that such protections are critical in any democracy. Embryos don’t have rights in our constitution though. The constitution also doesn’t confer a right to put value judgments on other parents’ medical care for their kids.

You may wish for a nation in which banning most abortions is supported by almost everybody. Same for banning most transgender care for children. But that isn’t the nation you live in. Attempting to force minority views of morality upon the entire populace is not an effective strategy for winning future elections. 

If you’re offended by the proverbial tyranny of the majority, how much more offended should I be at the contention that a minority’s moral beliefs should be imposed upon the majority who don’t believe them?  Abortion bans and transgender care bans remove rights from people. I am advocating that people should have rights. So to compare my stance to slavery or Jim Crow laws is nonsensical.

The main issue I have with “zero plus” on these issues is that you start from a place of zero rights, and then add as little as possible. I think it should be the other way around. At least my way doesn’t force anything on anybody.

For abortion, I start from a position of unlimited rights... for the human life growing in the womb.  You can continue to ignore me saying that it is a human life, because it's difficult to acknowledge that you support a position that maximizes the ending of human life, but I'll keep saying it.  

And different states have different abortion laws based on the desires of the people.  That's how our country works.

For medically transing kids, as I said when this all started, I'm for getting the word out and stopping the social contagion.  60 years ago we advertised that 4 out of 5 doctors smoked Camels.  Over time we learned more, including restricting access to children.  I'm hoping to accelerate that knowledge collection for transing kids.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,408]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that majority rule is how democracy is meant to work. Also, I said consensus when it comes to imposing moral laws on people, which to me is stronger than majority. Especially if we are going to pass laws about personal decisions such as abortion and transgender medicine.

We have a bill of rights and other amendments to protect minority groups from oppression by the majority. I’m sure we agree that such protections are critical in any democracy. Embryos don’t have rights in our constitution though. The constitution also doesn’t confer a right to put value judgments on other parents’ medical care for their kids.

You may wish for a nation in which banning most abortions is supported by almost everybody. Same for banning most transgender care for children. But that isn’t the nation you live in. Attempting to force minority views of morality upon the entire populace is not an effective strategy for winning future elections. 

If you’re offended by the proverbial tyranny of the majority, how much more offended should I be at the contention that a minority’s moral beliefs should be imposed upon the majority who don’t believe them?  Abortion bans and transgender care bans remove rights from people. I am advocating that people should have rights. So to compare my stance to slavery or Jim Crow laws is nonsensical.

The main issue I have with “zero plus” on these issues is that you start from a place of zero rights, and then add as little as possible. I think it should be the other way around. At least my way doesn’t force anything on anybody.

We're a republic, not a Democracy, jack@ss.  

[dogcows 1,030]

58 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

For abortion, I start from a position of unlimited rights... for the human life growing in the womb.  You can continue to ignore me saying that it is a human life, because it's difficult to acknowledge that you support a position that maximizes the ending of human life, but I'll keep saying it.  

And different states have different abortion laws based on the desires of the people.  That's how our country works.

For medically transing kids, as I said when this all started, I'm for getting the word out and stopping the social contagion.  60 years ago we advertised that 4 out of 5 doctors smoked Camels.  Over time we learned more, including restricting access to children.  I'm hoping to accelerate that knowledge collection for transing kids.

On abortion, I don’t have any problem with your beliefs. I simply disagree with them. My only issue is laws forcing that belief on others who don’t agree. Also, FYI - people are granted rights in our constitution. Embryos and fetuses aren’t.

As for state-by-state abortion laws? Let’s talk about rights. If you believe a fetus has legal rights, then you cannot support state-by-state laws because states that allow abortion would be taking rights away from those fetuses. So if I believe women have reproductive rights, I similarly believe those need to be protected nationwide. The state-by-state thing doesn’t make sense for either of our viewpoints, if it’s truly about human rights.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,163]

20 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

We're a republic, not a Democracy, jack@ss.  

They are so funny. Obsessed with white knighting for minorities, never realizing that  protecting minorities is done via the constitution, not the vote. Protecting minorities would have been nearly impossible in the democracy he describes. 

[dogcows 1,030]

8 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

We're a republic, not a Democracy, jack@ss.  

Funny how I always hear that one-liner from people who want to force their minority views on the majority. Gerrymandering is one way to make sure that voters have little to no power. Then the gerrymandered states take over local control too if the voters there elect local officials not liked by the state government,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/27/georgia-augusta-judicial-circuit-split-republicans

So yeah, maybe there is some truth to your statement; there are some parts of the country where the sitting governments are working as hard as possible to prevent the will of the voters from coming to pass. But if you actually care… here’s a bit more on the definitions of republic and democracy. They are not mutually exclusive.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/democracy-and-republic

[seafoam1 2,525]

Liberals don't even know we are a constitutional republic. They focking get dumber by the minute. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,408]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

Funny how I always hear that one-liner from people who want to force their minority views on the majority. Gerrymandering is one way to make sure that voters have little to no power. Then the gerrymandered states take over local control too if the voters there elect local officials not liked by the state government,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/27/georgia-augusta-judicial-circuit-split-republicans

So yeah, maybe there is some truth to your statement; there are some parts of the country where the sitting governments are working as hard as possible to prevent the will of the voters from coming to pass. But if you actually care… here’s a bit more on the definitions of republic and democracy. They are not mutually exclusive.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/democracy-and-republic

It's not a one-liner. It's actual fact. I know you have problems with facts and logic, but everyone knows that this is a republic and not a democracy.

I hear statements like yours when people like you don't get your way. And you don't have the majority on this subject.

[dogcows 1,030]

2 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It's not a one-liner. It's actual fact. I know you have problems with facts and logic, but everyone knows that this is a republic and not a democracy.

I hear statements like yours when people like you don't get your way. And you don't have the majority on this subject.

I'm gonna have InstaCart deliver a DiGiorno pizza to you. Let’s watch your head explode.

“It’s not delivery, it’s DiGiorno... but no it’s a delivery..... ARRRGRGRRGGHHHH!!!!”

[League Champion 1,790]

16 minutes ago, dogcows said:

but no it’s

Imagine being ok with cutting off Kids genitalia. 

Democrats are.

[RogerDodger 797]

16 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Moral views make up the majority of our laws and customs.  We get together and agree on them as the basis of our laws.  We agree that stealing is wrong, even though the thief may really feel he needs that car more than you do.  Who are you to decide he is wrong?  Should we eliminate all laws against theft and instead buy billboards and hold up signs to convince thieves not to steal things?  

 

16 hours ago, Strike said:

In SF they pay thieves not to steal.  That's working out really well!!

Hate to break it to you, but, stealing isn't a law that is enforced is a growing number of left coast lib cities.  

[jerryskids 6,165]

16 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

 

Hate to break it to you, but, stealing isn't a law that is enforced is a growing number of left coast lib cities.  

I know, I picked theft because it has the added bonus of being a part of some social experiments currently underway.

ETA: you'll notice @dogcowsignored this analogy.

[dogcows 1,030]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I know, I picked theft because it has the added bonus of being a part of some social experiments currently underway.

ETA: you'll notice @dogcowsignored this analogy.

I have to accept multiple incorrect assumptions to even discuss this. And I’m not going to. So let’s just say: it’s a bad analogy, with no connection to the topic we were discussing.

[RogerDodger 797]

Speaking of bad analogies.  People like @dogcows using abortion as an analogy are just making it worse for themselves.

70% of people want abortion!  Well yeah, 80% don't want it legal in the third trimester.

We want gender affirming care!   Ok, do whatever you want when you're 18 years old.

The majority of people can apply common sense to both of these issues.  

[edjr 6,300]

2 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Speaking of bad analogies.  People like @dogcows using abortion as an analogy are just making it worse for themselves.

70% of people want abortion!  Well yeah, 80% don't want it legal in the third trimester.

We want gender affirming care!   Ok, do whatever you want when you're 18 years old.

The majority of people can apply common sense to both of these issues.  

[dogcows 1,030]

35 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Speaking of bad analogies.  People like @dogcows using abortion as an analogy are just making it worse for themselves.

70% of people want abortion!  Well yeah, 80% don't want it legal in the third trimester.

We want gender affirming care!   Ok, do whatever you want when you're 18 years old.

The majority of people can apply common sense to both of these issues.  

OK well before I leave abortion, I’ll just reply to your numbers above: if the issue was really 3rd-trimester abortions... why did they challenge Roe v Wade which already allowed states to block abortions in the 3rd trimester?

Back to the trans panic - I think it’s going to be yet another losing issue for R’s. It is possible to get a lot of conservatives worked up about an issue because most of them watch the same very small number of news sources, the biggest and most famous being FOX.

But most people in America don’t watch FOX. They aren’t upset about something that’s only affecting 1% of the population. So the anti-trans rhetoric might help in the primaries. But it’s most likely NOT going to be something independent voters care about come November 2024.

It would be “common sense” to stop trying to regulate trans medical care for minors. It’s rare, it requires parental and doctor approval. I don’t see how banning it truly helps anybody.

[RogerDodger 797]

3 minutes ago, dogcows said:

OK well before I leave abortion, I’ll just reply to your numbers above: if the issue was really 3rd-trimester abortions... why did they challenge Roe v Wade which already allowed states to block abortions in the 3rd trimester?

Back to the trans panic - I think it’s going to be yet another losing issue for R’s. It is possible to get a lot of conservatives worked up about an issue because most of them watch the same very small number of news sources, the biggest and most famous being FOX.

But most people in America don’t watch FOX. They aren’t upset about something that’s only affecting 1% of the population. So the anti-trans rhetoric might help in the primaries. But it’s most likely NOT going to be something independent voters care about come November 2024.

It would be “common sense” to stop trying to regulate trans medical care for minors. It’s rare, it requires parental and doctor approval. I don’t see how banning it truly helps anybody.

It's a state's issue under the constitution.

Nobody cares what you think.

It's not happening, it's not widespread!

Porn, alcohol, tobacco, driving a car, voting, buying a pet, giving blood, buy a lottery ticket, get a credit card, run for office, getting married, join the army, adopt children, buy fireworks, get a tattoo, but we draw the line at cutting your genital's off - just sounds soooooo stupid.  

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,408]

1 hour ago, RogerDodger said:

Speaking of bad analogies.  People like @dogcows using abortion as an analogy are just making it worse for themselves.

70% of people want abortion!  Well yeah, 80% don't want it legal in the third trimester.

We want gender affirming care!   Ok, do whatever you want when you're 18 years old.

The majority of people can apply common sense to both of these issues.  

Piling on this, @dogcows thinks we live in a Democracy and not a Republic, so thinks laws should be made by the simple majority.  Of course, the .004% of trans people in the US currently wants the rest of the population to work around them and he's okay with that.  In that situation, we live in a Republic where the majority can't impose their will.

@Hardcore troubadour correctly pointed out earlier that dogshiats "majority rules, bro!" position would have never ended the slavery that his side supported - and many other rights.

[dogcows 1,030]

51 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Piling on this, @dogcows thinks we live in a Democracy and not a Republic, so thinks laws should be made by the simple majority.  Of course, the .004% of trans people in the US currently wants the rest of the population to work around them and he's okay with that.  In that situation, we live in a Republic where the majority can't impose their will.

@Hardcore troubadour correctly pointed out earlier that dogshiats "majority rules, bro!" position would have never ended the slavery that his side supported - and many other rights.

I guess you are unable to have an actual discussion of the history and interchangeability of the terms republic and democracy. Or even “doing your own research” on it. You can only regurgitate the one-liner you saw on grandpa’s Facebook timeline.

So you “pile on” like that idiot in the mob who never had an original thought, but decides to go with the crowd. Good job, sheep man.

Funny how I said “‘consensus” which Jerry turned to “majority” and now a bunch of passers-by have decided I’m some kind of tyrant who thinks we should get rid of the bill of rights. Even though I specifically said that’s not true… and the laws I’m arguing AGAINST are ones that limit, not expand, the rights of Americans. If your only method of argument is not to discuss the merits, but to intentionally misrepresent the position of the other side, I hope you know it makes your own argument appear much weaker.