Picking on an individual; when the point can be made in general terms, would serve no purpose other than satisfying you. You are not getting an answer, so proclaim your imagined victory and let it go.uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:48 pm What outward appearance of which parents? You are free to conjecture or agree with whoever you will, but inventing misanthropic characters and then saying they represent "the only true rationale behind harming a child in this way" is not the product of a towering intellect.
Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
I'm not asking that you pick on an individual, I'm just challenging your belief that such individuals exist. If you cannot identify one, your character has the same status as unicorns. You can believe what you like about human nature, but what do you think it says about yours?Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:39 pmPicking on an individual; when the point can be made in general terms, would serve no purpose other than satisfying you. You are not getting an answer, so proclaim your imagined victory and let it go.uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:48 pmWhat outward appearance of which parents? You are free to conjecture or agree with whoever you will, but inventing misanthropic characters and then saying they represent "the only true rationale behind harming a child in this way" is not the product of a towering intellect.
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:48 pmWhat outward appearance of which parents? You are free to conjecture or agree with whoever you will, but inventing misanthropic characters and then saying they represent "the only true rationale behind harming a child in this way" is not the product of a towering intellect.
You weren't asked to find it satisfactory. I was - and I do. You don't - we get that. Let's say that's because you're smarter than both of us. Now will you let it go?uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:53 pm I'm not asking that you pick on an individual, I'm just challenging your belief that such individuals exist. If you cannot identify one, your character has the same status as unicorns. You can believe what you like about human nature, but what do you think it says about yours?
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
Vegetarian Taxidermy wrote:
Many people feel 'sex' is slightly impolite or embarrassing and has connotations of exciting sexual intercourse so medics say 'gender' as it sounds more polite.. Medics try to be diplomatic not least to get through their workload.Why do you think women are asked at scans if they want to know the 'gender' of the baby?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22441
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
Money. They cost a lot.
Children with serious mental problems also take a lot of counselling, resources and time. That means hiring a lot of people. And skilled, qualified and interested professionals in the area of child mental health are in short supply already.
Yes, that's a huge irony. In order to celebrate "diversity" we're going to hate whites, traditionalists, nationalists, the West, capitalists, conservatives of all colours and cultures, Christians, the rich (but not the Lefitist rich, obviously), industrialists and scientists (if we're environmentalists), all authorities (police, the military), women (if we're pro-trans), and all men....I've been thinking about the far more complex environment children face today; than the one I was raised in. Political correctness was in its infancy when I was at school, and back then - they only went so far as 'don't discriminate on the basis of arbitrary characteristics.' And that was fine. Live and let live. Good rule of thumb. But now, it's gone way beyond that - because the left have inverted identity politics, and now actively propagandise on behalf of minority interests - in an attack on the so called white male patriarchy; they've made whiteness, maleness and straightness problematic - while celebrating diversity!
It seems like, under one category or another, "diversity" has come to mean nothing but "hate most of the human race." And just how that serves "diversity" and "world peace" is really a great question.
BLM is a crock. It's always been that. Three Marxists started it, with the goal of fomenting the expected Marxists overthrow of the existing order, which is then supposed to result automatically in Marxist paradise. It's done nothing for people of colour. And it won't.DYK, there are around 1000 arrest related deaths in the US per year, from over 10 million arrests. 32% of those are black people. 42% white people. That's a failure rate of around 0.01% - in a country where people carry guns. That demonstrates incredible professionalism on the part of police - but in order to spike an election (IMO) the left made out like there's some kind of racist genocide being committed by the police. BLM is blatant leftist manipulation; forcing people to demonstrations of political correctness at election time.
The left is in trouble though; in the US and the UK. They've been abandoned by the white working class people they were set up to represent; and cannot counter, disagree with, or therefore control the marriage of an inverted identity politics with moral righteousness.
There's another irony. The whole guilt-thing they are depending on depends on people having a conscience. And it has to be a particular kind of conscience, and a rather sensitive one, too. They appeal to the sense of guilt of a post-Judeo-Christian West. Their song has no appeal where that is not available, as in Asia or Africa. It only works at all in the post-JC West.
Ironically, it is Judaism and Christianity that it seeks to eliminate. Along with that goes the conscience that that worldview informs. Why should a person from an authoritarian, tribal, world-denying or collectivist tradition "feel guilty" if some people are worse off than others? If you're from one of those traditions, then so long as the autoritarians can rule, the tribe triumphs, the world is forsaken, or the collective goes merrily along, who has reason to feel bad for the suffering individual? Nobody.
So the Social Justice movement is eating its own flesh. If it succeeds in killing the traditional Judeo-Christian values in the West, there is nobody who will have reason to listen to it anymore. It will die of its own stupidity.
Right. They have to raise the stakes continually. And it has to be by appealing to this Judeo-Christian kind of morality, that tells us that being "racist" or "unjust" or "hateful" is bad. At the same time, they are themselves ardently racist, unjust and hateful. So they settle for the labelling -- it's all they've got. They make people fearful of being called names. But the reality is that they are the leaders in the very things they claim to deplore.They've created a ratchet effect; a holier than thou ideology - where the noose can only tighten for fear of being called racist, sexist, homophobic etc, twitter mobbed, de-platformed and threatened, no matter how mad an idea - like gender self identification, they can only agree.
What I think has lent them power at this particular juncture in history is the ubiquity of the media. When you are "called names" nowadays, it's in public...your infamy spreads widely and without checks. You can be character-assassinated at a moment's notice. So avoiding being pilloried by the public becomes a nervous concern. It's no longer enough not to BE racist, or hateful, or unjust -- it's crucial not to be name-called them, because public opinion will make you pay savagely for any such slander even getting out there.
The Social Justice wokies are depending on that. But such irrational games do not continue forever. What happens is that when they win, they lose. And, of course, if they lose, they also lose. So Social Justice is inevitably a loser's game.
But it might just take a whole lot of people down with it. In fact, it already has.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22441
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
What are we in the Victorian Era? No, we are in the era of Lady Gaga. There's no shame. I doubt very much that doctor-squeamishness has much to do with it.
The purpose of being asked is obvious: some women would prefer to "select." What this means is that they want the option to "terminate" a baby of the wrong sex. And in the vast majority of cases, that means to select a male baby and kill a female one.
Didn't you know? The vast majority of abortions are on female fetuses. That holds staggeringly true in India and China, of course; but it even holds true in the West. Many people, for one reason or another, don't want female babies.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
Then you have obviously never read anything I've written At least you aren't insisting that I'm a 'Brit', which most Americans do. I will give you a clue. At the moment we probably have the wokiest govt. in the entire history of govts.Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:34 pmI take it you're in the US -vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:44 am I still couldn't vote 'neo-liberal' though. Actually that side has become far more loathesome here, whereas traditionally here the two sides of the spectrum only differed in a few areas--otherwise being pretty similar. The differences have definitely become a lot more pronounced.
Notice how with this pandemic countries have become more 'socialist' because that's the only way it can work.
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:44 am I still couldn't vote 'neo-liberal' though. Actually that side has become far more loathesome here, whereas traditionally here the two sides of the spectrum only differed in a few areas--otherwise being pretty similar. The differences have definitely become a lot more pronounced.
Notice how with this pandemic countries have become more 'socialist' because that's the only way it can work.
That's right. I don't read anyone's posts. I work by distance reading people's minds, and given how much you were thinking about guzzling down hot dogs, I just assumed you're American!vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:03 pm You've obviously never read anything I've written
Oh, no, sorry, they're not hot dogs, are they?
Where you from?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
When have I ever mentioned hot dogs? Or is that heavy-handed pommy humour?Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:16 pmvegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:44 am I still couldn't vote 'neo-liberal' though. Actually that side has become far more loathesome here, whereas traditionally here the two sides of the spectrum only differed in a few areas--otherwise being pretty similar. The differences have definitely become a lot more pronounced.
Notice how with this pandemic countries have become more 'socialist' because that's the only way it can work.That's right. I don't read anyone's posts. I work by distance reading people's minds, and given how much you were thinking about guzzling down hot dogs, I just assumed you're American!vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:03 pm You've obviously never read anything I've written
Oh, no, sorry, they're not hot dogs, are they?
Where you from?
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:16 pmvegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:44 am I still couldn't vote 'neo-liberal' though. Actually that side has become far more loathesome here, whereas traditionally here the two sides of the spectrum only differed in a few areas--otherwise being pretty similar. The differences have definitely become a lot more pronounced.
Notice how with this pandemic countries have become more 'socialist' because that's the only way it can work.That's right. I don't read anyone's posts. I work by distance reading people's minds, and given how much you were thinking about guzzling down hot dogs, I just assumed you're American!vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:03 pm You've obviously never read anything I've written
Oh, no, sorry, they're not hot dogs, are they?
Where you from?
When have you ever mentioned where you live? I'm not a mind reader. You realise the anti climax to come when you eventually say, right? Here's a plan: don't ever - ever tell me. I'll tell you, when I've figured it out.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:21 pmWhen have I ever mentioned hot dogs? Or is that heavy-handed pommy humour?
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
Your message is even more captious than normal.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:08 pmWhat are we in the Victorian Era? No, we are in the era of Lady Gaga. There's no shame. I doubt very much that doctor-squeamishness has much to do with it.
The purpose of being asked is obvious: some women would prefer to "select." What this means is that they want the option to "terminate" a baby of the wrong sex. And in the vast majority of cases, that means to select a male baby and kill a female one.
Didn't you know? The vast majority of abortions are on female fetuses. That holds staggeringly true in India and China, of course; but it even holds true in the West. Many people, for one reason or another, don't want female babies.
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
...
Last edited by Vitruvius on Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.
And there goes your head in the toilet.Vitruvius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:45 pmNo. Strictly speaking the first sentence was re: puberty blockers - no parental consent. Followed by your name and the date and time. Why do you ask?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:00 pmSo, the first sentence of my first post to you about this was, "You should be able to let people do their own thing publicly, too," right?