re: Jury rules against dad trying to save his 7-year-old from gender ‘transition’

quote:

---

Preventing child abuse is hating limited government now.

---

Even Hank doesn't believe that bull shite.

He's just trying to play a game of reverse logic by acting like the people who ARE for limited government are somehow violating that principle by not being OK with child abuse.

quote:

---

A 16 year old boy wants to take possession of the .22 rifle his dad had been gifted from his father when he was 16 - and his grandfather before him. And he wants to go squirrel hunting behind his grandfather's homestead home.

Should the state intervene??

---

No. Perhaps you can explain the relevance of your question?

quote:

---

Actually, we really aren't. You may be, but nobody else is. This is about changing a 7 year old's gender, not your 16 year old daughter getting permanent eyeliner.

---

Well. And Hank thought he was being slick by comparing it to a 16 year old.

Because he knows that if he'd said 7 year old wants tattoo eyeliner, his stupid comparison falls flat.

And THAT my friend is what a hack would do

quote:

---

He's just trying to play a game of reverse logic by acting like the people who ARE for limited government are somehow violating that principle by not being OK with child abuse.

---

It's my favorite argument against conservatives. We all know he has a subjective value for life so he would also argue that aborting children is okay because the state shouldn't intervene to stop the death of a child.

quote:

---

"Limited" means that you do cede them some authority. It's reasonable to place the prevention of the torture and mutilation of a seven year old within the sphere of government authority.

---

Especially something that HAS BEEN STUDIED EXTENSIVELY and found to basically go away at puberty in more than 98% of all cases.

Basically, transitioning a child pre-puberty leaves you with a 98% chance you just fricked them for life.

quote:

---

Actually, we really aren't.

---

Exactly, hankbro is having a spirited discussion with himself about high school girls liposuction and boob jobs, while we try to keep him on topic regarding the prevention of emotional sex abuse of a 6yo (now 7 year old) boy by his lunatic mother.

quote:

---

I suppose that my view comes down to the common law meanings of the terms assault and battery (“offensive touching”), which are quite consistent with a statutory prohibition against CC.

Ir is difficult to imagine any adult female who would NOT consider CC to be an “offensive touching” upon her person, while the booming elective surgery and tattoo markets clearly indicate that adults do not have the same view of rhinoplasty or liposuction.

---

Then I'm not sure why you mentioned legitimate medical purpose, as you're basing your opinion on what you would consider "offensive touching". I would imagine a small child subjected to a tattoo gun would consider it offensive as hell.

quote:

---

experience tells me that the father testified to all of this, with no corroboration from any other witness.

---

There's a video of James at 3 years old admitting to the world that mommy is pulling the strings, you dipshit.

Here

CLEARLY this means she was brainwashing the child way before the child could possibly even understand WTF any of his actions or feelings meant. Certainly way before a point an adult should consciously take the actions and insistences of a child serious and turn them into a life-altering mandate.

You can't possibly think a parent should let a child make decisions at age 2 or 3.

And you can't possibly think a child is capable of making a decision like this at age 2 or 3.

She had a "comming out party" for him at age 5, where she changed his name to Luna, changed his pronouns, enrolled him into school as a girl, and effectively permanently changed his gender.

AT AGE 5!

So there's only ONE possible deduction, and that's the mother manufactured it all. These were all her choices and only her choices.


Stop defending this shite.

quote:

---

Because all of these questions arise on a spectrum. It is helpful to find the points on the spectrum where there is near unanimity and to then seek the point at which that unanimity dissolves.

---

Let me translate for you.

You knew that making the comparison equal would die on arrival, so, you fudged.

Don't come up in here and try to talk your way around pretending I'm too stupid to see what you did.

quote:

---

I suspect that there is near unanimity in opposition to the prospect of taking a healthy male newborn and starting medical transition immediate post-birth. When and why does THAT unanimity dissolve?

---

Welp, I'll bet that it dissolves AT LEAST as soon as it would for getting that kid permanent eyeliner. WHICH IS WHY you shifted the age. Nice try dude. No one in here is that obtuse.

quote:

---

The poster to whom I replied said something which suggested that he would prohibit permanent eyeliner (with parental consent) to ALL minors. I was testing his hypothesis.

---

Nah. You're just selecting out portions of posts that you think you can work with in your interference game while ignoring problematic portions(or simply COMPLETELY RE-FRAMING THEM).

This isn't new. You didn't invent it. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

quote:

---

There's a video of James at 3 years old admitting to the world that mommy is pulling the strings, you dipshit.

---

Which, frankly, Hank didn't need video to KNOW.