- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jury rules against dad trying to save his 7-year-old from gender ‘transition’
Posted on 10/22/19 at 11:57 am to BeefDawg
Posted on 10/22/19 at 11:57 am to BeefDawg
quote:
Stop defending this shite.
Pretty sure he is not going to stop defending it. He is now gonna post some lukewarm nonsense about how he "also doesn't think that maybe possibly this could be medically necessary but he agrees in principle because muh limited government, its technically lawful, muh professional opinions, gotta break a few eggs, yadda yadda."
0
Posted on 10/22/19 at 11:58 am to Saint Alfonzo
quote:
Child abuse by the mother, the jury and the court. Snatch that kid up and disappear to a non-extradition country.
+1000
That's the only possible way to save this child... legally.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Perhaps you are having difficulty following the discussion. It is going multiple directions at once.quote:Oh pahleez save it with your bullshite non-sequitor.
You really hate limited government.
The poster to whom I was responding suggested that I was “sick“ for opining that the government should not preclude a 16-year-old (with full parental consent) from undertaking an action that she could perform without parental consent a mere 13 months later.
Sorry, but that is some serious nanny state interference, and anyone who suggests otherwise does NOT respect the notion of limited government.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:03 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Again, it is helpful to find a point of near unanimity, and to seek the point and reason for which that unanimity dissolves.
you knew your example would have fallen totally flat if you'd said "7 year old wants to tattoo eyeliner....
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Nope
Perhaps you are having difficulty following the discussion
quote:I think what you mean to say is, you're forking every time a particular direction doesn't work for your obfuscation.
t is going multiple directions at once.
quote:Yeah. Like I said.
The poster to whom I was responding suggested that I was “sick“ for opining that the government should not preclude a 16-year-old (with full parental consent) from undertaking an action that she could perform without parental consent a mere 13 months later.
You flow thru these threads killing yourself to avoid all problematic directions while praying someone leaves you an opening to just avoid problematic directions.
This isn't new.
You didn't invent it.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Interestingly, you've now gone at least a few pages without addressing ANY non "at the edges" examples.
Again, it is helpful to find a point of near unanimity, and to seek the point and reason for which that unanimity dissolves.
That isn't an accident.
This isn't new
You didn't invent it.
I see through you.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:05 pm to SSpaniel
quote:We have been in agreement on that point since my first post. Nonetheless, people keep hurling these ridiculous hypotheticals at me.quote:Actually, we really aren't. You may be, but nobody else is. This is about changing a 7 year old's gender
we are analyzing that spectrum
Before the usual flurry of hypotheticals, I simply explained the procedural status of the case and the nature of the actual jury finding.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We have been in agreement on that point since my first post. Nonetheless, people keep hurling these ridiculous hypotheticals at me.
"OMG......don't give me any examples that might directly mirror doing this to a 7 year old...............if you bring up breast implants or tattoos, I only want to talk about late teenagers!!!!!"
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:08 pm to shinerfan
quote:my quoted post did not address a seven-year-old mutilation.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.
You really hate limited government.
It addressed another poster who suggested that the government should prohibit all minors (even with parental consent and even at age 17 years and 11 months) from obtaining certain procedures, such as a tattoo or a rhinoplasty.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:08 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:
Preventing child abuse is hating limited government now. Welcome to clown world.
+1000
You can't make this shart up. LOL
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:And maaaan. You are hanging on to that thread for dear life........aren't ya
It addressed another poster who suggested that the government should prohibit all minors (even with parental consent and even at age 17 years and 11 months) from obtaining certain procedures, such as a tattoo or a rhinoplasty.
Yeah. That's not transparent as frick.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:11 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Shorty, his entire post consisted of three words. “You are sick.“ in response to my assertion that parents should be able to give their consent to certain elective procedures.quote: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).
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.
YOU are the one who is changing the point to which I responded.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:13 pm to AggieHank86
quote:No, you're sick because you're actually trying to apply relevance in your stupid hypothetical to the James Younger case, which makes you appear to be defending the mother and the court in their decision to make a life-altering and irreversible physical and biological change to a child's gender.
Perhaps you are having difficulty following the discussion. It is going multiple directions at once.
The poster to whom I was responding suggested that I was “sick“ for opining that the government should not preclude a 16-year-old (with full parental consent) from undertaking an action that she could perform without parental consent a mere 13 months later.
Sorry, but that is some serious nanny state interference, and anyone who suggests otherwise does NOT respect the notion of limited government.
You're literally making excuses for them, and then trying to shame us by suggesting arguing with you is now us shitting on limited government.
You're batshit frickin crazy, man.
STOP DEFENDING THIS shite. It's that simple. Your hypothetical comparisons aren't relative and you can't convince us this wasn't some ideological driven frickery by a monther, judge, and maybe even jury (although the jury didn't make the same decisions, they just ruled on custody).
You're lookin like a douche more than usual. You should quit. Seriously.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Well
Shorty, his entire post consisted of three words. “You are sick.“ in response to my assertion that parents should be able to give their consent to certain elective procedures.
No offense. But when I gave examples of OTHER things we wouldn't let mom do to a 7 year old, you did the same shite with me. You came back at me with a late teens example retort.
So, nice try. But, we all see through you.
Here's some reality.
There is ZERO medical benefit to transitioning a 7 year old.
Hence.
We are talking about a PERMANENT elective procedure.
That the court was able to confound idiot jurors who have been socially bludgeoned on the subject of trans doesn't change this.
Hence, any and all examples regarding state prevention revolve around SEVEN YEAR OLDS to start.
Any attempt by you to pull away from that age bracket is OBVIOUS obfuscation and you know it.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:16 pm to BeefDawg
quote:Yup
You're literally making excuses for them, and then trying to shame us by suggesting arguing with you is now us shitting on limited government.
quote:Nah
You're batshit frickin crazy, man.
He's just a flaming liberal who know this shite is horrible for liberals. He's in EVERY LAST THREAD doing this when a subject comes up that is completely indefensible if hit head on.
So. He runs interference.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:16 pm to ShortyRob
quote:You are babbling again.
Interestingly, you've now gone at least a few pages without addressing ANY non "at the edges" examples.
That isn't an accident.
I addressed CC in detail in response to a specific question. I admitted that it is a problematic question from a limited government perspective, and I offered both my position and the reason for it.
If there is some other “edge” that you wish to discuss, put it on the table. I NEVER avoid the tough questions, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
my quoted post did not address a seven-year-old mutilation.
This quote is you addressing a whole bunch of people objecting to a mom transitioning a seven-year-old.
quote:
Everyone in this thread is advocating for the nanny state, and they do not even seem to know it.
You're obviously defending this proposed action.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:16 pm to RebelExpress38
A 7yr old changes his mind every 5 minutes about which Halloween costume to wear...wtf
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:17 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Nope
You are babbling again.
quote:
I NEVER avoid the tough questions,
Oh My God. Just really. Go ahead. Act like the thread doesn't exist.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:20 pm to ShortyRob
I love liberals that espouse for limited government, but insist on allowing women to kill and/or harm their very own children.
Page 17 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News