- 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 12:52 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:52 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Am I the only one who finds the most terrifying aspect of this story to be the fact that there are presumably licensed medical doctors, staff, and facilities willing to go forward with performing these types of procedures on SEVEN YEAR OLDS?
Well, ya know. I chuckled earlier when Hank seemed to think finding a doc to give a 7 year old a boob job wouldn't be possible.
LOL. It would be if we determined socially that a 7 year old not having boobs was a "victim".
0
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:53 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
This is common sense shite, man.
There are legal and semantic fine hairs to be split. And then there’s just plain, good old-fashioned common sense.
Guess which side Hank will almost invariably come down upon?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
without overreacting by implementing a broader statutory regime which deprives parents of the right to make decisions for their children.
Exactly. Clitorectomies are none of our business, amirite? Buncha nanny state big government types up in here.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:57 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Your desperation to frame this as a limited government issue is embarrassing.
The problem is that even authoritarians who want to give government control over every element of your life cannot conceivably manage to legislate everything. so, do you try to do so anyway, or do you trust the parents to make the correct decisions the vast majority of the time?
Moreover, you KNOW as well as everyone else in here that I was right when I said good old dad wins this one going away if the issue was:
1)Child is the girl and mom thinks she's fat so is getting lipo
2)Child is a girl and mom thinks she needs boobs
3)mom and 7 year old wants tattoo
etc etc etc
Hence, you know that the only reason he didn't win here is because trans has become some absurd leftist sacred cow.
This has nothing to with being authoritarian. Your desperation to make it so is very transparent.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:57 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:I think I have said “extraordinarily bad” several times. Apologies if I am not adequately-emotional or hyperbolic for you.
Bad decision.
That is what you argue this is.
That is all this is in your mind, a bad parental decision, but totally okay.
You're broken.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:58 pm to Flats
Yup. Aggiehank supports the "right" of parents to force castration of extreme minors. In this case chemical castration and intense emotional abuse programming.
He just thinks its only a bad decision.
What a swell "libertarian"
He just thinks its only a bad decision.
What a swell "libertarian"
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
without overreacting by implementing a broader statutory regime which deprives parents of the right to make decisions for their children.
Frankly, you wouldn't even need a law.
Absent a law on the subject, dad(or CPS) would win 100% of cases involving elective permanent procedures on 7 year olds but for the fricking subject being a sacred cow.
Courts routinely rule "best interests" of the child without requiring some law on the specific action.
There's no law against me feeding my child cake exclusively for every meal. But, if mom took my arse to court over it.............my stupidity is probably going to cost me.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I think I have said “extraordinarily bad” several times
It's child abuse.
quote:
Apologies if I am not adequately-emotional or hyperbolic for you.
Calling child abuse child abuse isn't "hyperbolic"
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:00 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:
He just thinks its only a bad decision.
No no no
It's an "extraordinarily" bad decision.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Calling child abuse child abuse isn't "hyperbolic"
fricking this.
I think it is all going well over his head. I hope so, or elese he just has no shame.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:02 pm to Flats
quote:Fair enough, and I was less than specific in that word selection. Only an anarchist would advocate for no action by government on anything.quote:Not always, because you already admitted that the state should get involved when it comes to clitorectomies on young females. You want a line drawn, like we all do, but you want it drawn on the other side of chemically castrating a seven year old boy. You are defending the legal system allowing this action on young child, and you accuse anybody who disagrees with you of favoring the "nanny state".
no, I am defending the position that government simply needs to stay itself out of parental decision-making.
Generally keeping government out of these decisions will almost always result in acceptable results. Occasionally, it will produce bad results. This certainly seems to be the case here.
Again, that is simply a cost of limited government. Sometimes bad things will happen.
I cannot count the number of times that I have seen the same analysis here regarding firearms. I agree with it in both contexts. Apparently others are less consistent.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:02 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:
I think it is all going well over his head.
I've already told you all
He knows this is fricking bad.
He knows it's just brutal for the left politically.
Hence
quote:
or elese he just has no shame.
Correct
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:03 pm to AggieHank86
Hey captain 17yo high school girl liposuction, how about address forced chemical castration of a 6 (now 7) year old boy.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Again, that is simply a cost of limited government. Sometimes bad things will happen.
I cannot count the number of times that I have seen the same analysis here regarding firearms. I agree with it in both contexts. Apparently others are less consistent.
Sophistry
You're trying to stand on the limited government angle when basically NO ONE supports allowing child abuse in the name of "limited government".
All you're doing with this line of argument is exposing your DailyKos roots
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:LOL, oh my.
I think I have said “extraordinarily bad” several times. Apologies if I am not adequately-emotional or hyperbolic for you.
As I've said to many like you here, I truly hope for the worst for you. And if I ever learn that horrible shite has befallen you, I will revel and cheer at your misfortune, as it will be a very, very good day indeed.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I cannot count the number of times that I have seen the same analysis here regarding firearms. I agree with it in both contexts. Apparently others are less consistent.
Being anti-child abuse is now "inconsistent" with being anti-gun control. If you want to protect children from abuse, you must support gun control. Else you are "inconsistent".
You are still broken. Seek new cnn points, NPC
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:06 pm to DeusVultMachina
Did I read this shite is in Dallas county?
This is what you get “going blue”?
This is what you get “going blue”?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:07 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:
Being anti-child abuse is now like being anti-gun control. If you want to protect children from abuse, you must support gun control. Else you are "inconsistent".
Yep
If I support the courts stepping in when child abuse is occurring, this means I need to change my 2nd Amendment views.
Just ask Hank!!!
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:09 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:My language is always less emotional and hyperbolic than the forum norm. Most on this thread see a parent with some nefarious scheme in mind. I see a bad decision. Such is life.
Explain how forced chemical castration and intensely programmed sexual emotional abuse of an extreme minor by a parent is "just a bad decision".
When one parent is about to make a bad decision with which the other parent is not in agreement, my ideal solution is a neutral arbiter (such as a family law judge) to resolve that dispute.
The consensus on this thread seems to be in favor of a broader regime of governmental prohibitions applicable to everyone in the state. I have a problem with that.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 1:09 pm to RebelExpress38
Whut da fuq?
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 1:10 pm
Page 20 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News