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

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.

---

The equivalent argument would be whether a parent is allowed to shoot their child because the child says he wants a cool scar. We defend the right to own guns, and to use them in specific circumstances. We can disagree on those specific circumstances but no one argues that the use of the gun is beyond the scope of the government to regulate and judge..

I understood your general statement. I was purposely applying it to this situation to make an additional statement.

Hank's entire argument falls apart if he admits this is child abuse.

Hence, he can't.

Even though he knows it is.

After all these pages, here's some things Hank KNOWS. And you know he knows it, because he's made no attempt to counter it.

1)He knows that mom drove this child to feel the way he does.

2)He knows mom started it young.......VERY young(it's no accident he just ignored posts showing proof of this).

3)He knows that getting a child to this point mentally would be fairly easy for a trained professional such as mom

4)He knows that it's not really that hard to get "experts" to go on the stand and repeat her stupidity.

5)He knows that in pretty much every other conceivable example of similar abuse, the mom would have gotten her arse kicked in court

In summation, he knows abuse has been perpetrated here.

But. He also knows that admitting it's abuse means he has to then acknowledge WHY a court would allow it.

And on THAT front, this requires admitting that it is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT the product of liberal indoctrination.

And, THAT is an enormous problem for liberals politically.

So, the Hanks of the world run to these threads to run interference and try to douse the fire.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I did not raise any of the issues that you discuss. I simply responded to other posters who did raise them.

---

bullshite. You just did it AGAIN right here:

---

Everything you posted was in direct response to a question from another poster.

quote:

---

You can't sit here and say you don't like it and it's an extraordinarily bad idea, but then say but it's okay if the parent consents and the government shouldn't intervene.

---

Yes, one can. We do it every day. I think that the world is FULL of bad ideas, and people should be free to make bad decisions without undue governmental interference. I think allowing a kid to ride a bike on the street without a helmet is a bad idea, but I do not think government should mandate that kids wear helmets. I think that allowing a kid to eat ten donuts per day is a bad idea, but I do not want government regulating what you feed your child. Those “bad ideas” certainly differ from the Younger case in the SCOPE of their “badness,” but the underlying CONCEPT is the same. “Let the parents parent.”

quote:

---

There are different levels of bad ideas, and child abuse of this sort is absolutely one where someone with authority MUST step in and prevent a clearly mentally compromised parent from making harmful decisions with regards to their children.

---

YES!

And that happened in this case.

The family law court “stepped in” and resolved a dispute between the parents. That decision is still subject to appeal. The mob just does not like the decision reached by 11/12 jurors and a family law judge, so they are clamoring for a statewide prohibition against these procedures. Unlike the mob, I recognize that the occasional bad result is inherent in our system.

This case DOES present the “bad facts” from the old adage. We must strive to reject the adage’s usual response of creating “bad law.”

This thread is the knee-jerk reaction from libs to a shooting ... enact more gun control, rather than accepting that freedom means that people will sometimes make bad decisions.

quote:

---

Surely you can agree to that. And I certainly don't think it's being hyperbolic to call it more than a bad decision. I mean, C'mon, Hank. I really thought you were smarter than this.

---

nope. You're just an emotional wreck. Hank is superior to us all by remaining calm and above the fray!!!

quote:

---

The family law court “stepped in” and resolved a dispute between the parents. That decision is still subject to appeal. The mob just does not like the decision reached by 11/12 jurors and a family law judge, so they are clamoring for a statewide prohibition against these procedures. Unlike the mob, I recognize that the occasional bad result is inherent in our system.

---

Given that there is no defensible reason to ever..............EVER do this procedure on a prepubescent child...........and given that doing it to them IS.......REPEAT IS CHILD ABUSE...........then why shouldn't it be banned?

I feel somewhat confident that child abuse is illegal. So. Cool. This is child abuse. Label it as such.

quote:

---

This thread is the knee-jerk reaction from libs to a shooting ... enact more gun control, rather than accepting that freedom means that people will sometimes make bad decisions.

---

shite comparison.

Plenty of gun owners who dont commit murder.

100% of parents who want their child to transition want their kids to transition.

This is akin to outlawing murder. We're going after the act itself, not the ownership of an item that may, or may not, be used correctly.

quote:

---

I am making rational points

---

Nah, boo.

quote:

---

It's a "bad decision" in much the same way the letting your man-of-the-week have sex with your 6 year old is a "bad decision". Probably worse, because people can and do heal from sexual abuse.

---

It's not "probably worse"

It is DEFINITELY worse.

Because you're right.

At least if you were raped when you were 7, you can one day NOT be getting raped.

But, you are chemically castrated, that shite is NEVER going away.