- 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 4:44 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:44 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I think the funniest part is that he doesn't think he's being transparent in this thread
That's really the best part. he actually thinks that he's covering his tracks
It’s that inability to see 6” in front of his own nose that makes him uniquely him.
1
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:45 pm to Godfather1
But he's like, so rational and totally above the fray and emotionless or something.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:45 pm to mouton
OK, let’s look at a real life example. How about that baby in England a few years ago? I think his name was Alfie.
The child was terminally ill, and the parents wanted to take him to the United States for an experimental treatment with a very low likelihood of success. English government prevented them from doing so.
Should England have allowed them to undertake a medical procedure with a low likelihood of success? or was the English government correct in taking that decision out of their hands?
The child was terminally ill, and the parents wanted to take him to the United States for an experimental treatment with a very low likelihood of success. English government prevented them from doing so.
Should England have allowed them to undertake a medical procedure with a low likelihood of success? or was the English government correct in taking that decision out of their hands?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
OK, let’s look at a real life example.
We are.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
on the other hand, do we lose our collective shite when one judge makes one decision with which we do not agree and start immediately legislating and regulating all judicial discretion out of existence?
I don't consider adding "don't chemically change 7 year old boys into girls" to the list of things we don't do to children as "losing our collective shite". We can put it right next to "don't bugger them", which I also favor removing from judicial discretion. Nor is it regulating ALL judicial discretion out of existence, but you knew that.
Weren't you just complaining about people presenting emotional arguments?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
, let’s look at a real life example. How about that baby in England a few years ago? I think his name was Alfie.
The child was terminally ill, and the parents wanted to take him to the United States for an experimental treatment with a very low likelihood of success. English government prevented them from doing so
Another horrible example but nice try again
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
Attempt to deflect: successful [not successful]
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:48 pm to Flats
quote:
I don't consider adding "don't chemically change 7 year old boys into girls" to the list of things we don't do to children as "losing our collective shite
Oh no. You're demanding that we completely eliminate judicial discretion in all things child related!!!
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:49 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The child was terminally ill, and the parents wanted to take him to the United States for an experimental treatment
How is this even remotely relevant? The child we are discussing does not have a medical ailment.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The child was terminally ill, and the parents wanted to take him to the United States for an experimental treatment with a very low likelihood of success.
=/= chemically castrating your 7 year old child because it’s what YOU want to do.
Never mind not even in the same ballpark. Not even in the same zip code.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:52 pm to Flats
quote:come on, Flats, do not be disingenuous. You have to read a response in the context of the post to which it was replying.
I don't consider adding "don't chemically change 7 year old boys into girls" to the list of things we don't do to children as "losing our collective shite". We can put it right next to "don't bugger them", which I also favor removing from judicial discretion. Nor is it regulating ALL judicial discretion out of existence, but you knew that.
Weren't you just complaining about people presenting emotional arguments?
You indicated that we tried to avoid legislating and leave some discretion in the hands of a judge, until judges have established a pattern that they are not capable of exercising that discretion effectively. My response was addressing that contention and indicating that one judge making one bad decision is not enough caused to immediately mediately start regulating and legislating.
in context, I thought it was clear that I was speaking about removing judicial discretion in a given field of endeavor, not throughout the entire jurisprudence of the state.
sometimes I forget the extent to which people on this forum revel in parsing every syllable of a post in a vacuum. Hell, the last two pages are rife with people who edited context out of full sentences which I wrote, in order to make the sentences seem to say something which they most definitely did not say before the editing.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
do not be disingenuous
Rich.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:One judge is plenty.
You indicated that we tried to avoid legislating and leave some discretion in the hands of a judge, until judges have established a pattern that they are not capable of exercising that discretion effectively. My response was addressing that contention and indicating that one judge making one bad decision is not enough caused to immediately mediately start regulating and legislating.
There should be zero cases where a parent can decide to medically transition their prepubescent child.
ZERO. Not 1. Not 2. ZERO.
That there can be more than zero is the reason you ensure there won't be more than zero.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:55 pm to mouton
quote:you believe that he does not. Many experts in the field (far more educated on the matter than you) feel otherwise. No apologies, but I will go with the experts.quote:How is this even remotely relevant? The child we are discussing does not have a medical ailment.
The child was terminally ill, and the parents wanted to take him to the United States for an experimental treatment
If I need to know something about welding, I will ask a welder, ...not a cafeteria worker.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 5:02 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Oh fricking pahleez
you believe that he does not. Many experts in the field (for more educated on the matter than you) feel otherwise. No apologies, but I will go with the experts.
You've already admitted the "evidence is scant" and that the bulk of the experts DISagree with these idiots.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:By the way. MORE...…….a LOT more...……..experts disagree with these morons.
Many experts in the field (for more educated on the matter than you) feel otherwise. No apologies, but I will go with the experts.
I'll go with the experts. Especially when the other "experts" in the discussion are part of the fricking agenda driven groups.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:58 pm to AggieHank86
Appeals to experts.
Really?
6 year old gender transition is supported EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE? Championed by who?
The medical community at large? Link?
You done stepped in it now.
Really?
6 year old gender transition is supported EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE? Championed by who?
The medical community at large? Link?
You done stepped in it now.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Many experts in the field (for more educated on the matter than you) feel otherwise. No apologies, but I will go with the experts.
What's the available sample size on 7-year-old physical gender reassignment they're looking at to draw such conclusions in their learned field?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
you believe that he does not. Many experts in the field (for more educated on the matter than you) feel otherwise. No apologies, but I will go with the experts.
If I need to know something about welding, I will ask a welder, ...not a cafeteria worker.
Appeal to authority is the most common lefty fallacy. Aka as the “settled science” doctrine. Aka the sun revolves around the earth assumtive.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:59 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:After admitting earlier in the thread that said "experts" are a minority in the area of "experts".
Appeals to experts.
Page 30 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News