[Danukem]

Aristotle Gumball, on 10 October 2022 - 12:40 AM, said:

I mean in the UK kids who grew up after their parents and doctors allowed them to get hormones and surgeries, are now suing because they realized they weren't trans after all and ended up wanting biological children, felt they weren't fully informed of the consequences of their decision to transition, etc.

Good. They should sue. If the hormones and surgeries were wrongly encouraged and prescribed/carried out by professionals who should know better, then those people ought to be held to account.

Aristotle Gumball, on 10 October 2022 - 12:40 AM, said:

It's fucked all around, but someone's gotta put their foot down.

Oh I'm quite sure that feet will come down, as it were. A government ban isn't necessary, though. Think about this: there wasn't an explicit ban *before* all of this, and yet the hormones and surgery were almost unheard of. Culture created the surge, reality will end it.

EDIT: By the way, my previous posts on this were replies to Radar, who is like me a U.S. citizen. One of the first things I said to him was that the procedures should not be paid for by taxpayers (i.e. the government) "except in rare cases" (I was thinking mainly of people born with deformities). In the U.S., paying for healthcare is complicated and dysfunctional, but we do have private health insurance and people commonly do pay for their own bills. However, my understanding is that in the U.K. and the entire continent of Europe, there is universal (government mandated and paid for) healthcare. So for you guys, insisting that that the procedures not be provided by the government *essentially IS a ban*, since it would mean that virtually no one would be able to get them.

[Aristotle Gumball]

Danukem, on 10 October 2022 - 02:18 AM, said:

Good. They should sue. If the hormones and surgeries were wrongly encouraged and prescribed/carried out by professionals who should know better, then those people ought to be held to account.

EDIT: By the way, my previous posts on this were replies to Radar, who is like me a U.S. citizen. One of the first things I said to him was that the procedures should not be paid for by taxpayers (i.e. the government) "except in rare cases" (I was thinking mainly of people born with deformities). In the U.S., paying for healthcare is complicated and dysfunctional, but we do have private health insurance and people commonly do pay for their own bills. However, my understanding is that in the U.K. and the entire continent of Europe, there is universal (government mandated and paid for) healthcare. So for you guys, insisting that that the procedures not be provided by the government *essentially IS a ban*, since it would mean that virtually no one would be able to get them.

It's practically illegal to question somebody's preferred gender identity these days. That's what makes this whole business as pernicious as it's become.

Your edit is a good point. Yeah, I see what you mean. Government intervention in your case would be more substantial than public healthcare simply not covering the procedure.

[Radar]

Danukem, on 09 October 2022 - 08:34 PM, said:

There are cultures at war. But I don't agree that the current woke culture should be identified with "the left". The left have other priorities that go back hundreds of years that have little to do with the woke stuff. The current woke culture *IS* self-destructive...when it is allowed to fail. On a related note, a parasite that takes over its host and is in the process of killing it may appear very successful, right up to the point where the host dies. In this case though I don't expect anything quite that dramatic. When the current woke culture dies out, this will not mean the death of the left. I believe the normal left will live on, and the traditional priorities of the left will reemerge and regain prominence.

Depends on which "left" you mean. If you mean "classical liberal" left, then that's basically consolidated within the right nowadays. If you mean "FDR" left, then they've been in full control of the monkey house for 80+ years, and that's what wokeness is an outgrowth of. Their elimination would probably send half the Republican party back to the left, probably even myself. But this would only be predicated on a complete destruction of everything the left has become today.

Danukem, on 09 October 2022 - 08:34 PM, said:

I would not characterize my position as "supporting" any procedures. I said they shouldn't be banned outright. Note that as someone with a strongly libertarian bent, I'm for allowing for people to do all kinds of things that are dangerous and potentially harmful to themselves. When it comes to children, I think that there should be a strong presumption of parental rights.

While children are not chattel and do have rights, they are in some ways the property of their parents. I think of it as a sliding scale -- a pre-fetal embryo is close to 100% the property of its parents (moreso the mother since she carries it). As it develops into a child it becomes less their property until at some point (in U.S. law we have arbitrarily decided age 18) it is no longer their property at all. This is why parents have the right to try to instill in their children their preferred values, even if those values may be contrary to popular culture, and to a large degree dictate their diets, activities, etc. If you want to categorically prevent parents from having surgery performed on their child when they believe it will make the child's life better and they are fully informed etc., in my opinion that is giving the state too much power. Yes, it might prevent some bad surgeries (but maybe not -- see my previous post), but now you are strengthening a principle that the state can interfere in this way. Think ahead. The woke judges and lawmakers can get their revenge later. Maybe they will argue that bringing a child up with certain Christian values is causing it great harm and should be outlawed and they will say it is the same principle that prevents gender re-assignment surgery. Better to leave parental rights intact, and tend to your own family.

There are two directions I could take this in. One would be that there are arguments within the libertarian paradigm that allow for the banning of abortion and protection for minors as a matter of principle. A different direction would be to admit that I'm simply not a categoric libertarian. There are some issues on which I would like people to have freedom, other issues on which I'm fully determined to fight for control over the government gun the same way the left does. I would say most right-leaning Americans fall within this camp, with a bit of religious values sprinkled in as well. It's why in the USA, the Republican party receives 50% of the voting population, and Libertarians receive 1%, as it's basically a godless flavor of American right-wing beliefs ("just leave each other alone" is their substitute for "godidit"). In Europe, this demographic would be closer to reversed. I love this country.

Danukem, on 09 October 2022 - 08:34 PM, said:

If they are that determined to do it, let them do it. And for fuck's sake, don't grieve for them. They don't want your grief anyway.

I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis's benevolent dictator excerpt. I don't mean to come off that way. My feelings stem from knowing somebody presumably closely who used to be a right-wing tradcon who suddenly came out as trans. I was surprised how much it affected me and that I couldn't stop thinking about it. Now I understand somewhat the feelings of regret that people have when a loved one or friend commits suicide. Could I have been there more for them? Did I contribute by saying something or not saying something? Coming out as trans is basically a slow suicide.

Aristotle Gumball, on 10 October 2022 - 12:40 AM, said:

I mean in the UK kids who grew up after their parents and doctors allowed them to get hormones and surgeries, are now suing because they realized they weren't trans after all and ended up wanting biological children, felt they weren't fully informed of the consequences of their decision to transition, etc. It's fucked all around, but someone's gotta put their foot down.

This totally slipped my mind. There are a myriad of transgender kids already blaming their parents and doctors before they even hit age 18. Many such cases.

Danukem, on 10 October 2022 - 02:18 AM, said:

Good. They should sue. If the hormones and surgeries were wrongly encouraged and prescribed/carried out by professionals who should know better, then those people ought to be held to account.

Oh I'm quite sure that feet will come down, as it were. A government ban isn't necessary, though. Think about this: there wasn't an explicit ban *before* all of this, and yet the hormones and surgery were almost unheard of. Culture created the surge, reality will end it.

I presume the logic here is we can either allow the left to eat its own and blame themselves for their bad decisions, or prevent them altogether and allow them to blame the right. I'm ok with banning the practice and allowing them to blame the right, just because I don't foresee allowing these procedures to become more prevalent as destroying the left as you suggest. Once this becomes a major issue, hospitals will just make you sign a contract that you can't ever sue if you regret your decision, assuming that's not already in place. Boom not the left's problem anymore.

[Forge]

Radar, on 09 October 2022 - 06:51 PM, said:

Leftist ideology is universally destructive
capable of taking complete control of modern Western thought
abortion or trans surgeries.

billion dollar industries

billion dollar industries have been known to buy a lot of political influence and public media propaganda

[Aristotle Gumball]

Radar, on 10 October 2022 - 05:15 AM, said:

This totally slipped my mind. There are a myriad of transgender kids already blaming their parents and doctors before they even hit age 18. Many such cases.

https://www.bbc.com/...health-51676020

Not to derail the exchange you're having with Dan, just adding something that people can actually read and feel something about.

[Danukem]

Radar, on 10 October 2022 - 05:15 AM, said:

I presume the logic here is we can either allow the left to eat its own and blame themselves for their bad decisions, or prevent them altogether and allow them to blame the right. I'm ok with banning the practice and allowing them to blame the right, just because I don't foresee allowing these procedures to become more prevalent as destroying the left as you suggest. Once this becomes a major issue, hospitals will just make you sign a contract that you can't ever sue if you regret your decision, assuming that's not already in place. Boom not the left's problem anymore.

The difficulties and pain won't go away just because someone can't sue for it. It reverberates throughout the community. I do think some lawsuits are in order, but they are only part of a much bigger picture. By the way, I never said that this particular issue by itself was capable of "destroying the left", I said that the current woke culture is self-destructive when it is allowed to fail (i.e. when it is left to its own devices). What I see is a culture built on false assumptions that aren't viable in the real world. Remember "defund the police"? I wanted them to run with that one, too, because I knew that the self-sufficient communities would be fine and that the people clamoring for it would ultimately regret it. But they keep getting away with these positions because adults keep stepping in and saving them from themselves. Don't get me wrong, the modern right could use some reality checks as well, but I think the problems on that side are different (that's a whole other topic).

[Radar]

Defund the police is a perfect example. Imagine if that actually made it through as policy in major Democratic cities. How many innocent people would have to die before democrats peeled back? I'm glad there are adults in the room that don't bow down to every leftist whim. This reminds me, I recently listened to a Gavin McInnes interview, and while I'm not sure I buy this theory completely, he made an interesting point that maybe all of this boils down to bad parental relationships, especially with that of the father. Woke leftists blame Trump, Republicans, the patriarchy, capitalism, functional institutions, etc. all as a stand-in for the father which tells them that certain things are harmful and that they can't just do whatever they want. Maybe that's a valid theory, maybe not. But regardless, this is life and it involves some rule making. In that sense, I agree with you that reality will hit these people sooner or later, but we have different ideas of what that "reality" should be.

[Phredreeke]

Danukem, on 10 October 2022 - 02:18 AM, said:

However, my understanding is that in the U.K. and the entire continent of Europe, there is universal (government mandated and paid for) healthcare. So for you guys, insisting that that the procedures not be provided by the government *essentially IS a ban*, since it would mean that virtually no one would be able to get them.

First, each country has their own system, in the UK there's one national provider, in others like Germany you have private insurers but everyone is mandated to have insurance (kinda like Obamacare) and the government pays for those who can't. Second, private healthcare is legal, and from what I've heard from UK trans women very much preferable to the public system when it comes to transgender care.

[Aristotle Gumball]

We basically don't have this issue where I live. I only deal with it on the internet.

[Phredreeke]

Yeah but you see through transgenderism as a cultural marxist invention to sterilize your children

[Aristotle Gumball]

To Muricans, what do you think about all the school shootings over there? What's your diagnosis and treatment plan?

[Danukem]

Aristotle Gumball, on 10 October 2022 - 07:25 PM, said:

To Muricans, what do you think about all the school shootings over there? What's your diagnosis and treatment plan?

This may not be realistic or constitutional, but honestly my initial thought is that when one of these incidents happens, you put any adults who were living with the perpetrator in jail for accessory to murder, along with the perpetrator. I'm pretty sure that all of a sudden these guns would be locked up from the kids safely and the warning signs would be taken seriously by the people living with them. And if they didn't lock up their guns or take the warning signs seriously, then fuck them anyway. That won't help with loner adults commiting the crimes or groups of adults, but it would prevent most of them.

[Aristotle Gumball]

Danukem, on 10 October 2022 - 07:54 PM, said:

This may not be realistic or constitutional, but honestly my initial thought is that when one of these incidents happens, you put any adults who were living with the perpetrator in jail for accessory to murder, along with the perpetrator.

That's happening with the Crumbly case: https://abcnews.go.c...ory?id=90321148

"His parents, Jennifer and James Crumbley, are charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter after allegedly failing to recognize warning signs about their son in the months before the shooting."

At least they're charged with something.

[Danukem]

Aristotle Gumball, on 10 October 2022 - 08:23 PM, said:

That's happening with the Crumbly case: https://abcnews.go.c...ory?id=90321148

"His parents, Jennifer and James Crumbley, are charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter after allegedly failing to recognize warning signs about their son in the months before the shooting."

At least they're charged with something.

This may surprise you, but I see nothing wrong with charging them. Parental rights and parental responsibilities go hand in hand -- if you have the right to dictate how a human being grows up, then you should be held accountable for things that they do (up to a point and within reason, blah blah blah). In many states, pet owners are liable for injuries caused by their pets -- why not with kids too? If you can't raise your kids properly maybe you shouldn't have had them in the first place (again, I'm sure there are exceptions, don't come at me with the single mom sob stories)

[Aristotle Gumball]

Ideally I want some kind of genuine rehabilitation for criminals, but it seems you're far away from that. Also don't agree with charging kids as adults. That said, if everyone is a victim then no one is. We have to focus on the weakest member in the chain with the least power, which is always the children.

I've been following the Nikolas Cruz case and his sister's testimony (herself facing life in prison) about their mother is some harrowing shit:



I honestly teared up watching that. She has such a profoundly sad look. Never even had a chance.

[Radar]

All I'm convinced of is that the school shooting crisis is socially engineered in some way. I don't believe that teenage violence is a natural outgrowth of a society with guns any more than a society with any other weapon, and every society permits weaponry to some extent. But how exactly it's manufactured, I don't know, and it's probably multi-faceted. One theory that I give credit is that there is strong correlation between school shooters and history of SSRI usage.

[Fox]

Danukem, on 10 October 2022 - 07:54 PM, said:

This may not be realistic or constitutional, but honestly my initial thought is that when one of these incidents happens, you put any adults who were living with the perpetrator in jail for accessory to murder, along with the perpetrator. I'm pretty sure that all of a sudden these guns would be locked up from the kids safely and the warning signs would be taken seriously by the people living with them. And if they didn't lock up their guns or take the warning signs seriously, then fuck them anyway. That won't help with loner adults commiting the crimes or groups of adults, but it would prevent most of them.

> but it would prevent most of them.

Isn't that too much of an assumption?


I think you are overestimating how much power parents have that much power over children or teenagers. They have a will of their own, they aren't pets.

Also it's not about being constitutional or not, it's wrong to blame someone for someone else actions. Where does it stops? Can we blame older siblings for the behavior or younger ones? Can we blame husbands for the crimes of their wives?

[Danukem]

Radar, on 11 October 2022 - 06:32 PM, said:

All I'm convinced of is that the school shooting crisis is socially engineered in some way. I don't believe that teenage violence is a natural outgrowth of a society with guns any more than a society with any other weapon, and every society permits weaponry to some extent. But how exactly it's manufactured, I don't know, and it's probably multi-faceted. One theory that I give credit is that there is strong correlation between school shooters and history of SSRI usage.

I hope you don't mean engineered *on purpose*. I do not believe it is engineered on purpose. There have been some times when the timing was remarkably convenient for some groups politically, but I chalk that up to coincidence -- also, when a type of event happens enough times, some of them are bound to have such timing.

In any case, once something becomes a known cultural phenomenon, it seems to take on a life of its own. Just the fact that teens think of it as *as a big deal thing they could do* makes it more likely that some of them will do it. If it was just a matter of killing the maximum number of people or kids, there are other venues where they could be more effective. I'm not going to list them or talk about that because it would be in bad taste and I could be accused of giving people ideas, but if you think about it you will agree. The point being a school shooting spree is a very specific, almost ritualized cultural phenomenon now.

[Danukem]

Fox, on 11 October 2022 - 09:57 PM, said:

> but it would prevent most of them.

Isn't that too much of an assumption?


I think you are overestimating how much power parents have that much power over children or teenagers. They have a will of their own, they aren't pets.

Also it's not about being constitutional or not, it's wrong to blame someone for someone else actions. Where does it stops? Can we blame older siblings for the behavior or younger ones? Can we blame husbands for the crimes of their wives?

If you give parents a stronger incentive to pay attention and keep guns away from their kids, I think it will make a big difference. This assumes that everyone knows that it will be enforced, of course. By the way, the biggest impact of this would not be in relation to school shootings, which comprise a tiny percentage of gun murders, but in more common gun crime. The main objection in the U.S. will be that it disproportionately impacts black parents.

As for where to draw the line, I think I gave a very clear indication in my post. Parents are uniquely responsible for their children in ways that siblings are not responsible for each other and spouses are not responsible for each other. This is already in our laws. Parents are quite literally in charge of their children, and have ownership like rights with respect to them. This is not the case for siblings and spouses.

Where its different is if you have people simply living together in the same home. Making a person liable for something a roommate does who is not your child would not be right. However, it's not unreasonable to have a weaker version of the law which does not make the person responsible for the crime but makes them required to report a conspiracy to murder if they find out about it.

[Radar]

Danukem, on 11 October 2022 - 10:09 PM, said:

I hope you don't mean engineered *on purpose*. I do not believe it is engineered on purpose. There have been some times when the timing was remarkably convenient for some groups politically, but I chalk that up to coincidence -- also, when a type of event happens enough times, some of them are bound to have such timing.

In any case, once something becomes a known cultural phenomenon, it seems to take on a life of its own. Just the fact that teens think of it as *as a big deal thing they could do* makes it more likely that some of them will do it. If it was just a matter of killing the maximum number of people or kids, there are other venues where they could be more effective. I'm not going to list them or talk about that because it would be in bad taste and I could be accused of giving people ideas, but if you think about it you will agree. The point being a school shooting spree is a very specific, almost ritualized cultural phenomenon now.

I don't want to come off as a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn't dismiss the potential of the crisis being engineered "on purpose". It may or may not be, and I couldn't prove it either way, but I see no reason to dismiss that upfront.

[Forge]

Radar, on 12 October 2022 - 06:09 AM, said:

I don't want to come off as a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn't dismiss the potential of the crisis being engineered "on purpose". It may or may not be, and I couldn't prove it either way, but I see no reason to dismiss that upfront.

engineered on purpose as in mental health care, and having people committed and treated, has been abandoned.
Now everyone is a special snowflake and they're allowed to accept their feelz as being more important than facts or the worth of another human life

[Aristotle Gumball]

Danukem, on 11 October 2022 - 10:09 PM, said:

The point being a school shooting spree is a very specific, almost ritualized cultural phenomenon now.

The first person shooter is a genre that could've only developed in the US I think. Anywhere else you'd only have a believable gun toting protagonist in a military context. The whole lone gunman thing seems so American somehow.

[Danukem]

Aristotle Gumball, on 12 October 2022 - 07:41 AM, said:

The first person shooter is a genre that could've only developed in the US I think. Anywhere else you'd only have a believable gun toting protagonist in a military context. The whole lone gunman thing seems so American somehow.

The "lone gunman" is never the hero though. If the hero has a gun, then the antagonists do as well, or they are armored aliens or something.

[Aristotle Gumball]

That's what I meant. As in he's alone with a gun, against foes (with guns, presumably).

Even mass shooters think they're doing the right thing though. Or a justified thing. Maybe they change their minds later (after being caught), but no one committing a violent act believes themselves to be evil, or they think being evil is itself justifiable somehow.

There's an idea in American society that a man can just go and solve his problems with violence, if needed.

[DNSkill]

I don't believe the idea that a man can just go and solve his problems with violence, if needed, is just an idea in American society. The only difference is we have better access to guns than most other countries, mainly due to the 2nd amendment. But let's make it clear:

Our gun laws are stricter nationwide than ever before in US history, yet the mass shootings have skyrocketed these past few decades. We have had access to many types of firearms since the beginning, and the semi-auto rifle or high cap magazines are not new concepts. So if the guns have always been here in modern history, and if we had easier access to guns before with less mass shootings overall compared to now, then that makes me wonder... maybe this isn't a "gun problem". it's a completely different problem that we will never resolve because no one is willing to look past the guns for a change and look for alternative solutions to reducing mass shootings without fucking with the 2nd amendment. Plus, this whole thing is a big election swayer. One side promises to defend your gun rights, the other promises to enact more gun control to keep you "safe", but neither do much of anything either way 9/10 because they know keeping this issue a hot topic and focusing on guns will help sway votes.

[Aristotle Gumball]

DNSKILL, on 12 October 2022 - 02:56 PM, said:

I don't believe the idea that a man can just go and solve his problems with violence, if needed, is just an idea in American society.

No you literally invented violence, that's exactly what I meant

[Sangman]

Invention of Violence, 1776, colourized

[DNSkill]

We also invented D's.

[Aristotle Gumball]

IF MY NEEDS AREN'T MET, MY FISTS WILL BE MET.... BY YOUR JAW!

[Forge]

Aristotle Gumball, on 12 October 2022 - 03:06 PM, said:

No you literally invented violence, that's exactly what I meant

David hugs it out with Goliath
Kentucky, United States
ca. 1063 bc
colorized