Back in the '50's and '60's much of youth culture was about rebellion against societal norms and values. Or to put it another way, it was a rebellion against conservative values and a move toward more liberal values. Back then rebels were lionized and embraced. Now, not so much. We saw how folks who (correctly as it turns out) rebelled against the jab were and are treated. We're seeing how some MA students who didn't like being forced to wear certain clothes and participate in a pride celebration has got people in a tizzy. What is different, what changed? I think that those in power are the difference. The rebels of the "50s and '60's are now those in power and and have managed to shift much of society to a more liberal worldview, and they are much more willing to fight against those that rebel against their worldview.
I wonder if the rebels of the 21st century will eventually gain power like the rebels of the 20th.
91 comments:
"Back in the '50's and '60's much of youth culture was about rebellion against societal norms and values."
That's precisely what the dominant patriarchal white power structures would have said back then.
By and large, what the women, youth, black people, LGBTQ people, peace activists, naturalists, etc would have said is that it was about rebellion against racism, sexism, oppression and religious values and traditions that might be causing harm.
Do you recognize this distinction as apt?
Dan
"Back then rebels were lionized and embraced. Now, not so much."
Again, people standing against oppression, racism, sexism, etc SHOULD be embraced. Those standing for harmful systems SHOULD be opposed. Right?
And so, if mainstream society has made racism, oppression, etc less accepted and then, some rebel against being "woke" and opposed to acceptance, human rights and decency then, no, THAT rebellion will not be embraced, nor should it. This is why understanding what civil rights, environmental, etc liberals were rebelling against is important.
It's not the act of rebelling that is honored (except to adolescents), it's what is being opposed. Right?
Dan
"That's precisely what the dominant patriarchal white power structures would have said back then."
Possibly, but it would have been said then or now because it was a True statement. Hell, rock and roll was completely an expression of rebellion, as was the drug culture, free love, and the like.
"By and large, what the women, youth, black people, LGBTQ people, peace activists, naturalists, etc would have said is that it was about rebellion against racism, sexism, oppression and religious values and traditions that might be causing harm."
I do so love it when you try to speak for other people as if your hunches about what you think they should have said carry any weight.
"Do you recognize this distinction as apt?"
No.
"Again, people standing against oppression, racism, sexism, etc SHOULD be embraced. Those standing for harmful systems SHOULD be opposed. Right?"
I acn't tell if I didn't do a good job making my point, if you've just decided to take this in the direction you want to go regardless of the point I was trying to make, or if this is just assholery on your part.
I guess I wouldn't agree with your seeming characterization of everything pre '50's/'60's youth culture to be totally "harmful". But, in theory I would say that opposing "harmful" systems can be appropriate depending on how it's done. NO THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO GO OFF ON A TANGENT ABOUT HOW BEST TO OPPOSE "HARMFUL" SYSTEMS. NOT HERE NOT NOW. ANY ATTEMPT TO DO SO WILL BE EDITED OUT.
"And so, if mainstream society has made racism, oppression, etc less accepted and then, some rebel against being "woke" and opposed to acceptance, human rights and decency then, no, THAT rebellion will not be embraced, nor should it. This is why understanding what civil rights, environmental, etc liberals were rebelling against is important."
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
"It's not the act of rebelling that is honored (except to adolescents), it's what is being opposed. Right?"
Not necessarily, pay attention to the '50's & '60's youth culture. Rebels were idolized, regardless of what they rebelled against.
The problem with your attempt to hijack this post, is that it ignores the point, while kind of buttressing the point. You are clearly a big fan of rebellion against culture, when you agree with the rebels, and disagree with the culture. But I suspect that you are much less tolerant if rebellion when you agree with the dominant culture forcing people to behave in certain ways an suppressing freedom.
Like so many things with you, you have a tendency to presume that the things you agree with/support are therefore right, while everyone who differs form you is wrong/evil.
It must be nice to believe that you have such power.
Craig...
. You are clearly a big fan of rebellion against culture, when you agree with the rebels, and disagree with the culture.
Of course. You got that much perfectly right. But isn't this your position, as well? If you think a culture is cooking babies and eating them with pureed puppies, you would rebel against it? Good Lord in heaven, PLEASE tell me you would rebel against such behavior?
You continue...
But I suspect that you are much less tolerant if rebellion when you agree with the dominant culture forcing people to behave in certain ways an suppressing freedom.
1. I DO NOT AGREE with a "dominant culture forcing people to behave in certain ways and suppressing freedom. I would be OPPOSED to any such culture. Because of course, I would. HOW in the name of all that is holy would you ever read my words and believe I would support suppressing freedom? Do you have a reading problem? I've NEVER ONCE stated I support suppressing freedom and have clearly always been in favor of defending freedom and human rights.
You recognize that much, right? That it's a crazy stupid claim to read my words and then conclude: Dan must actually think it's good to suppress freedom?
Moving on:
2. I DO support reasonable limits. For instance, if a man finds a woman attractive he is NOT "free" to rape her, attack her, sexually harass her. The "freedom" to cause harm (rape, harassment, abuse, etc) is NOT A FREEDOM. Because of course, it isn't.
You agree with that, surely?
3. Thus, not every limitation is a curtailment of "freedom." Freedom simply does not include the freedom to cause harm to others. That's not part of freedom. Standing in strong opposition to causing harm to others is not an assault on freedom.
You agree with that, surely?
4. So, expecting people to not cause harm to others, this is a reasonable, human rights position to take. You are free to stand opposed to abortion. If someone EVER tried to force you to have an abortion, I would stand with you and against that harm.
4a. You are not, however, free to tell others what medical decisions they should make, even when it includes their unborn fetuses. That's crossing the line.
5. You are free to NOT be homosexual or to NOT marry a guy. If anyone tried to force you to marry someone you didn't want to marry, I would stand against that oppression because it's harming others.
5a. You (collective "you") are not, however, free to prevent others that they can't marry a guy if they want. That would be a case of you causing harm.
I would find it hard to imagine that you agree with each of these common sense, human rights opinions/points I've made above. But you tell me.
pay attention to the '50's & '60's youth culture. Rebels were idolized, regardless of what they rebelled against.
I'd suggest that you can't support this claim. "Rebels" who said, "kill the husbands and rape the wives in the name of sexual freedom" would NEVER have been idolized. It's a ridiculous claim to suggest that there was anything like widespread adulation of harmful rebellion.
Do you recognize that this is a claim you can't support?
Like you, I believe, I was raised in the 60s and well-aware of the rebellion of the 50s and 60s. Those "uppity black folk" demanding civil rights. Those hippie cowards demanding an end to the war. In case after case, even if you disagreed with those rebels, there was generally, at the heart of what they were doing, a concern for human rights, freedom and liberty.
Even in the case of the "free love" movement, which rejected more rigid sexual mores of a more puritan/conservative religious nature, there was generally support for that as a strike for freedom, of humans having the right to self-determination of what is and isn't sexually healthy. There was concern about the oppression of women who were kept "pregnant and in the kitchen" by sometimes brutish patriarchs. There was a visceral rejection of the preachers who counseled abused women to stay in their marriages because "divorce was wrong" and they should pray and love their brutes into being better men.
Are you seriously not aware of all this?
Were there some hedonists and moral anarchists who were NOT concerned about human rights? I'm sure there were (Donald Trump, for instance, certain oppressive preachers who've been outed as abusers of women and children, for instance). But you have NO data to suggest the majority of rebels were rejecting human rights or that they did not have some concern for moral issues in rejecting conservative "values..." Did you not listen to them? That was THE POINT?
NOT that they were rebelling against decency, kindness or love, but just the opposite. They rejected the idea that modern (at the time) conservative "values" were moral.
Would you like me to provide support for this or do you admit that you misspoke?
It's always fun to see what absurd, ridiculous, made up horrors Dan con conjure up in an attempt to make his points. I fail to see why such idiocy is worth dignifying with a response.
1. If that's the case, then do you support the students who rebelled against being forced to wear "pride" clothes, and engage in "pride" activities? Do you deny that teachers and administrators are the dominant culture, and that they are forcing children to dress and behave in certain ways?
2. This is stupid and irrelevant.
3. Again, it's pretty irrelevant, but sure. Of course I've never said anything advocating unfettered freedom.
4. Again, irrelevant to this post.
5. Again, irrelevant to this post.
you have a tendency to presume that the things you agree with/support are therefore right, while everyone who differs form you is wrong/evil.
I have a tendency to support what is obviously moral, good, healthy and healing while being opposed to that which is immoral, bad, unhealthy and harming.
For instance, I'm opposed to racism. I'm opposed to systems that work to benefit rich and white folks while harming poor folks and black people. I'm opposed to telling people what they can and can't do with their own lives, so long as it's not hurting others.
Now, do I know perfectly what is benefiting rich people and harming poor people, for instance? No, not perfectly, nor do those who support (for instance) tax cuts for the wealthy or flat taxes or benefits for oil companies, etc, etc. But I can look at the data and listen to experts and make reasonable, data-informed opinions.
And I'm fine with more conservative folk doing the same and then each of us making our case.
But when conservative folks are saying, "The election was stolen" when the data shows that's a stupidly false claim or "the media hates the US and wants to destroy human liberty" when that's clearly a false claim or, and to the point of this post, "The hippies wanted to destroy all that was good and moral and embrace evil and harm" when there is no data to support such a claim (at least on any serious widespread scale), well, we don't have to listen to both sides and treat them as equally valid. I believe in looking at the data and reality, not ridiculous hyperbolic fearmongering and conspiracy theories.
You are right that your made up, fantasy, extreme, pile of bullshit, does not represent reality in any way shape or form. If you can show me one example of an actual person who's expression of rebellion during the '50s/'60's was exactly your made up pile of shit, then I'll deal with it.
Yes, those are two examples of more principled rebellion.
Yes, I am aware of what the free love movement was rebelling against, and of all of the wondrous benefits it's brought to our society.
This notion that you get to determine whether or not my opinion is an example of "mis" speaking, is bizarre. It's almost like you really think you have the standing to declare what is wrong and what is right.
What's even more amazing is that you've totally ignored the point of the post.
"I have a tendency to support what is obviously moral, good, healthy and healing while being opposed to that which is immoral, bad, unhealthy and harming."
Yes, you do have a tendency to presume that your hunches about things that you can't define, can't prove, and acknowledge are subjective, are worthy of your support. Unfortunately, you presume that your hunches are binding on everyone and that we must accept your unproven hunches as True, without proof.
"For instance, I'm opposed to racism. I'm opposed to systems that work to benefit rich and white folks while harming poor folks and black people. I'm opposed to telling people what they can and can't do with their own lives, so long as it's not hurting others."
I'm sure you think you are 100% opposed to those things. I'm also sure that you have convinced yourself of your ability to define those things for everyone else.
"Now, do I know perfectly what is benefiting rich people and harming poor people, for instance? No, not perfectly, nor do those who support (for instance) tax cuts for the wealthy or flat taxes or benefits for oil companies, etc, etc. But I can look at the data and listen to experts and make reasonable, data-informed opinions."
Ahhhhhhhhhh, the occasional attempt at a caveat. The notion that your hunches, about your cherry picked data, are objectively "reasonable" outside of your mind is disturbing.
"And I'm fine with more conservative folk doing the same and then each of us making our case."
Really. Except when you personally decide that "conservative" folks are simply wrong about certain topics because you have exhaustively examine every single bit of data that these "conservative" folks have provided and determined that it is 100% wrong.
But hey, you can still ignore the point of the post.
1. If that's the case, then do you support the students who rebelled against being forced to wear "pride" clothes, and engage in "pride" activities? Do you deny that teachers and administrators are the dominant culture, and that they are forcing children to dress and behave in certain ways?
I've already answered these questions. I repeat:
I DO NOT AGREE with a "dominant culture forcing people to behave in certain ways and suppressing freedom.
I would be OPPOSED to any such culture.
Because of course, I would.
HOW in the name of all that is holy would you ever read my words and believe
I would support suppressing freedom?
Do you have a reading problem?
I've NEVER ONCE stated I support suppressing freedom and have clearly
always been in favor of defending freedom and human rights.
As to "forcing children to wear Pride clothes," I am entirely unaware of that ever happening in all of human history. I suspect this is a case of you spreading false claims or conspiracy theories. However, if it happened, I oppose it.
Do you know why?
Because I I DO NOT AGREE with a "dominant culture forcing people to behave in certain ways and suppressing freedom.
SO I googled your imaginary story and found this:
Students at Marshall Simonds Middle School in Burlington, Massachusetts, were
asked to wear rainbow-colored shirts to celebrate Pride Month on June 2,
but a preplanned protest broke out with
students tearing up Pride flag stickers and chanting: 'USA are my pronouns.'
So, from that story, it sounds like students were ASKED to wear clothes but were not forced to. But instead of living and let live, they went further and tore down pride flags and acted inappropriately in ways that cause harm.
THEIR RIGHT to wear clothes is one thing and they have the right to choose what clothes they wear or not.
BUT, they do not have a right to cause harm.
And here's one point that you're probably not getting:
Our world and culture has a history of oppressing and causing harm to LGBTQ folks. Of taunting them, of telling them they are not wanted, of hating them. IN THAT CONTEXT, tearing down pride flags and saying "my pronouns are USA" (what an inept attempt at being clever, but they're children, so they get a pass... but what ADULTS told them to say that, I wonder?) is causing harm to others.
It's like, in a culture where hanging people with nooses was never a historical reality, choosing to put up a noose would not be harmful. BUT, given our real world history of oppressing and lynching black people, putting up a noose is dangerous, hateful and causes active harm.
People coming from white CIS-Gender privilege tend to easily forget our oppressive reality (or worse, defend it!)
So, no, I do not support children being forced to wear something they don't want to.
Do you?
Do you support a girl who was born identified as a boy to wear pants instead of a dress at school?
I suspect that you (and if not you, many of your conservative allies) would actively support forcing trans girls to wear the clothes they choose (ie, not a dress) at school. Do you suspect the same thing?
And if so, we can see that I consistently am opposed to forcing unwanted dress (which didn't happen in this story, it's another example of conspiracy theories and weak minded people believing made up claims) while you and yours are not.
If you can show me one example of an actual person who's expression of rebellion during the '50s/'60's was exactly your made up pile of shit, then I'll deal with it.
I have/had three hippie brothers and their spouses who all were taking principled moral stands against conservative "values" that they did not consider to be moral. In the case of one, he refused the draft because of a principled moral stand against the war and the conservatives who supported it. He even went to his/our Southern Baptist pastor to get a letter stating that this was a principled religious opposition and refusal to serve. The pastor didn't write it and that was another nail in the coffin of his belief in Southern Baptist "values."
I can easily start compiling more information and written examples beyond this easy personal anecdote. For instance, read Art Gish's "Living in Christian Community" or "Beyond the Rat Race" books. Gish was a fairly traditional anabaptist type Christian who preached simple living, peace and justice issues as very basic Christian principles. He found common ground with many in the hippie movement because, much to his surprise, they shared common values with anabaptists like him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Gish
https://www.amazon.com/Living-Christian-Community-Art-Gish/dp/1579101593
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Rat-Race-Art-Gish/dp/1579109071
Do you recognize the obvious reality that the hippies, civil rights activists and other liberal "rebels" in the peace movement, environmental movement, civil rights movement, womens right movement, etc, were of course, striving for a more moral, just, peaceful world? I mean, even if you don't agree with all their conclusions, surely you're aware that they were (often*) acting out of principle, moral human rights stands and opinions... right?
If you don't recognize that, maybe that's part of the problem: You have a distorted understanding of the history of those "rebels" you appear to be demeaning and demonizing.
Thank GOD for those rebels, following in the steps of our Lord, Jesus Christ. And doing even greater things than Jesus, who lived in a time before the growth of human rights that came about in large part due to his teachings.
* Caveat: Of course, any time we're talking young people or just humanity in general, there are some portion of any "movement" that is swept up in the movement without a full understanding or commitment to the values involved. Wendell Berry writes, warning of the problem of these "movements" as too often temporary fads and something not fully understood or committed to... But that still doesn't mean that these were not good people striving in good faith to do the right thing. Of course, they were.
And of course, there were/are hedonists, amoral activists on all sides, with Trump being one of the most obvious examples of this, along with many of his followers.
The notion that your hunches, about your cherry picked data, are objectively "reasonable" outside of your mind is disturbing.
The vast majority of climate-related scientists have concluded that climate change is a real thing, measurably demonstrable and anthropogenic. These scientists have said that we should start implementing policies to slow the damage from climate change.
There are very few climate scientists who disagree.
I believe it is reasonable to listen to the vast majority because of the data they present AND because they're talking about slowing down the pouring of toxic pollutants into the air, which is obviously harmful at some levels beyond climate change.
Do you think this is irrational or immoral position for me to hold?
Do you think I'm irrational or immoral for supporting data-based policy changes and for standing opposed to those opposed to policy changes?
The racist notion that black people are dangerous or inferior is a damaging remnant from our real world history. I stand opposed to racism and in support of black people. I listen to what a vast majority of black people in the US say about concerns they have around policing. I support policy changes that seek to fix some of these historic problems we've had in the real world.
Is that irrational or immoral?
I recognize the real world history of real oppression and harm caused to LGBTQ folks in our world and in the US. I support gay and lesbian people having the right to decide their own sexual preferences because that's a basic human right.
Do you think that is irrational or immoral?
It's hard to know what you're talking about when you make these vague sweeping claims of yours.
"I have a tendency to support what is obviously moral, good, healthy and healing while being opposed to that which is immoral, bad, unhealthy and harming."
No you don't. You have a willful habit of supporting that which is vile, abnormal, counter to Biblical teaching and worldly.
"For instance, I'm opposed to racism."
No you're not. You're a part of the racist culture, particularly in your hatred for white people.
"I'm opposed to systems that work to benefit rich and white folks while harming poor folks and black people."
Such as...be specific. I'm unaware of any such systems in place in this country.
"I'm opposed to telling people what they can and can't do with their own lives, so long as it's not hurting others."
Unless the people being harmed are still in the womb, children, Christians, or black people.
"Now, do I know perfectly what is benefiting rich people and harming poor people, for instance? No, not perfectly..."
Not even a little. If you did, you could name them with specificity. You never do. You just assert such things exist.
"But I can look at the data and listen to experts and make reasonable, data-informed opinions."
Some day you should actually try doing that. Up until now, you simply parrot what leftist asshats say and pretend they're "experts".
"But when conservative folks are saying, "The election was stolen" when the data shows that's a stupidly false claim..."
There's absolutely NO data which shows such a thing. You're just parroting what leftist asshats say.
"...or "the media hates the US and wants to destroy human liberty" when that's clearly a false claim..."
Those who disparage "the media" are speaking of the leftist media with which you are so enamored because they spew the same crap you pretend is factual. We're referring to the CNNs, MSNBCs, NYTs, WaPos, NPRs and other such leftist sources who have been complicit in the Americ-hating Democrat push to "fundamentally change" this nation into a leftist cesspool. Being a liar yourself, you promote them as beacons of truth. They are not.
""The hippies wanted to destroy all that was good and moral and embrace evil and harm" when there is no data to support such a claim..."
You're a liar. There's plenty to support that claim. What's more, you embrace evil and harm with relish. There is no "fearmongering" or "conspiracy theories" which isn't a reflection of reality coming from the right. There is false fearmongering and conspiracy theories perpetrated by your kind all the time. You don't belong in this country.
I have a tendency to support what is obviously moral, good, healthy….
Yet he supports abortion and LGBTQXYZ+, all of which is extremely immoral, not good, and very unhealthy—physically, psychologically and spiritually.
"The vast majority of climate-related scientists have concluded that climate change is a real thing, measurably demonstrable and anthropogenic. These scientists have said that we should start implementing policies to slow the damage from climate change."
What an interesting way to try to move the subject away from the topic of the post. The problem is that the observable natural world doesn't match what these folx predicated would happen. Sheet ice in Antarctica is up significantly, testing shows that the carbon in the atmosphere is too old to have been contributed by man, and on and on. Hell, you've got experts trying to blame fires started by arsonists on global warming.
"There are very few climate scientists who disagree'
Irrelevant, to this post.
"Do you think this is irrational or immoral position for me to hold?"
As long as you don't try to force others to believe you opinions, or to try to use force to compel others to act as you think they should, I don't care about your position.
"Do you think I'm irrational or immoral for supporting data-based policy changes and for standing opposed to those opposed to policy changes?"
As long as you don't try to force others to believe your opinions or use force to compel others to behave how you think they should, I don't care what you believe.
"The racist notion that black people are dangerous or inferior is a damaging remnant from our real world history. I stand opposed to racism and in support of black people. I listen to what a vast majority of black people in the US say about concerns they have around policing. I support policy changes that seek to fix some of these historic problems we've had in the real world."
The damaging part of that statement is the fact that you insist on judging "black people" as a monolithic group, and not as individuals. For example, there is a lot of controversy about even mentioning that fact that virtually every single bit of data shows that blacks have lower IQ's than other ethnic groups. Yet, if that's what the data shows, why is it controversial? It's just reality. Obviously, the Darwinian view that blacks are ontologically inferior is one that is a problem, but it's primarily those on the left the advocate a Darwinian/Sangerian worldview. Of course none of this is relevant to this post.
"Is that irrational or immoral?"
Since those are both subjective terms grounded in your personal experiences, biases, prejudices, and limitations, I have no way to answer this irrelevant question.
There is indeed racism in the USA--against whites. Black commit the majority of crimes and yet are very often let off;
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/when_violent_crime_is_blackonwhite_blame_the_white_person.html
But when it comes to making policies, it DOES matter what we believe. So, in addressing the real world impacts of real climate change, I want people advocating for policy based upon the best data and not their religious hunches.
Do you agree this is rational?
Dan
Glenn,
I agree that there is racism against other ethnic groups besides blacks. It's virtually impossible that there isn't. However, I think reducing the complex problem of crime and punishment in the US to one factor is probably an oversimplification. I'm not saying it's not a factor, but it's not the only one.
I personally think that the use of affirmative action in college/law school admissions, which leads to a significant number of blacks who probably should not be in college/law school failing, is the better example. First of all it prioritizes otherwise under qualified blacks over much more qualified other ethnic groups. Second, it actually harms those who are unqualified by loading them down with student loan debt, while denying then a path to a career. It's a great deal for the university industrial complex as it allows them to keep raising the costs of an education. It's great for the folx who teach in the fields that have very little utility when it comes to getting a job. (Race/gender studies, etc). Third it punishes those who are not black, but who are more qualified from certain educational pathways.
It's almost like someone intentionally tried to set up a system that actually harmed blacks, while claiming that they were trying to help blacks.
"But when it comes to making policies, it DOES matter what we believe."
Sure it does. But that doesn't mean that you can impose your beliefs on others regardless of your intentions.
"So, in addressing the real world impacts of real climate change, I want people advocating for policy based upon the best data and not their religious hunches."
I'm confused on a couple of points.
1. Where does the topic of climate change enter into the topic of this post.
2. Where have I entered any "religious hunches" into the off topic subject of climate change?
The reality is that virtually all of the predictions and projections have been wrong. The "science" fails one of the key metrics of the scientific method that of repeatable testing and falsification. Even those who are true believers in the man made global warming narrative live their lives in ways that either contribute to global warming, or where they engage in actions that are contrary to their alarmist projections. (For example, if someone is really concerned about sea level rise, they probably wouldn't invest millions of dollars in multiple ocean front properties) In any case, this post has nothing to do with global warming.
"Do you agree this is rational?"
It's rational if one actually looks at all of the data without ignoring or downplaying the data that doesn't fit the narrative, and if one's personal life and actions match their public proclamations.
Is it really rational to make public claims about global warming, then live a lifestyle that contributes or denies one's public claims?
Don't they say something like "Actions speak louder than words."?
From your original post:
it was a rebellion against conservative values and a move toward more liberal values.
YES, that much you have correct. It was not a rejection of VALUES, but of so-called conservative "values" that were perceived to be (and often were) anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ and consumeristic. The rebels rejected those immoral worldviews in favor of what they viewed to be more moral worldviews.
Back then rebels were lionized and embraced. Now, not so much.
Again, that's because it's one thing to rebel against consumerism, war, racism. It's another thing when, people are more "woke" (as you all like to worry about) and more embracing of simple living, environmental notions, black concerns, LGBTQ folk, etc, and some "rebel" against that embrace of love, kindness, healthy living... well, of course, the majority are not going to lionize or embrace that. Why would we?
So, when the governors of conservative states try to force OUT the educational efforts that the schools and many local parents want of inclusivity for LGBTQ people, of recalling our racist history as well as the good parts of history, etc, NO, most people are not going to lionize or embrace that authoritarian top-down forcing of bad values and lessons on our students.
The point being that by and large, the conservatives of the 50s lost the value wars. We don't accept conservative values from the 50s when it includes harm for racial minorities, for LGBTQ folk, for women or for nature.
I think that's why there's this current desperate pushback from conservatives who feel "their" nation is being taken over by people hostile to "America," when it wasn't their nation to begin with and we're not hostile to the US, we're opposed to those values and you all have just lost the national debates on this. You've become the party of the ultra-rich, industrialists, anti-immigrants, anti-LGBTQ, anti-women and anti-environment.
People won't embrace that simply because there are an increasing minority who want to "rebel" to get back those "values."
Even if you disagree, do you see how that's an apt description?
What we view to be obviously, exceedingly moral and healthy, you all often don't. What you all view to be "God's Word and Will" and moral, we don't. And you've lost the public debate, by and large.
Sure it does. But that doesn't mean that you can impose your beliefs on others regardless of your intentions.
Sure it does. You and I agree that OUR values say that parents can not abuse or molest their children. We absolutely want to impose those beliefs on others, EVEN IF the parents sincerely believe it's moral and rational to beat and molest their children.
Right?
The question then isn't: Should we ever tell parents what they can and can't do with/to their children? - we agree on that, right?
The question is: WHEN should the state get involved in telling parents what they can and can't do with/to their children?
And I advocate harm as the most reasonable, most measurable criteria. They can't actively act in ways that deliberately cause harm to their children.
Setting aside for a minute the question for HOW to decide harm in a pluralistic society: Do you have a preferred criteria for deciding when the state can intervene or do you agree that this is perhaps our best criteria?
I'm confused on a couple of points.
No doubt.
1. Where does the topic of climate change enter into the topic of this post.?
Climate change policy is one of the areas where modern "conservatives" (who, ironically, don't want to conserve God's good creation so much) want to rebel against the majority opinion of experts and regular citizens. It's an example to take the talk from the vague sort of hunches about nothing solid back to more solid ground. I prefer talking about Principles, first, but then SPECIFICS to help us understand the principles.
There is clear, dominant expert opinion on climate science. Conservatives (especially the loud ones with megaphones) want to rebel against that clear and solid consensus. It's an example.
2. Where have I entered any "religious hunches" into the off topic subject of climate change?
I don't know that you have on that topic. But some conservatives have. "As if we mere mortals could harm God's great creation or do something that God didn't have planned already. If there IS climate change, it's part of God's plan..." comments like that. You've not heard those?
Mark Driscoll, for instance:
“I know who made the environment,” he reportedly declared in a speech given at a major evangelical leadership conference. “He’s coming back, and he’s going to burn it all up. So yes, I drive an SUV.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvpb3zdh
So, do you accept the scientific consensus on climate change or are you a little science "rebel..."? If you're a "rebel," on what basis do you rebel? That some conservatives have found a literal handful of scientists (not always climatologists) who disagree with the dominant consensus?
Did you "rebel" against the 9/10 doctors who advised not smoking because smoking causes cancer, too?
Questions answered, directly and clearly.
Dan,
Since you yourself acknowledged that your introduction of climate change was (at best) tangentially related to this post based on you deciding to make some tenuous connections, I see no reason to waste time responding to you comments attempting to justify your idiotic off topic bullshit.
FYI, Mark Driscoll isn't a "conservative". He's also freaking nuts.
"Sure it does. You and I agree that OUR values say that parents can not abuse or molest their children. We absolutely want to impose those beliefs on others, EVEN IF the parents sincerely believe it's moral and rational to beat and molest their children. Right?"
What a bizarre attempt to justify teachers imposing their political and social views on their students.
"The question then isn't: Should we ever tell parents what they can and can't do with/to their children? - we agree on that, right?"
No, that's your question, not "The question".
"The question is: WHEN should the state get involved in telling parents what they can and can't do with/to their children?"
You do understand that "The question" is singular. You can't have more than one "The question". It seems that the first key is acknowledging that the children are (in fact) "their children". Not property of the state. The general answer is as rarely as possible, and only in the most extreme cases.
"And I advocate harm as the most reasonable, most measurable criteria. They can't actively act in ways that deliberately cause harm to their children."
I don't care.
"Setting aside for a minute the question for HOW to decide harm in a pluralistic society: Do you have a preferred criteria for deciding when the state can intervene or do you agree that this is perhaps our best criteria?"
See above. My criteria is to give the benefit of the doubt to the parents as much as possible because the parents are the closest to the child.
It's starting to sound like you are setting yourself up to change your tune about who gets to decide what's best for young children.
"Can you at the very least admit that you have NO DATA AT ALL IN THE WHOLE WIDE REAL WORLD beyond what you pulled out of your ass that "most" or "the majority" of rebellion in the 50s/60s was about just mindlessly rebelling? That they weren't rebelling against the oppression of black folks? About sexism and the straight jackets women were in? Can you acknowledge that reality?"
No, I cannot acknowledge a "reality" that you can't prove IS "reality". You simply announcing that something is some "universal" reality with no proof is simply, insane.
"OR, conversely, if you think you have, you know, actual data and shit to support your empty-headed and unsupported claims, SUPPORT IT. Provide the data."
You won't so so, but you demand that I do what you won't.
"Again, I ask you: Do you not know of any actual rebels of this time period? Do you not know who and what they were rebelling against? Are you so simple-minded and uninformed as to think, "Well, I THINK they were just mindlessly rebelling against everything, so it must be true..."?"
As if knowing one individual who YOU consider a "rebel" allows anyone to extrapolate that one person's story out to some universal claim.
Is John MacArthur also freaking nuts?
"God intended us to use this planet, to fill this planet for the benefit of man. Never was it intended to be a permanent planet. It is a disposable planet. Christians ought to know that."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/god-intended-it-as-a-disposable-planet-meet-the-us-pastor-preaching-climate-change-denial-147712
Again, I ask you, are you not aware that there are conservative christians making theological arguments against climate change?
Dan
"My criteria is to give the benefit of the doubt to the parents as much as possible because the parents are the closest to the child."
STOP dodging.
You and I agree that there are times the state MUST step in. Given that, it's important to have a grasp on what should prompt intervention. Stop reasoning on such a shallow level. These are big, important questions. You're smart, try to answer.
Dan
"So, just to clarify, IF there was a transgender girl (someone YOU would call a "biological male" even if it causes harm to others), you would be okay with her wearing a dress to school... you wouldn't support rules to stop that?"
Here it comes, hang on it'll be amusing to watch the moving of the goal posts. Of course the first step is almost always to simply declare that my answer is not an answer regardless of reality. Yes, if a biological male (called that because that is the reality of his biology) wanted to wear a dress to school, I see no reason to have a rule to stop that.
"Would you oppose this girl/young woman in going to the bathroom she's most comfortable in?"
And, here go the goal posts. I guess that would depend on which bathroom he was "comfortable" with. What if he's most comfortable in the faculty only bathrooms? I would probably take into account the concerns of other students, and not simply decree that his "right to be comfortable" supersedes everyone else's "right to be comfortable" or their right to privacy.
"Would you oppose school rules that say this dress-wearing girl would have to use the boys' bathroom?"
Possibly. I'm weird in that I don't think that one individual's "right to comfort" trumps everyone else's rights and that the minority should dictate to the majority. But hey, now the goal posts have really been moved.
"I suspect that you COULD care less, but you tell me."
I did tell you. You chose to ignore what I told you and move the goal posts. You asked a specific, limited, question and I answered it. You then tried to pretend like all of these additional scenarios are somehow included in the one specific question you asked.
FYI, I have consistently advocated for single stall, omni sex bathrooms. Everyone can use any bathroom, because they'll be the only one in it at a time. Problem solved, everyone gets treated equally. Then you can stop advocating for women to be exposed to male genitalia when they haven't consented to do so.
Craig...
This is what happens when you "suspect" (make shit up), you always end up wrong.
This is what happens when you decide to pull some random crap out of the news and pretend like I (as an individual) absolutely must agree with every single thing done or said by other people. It's simply one of the stupidest things you do.
"I'm making nothing up. In the real world, schools are telling trans girls they can't wear dresses. Will you oppose those schools and join in defense of transgender people who are being harmed by these rules and laws your side is creating?"
I'm sorry for my confusion. I thought you asked ME (as an individual) what I thought about a specific hypothetical situation. I was unaware that I was expected to answer as if I was answering as a representative of every single person you identify as "conservative", and that you were going to assign me responsibility for the words and actions of others.
"There are very hateful people telling these children, young adults and their parents how they can and can't identify. This is causing additional harm to LGBTQ folks. Will you be an ally for LGBTQ folks or will you side with their oppressors, including those who are LEGISLATING rules/laws that cause harm? DO you support the individuals and their parents or not?"
As a very general rule, I don't particularly care what adults choose to do or say. If an adult wants to mutilate their body, I pretty much don't care. That's their choice and they bear the responsibility for their actions. However, I do not support children doing irreparable harm and making irreversible changes to perfectly functioning healthy physical bodies based on something that is "fluid" and likely to change as they get older. I support the parents who take the responsible position of encouraging their children to wait until they are adults before altering their bodies (in ANY way).
If, as you claim, human's brains are not fully developed before age 25, and children cannot consent to sex or marriage, then by what standard are they fully equipped to consent to something that is irreversible?
"I suspect you're being a hypocrite and just trying to hide it, but you tell me. I'd LOVE to hear you say you support these LGBTQ folks and their parents who want them to be who they are."
Why would I do anything simply to gain your approval? Why is your approval something to be desired? Why would I care one iota whether or not you approve of my convictions? I support adults having the freedom to mutilate their bodies to their hearts content. Huge fake boobs, go for it. Covering your entire body with tattoos, be my guest. Looping off random functioning body parts because you think your really someone or something else, have at it. Encouraging children to make irreversible decisions, that's a hard no for me dawg.
There's a saying that you hear from people who have considered or attempted suicide, it's something like, "Don't choose a permanent solution to a temporary situation". I think that's great advice in almost any circumstance.
"Hypocrite? No?"
As someone who has acknowledged areas in which I can be a hypocrite, I have no reason to change that acknowledgement. But, the fact that I am consistent in wanting to protect children from making irreversible decisions when they are children is the complete opposite of hypocrisy. You mistake disagreeing with you and your hunches as some sort of unforgivable sin. I hate to break it to you, but it's not.
We live in a strange world. One the one hand, folx like Dan insist that some people have the right to parade their naked male genitalia in a space that women believe that they should be able to expect privacy without even being asked for their consent. On the other hand, exposing one's male genitalia to a woman without her consent is also a crime. When Trump simply talks about inappropriately touching women, it's an outrage, but Biden groping a woman's breast on video gets yawns. We tell women that they should be empowered by stressing how important it is that they give consent, but tell them that their consent or comfort as subordinated to what some biological male wants.
"Is John MacArthur also freaking nuts?"
No.
"God intended us to use this planet, to fill this planet for the benefit of man. Never was it intended to be a permanent planet. It is a disposable planet. Christians ought to know that."
Is the above statement some how objectively wrong? Is the earth mandated to last forever in it's present state? Is YHWH in control or are humans? Where in this quote is he specifically advocating FOR climate change? Are the resources created on this planet where YHWH also crated humans NOT intended to be used by humans? Does not Jesus Himself teach that there will be a "New Earth" where everything will be restored back into a right and perfect relationship with YHWH?
"Again, I ask you, are you not aware that there are conservative christians making theological arguments against climate change?"
This isn't an "argument" for or against "climate change". But if ignoring the actual scientific realities I've mentioned in favor of putting words in other people's mouths, is all you have, ok. Keep beating this off topic, unrelated dead horse if it helps your self esteem.
"STOP dodging."
Sorry, there's no dodging here. I'm not obligated to shape my answers to make you happy or to prove your bullshit.
Since Dan wants to claim that the "majority" of specialists believe the lie of climate change, I'd like to share this link which has many, many links to many, many artilces PROVING that there is no such thing as man-caused climate change!
https://agotoblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/global-climate-change-nonsense.html
"It was not a rejection of VALUES, but of so-called conservative "values" that were perceived to be (and often were) anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ and consumeristic"
And this marks a case where Dan inadvertently tells the truth. Those...as he puts it in quotes..."values" were perceived to be "anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ and consumeristic". Whether they ever "often were" or not is a matter of Dan's subjective and totally leftist perceptions of his own.
As I recall my youth, I also had "perceptions" of what the GOP or conservative politicians, clergy and others were all about. As I began to actually look into the facts, I found that most leftist "perceptions" were crap and mostly projections of evil onto better people. For example, the left were just as much back then as now pretending the "suffering" of minorities was all because of conservative or right-wing policies as opposed to self-inflicted wounds. The more the left attained power, however, the worse things got for minorities. That continues today.
"What a bizarre attempt to justify teachers imposing their political and social views on their students." ---Craig
This is what Dan does. It's a method of lying he employs routinely. It's meaningless to say we're in agreement because we all oppose obvious abuses of children, such as sexual contact, severe physical beatings, starving a child or not providing adequate protection against the elements, while ignoring the true abuse of murdering a child in utero or allowing the genital mutilation of a child or young person on the basis of clear delusion of the type Dan's "experts" pretends is a "gender spectrum" (what crap!). No. Dan is fully on board with a variety of clear abuses of children under the pretense it is the state preventing parents from causing harm, when the opposite is the reality.
Dan also supports the abuse of children in education, pretending good men like Ron DeSantis is somehow wrong to prevent the indoctrination of school kids toward LGBTQ and CRT lies. With both, there is no legit basis for exposing kids to either. Neither are based on truth or science, but are only forms of leftist activism which tear at the fabric of our culture.
And again, as it can't be said enough, Dan cites "experts" who are no more than activists for a marxist cause...be it climate change, LGBT bullshit or the fake history of the CRT proponents. He ignores others in the various fields who have better data and understanding which opposes his leftist frauds. He pretends "most" agree with him, which is just another false way to dismiss opposing, and better, points of view.
"Dodging"??? That's absurd. Dan's too much a liar to have standing to make such a charge.
Is the above statement some how objectively wrong?
It's an empty claim with no objective proof. Further, conservatives like him use this sort of language to deny human accountability for their un-conservative, irresponsible abuse of God's creation. Is he free to think that God's creation is a "disposable planet..."? Yes. Is that a fact? Of course, not. "Disposable" suggests worthless, worthy of being disposed of. I have too high a view of God to consider God's good creation in such a reckless manner.
Is the earth mandated to last forever in it's present state?
Nope. And it won't. We could, if we want, ENTIRELY blast it to hell with poisons, toxins, nuclear explosions and death and destruction. It would not last forever in its present state.
That doesn't make such behavior moral, rational or decent at any level. Agreed?
Is YHWH in control or are humans?
God is not actively taking steps to destroy the earth. Humans are in control on that manner. Right?
Again, that humans CAN destroy the earth doesn't make it rational or moral.
Where in this quote is he specifically advocating FOR climate change?
It's just a snippet of what he and other conservative abusers of God's creation have said. AGAIN, I ask you, are you so ignorant that you are UNAWARE of "conservative" Christians boasting about driving their trucks and hummers and destroying the earth and not giving a damn about the "so-called scientists" (as they would/have said) have to say about climate change?
Are you ignorant of what Christians are saying?
Answer the questions that are being asked of you as I'm answering the questions you're asking.
Are the resources created on this planet where YHWH also crated humans NOT intended to be used by humans?
I do not believe God created a paradise where God intended humans to abuse, pour poisons into and destroy. Do you hold to that theory? OR, would you agree with me that abusing God's earth is a human folly, spitting into the Creator God's eye?
I believe that we were included in part of God's creation at best to be caretenders, NOT abusers. Do you disagree?
Do you think that God rejoices that there are children in cities who can't breathe well - sometimes even are hospitalized and die - due to humans poisoning the air?
Good Lord, use your God-given brain.
In response to Biden and others' calls to take care of the earth and preserve it as caretakers, not abuse it like children setting fires, MacArthur said (in a sermon he called "Reserved for Fire..."):
The Earth is a disposable planet. If you want an illustration, you wouldn’t really try to save, permanently, a Styrofoam cup, would you? Relative to God’s plan and to eternity, this planet is a Styrofoam cup that has a very brief usage...
if you haven’t experienced that ridicule, it may be because you haven’t told anybody that’s what you believe. But if you find any of these supposed elite scientists who are caught up
in this climate nonsense...
Don’t join the climate club.
Biden says listen to the experts who say we should take action to reduce the ACTUAL MEASURABLE HARM we've done to God's good creation and take action/create policy to TEND to God's good creation and mitigate the harm that comes to the least of these because of human abuse.
MacArthur counsels people to ignore the experts. WHY? Because he has data that says the experts might be mistaken?
No. He says ignore the experts, don't worry about pollution and the poor people sick and dying because of human action AND inaction because, MacArthur says, it's a disposable planet.
Do you NOT see how very deviant, diabolical and sin-sick that is?
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-125/reserved-for-fire
Al Mohler, likewise, dismisses expert opinion, as recently as 2021:
https://albertmohler.com/2021/08/12/briefing-8-12-21
"Over a third of evangelical Christians say there is "no solid evidence" that climate change is happening."
https://www.newsweek.com/what-evangelical-christians-think-climate-change-1459927
"Shockingly, this news hasn’t penetrated the walls of America’s white evangelical churches. A recent Pew Research Center study shows that, while 65% of all Americans believe our government isn’t doing enough to fight climate change, only 24% of evangelicals agree. A separate 2015 Pew Research Center study found that, while 50% of Americans then believed climate change was largely man-made, that view was shared by only 28% of evangelicals."
https://baptistnews.com/article/christians-and-climate-change-a-chance-to-take-the-bible-seriously/
Do you believe that climate change is a reality, Craig?
Do you believe that the data shows that anthropogenic climate change is a reality?
Do you think that we should listen to the experts who counsel us to change policies to try to lessen the damage from climate change?
Or are you among the climate deniers?
"folx like Dan insist that some people have the right to parade their naked male genitalia in a space that women believe that they should be able to expect privacy without even being asked for their consent. "
WT actual F are you talking about? I THINK you're talking about trans girls and women. But WHAT is wrong with your sick, depraved imagination that you think... THAT?!
"Parade their naked male genitalia.."???
HOW do you imagine trans girls are using the bathroom?!
Scratch that. I don't want to hear your perverse, sick fantasies. If nothing else, the new Trumpublicans are showing everyone their dark, perverted thinking.
Ew.
Just stop.
Dan
"WT actual F are you talking about? I THINK you're talking about trans girls and women. But WHAT is wrong with your sick, depraved imagination that you think... THAT?!"
Well, I pay attention to current events, and I listen to what people who are most affected by this say. I believe the women who claim that they have been negatively affected by a naked guy who claims to be a "woman" walking naked through spaces that women have traditionally felt safe in.
"Parade their naked male genitalia.."???
"HOW do you imagine trans girls are using the bathroom?!"
1. As someone with male genitalia, I have a pretty good idea of how people with male genitalia use the bathroom, and walk around in locker rooms. Then I listen to the accounts of biological women and the experiences they've had and how those experiences have affected them. It's not so much "imagination" as it is experience, and listening to women.
Look, more off topic bullshit.
"Do you believe that climate change is a reality, Craig?"
Yes, I do not believe that worldwide climate has ever been static. Climate, is dynamic, and changes regularly. When people talk about "climate change" they usually are referring to "change" from the average/mean based on the data. Yet the average takes into account the extremes.
"Do you believe that the data shows that anthropogenic climate change is a reality?"
Since I keep seeing data that contradicts the narrative, since I keep seeing every single prediction fail to materialize, I have a healthy skepticism towards the narrative around "climate change".
"Do you think that we should listen to the experts who counsel us to change policies to try to lessen the damage from climate change?"
Interesting, if off topic, question. I guess I believe that we should look closely at the track record of these "experts" in predicting the future. I further believe that the track record of these experts in predicting the future is not impressive. I believe that one of the keystones of the scientific method is testability/falsifiability, unfortunately I see a pattern of responding to any evidence that doesn't support the narrative by changing the narrative. I'm not sure that something that can't be falsified is something to put a lot of stock into.
"Or are you among the climate deniers?"
No. I believe that we do have a climate, that it does exist, that the climate is dynamic, and that we shouldn't put supreme confidence in "Science" that can't be repeatedly tested/falsified. Nor do I believe that people whose actions don't match their words are particularly trustworthy.
FYI, offering up anyone who represents Big Eva after Big Eva decided to place their credibility on the line to push the false COVID narrative at the bidding of the State isn't a particularly convincing tactic.
Dan seems obsessed with trying to parade a bunch of out of context "proof" of climate change, or something equally off topic, and I've simply decided that I'm done indulging his whims.
I'll post his comments, because other wise he'll bitch and whine. But I'm done responding to these off topic fantasies, or indulging him by answering his off topic questions. I've been patient with this attempt to shift the topic, but my patience has worn out.
"I simply factually have not. Not in the real world. Read for understanding, little brother."
Condescension is always a popular response, although childish. You have been quite clear that the mother has sole authority (with some input from others) to make the decision to abort a child in her womb. One of the standard arguments for this position is that it's not a :human" or not a "person", and therefore can be treated as one treats property. You can't have it both ways. Either the child in the womb is NOT a "human" or a "person", in which case it has zero human rights. Or it IS a human and a person, and it does have at least some minimal human rights. You've dodged around making the explicit claim, but those on your side use that argument regularly and you don't ever complain about that argument.
"Factually correct. In utero children absolutely can not get a drivers license, for instance. You disagree with reality?"
1. A driver's license is not, nor has ever been a right.
2. You use this ridiculous example as a way to dodge making any claims regarding rights that a child in it's mother's womb DOES have.
3. Your argument has always been that a child in it's mother's womb doesn't have "all" of the rights of a fully grown adult, without having the courage to let us in on the secret of what rights you would deny a child in it's mother's womb.
"Factually correct, according to the data. And yet, the data also shows that children at a young age begin to recognize gender and orientation. So, do I support a five year old boy having his penis removed? No. No one does."
1. We keep seeing evidence that younger and younger children are being exposed to irreversible medical "treatment".
2. If you don't support a "5 year old" then how about a 9 year old? 12? 15? 17?
3. If the brain is not fully developed until 25 than how can one justify any irreversible procedures on anyone who's brain is not fully developed?
4. Can a child under the age of 18 legally give fully informed consent?
"Now, stop right there and understand: NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD is suggesting that five year olds with penises - or TEN year olds or 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16? year olds - have their penis removed. NO surgery is being done before puberty. None."
Interesting.
1. This ignores the reality that the nonsurgical "treatment" which is being done prior to puberty is also irreversible.
2. Perhaps you've missed the news stories of children who were given double mastectomies at 11 or 12 and are now suing because they received virtually no counseling prior to surgery.
3. Do you realize that when you make these emphatic claims that "NO surgery...", that all I need in to provide one example to disprove your point.
4. Puberty is something this has a variable onset. Can you prove that the 12 year olds who've had double mastectomies had completed puberty?
"Do you understand that?"
I understand that you've made these claims. I understand that you simply making a claim does not make that claim True.
"As it is, I trust the 16 year old transgender young lady's brain more than your old brain."
Interesting claim. What other permanent decisions to temporary situations do you trust 16 year olds to make?
"Some people never reach full adult reasoning. Which is also supported by data."
And you you support them making irreversible alterations to their perfectly functioning, healthy bodies.
Are you suggesting that virtually every government in western Europe is incapable of correctly interpreting the data that they've collected? That you know better than the western European medical experts who support the cessation of irreversible medical "treatment" on minor children?
"Why? Because, of course, there are literally NO experts who say that it's good and healthy for the 25 year old pedophile to marry a 12 year old."
What an interesting double standard. You are unwilling to accept that a 12 year old could be truly, deeply, in love with a 25 year old and that it is completely impossible for the 12 year old to consent to marriage. But have no problem with the same 12 year old undergoing irreversible medical "treatment". Strange. I guess the "trans" part of the brain is fully mature at 12, but the love and commitment part is not.
"On the other hand, gender experts say that it IS healthy - and SAVES LIVES - for the 12 year old trans girl to wear dresses and go by Lucy."
If you say so.
"Indeed, expert opinion will say that this man is a pedophile seeking to engage in actions that WILL harm the child. Because of course it is."
Indeed, there is a small but increasing number of "experts" that are diligently working to produce data and scientific studies that would disagree with your assertion.
"So, EVEN IF one's religion says it's okay to marry/rape a 12 year old, reason, expert opinion and reality oppose it."
So sayeth Dan.
"THAT is why we establish harm as a criteria and rely upon expert opinion and data to make these sorts of decisions."
That is why YOU have claimed that harm ( as perceived by you) somehow has magically become a universal, objective standard for everything. I'd say that encouraging a prepubescent child to undergo irreversible medical "treatment" has a reasonably good change of causing some level of "harm".
"Understand the difference?"
I understand that you are making all sorts of claims about "reality" and how things really are, without providing any actual objective, irrefutable proof.
"I was taking it one step at a time so we could be clear on what is being discussed, what principles are involved and find where we can agree and disagree. There is no "twist..." I'm not trying to "trick" you into agreeing with me."
Well, then you just wasted quite a bit of my valuable, limited time with your simplistic bullshit.
"I'm just saying we agree on the principle that there are times that we place reasonable limits on what parents can and can't do to their children and establishing that it's reasonable to use "harm" as a measure for where to draw those lines."
Yes, I understand that you are "saying" (as if "Because I say so." means anything), that you have imagined what those restrictions on parents should be. I also understand that you base everything on your subjective concept of "harm", with no objective proof that your concept of "harm" is 100% accurate. I also understand that you believe that your hunches about "limits" and "harm" should be applied across the board regardless of what anyone else might think.
I understand all of this, I just think it's self aggrandizing bullshit.
"You APPEAR to agree on those principles, although your continued reliance on vague, snarky comments instead of clear answers makes it difficult to tell. Why NOT find where we have common ground? Why NOT think clearly through what criteria we have for when it's important to intervene in parenting that should be normally left to the parents (a point on which we agree)?"
Because it's impossible to find 'common ground" when you refuse to provide anything specific enough to agree with. You say we agree on some vague concept of "limits", yet without providing an idea of what your "limits" are any agreement is worthless. Why would I provide these criteria, when you won't? You keep making these vague, amorphous claims, then complain that I should do what you won't.
"IF we can agree that Harm is a reasonable place to draw lines and create rules that parents must abide by (like laws against physical or sexual abuse), then we can ask, "Does allowing trans girls to wear dresses and go by Lucy cause harm OR does denying trans girls the option of wearing dresses and going by Lucy that option cause harm?""
The fact that there might be some general agreement over this vague, undefined, amorphous, notion of "limits", means nothing. Further, I've already said that I don't object to biological males wearing dresses. My problem is when the line is crossed to irreversible medical "treatment". You are obsessed with "wearing dresses" as a way to avoid the irreversible medical "treatment" conversation.
"Isn't that reasonable?"
No, it's not reasonable to repeat your "dress" example when I've already said that I don't care.
"And if we can agree that's a reasonable question, then we can ask how we measure harm and which expertise we fall back on."
It's sweet when you make these pronouncements about the exact ways that things must go, based on your hunches.
"Isn't that reasonable?"
No, you making decrees about reality and how things must go is not reasonable.
"Or what of the case where mother wants to call her "she, her and Lucy" and divorced Dad refuses to... is that causing harm?"
It's most likely not. Children of divorce routinely navigate situations where each parent has different rules and expectations. Hell, virtually all of life is being able to navigate situations where different rules apply and adapting our behavior to those different rules. It's called being a mature adult.
"And how do we intervene, or do we?"
Well, you are clearly prepared to intervene and to usurp the authority of the parents. I'm less likely to demand intervention over something like this.
"What's reasonable?"
Allowing parents to be parents until intervention becomes mandatory.
"What's wrong with being systematic about these sort of moral/policy questions?"
Nothing, if you have an objective, universal standard underlying your system. Or unless you leave room for other societies to adopt other systems based on their subjective moral code.
"And for what it's worth, the oppressive conservative bullshit fearmongering about "cutting off body parts" generally does not happen pre-18. VERY rarely. By and large, it's not what we're talking about when we're talking about gender affirming care for children."
1. Earlier you said that it never happened. Make up your mind.
2. Then I guess it's OK to harm children by removing fully functioning body parts, as long as it's only a "few" children.
3. Again, with the goal post move. I am referring to ANY irreversible procedure performed an a child below the age when they can legally provide informed consent.
"So get your mind out of those girls pants, fella."
1. As a male, my mind absolutely should be drawn toward women.
2. Part of human design/evolution is the notion that certain physical attributes attract the opposite sex because those attributes send the message that the one with those attributes will be a good choice to have children with.
3. Some of those attributes just happen to be found on parts of the body that are covered by pants.
4. From the standpoint of a committed Christ follower, my eyes should only be on what is in one woman's pant.
5. From the standpoint of an amoral evolutionist, it is 100% natural for the mind of a male to be focused on those physical features of women that indicate that a woman is a likely partner that can propagate the species.
6. Form a legal and cultural perspective, the age of consent is the mechanism that exercises some measure of control over male/female relations. The problem with your hunches, is that the age of consent varies from country to country, in some cases the age of consent is as low as 11.
7. What authority do you have that would tell a country with an age of consent lower than you believe appropriate that they should accept your hunch?
In any case, your vile insinuation tells me plenty.
"NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD is suggesting that five year olds with penises - or TEN year olds or 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16? year olds - have their penis removed. NO surgery is being done before puberty. None."
Boy, I don't know about you, but the above quote from Dan sounds like he is making a very emphatic statement of fact that leaves absolutely zero room for error. It's emphatic, specific, and repetitive. It seems very definitive.
"And for what it's worth, the oppressive conservative bullshit fearmongering about "cutting off body parts" generally does not happen pre-18. VERY rarely."
Interesting....
We've gone from "Never, ever, ever, ever, happens", to "It does happen, but I think it's rare".
That is quite the shift there.
He'll never acknowledge that those two statements contradict each other, he'll mealy mouth and weasel his way around it.
Glenn,
At some point I plan to do a separate post about all of the recent findings that call the sacred narrative of "climate change" into question.
If you listen, you might notice that Dan treats climate change in a very similar way as he treats progressive christianity. The similarity raises questions in my mind.
I'm done indulging his off topic shenanigans. But I'll keep posting his off topic comments, and let you respond if you want.
Your failure to be able to understand the distinction does not mean I've contradicted myself.
NO ADOLESCENT CHILDREN are having surgeries. As I clearly said, NO 5, 10... 12 year olds are having their penis cut off.
On VERY RARE occasions, 16-18 year olds are having transition surgeries, but that's nothing like the norm.
https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb
Read for understanding and you'll have fewer instances where you draw false conclusions.
Dan
It's always amusing when I predict things like this.
"Your failure to be able to understand the distinction does not mean I've contradicted myself."
You assume the failure is mine, as you usually do, because you seem to find yourself incapable of failing to accurately communicate your point. In this case, your contradiction is clear.
"NO ADOLESCENT CHILDREN are having surgeries."
Yet we have verified instances of 12 year old girls having double mastectomies. Unless your claim is that 12 year old girls aren't technically "adolescent" or that a double mastectomy isn't "surgery", your claim fails the reality test.
"As I clearly said, NO 5, 10... 12 year olds are having their penis cut off."
I see what you've tried to do here. You've decided to take one specific surgery, make an unproven claim about one specific surgery, then act as if that specific claim applies to every other irreversible medical procedures performed on prepubescent children.
"On VERY RARE occasions, 16-18 year olds are having transition surgeries, but that's nothing like the norm."
The fact that you can't understand the difference between "It never happens" and "It happens rarely", I can't help you. That's you making a choice to protect your self esteem.
https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb
Read for understanding and you'll have fewer instances where you draw false conclusions.
https://journals.lww.com/annalsplasticsurgery/Abstract/2022/05004/Gender_Affirming_Mastectomy_Trends_and_Surgical.4.aspx
It's just one study, but as of 2019 children as young as 13 are having "transition" surgery of some sort.
Again, there are enough instances of prepubescent children starting irreversible "treatments", to make your claims that no is having any surgeries false.
According to this source...
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/
There are ~1.6 MILLION folks in the US who identify as transgender.
According to Reuters, there were 776 mastectomies performed on transgender boys from 13-17 for the THREE years ending in 2021. Roughly 225 a year.
In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis,
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/
That out of 42,000 transgender children 6-17, according to the same source.
225 out of 42,000.
.5%
And in nearly all those cases, the people involved were pleased with the result. It HELPED them. They feel BETTER because of their decisions.
But to hell with what they think. CRAIG knows best. Old white conservative men know best. That's the take-away, right Craig?
It doesn't matter what the people involved think. It doesn't matter what the parents think. It doesn't matter what their expert advisors think. CRAIG ALMIGHTY has declared it's not worth their autonomy so we should listen to CRAIG and GOD, because God agrees with Craig, as always.
Is that what you're saying?
DO you even listen to what you're saying? Do you even listen to how arrogant and presumptive you sound? We should listen to the parents! (who agree with Craig... but not those other fools!) We should listen to the EXPERTS (who agree with Craig... but not those other fools.)
Embrace a bit of humility, boy. Your arrogance is confounding the better part of wisdom and decency and human rights.
I will gladly admit that I was unaware of those rare examples of double mastectomies that 13 year olds appear to have had in EXTREMLY rare instances and presumably at the advice of their medical/mental health experts.
But to hell with the parent, the individuals and the experts. Craig has another opinion and we should bow down to his tender white opinion.
"And in nearly all those cases, the people involved were pleased with the result. It HELPED them. They feel BETTER because of their decisions."
This is quite the claim to make without data. The best you might be able to claim is that they were "pleased" at the point when they answered the question (assuming that 100% of the respondents were 100% honest). Claiming anything beyond that is quite a leap.
"But to hell with what they think. CRAIG knows best. Old white conservative men know best. That's the take-away, right Craig?"
No. The takeaway is the you made a bullshit false claim, had that false claim pointed out, and decided to go one the attack with data the proves your claim was false to begin with. Strangely enough, YOU are and old, rich, white, liberal, who is convinced that YOU know better and that YOU can speak for all sorts of groups of people. But the double standard is old news at this point.
"It doesn't matter what the people involved think. It doesn't matter what the parents think. It doesn't matter what their expert advisors think. CRAIG ALMIGHTY has declared it's not worth their autonomy so we should listen to CRAIG and GOD, because God agrees with Craig, as always.
Is that what you're saying?"
No, it's just a bunch of bullshit you made up and are attempting to attribute to me.
"DO you even listen to what you're saying? Do you even listen to how arrogant and presumptive you sound? We should listen to the parents! (who agree with Craig... but not those other fools!) We should listen to the EXPERTS (who agree with Craig... but not those other fools.)"
I do. I listen to what I am saying, and realize that I'm NOT saying this made up bullshit that you've fantasized and tried to attribute to me.
"Embrace a bit of humility, boy. Your arrogance is confounding the better part of wisdom and decency and human rights."
Because your recent string of comments full of ad hom, bullshit, personal attacks are overflowing with grace, humility, and love. Again, I expect the double standard.
"I will gladly admit that I was unaware of those rare examples of double mastectomies that 13 year olds appear to have had in EXTREMLY rare instances and presumably at the advice of their medical/mental health experts."
Dan, you win the prize for the least apologetic apology in history. The hubris of sort of acknowledging that your claim was demonstrably false, while trying to make excuses for your blatant falsehood is astounding.
"But to hell with the parent, the individuals and the experts. Craig has another opinion and we should bow down to his tender white opinion."
Equally astounding is your choice not to practice humility or grace as you demand of others, but instead to practice the very opposite of those attributes, while demanding that I do what you won't.
It's absolutely hilarious to see Dan's response to my pointing out the ridiculousness of him simply making pronouncements about things he decrees to be "reality", with no data, not proof, nothing. His response ISN'T to acknowledge the absurdity of his behavior, it's not to acknowledge that he could do better, it's certainly not grace or humility. Instead he chooses to misrepresent things I've said and to impose his actions onto me. He could have simply provided data, or humbly acknowledged his mistakes, or stayed silent. Instead he chose the path of made up bullshit.
The reality is that mental health and medical experts are saying that the most healthy thing for some trans kids is to take some steps towards acknowledging their gender as they recognize it. It's quite common knowledge for those who are informed, but if you're ignorant of the leading expert opinion, I CAN provide you the data. I believe in you though, and don't think you are that ignorant.
But by all means, tell me you're ignorant of the predominant expert opinion and I can provide the information to you.
But that would beg the question: IF you are that ignorant as to not know the dominant expert opinion, WHY are you making pronouncements about what should and shouldn't be public policy? Shouldn't you inform yourself, first?
The point being: WE DO NOT HAVE one authoritative, "proven" opinion about what is best for transgender children. Given that YOU HAVE NO proven data to support your hunches about what policy should be, to what should we appeal when it comes to creating public policy for a diverse culture?
I suggest it's predominant expert opinion and letting the parents and the children and THEIR experts make those calls. YOU want conservative politicians with NO expertise make the call.
What is more reasonable?
"But that would beg the question: IF you are that ignorant as to not know the dominant expert opinion, WHY are you making pronouncements about what should and shouldn't be public policy? Shouldn't you inform yourself, first?"
Well, if your assumptions are correct, those might be valid questions. But since your assumption isn't correct, they are not valid questions. You assume that the only possible way to not be "ignorant" is to only pay attention to the "right experts" who say the things that you want to hear. I try to be a little more inclusive and pay attention to "experts" that are not captive to a narrative, or who do not stand to make tens of millions of dollars if "transing" becomes mainstream. I can only assume that you support the people who are suing their medical "experts" as they realize that they were "trasitioned" with insufficient screening, don't you? Do you really support a "medical expert" agreeing that it is appropriate to surgically remove the genetically of a biological male based on a Zoom call that lasted less then 30 minutes? Or that same "medical expert" encouraging this male to go ahead with the surgery even though the patient was very clear that he was not sure if he was really "trans"?
"The point being: WE DO NOT HAVE one authoritative, "proven" opinion about what is best for transgender children. Given that YOU HAVE NO proven data to support your hunches about what policy should be, to what should we appeal when it comes to creating public policy for a diverse culture?"
What an interesting question. You seem to be implying that the only possible right answer to the question is that we must appeal to the activists pushing the agenda, and the doctors who stand to rake in millions/billions of dollars. Why would we not pay attention the those who've been "transed" too quickly? Why would we not take the time to look at the seemingly disproportionate number of "trans" children who have autism or mental health issues? Why would we ignore the data that suggests that a significant percentage of children identified as "trans" as children end up not identifying as "trans" as they reach adulthood? Why would we not place a high value on NOT making irreversible alterations to healthy, normal, children's bodies?
"I suggest it's predominant expert opinion and letting the parents and the children and THEIR experts make those calls. YOU want conservative politicians with NO expertise make the call."
I don't care what you suggest. You are most assuredly not an "expert".
"What is more reasonable?"
Not blindly following people who claim to be "experts" yet have a social, political, or financial stake in making irreversible alterations to healthy, normal, correctly functioning, children's bodies.
Given your earlier vehement support for women being allowed to choose to abort their unborn children without any restrictions, please answer the following.
If it becomes possible to identify which children will are LGB or T" in their mother's wombs, will you advocate for the right of mothers to choose to abort their children solely because they are "LGB or T"?
I just need to point out that it is impossible to change one's biological sex (sex/gender are the same, not separate; in fact, gender, until recent times, was only for grammatical structures). If one is emotionally unstable to the point of thinking they are the opposite sex, the worst thing you could do is pander to their delusions.
See, Dan's ilk think it's fine to pander to someone who thinks they are the opposite sex but if someone thinks they are a cat, would he go along with the delusion and let them have all sorts of body butchering to make them look like a cat?
I'm pretty doggone sure GOD doesn't approve of such body mutilation.
I'm pretty doggone sure GOD doesn't approve of such body mutilation.
While Glenn may be "pretty sure" of his opinion, I know as a fact that God never said one time that there was anything wrong with it. God has offered no opinion on transgender people, but Glenn is pretty confident he can speak for God.
Likewise, despite him NOT being an expert, Glenn is prepared to play with people's lives by declaring that he knows best what transgender folks should do. That would include not listening to themselves or their experts if they dare to disagree with Glenn, who is delusional enough to think he's got "god" on his side.
So... WHO is delusional?
Craig...
they are not valid questions. You assume that the only possible way to not be "ignorant" is to only pay attention to the "right experts" who say the things that you want to hear. I try to be a little more inclusive and pay attention to "experts" that are not captive to a narrative
You assume that I've said that the only way to not be ignorant is to listen to only some experts (the "right experts...") but I've never said that.
(Although, to be fair, listening to the right experts IS a wise thing to do... but Craig almost certainly doesn't mean that... he means experts who disagree with him which he is trying to mock as the "right experts" in scare quotes).
I'm not saying only listening to experts who tell you what you want them to say.
Read that again: I AM NOT SAYING ONLY LISTENING TO EXPERTS WHO TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY.
Do you understand the point I'm making? I could repeat it again, in bold or maybe Spanish, if that helps you understand why your claim is false and not only that, but stupidly false.
If you understand, then just say "OK, I misspoke, my apologies."
If you don't understand, keep reading that line over and over, maybe it will sink in.
IF it doesn't sink in, despite my clear and unmistakable words, then maybe you're not the one who should be advising on complex personal, mental and physical health topics.
Which gets back to the point I AM making:
GIVEN THE REALITY:
1. That there is no one expert opinion on the topic;
2. That the largest body of medical and mental health experts (AMA, APA) support it, but not all experts do;
3. That it's not YOU who is affected by these decisions...
I SUPPORT the individuals and their families and their experts making these decisions, NOT A BUNCH OF DAMNED IDIOT CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMEN.
Do you understand?
If you understand, then do you agree? OR, do you think conservative Congress people are the right group of "experts" (ie, not experts at all in any sense of the word in the real world) to make this decision and impose it upon transgender youths and their families and experts?
"Do you understand the point I'm making?"
Yes, I do. I understand that you have shown zero indication that you have listened to any "experts" or spent time with any of the research that doesn't support your narrative. I understand that your definition of "experts" is fluid, and in the past has been based on the conclusions of some "experts".
Condescension and sarcasm are interesting ways to demonstrate grace and humility. Perhaps you should try some different tactics.
"I SUPPORT the individuals and their families and their experts making these decisions, NOT A BUNCH OF DAMNED IDIOT CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMEN."
Interesting, you sort of (in a vague, mealy mouth, milquetoast, equivocal manner) that there is NOT one single "correct" conclusion by "experts", then advocate for the decision to be made by those who are not "experts". Does this mean that you would absolutely support the parents/families/their experts, if they made the decision that the best choice was that their minor child not be allowed to undergo anything irreversible until they were an adult? Do you support those in the employ of the State who will intentionally deceive, and lie to parents as they encourage and facilitate things that the parents would not agree to? Do you really advocate agents of the State usurping the rights and prerogatives of parents, especially when done without due process? Are you saying that you don't want conservative congressmen to impose ANY regulations of ANY sort on the "trans industrial complex", but that you would be perfectly fine with liberal congressmen legislating on the issue?
"Do you understand?"
I understand, I just think that you're barbaric to support irreversible medical procedures being performed on minor children who are unable to legally give informed consent.
"If you understand, then do you agree?"
No.
"OR, do you think conservative Congress people are the right group of "experts" (ie, not experts at all in any sense of the word in the real world) to make this decision and impose it upon transgender youths and their families and experts?"
No.
It's always hilarious when you (in the service of arguing against sex as a binary) present these two extremes as the only options in a binary choice.
God didn’t say anything about “transgender” because it doesn’t exist. God created man and woman, neither which can change to the other. Abusing your body (which is the temple of the Holy Spirit) is a sin. Transgenderism is part of sexual anarchy and God spoke specifically that sex was to be restricted to between opposite-sex people within a marriage commitment.
Dan whines about me not being an expert but subjectively claims people who support others’ delusions are better for the deluded people!!!
Who's delusional? Dan Trabue
I understand that you have shown zero indication that you have listened to any "experts" or spent time with any of the research that doesn't support your narrative.
Bullshit. I've read at least some of the articles about "regret" and a few experts who disagree with the predominant theme. You ought not speak of what you're ignorant of.
Speaking of ignorance: How many trans people do you know? How many count you as a friend and/or a trusted colleague? How many trans kids do you know and cherish? In what ways have you supported them and their families? How much research have you read about the topic of trans concerns? Have you been to any LGBTQ rallies and listened in earnest to the fears they're expressing currently in our current fever of anti-LGBTQ positions on the far right? Do you take the time in those sessions to tell all those LGBTQ folks that their worries are just silly? That their stories of abuse and harm from conservatives are over-blown?
I can safely assume you've taken no college level classes, right...?, but how about just one or two day sessions? Any of those?
How many experts have you read who disagree with the predominant position as found in the APA and AMA? Are we talking about, "I've read three articles by dissenters and found, lo and behold, I agreed with them and not the many others..."? Did you start with the position that transgender concerns are wrong, "bad," and then found support for that position?
I AM NOT SAYING ONLY LISTENING TO EXPERTS WHO TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY.
Do you understand the point I'm making?
Yes, I do. I understand that you have shown zero indication that you have listened to any "experts" or spent time with any of the research that doesn't support your narrative. I understand that your definition of "experts" is fluid, and in the past has been based on the conclusions of some "experts"
Now that I've dismantled your misconceptions, let me ask you AGAIN to answer the actual question that I'm actually asking:
I AM NOT SAYING ONLY LISTEN TO EXPERTS WHO TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY.
Do you understand the point I'm making?
[HINT: The answer is in all-caps, to make it easier for you.]
Seriously, if you can read my words that are straightforward and clear as can be and STILL repeatedly not understand, then why should we think you have a handle on "expert opinion..."?
Does this mean that you would absolutely support the parents/families/their experts, if they made the decision that the best choice was that their minor child not be allowed to undergo anything irreversible until they were an adult?
IF the parents AND unbiased experts advised the child to wait for anything irreversible, I'd tend to side with the adults.
Do you support those in the employ of the State who will intentionally deceive, and lie to parents as they encourage and facilitate things that the parents would not agree to?
No... depending on the situation. IF we have a Sound of Music Nuns stealing car parts and lying to help the innocent victims escape, then yes. IF we had an abusive father who would beat his trans daughter if he found out, then of course, I would not support sending that sweet girl home to face that.
Would you?
If so, what sort of monster are you?
Do you really advocate agents of the State usurping the rights and prerogatives of parents, especially when done without due process?
It depends on the situation. IF we had two parents who were refusing their child medical treatment that was advised by their doctor and did so for "religious reasons," and failing to provide that medical treatment would lead to death or severe harm to the child, then Yes, although preferably with due process.
Would you support those parents refusing to save their child by refusing medical treatment, condemning that child to death?
If so, what sort of monster are you?
Are you saying that you don't want conservative congressmen to impose ANY regulations of ANY sort on the "trans industrial complex", but that you would be perfectly fine with liberal congressmen legislating on the issue?
I don't want ANY congress people, left, right or otherwise, to make complex medical decisions outside of expert opinion and force them on unwilling citizens. On more complex matters, I favor the decisions being made by the person involved, their family and their experts. And in cases of internal dispute (between parents, the person and medical/mental health experts), I lean towards the person involved being the final decider... more so the older they get.
In cases where public policy action is required, I favor congress folk listening to the most compelling testimony of the most compelling experts. In cases where we have groups of experts (the AMA, the APA, Climatologists, etc), then I would lean heavily towards trusting the group decision over and against the outliers... especially if the outliers had some religious or overtly partisan motivations.
Now, having said all that and answered all those questions:
In the case of a trans child of 15, their parents and their medical experts all recommending one set of decisions (and especially when the medical experts' opinion aligns with the GROUP decision/advice - of the AMA, APA, etc) and you have conservative politicians who have found two outlier experts to support the opposite conclusion of the person, their family and their experts, WHO do you support making the final call? The person and their team? Or Republican congress people?
"Speaking of ignorance: How many trans people do you know?"
Who cares. Are you down to making the idiotic bullshit argument that it's impossible to reach a conclsuion on something unless you know some magic number of people who fit a certain category.
"How many count you as a friend and/or a trusted colleague?"
See above.
"How many trans kids do you know and cherish?"
See above.
"In what ways have you supported them and their families?"
None of your business, and irrelevant.
"How much research have you read about the topic of trans concerns?"
Some, but it's ongoing.
"Have you been to any LGBTQ rallies and listened in earnest to the fears they're expressing currently in our current fever of anti-LGBTQ positions on the far right?"
Nope, I fail to see how this is relevant to the conversation.
"Do you take the time in those sessions to tell all those LGBTQ folks that their worries are just silly? That their stories of abuse and harm from conservatives are over-blown?"
Nope.
"I can safely assume you've taken no college level classes, right...?, but how about just one or two day sessions? Any of those?"
Nope, I'm guessing you'll claim that you have.
"How many experts have you read who disagree with the predominant position as found in the APA and AMA? Are we talking about, "I've read three articles by dissenters and found, lo and behold, I agreed with them and not the many others..."? Did you start with the position that transgender concerns are wrong, "bad," and then found support for that position?"
I'm done with this idiocy. The notion that the only possible way to have an opinion on this topic is to jump through a bunch of arbitrary hoops established by Dan is absurd and just one more attempt to set unrealistic parameters in order to exclude anyone who doesn't buy the narrative.
None of this is actually "expert" anything, it's just an attempt to camouflage anecdotes as something else.
"IF the parents AND unbiased experts advised the child to wait for anything irreversible, I'd tend to side with the adults."
I guess that's something.
"No... depending on the situation. IF we have a Sound of Music Nuns stealing car parts and lying to help the innocent victims escape, then yes. IF we had an abusive father who would beat his trans daughter if he found out, then of course, I would not support sending that sweet girl home to face that."
So, your answer seems to be "no", but then it really becomes "yes" as long as you can find some sort of justification for agents of the State to usurp the rights and prerogatives of parents.
"Would you?"
No, I would not support agents of the State intentionally deceiving, and lying to the parents of a child.
"If so, what sort of monster are you?"
I'm the sort of monster that's cute and cuddly like the ones in Monsters Inc.
"It depends on the situation. IF we had two parents who were refusing their child medical treatment that was advised by their doctor and did so for "religious reasons," and failing to provide that medical treatment would lead to death or severe harm to the child, then Yes, although preferably with due process."
What an excellent job of answering the question in a way that can be construed as yes or no. I guess there are circumstances where you would advocate that agents of the State usurp parental rights and prerogatives if you personally disagreed with their choices.
"Would you support those parents refusing to save their child by refusing medical treatment, condemning that child to death?"
Well, no I wouldn't support them deciding to let the child die, but I would support them choosing to withhold extreme intervention from a child that was terminally ill. Just like I would have done for my parents, and what I've directed my family to do for me.
"If so, what sort of monster are you?"
See above.
"I don't want ANY congress people, left, right or otherwise, to make complex medical decisions outside of expert opinion and force them on unwilling citizens. On more complex matters, I favor the decisions being made by the person involved, their family and their experts. And in cases of internal dispute (between parents, the person and medical/mental health experts), I lean towards the person involved being the final decider... more so the older they get."
Then why didn't you just say this to begin with. It's interesting that you favor more government regulation, rather than less in most situations, but in this one you favor literally zero government regulation.
"In cases where public policy action is required, I favor congress folk listening to the most compelling testimony of the most compelling experts. In cases where we have groups of experts (the AMA, the APA, Climatologists, etc), then I would lean heavily towards trusting the group decision over and against the outliers... especially if the outliers had some religious or overtly partisan motivations."
So, you'd rather side with a "compelling" false narrative over the non compelling Truth, interesting.
"Now, having said all that and answered all those questions:"
Wow, you sort of answered "all" of the questions in one whole comment, I guess that means you can ignore all the other questions until you deign to answer a few more.
"In the case of a trans child of 15, their parents and their medical experts all recommending one set of decisions (and especially when the medical experts' opinion aligns with the GROUP decision/advice - of the AMA, APA, etc) and you have conservative politicians who have found two outlier experts to support the opposite conclusion of the person, their family and their experts, WHO do you support making the final call?"
I guess that would depend on what the "final" call was. In no circumstances would I support any irreversible medical intervention on a healthy, correctly functioning, human body.
"The person and their team?"
See above.
"Or Republican congress people?"
You just can't do it, you can't just say legislators, you have to be partisan. What a hack.
FYI, as a general rule I fully support parents engaging in activities that carry some appropriate risk of death or injury. I think that parents should ski, raft, rock climb, ride horses, ride ATV's, jet ski, etc. I think that exposing children to risk in an intentional way, while taking all appropriate safety precautions, is important to helping to raise healthy kids with the ability to manage risk/reward.
If I was faced with the choice of medical treatment that would simply prolong my kid's life (confined to a bed, unable to speak or move, etc), but that offered no hope for improvement, I might be willing to trust the God of the Universe, the Author of Life, with my child and allow for a miracle.
"Would you support those parents refusing to save their child by refusing medical treatment, condemning that child to death?"
Well, no I wouldn't support them deciding to let the child die, but I would support them choosing to withhold extreme intervention from a child that was terminally ill. Just like I would have done for my parents, and what I've directed my family to do for me.
"If so, what sort of monster are you?"
See above.
"I don't want ANY congress people, left, right or otherwise, to make complex medical decisions outside of expert opinion and force them on unwilling citizens. On more complex matters, I favor the decisions being made by the person involved, their family and their experts. And in cases of internal dispute (between parents, the person and medical/mental health experts), I lean towards the person involved being the final decider... more so the older they get."
Then why didn't you just say this to begin with. It's interesting that you favor more government regulation, rather than less in most situations, but in this one you favor literally zero government regulation.
"In cases where public policy action is required, I favor congress folk listening to the most compelling testimony of the most compelling experts. In cases where we have groups of experts (the AMA, the APA, Climatologists, etc), then I would lean heavily towards trusting the group decision over and against the outliers... especially if the outliers had some religious or overtly partisan motivations."
So, you'd rather side with a "compelling" false narrative over the non compelling Truth, interesting.
"Now, having said all that and answered all those questions:"
Wow, you sort of answered "all" of the questions in one whole comment, I guess that means you can ignore all the other questions until you deign to answer a few more.
"In the case of a trans child of 15, their parents and their medical experts all recommending one set of decisions (and especially when the medical experts' opinion aligns with the GROUP decision/advice - of the AMA, APA, etc) and you have conservative politicians who have found two outlier experts to support the opposite conclusion of the person, their family and their experts, WHO do you support making the final call?"
I guess that would depend on what the "final" call was. In no circumstances would I support any irreversible medical intervention on a healthy, correctly functioning, human body.
"The person and their team?"
See above.
"Or Republican congress people?"
You just can't do it, you can't just say legislators, you have to be partisan. What a hack.
Do you support those in the employ of the State who will intentionally deceive, and lie to parents as they encourage and facilitate things that the parents would not agree to?
Do you understand that coming out (gender, orientation) is a highly personal and in some cases, highly fraught and dangerous (emotionally, psychically and sometimes, physically) decision and if a child trusts a teacher to come out to, that teacher has some responsibilities to that child, in addition to that child's parents? It would be nice if the courts would clearly address this, but it seems right that IF a child expressed fear of having their parents find out they're LGBTQ, then the wise and moral teacher would not "out" them. That would/should be their decision.
If a child doesn't trust the parent to come out to them, there is often (not always) a reason for that.
If a child fears abuse from a parent because of their orientation, do you support the professional's right to inform the pertinent authorities?
I guess that would depend on what the "final" call was. In no circumstances would I support any irreversible medical intervention on a healthy, correctly functioning, human body.
"The person and their team?"
See above.
You can't just do it. You can't say, "I SUPPORT congress people making that call for the family," you have to stick with this vague non-answer.
As to your concern about "GOP congress" it IS true that some Democrats will join with the GOP on these matters. But you should not be naive: This recent spate of legislative attacks on LGBTQ people and their families is distinctively, specifically GOP-driven. You can have the honesty to admit that, can't you?
"Speaking of ignorance: How many trans people do you know?"
Who cares. Are you down to making the idiotic bullshit argument that it's impossible to reach a conclsuion on something unless you know some magic number of people who fit a certain category.
"How many count you as a friend and/or a trusted colleague?"
See above.
"How many trans kids do you know and cherish?"
See above.
So, None. You have no close trans friends or LGBTQ folk who consider you an ally. Got it. Not surprising, given your support for their tormenters.
You really can't bitch about me not answering enough of your questions when probably over half of your "responses" are just like this: NOT answers at all, just dodges, obfuscations and vague non-answers.
"Do you understand the point I'm making?"
I understand that the words you are saying do not match your actions. I have never once seen you offer an "expert" opinion that did not 100% agree with the narrative you were espousing. Not once offering a study that brings up some interesting issues, or the experiences of those who have suffered because of things you advocate.
"Now that I've dismantled your misconceptions, let me ask you AGAIN to answer the actual question that I'm actually asking:"
No you haven't, you've just announced that you did.
"I AM NOT SAYING ONLY LISTEN TO EXPERTS WHO TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY."
Please could you repeat yourself multiple times in the same comment? It's such an effective way to communicate.
"Do you understand the point I'm making?"
I understand the point you claim to be making, and I understand the message that you are actually communicating.
Again, condescension is such an effective means of communication.
"Seriously, if you can read my words that are straightforward and clear as can be and STILL repeatedly not understand, then why should we think you have a handle on "expert opinion..."?"
Ahhhhhhhhhh, the "My words can't possibly be doing a bad job of communicating my meaning, so the only possible option left is to condescendingly conclude that everyone else is incapable of understanding my wisdom." trope combined with the "If just repeat myself enough, and use enough ALL CAPS, I can badger my opponents into submission through emphatic repetition." gambit. Creative, but idiotic.
"Do you understand that coming out (gender, orientation) is a highly personal and in some cases, highly fraught and dangerous (emotionally, psychically and sometimes, physically) decision and if a child trusts a teacher to come out to, that teacher has some responsibilities to that child, in addition to that child's parents?"
I understand that you seem to believe that this alleged "responsibility" to the child, somehow overrides the rights of the parents. I also understand, from painful personal experience and much conversation with experts, that it's not unusual for children to overestimate the risks to themselves and the alleged danger from the parents. The fact that you or any agent of the state thinks that the best solution is to usurp the rights, prerogatives, and responsibilities of the parents by intentionally lying to them seems to undermine your alleged commitment to the parents involvement. Unless, of course, the parents do what you think they should.
"It would be nice if the courts would clearly address this, but it seems right that IF a child expressed fear of having their parents find out they're LGBTQ, then the wise and moral teacher would not "out" them. That would/should be their decision."
Interesting, you don't want "conservative congressmen" to legislate regulation of this issue, but you DO want liberal judges to legislate from the bench.
"If a child doesn't trust the parent to come out to them, there is often (not always) a reason for that."
So the "one size fits all" solution of for an agent of the State to usurp the rights, prerogatives, and responsibilities of the parent on the possibility that the parent might not react the way the child thinks the parents should.
"If a child fears abuse from a parent because of their orientation, do you support the professional's right to inform the pertinent authorities?"
What pertinent authorities would you suggest to unilaterally usurp the rights, prerogatives, and responsibilities of the parents? You don't want "conservative congressmen" to legislate regulatory boundaries, but your perfectly fine with some random agent of the State stepping in to hide the "transing" of a child from their parents.
"You can't just do it. You can't say, "I SUPPORT congress people making that call for the family," you have to stick with this vague non-answer."
I'm sticking with that very specific articulation of my position, because it is the best way I can articulate my position specifically.
All three branches of government have and do impose all sorts of regulation over all sorts of medical procedures, why this one particular "condition" should be exempt from the same sorts of regulation as every other medical procedure makes zero sense. Strangely enough, you vehemently support liberal legislators or judges removing virtually every restriction on abortion, yet none of them are "experts". But the double standard is to be expected.
"As to your concern about "GOP congress" it IS true that some Democrats will join with the GOP on these matters. But you should not be naive: This recent spate of legislative attacks on LGBTQ people and their families is distinctively, specifically GOP-driven. You can have the honesty to admit that, can't you?"
Ahhhhhh the partisan hackery keeps on coming. It's strange how much you loooooooooove legislators or judges who make laws that align with your worldview and narrative, but don't seem to grasp that you don't always "win" and the other side has convictions and standards too.
"So, None. You have no close trans friends or LGBTQ folk who consider you an ally. Got it. Not surprising, given your support for their tormenters."
Once again, Dan presumes to assert his superior intelligence or hubris, by making a pronouncement about something which has has ZERO basis to make this pronouncement. Hubirs and pride are dangerous things.
"You really can't bitch about me not answering enough of your questions when probably over half of your "responses" are just like this: NOT answers at all, just dodges, obfuscations and vague non-answers."
So your "complaint" is that I answer virtually all of your questions (at least once), but that you don't like my answers to around "half" (no data to back this up, just pulled out of your ass.) of your questions. Yet you ignore over half of my questions, and act like you've done me some sort of huge favor when you deign to answer a few every once and a while.
"Well, it is always entirely possible that local, state and federal gov't misspends dollars. It happens all the time. I believe we have a HUGE waste of tax dollars in our expansive military complex, for instance."
Oh well, overtaxing and waste is just something that we can't do anything or complain about unless it's the military.
"But that the state of Minnesota spent that particular $17 billion is not a sign that they weren't responsible. What was it spent on? Education programs? Prisoner rehab programs... programs that ultimately SAVE money and pay their own way? Or was it misspent somehow. You don't say. You just act as if the act of spending it was somehow wrong, in and of itself."
1. The responsible course of action would have been to refund the overcharge.
2. If you go to a store and they overcharge you, do you simply ignore it and pretend like they spent it on good and magical things, or do you expect a refund?
3. IF the money had been spent on one time expenses (fixing a bridge, building a school, etc) then you might be able to make that argument. Although I'd argue that the excess tax money was collected under false pretenses if it wasn't spent for things during the tax year of was collected.
4. Instead they chose to spend it on things that will require ongoing additional tax expenditures, which will necessitate RAISING taxes on everybody. They also decided to subsidize "the rich" and "middle class", and added regressive taxes that will affect "the poor" more harshly than "the rich". But sure, let your ignorance run free.
"I'd say it would depend on how they spent it."
Again with the "Because I say so." bullshit. I'd say give it back to the taxpayers who've been subjected to rising prices due to inflation, and give a break to one of the highest taxed populations in the country.
I guess the notion of giving back what isn't needed to pay "the bills" is foreign to you.
"Well, when you want to talk about drastically cutting the MASSIVE "defense" budget, let's talk."
I've written at least one blog post dedicated to cutting the military. The fact that you want to make this pronouncement as if I've ever not been willing to cut military spending, is simply you choosing fantasy over reality. The fact that you are incapable of acknowledging the need to cut anything BUT the military seems to indicate who is unwilling to "talk".
"Which of these programs is a waste of money? Says who? Based upon what?"
1. Where did I say that these two nameless programs were a waste of money?
2. How in the world could anyone do even a cursory CBA based on the complete lack of information?
3. I guess one place to start with a CBA would be to evaluate the success rate based on an examination by an unbiased person.
What an incredibly stupid, attempt to justify wasteful spending in any area YOU personally like.
"Now, will you admit that much?"
Not without actual proof.
"Well, it would depend on the business, wouldn't it? A corrupt multi-millions organization that refuses to cooperate, refuses to be transparent and may be abusing workers or not paying taxes? Sure, I support that. I'm TIRED of rich perverts getting by with fleecing the system and getting by with paying NOTHING or next to nothing.
Interesting. So as long as it wasn't a business that you consider to be too large, or corrupt, and all of the other conditions you just invented, you would oppose armed IRS agents storming a business. Are you really saying that you would condemn armed IRS agents storming a small business? You mean "rich perverts" like Hunter Biden, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, and the rest who visited Epstein's island?
"Do you support it in that kind of situation? (Maybe not armed, unless there's some reasonable threat.)"
Well, I don't support the notion of the IRS having armed enforcement agents at all. There are plenty of federal law enforcement agencies that could provide that sort of militarized support if needed.
What's interesting is that you seem to be supporting heavily armed, militarized, IRS agents assaulting a business which is full of unarmed people who are NOT threatening the IRS agents with violence. It's pretty bold when a strict pacifist like you advocated for militarizing the IRS.
"Who supports that?"
What in the hell do you think throwing away the debt ceiling for two years means? The DFL just ramrodded through the removal of the debt ceiling which is the primary mode of capping spending.
The notion that taxing a person 99.9% of their wealth, would result in an income of $100 million per year is absolutely insane and demonstrates your unfamiliarity between wealth and income. Wealth, is almost always NOT liquid. It's invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, and the like. If you were to force people to liquidate 99.9% of their wealth and take it in taxes, it would cause an economic backlash that would make COVID look like nothing. To flood the (for example) real estate market with a vast number of high dollar properties, while simultaneously removing the ability of people to afford those properties would result in a disastrous crash in real estate values. You know, when supply goes up and demand goes down, prices go down.
This has got to be the most out of touch with reality bullshit you've ever come up with.
"With "only" $100 million/year, do you think their opportunities are somehow limited?"
Yes. If they were using part of their $10 billion in income to pay 100,000 employees 50,000 per year, they would definitely have their opportunities limited.
BTW, by the time income becomes wealth, it's already been taxed at least once, and it's taxed again if it's spent on pretty much anything. How many times do you think the same income should be taxed?
"IT's NOT COERCIVE. YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR SHARE OF THE TAXES AND YOU, CRAIG, DO NOT GET TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHAT YOUR FAIR SHARE IS!"
Sure it is if there are penalties that can be imposed through the use of force. Interesting that YOU think that YOU can decide what someone else's tax rate should be, but don't think anyone else should have a say.
I'm done dealing with Dan's absurdly high number of comments, mostly just repeating himself with more and more VEHEMENCE as if that makes him right.
Many comments which belong on "the Rich," are showing up in this string.
"Done dealing with Dan's absurdly high number of comments..."
I was taking the time to answer your questions and clear up your misconceptions, misrepresentations of what I did and didn't say.
Dan
Glenn,
Sorry, as I was working through the vast number of comments from Dan in the limited amount of tile I had, I might have put some in the wrong place.
Dan,
Oh, that's what you were doing.
"Sure it is if there are penalties that can be imposed through the use of force..."
So, H Biden was just charged with failing to pay the taxes HE OWES. For his part, he admits he was wrong to not pay what he owes and accepts the penalty. Are you saying that Biden is being wrongly coerced into paying these penalties? Or do you agree with the courts and the rest of us that just because of his status and power, that of course he should pay the taxes he owes and the penalty for not paying them?
If you owe someone $10,000 for a car you bought from them, you can't just not pay and when you have penalties for not paying what you owe, say, "Oh no! I'm being oppressed and FORCED to pay this money!!" Similarly, you can't say, "well, I'm willing to pay $2000, but no more..."
When you're part of a society, we agree to pay taxes at the rate that we, the people, decide to set it. At that point, it's a debt we owe. You can't say, "I don't want to pay taxes," or, "I don't want to pay that rate."
You pay or you leave. Being held accountable for not paying your bills is not oppression.
Dan
"So, H Biden was just charged with failing to pay the taxes HE OWES. For his part, he admits he was wrong to not pay what he owes and accepts the penalty. Are you saying that Biden is being wrongly coerced into paying these penalties?"
No.
"Or do you agree with the courts and the rest of us that just because of his status and power, that of course he should pay the taxes he owes and the penalty for not paying them?"
No. Although his "status and power" certainly got him a pretty sweet plea agreement. How many people without his "status and power" would have gotten off so easily on a felony gun possession charge? If he was poor and black, do you think he could have gotten off so easily?
"If you owe someone $10,000 for a car you bought from them, you can't just not pay and when you have penalties for not paying what you owe, say, "Oh no! I'm being oppressed and FORCED to pay this money!!" Similarly, you can't say, "well, I'm willing to pay $2000, but no more...""
Sure you can. It happened all the time back during the housing crash. Maybe you aren't aware, but this is literally coercion. The threat of penalties/punishment is coercion. Or you can try to force other people to pay the debts that you incurred and try to avoid any penalties.
"When you're part of a society, we agree to pay taxes at the rate that we, the people, decide to set it. At that point, it's a debt we owe. You can't say, "I don't want to pay taxes," or, "I don't want to pay that rate.""
It's a "debt" that is collected under the threat of force, and therefore coercive.
"You pay or you leave. Being held accountable for not paying your bills is not oppression."
Finally something Dan thinks is worthy of deportation. Strangely enough, we as citizens are held to a much higher standard than the federal government when it comes to paying "our bills", and coercion.
Post a Comment