What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Trump thread part 2 (Or anything else we want to talk about that's ridiculous in politics today)

eastcoastjoe

Well-known member
It's about to get bumpy for everyone making less the 400K per year. Maybe even for some billionaires depending on how they make their billions. Big tax cuts don't help much when you're source of income dries up because everyone you once sold to can't afford even the bare necessities because of hyperinflation due to poorly though out tarrifs and the countries they're directed at retaliate by taking their imports and exports somewhere else.

Are we are supposed to let foreign countries flood our market with cheap goods while our exports are taxed ? That doesn’t seem like a fair way to do business
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
If a child wishes to cut off a perfectly working arm for identity/aesthetic reasons, (trans handicap) no parental action should bring that about, and no medical professional should be allowed to perform the procedure.

You've made that clear and I think we share that as our preference for our kids.

I just don't think we share that it's the right of a non-parental 3rd party to intervene.

My preferences about what others should do or don't do with their body or their kids don't grant me rights to intervene. I can try to persuade or even disassociate from them, but I'm careful about intervening.

That's why I said "harm" can be subjective. What would be deemed harmful to you and I, may not be deemed harmful by other people. I'd probably be in agreement with you, that there should be an intervention of some sort, if the kid was not onboard and was obviously not onboard. It's a difficult topic and I admit very emotional.

Thanks for presenting your ideas respectfully. I appreciate that.
 

eastcoastjoe

Well-known member
That's why I said "harm" can be subjective

How is chemically assaulting a child, subjective ? Hormone blockers or Hornine replacement can wreak havoc on the body. Some of these hormones do more than just control sexual or reproductive function.

Blocking a child’s hormonal pathways while there body is beginning to develop is a terrible idea.
 

eastcoastjoe

Well-known member
I don't think it's safe to default to third nonparental parties having a higher say than parents.

Please see my recent response to Hidden Jems. Thanks for conversing with me respectfully. Appreciated.

Parents can’t consent to a child smoking crack or shooting heroin. Some regulations are in place for a reason. This is beyond personal freedom. This is child abuse.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Parents can’t consent to a child smoking crack or shooting heroin. Some regulations are in place for a reason. This is beyond personal freedom. This is child abuse.

I don't think it's a good idea for parents to consent to their kid smoking crack or to carving up their genitals. Although parents certainly can consent to it.

You imply that a law is what determines whether or not a person can consent or not. That's not accurate.

What is legal and illegal do not mirror what people can consent to or not consent to. They are two independent things.

Weed is illegal federally. That doesn't mean it's impossible for us pot heads to consent to using it. In fact I'm about to consent to testing some Wedding Pie in a few minutes.

I think regulations which distance parents from control over their kids are a slippery slope. I'd rather you make choices about your kids than some other people.
 

eastcoastjoe

Well-known member
I don't think it's a good idea for parents to consent to their kid smoking crack or to carving up their genitals. Although parents certainly can consent to it.

You imply that a law is what determines whether or not a person can consent or not. That's not accurate.

What is legal and illegal do not mirror what people can consent to or not consent to. They are two independent things.

Weed is illegal federally. That doesn't mean it's impossible for us pot heads to consent to using it. In fact I'm about to consent to testing some Wedding Pie in a few minutes.

I think regulations which distance parents from control over their kids are a slippery slope. I'd rather you make choices about your kids than some other people.

A law does determine consent. Choosing to ignore that law is what determines the consequence. If any parent consents to letting their child smoke crack there are consequences. Because it is harmful and considered child abuse.

As far as the other things you said, you are choosing to do those things as an adult. Smoking weed though is a far cry from shutting down a child’s endocrine system. The health risks are not even comparable
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
A law does determine consent.

I disagree. Consent by definition is an individual thing, not something others can impose on you. Some people can and do consent to things which are unlawful.

Some laws attempt to redefine consent as being only things within the parameters of a legislative act.
But voting a blue sky is orange when it's really blue does not turn the sky orange by the magic of a law saying it is.

Our rights do not come from other people, nor does whether or not we as individuals actually consent or not.

Slaves as human beings were lawfully "unable to consent", that didn't mean they didn't have the ability to consent or not, it meant their owners used legal means to redefine the meaning of a word.

The force of a law isn't what determines actual consent. Again, weed smoking, all those times you torched one up when it was illegal...you consented to it I assume?
 

Hiddenjems

Well-known member
You've made that clear and I think we share that as our preference for our kids.

I just don't think we share that it's the right of a non-parental 3rd party to intervene.

My preferences about what others should do or don't do with their body or their kids don't grant me rights to intervene. I can try to persuade or even disassociate from them, but I'm careful about intervening.

That's why I said "harm" can be subjective. What would be deemed harmful to you and I, may not be deemed harmful by other people. I'd probably be in agreement with you, that there should be an intervention of some sort, if the kid was not onboard and was obviously not onboard. It's a difficult topic and I admit very emotional.

Thanks for presenting your ideas respectfully. I appreciate that.
Removing working body parts from a person not of age is harm, objectively.

The recent self important trend has some people believing subjective reality to be somehow more real than objective reality. When generations have been groomed to believe their current emotional state is reality “their truth”, strange actions ensure.

But hey, if you’re over 18 you can play dress up however you like with your body.


The biggest issue now with the whole trans identity belief system is the huge numbers of teen girls who are being confused to death, literally.
 

eastcoastjoe

Well-known member
I disagree. Consent by definition is an individual thing, not something others can impose on you. Some people can and do consent to things which are unlawful.

Some laws attempt to redefine consent as being only things within the parameters of a legislative act.
But voting a blue sky is orange when it's really blue does not turn the sky orange by the magic of a law saying it is.

Our rights do not come from other people, nor does whether or not we as individuals actually consent or not.

Slaves as human beings were lawfully "unable to consent", that didn't mean they didn't have the ability to consent or not, it meant their owners used legal means to redefine the meaning of a word.

The force of a law isn't what determines actual consent. Again, weed smoking, all those times you torched one up when it was illegal...you consented to it I assume?

Let your minor child have sex with an adult and share that with the public. Your consent will mean nothing when you are incarcerated. I see what your trying to do here but it doesn’t fit this argument.

Medical procedures are lawful. If made unlawful, doctors would not perform them and your consent would mean nothing. We are talking about lawful consent in reality. You are making this theoretical
 

Hiddenjems

Well-known member
Let your minor child have sex with an adult and share that with the public. Your consent will mean nothing when you are incarcerated. I see what your trying to do here but it doesn’t fit this argument.

Medical procedures are lawful. If made unlawful, doctors would not perform them and your consent would mean nothing. We are talking about lawful consent in reality. You are making this theoretical
When an institution or accredited individual says anything they agree with they use an appeal to authority logical fallacy. When institutions and individuals go against their narrative it’s because they’re built by racist transphobes.
 

eastcoastjoe

Well-known member
When an institution or accredited individual says anything they agree with they use an appeal to authority logical fallacy. When institutions and individuals go against their narrative it’s because they’re built by racist transphobes.

That sounds correct. I’ve just accepted the fact that if I believe in common sense, that means I am racist transphobic bigot 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Removing working body parts from a person not of age is harm, objectively.

I'm tempted to agree with you. I'd prefer people didn't do that. Although I return to my assertion value and harm can be subjective.

Me randomly coming up to you and slugging you, isn't nice and I'd consider it a harm if you did it to me or I did it to you.

If you were a person that liked being slugged and begged me to slug you, and I did and you derived satisfaction from my half assed old man punch, would it still be harmful to you objectively? I'm not sure it would.

Would you object to a person that has both male and female genitalia having one or the other altered on the say of their parents?
 

Hiddenjems

Well-known member
I'm tempted to agree with you. I'd prefer people didn't do that. Although I return to my assertion value and harm can be subjective.

Me randomly coming up to you and slugging you, isn't nice and I'd consider it a harm if you did it to me or I did it to you.

If you were a person that liked being slugged and begged me to slug you, and I did and you derived satisfaction from my half assed old man punch, would it still be harmful to you objectively? I'm not sure it would.

Would you object to a person that has both male and female genitalia having one or the other altered on the say of their parents?
Not at all, because both of them can’t work fully.

There is a huge difference between having intersex, or otherwise deformed genitalia operated on. This is actually helpful.

Cutting off parts that work because a confused kid thinks it’ll help how awful they feel inside is a different story.


There needs to be a longer road between the idea of going through this process, and getting physically altering treatments.


As is, the moment a child mentions to a therapist that they believe they’re trans they are put on a path where drugs and surgeries are the treatments.


Think adhd and stimulants. So many kids over medicated.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Your consent will mean nothing when you are incarcerated. I see what your trying to do here but it doesn’t fit this argument.

I was responding specifically to your claim that the law determines consent. No, the law doesn't determine whether an individual person consented or not. Best it can do is try to control it and punish people who don't obey the law. Two different things.

People can and do consent to things which are unlawful. Describing how people will be punished if they consent to things which may be unlawful doesn't mean the consent doesn't exist.

Say a young fellow of 17 was in one state that said he couldn't consent to sex in that state. He travels 2 miles to another state which says he can consent and he does consent. Has himself a grand old time. He then returns to the more restrictive state, did his wherewithal to consent suddenly leap out of his body the second he crossed an imaginary line border? If he goes to back to the State which "allows" him to fornicate, the ability then leaps back into his body?

What magic is that ? How could that even happen?
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
Are we are supposed to let foreign countries flood our market with cheap goods while our exports are taxed ? That doesn’t seem like a fair way to do business
Will it really matter when the markets we depended on to sell our goods to no longer are willing to buy our goods?
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Not at all, because both of them can’t work fully.

There is a huge difference between having intersex, or otherwise deformed genitalia operated on. This is actually helpful.

Cutting off parts that work because a confused kid thinks it’ll help how awful they feel inside is a different story.


There needs to be a longer road between the idea of going through this process, and getting physically altering treatments.


As is, the moment a child mentions to a therapist that they believe they’re trans they are put on a path where drugs and surgeries are the treatments.


Think adhd and stimulants. So many kids over medicated.

We have similar preferences and you bring up interesting points I can't rebut. I remain reluctant to assign or default to non-parents having legal priority over parents.

Also, I think children these days aren't the same as children before, in the sense there is more biological ambiguity than kids from previous generations. I think that can complicate things.
 

eastcoastjoe

Well-known member
I was responding specifically to your claim that the law determines consent. No, the law doesn't determine whether an individual person consented or not. Best it can do is try to control it and punish people who don't obey the law. Two different things.

People can and do consent to things which are unlawful. Describing how people will be punished if they consent to things which may be unlawful doesn't mean the consent doesn't exist.

Say a young fellow of 17 was in one state that said he couldn't consent to sex in that state. He travels 2 miles to another state which says he can consent and he does consent. Has himself a grand old time. He then returns to the more restrictive state, did his wherewithal to consent suddenly leap out of his body the second he crossed an imaginary line border? If he goes to back to the State which "allows" him to fornicate, the ability then leaps back into his body?

What magic is that ? How could that even happen?

The law determines consent on many things tSexual consent, alcohol consumption, tobacco use. Voting, serving your country. The list goes on.

Age of consent has everything to do with mental competence. You are still talking hypothetically and not the reality of this specific issue.

A child can not consent to something they don’t understand. Parents shouldn’t have the right to consent for a child, to harmful treatments they can’t even understand. Not one advocate for the right to choose can debate the safety of using hormone blockers on young developing children
 
Top