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

[Gypsy Nirvana]

That's a good question.

Something commonly practiced like circumcision was / is so normal parents hardly give it any consideration and just go along with it, "everybody does it, we don't want little Johnny to feel weird because his penis looks different than his dads".

The mother of my children (3 boys, all in their 30s now) worked as a nurse when my kids were born and I was busy working lots of hours, and more or less let her make our family medical choices. They got circumcised and I didn't think much about it then.

If it were today and I was a young father I might reconsider.

Chopping bits off kids - who can't even consent to bits being chopped off 'em - should be wrong - from the get-go - whether it's a foreskin - or the whole banana - the kid can't make a proper decision for itself like that - till it's fully grown - has mental faculties - and physical attributes of an adult - not till then - not till it's old enough - to know exactly what's going on - and any implications considered seriously -

 

[Captain Red Eye]

You’re stuck on that comparison and it’s a reach.

Parental consent vs medical harm

You keep ignoring the bigger issue of safety and I understand why. .

Except I was responding to the erroneous claim you made that the law is what determines consent.

I gave an example where that's not accurate and showed where some laws conflict with other laws. (see the 17 year old fellow example). At least one of the conflicting laws must then be wrong. The same person can't have and not have the ability to consent to the same damn thing at virtually the same time.

Also, I've stated my personal preference isn't that children have surgery or consume hormone drugs etc. My preferences for how I think other people should behave don't grant me the right to make them behave the way I'd prefer they do though if their behavior isn't curtailing any of my rights.

You and I have similar preferences regarding child gender preferences. I'm just more reluctant to replace parental choices with government intervention being the ONLY choice.

You don't have to believe me, that's your choice.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

Except I was responding to the erroneous claim you made that the law is what determines consent.

I gave an example where that's not accurate and showed where some laws conflict with other laws. (see the 17 year old fellow example). At least one of the conflicting laws must then be wrong. The same person can't have and not have the ability to consent to the same damn thing at virtually the same time.

Also, I've stated my personal preference isn't that children have surgery or consume hormone drugs etc. My preferences for how I think other people should behave don't grant me the right to make them behave the way I'd prefer they do though if their behavior isn't curtailing any of my rights.

You and I have similar preferences regarding child gender preferences. I'm just more reluctant to replace parental choices with government intervention being the ONLY choice.

You don't have to believe me, that's your choice.

That was a response to your claim that minors can consent. You are twisting things here to fit the narrative.

Read about “Legal Consent” or “ Contractual Capacity “ and then tell me how a minor can legally consent when the law tells us minors lack mental capacity?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Chopping bits off kids - who can't even consent to bits being chopped off 'em - should be wrong - from the get-go - whether it's a foreskin - or the whole banana - the kid can't make a proper decision for itself like that - till it's fully grown - has mental faculties - and physical attributes of an adult - not till then - not till it's old enough - to know exactly what's going on - and any implications considered seriously -

That is my preference. As in, I wish people wouldn't do that. Not sure if it's an absolute though.

If a child is born with a tail, an extra but useless shriveled arm, or something like that, I could see where a parent might make a choice to have it removed. Although a prehensile tail might be handy if the kid later becomes a roofer.

Also, I don't think some childrens biology is necessarily the same as when you and I were kids. I think many more kids these days are born with ambiguities and that adds complications.

I make the distinction between things I wish people wouldn't do and the things I have a right to prevent them from doing. Admittedly, I sometimes question if that is a paradox.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

Parents don’t have the “legal right” to consent that a minor can engage in certain activities that are illegal and deemed not safe. If they do, it’s textbook child abuse.

You keep dancing wrong the safety and efficacy of these drugs and procedures.
So your argument is parents should have the right to shut down a child’s endocrine system because they are simply a parent ?

 

[eastcoastjoe]

Also, I don't think some childrens biology is necessarily the same as when you and I were kids. I think many more kids these days are born with ambiguities and that adds complications.

What is different about a child’s biology that justifies life altering surgery or hormone disruption ? Please enlighten us.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

I'm just more reluctant to replace parental choices with government intervention being the ONLY choice.

Parents should not have the right to consent to any procedure that can alter a life in such a way that it is beyond repair. There is another choice that is more rational and logic. Offer these treatments to legal adults that can understand the magnitude of the choice they will be making for their body. No one should be able to cosign something like that for anyone.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

You are twisting things here to fit the narrative.

No, I took your assertion, "the law determines consent" literally. I answered with examples that literally disproved that.

I'm not secretly hoping people will alter their kids to fit a narrative.
I'm actively wishing people on that topic wouldn't, and stated or implied that several times.

I'm just not sure where the line is for me, philosophically. to intervene. I care more for principle than arbitrary laws.

I try to live by the golden rule and some things are obviously more clear about how to proceed than others. This topic is one of them for me.

I have no hidden agenda there. Again you and I share preferences, our disagreement is who we think has the greater responsibility to make your kids choices until they can make that choice. You, the parent or a third party.

My main point is my preferences for what other people should do, don't automatically grant me rights to enforce my preferences on them.

At 17 were you capable of literally consenting to sex? I sure hope you were.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

No, I took your assertion, "the law determines consent" literally. I answered with examples that literally disproved that.

You didn’t disprove anything. What you’re doing is narrowly focusing on one thing I said and trying to disprove that because you can’t really debate the real issue that I have been repeating for weeks. The safety of these treatments. Specifically hormone blockers.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

What is different about a child’s biology that justifies life altering surgery or hormone disruption ? Please enlighten us.

I haven't read up on it to a great extent, but it's my belief some children today are born with more ambiguity than those born when we may have been kids. I wish that weren't the case, but it seems observable, lower testosterone levels etc.

Parents don’t have the “legal right” to consent that a minor can engage in certain activities that are illegal and deemed not safe

I never said they did. I pointed out that "legal rights" regarding consent are not fixed, and gave a good example illustrating that. I understand you have strong convictions on this, but please don't assign me words I never said.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

I haven't read up on it to a great extent, but it's my belief some children today are born with more ambiguity than those born when we may have been kids. I wish that weren't the case, but it seems observable, lower testosterone levels etc.

Then what you are suggesting is pure conjecture

I never said they did. I pointed out that "legal rights" regarding consent are not fixed, and gave a good example illustrating that. I understand you have strong convictions on this, but please don't assign me words I never said.

Then why argue parents should have the right to consent to something they is clearly dangerous for a minor ? The example you gave is a far cry for why we should allow parents to block hormones to kids who are just starting puberty

 

[Captain Red Eye]

You didn’t disprove anything. What you’re doing is narrowly focusing on one thing I said and trying to disprove that because you can’t really debate the real issue that I have been repeating for weeks. The safety of these treatments. Specifically hormone blockers.

So, a 17 year old crossing a border loses and regains his actual ability to consent depending on where he is physically? I think I offered examples which disprove that. You seemed to believe laws are what imbues a given person with the wherewithal to give consent. If the laws conflict with each other, in reality, they can't both be right. That was the point I made, you chose not to address that.

I've made no debate with you on whether hormone blockers are safe or not. You've made it clear you believe they are. I didn't disprove that and really didn't make an attempt to do so.

My main point all along is who has the higher claim on what happens to a given child, the parents or a 3rd party. I also admitted my preference is that I hope parents wouldn't alter their kids. I questioned when or if I have the right to intervene. I think I've been consistent there and have no problem admitting error if you can give a good example.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

So, a 17 year old crossing a border loses and regains his actual ability to consent depending on where he is physically? I think I offered examples which disprove that. You seemed to believe laws are what imbues a given person with the wherewithal to give consent. If the laws conflict with each other, in reality, they can't both be right. That was the point I made, you chose not to address that.

I've made no debate with you on whether hormone blockers are safe or not. You've made it clear you believe they are. I didn't disprove that and really didn't make an attempt to do so.

My main point all along is who has the higher claim on what happens to a given child, the parents or a 3rd party. I also admitted my preference is that I hope parents wouldn't alter their kids. I questioned when or if I have the right to intervene. I think I've been consistent there and have no problem admitting error if you can give a good example.

I’m not sure why you are stuck on the 17 year old argument because that clearly has nothing to do with the issue here. We are talking about gender surgery and hormone blockers. What border can a 17 year old cross and get gender surgery without a parental consent?

The issue here is wether or not parental consent should exist for this because of the clear danger it can cause to a minor , who can not legally consent because they aren’t of the mental capacity to make that type of decision.

You are doing the same thing everyone else does by disregarding the part wether parental rights should exist on this issue

 

[Captain Red Eye]

we should allow parents

I'm not the person that "allows" other people to do things. I have a right to prevent people from doing things to me if it violates my rights. If the thing they are doing is in line with their preferences, but also violates my rights, I have a right to defend against this.

I make a distinction between my preferences and my rights, hence I see that distinction for other people too.

Admittedly, as you have so vociferously argued, the should parents alter their kids topic can be construed as they have no right to do that. Then you should intervene, but if it were illegal to do so and you did anyway, would you then be violating the consent of the parent? You said the law determines consent, would it then?

 

[eastcoastjoe]

I'm not the person that "allows" other people to do things. I have a right to prevent people from doing things to me if it violates my rights. If the thing they are doing is in line with their preferences, but also violates my rights, I have a right to defend against this.

I make a distinction between my preferences and my rights, hence I see that distinction for other people too.

Admittedly, as you have so vociferously argued, the should parents alter their kids topic can be construed as they have no right to do that. Then you should intervene, but if it were illegal to do so and you did anyway, would you then be violating the consent of the parent? You said the law determines consent, would it then?

It currently is legal and my position is I don’t think it should be legal for minors. If it were made illegal , parents could not LEGALLY CONSENT to these treatments because they would be unavailable
You can twist words however you like. Rush doesn’t change the fact that these procedures are dangerous and are not logical for minors to have access to

 

[Captain Red Eye]

I’m not sure why you are stuck on the 17 year old argument because that clearly has nothing to do with the issue here

I'm stuck on it, because you made the argument, 'the law determines consent". I responded to it with solid evidence it isn't so. Had I been in your shoes, I'd have admitted the law doesn't determine consent literally. The wherewithal of the individual is what determines that. You seemed intent on not admitting that, so it gained a life of its own. Can you admit it now?

You then got frustrated (apparently, hard to read emotions online) and tried to paint me into a corner about having a "narrative".

My narrative has been plain, I distinguish between my preferences and what my rights are, for me and for other people. I have a hard time with the topic of what is the right thing to do in this instance, it seems almost paradoxical to me. I will think on this more, I'm not unwilling to reconsider my position, since I already prefer people wouldn't do that. It's compounded by my belief some kids really are hormonally messed up even without the hormone blockers.

Honestly, you might want to consider finding a person that is in direct conflict with you to argue the points about hormone blockers. I'm not that guy. Not trying to be a wise guy here either.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

I'm stuck on it, because you made the argument, 'the law determines consent". I responded to it with solid evidence it isn't so. Had I been in your shoes, I'd have admitted the law doesn't determine consent literally. The wherewithal of the individual is what determines that. You seemed intent on not admitting that, so it gained a life of its own. Can you admit it now?

You then got frustrated (apparently, hard to read emotions online) and tried to paint me into a corner about having a "narrative".

My narrative has been plain, I distinguish between my preferences and what my rights are, for me and for other people. I have a hard time with the topic of what is the right thing to do in this instance, it seems almost paradoxical to me. I will think on this more, I'm not unwilling to reconsider my position, since I already prefer people wouldn't do that. It's compounded by my belief some kids really are hormonally messed up even without the hormone blockers.

Honestly, you might want to consider finding a person that is in direct conflict with you to argue the points about hormone blockers. I'm not that guy. Not trying to be a wise guy here either.

You said 17 year old, I said minors. Can 13 year olds cross a Border and legally have sex with a 40 year old man with mommys permission ?

Can that same 17 year old have his own medical insurance policy? What about if they need surgery, can they roll up to the hospital and sign a LEGAL CONSENT FORM for treatment ?

Can any minor have LEGAL PARENTAL CONSENT to go use heroin ? What if they identify as an amputee and want to remove both legs ?

 

[eastcoastjoe]

I'm stuck on it, because you made the argument, 'the law determines consent

In this case it does. If these procedures are made unlawful to minors, how can parents consent to something unavailable due to legality ?
Same way illicit drugs are illegal because of public safety ? Same reason there is a LEGAL age of consent for sex

 

[eastcoastjoe]

Honestly, you might want to consider finding a person that is in direct conflict with you to argue the points about hormone blockers. I'm not that guy. Not trying to be a wise guy here either.

Are you saying you agree they are harmful ?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

It currently is legal and my position is I don’t think it should be legal for minors. If it were made illegal , parents could not LEGALLY CONSENT to these treatments because they would be unavailable

You seem really stuck on the idea if something is legal or not.

I'm more concerned if something is rightful or not. Which is why I hesitate to advocate for a 3rd party, especially if it's government to have the final say. They've fucked things up pretty regularly for a long time when allowed to do that. I've admitted I'm torn on the right thing to do in these situations.

This reminds me of another example.

Did slaves have the right to run away when it was illegal to do so? Or should they have gotten on their cell phone, dialed up their "representative" and begged them to change the law before leaving the Plantation?

I contend slaves should have "illegally" (gasp) beaten the shit out of their enslavers and run away from people that "legally" violated their consent.

Maybe you should open a home for about to be abused hormonally imbalanced kids and get all John Brown (1800s gun toting abolitionist) on what you consider bad parents. Since my preferences are I wish parents wouldn't do that, I'd be unlikely to try to stop you from freeing the children.