Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Trebaxian Vir]

Jarhyn,

Sir & Madam, I must express my disappointment with your reply. It is deficient in content and seems to be a mere congeries of meaningless and inapposite phrases. Pure gibberish.​

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn,

Sir & Madam, I must express my disappointment with your reply. It is deficient in content and seems to be a mere congeries of meaningless and inapposite phrases. Pure gibberish.​

It is in fact a textbook argument from idiocy to state that because you personally cannot understand something, it is wrong.

If you were to provide details on some syntax error that generates a failure to parse, I would set you straight, but you didn't. You just waved your hands and whined.

You are not actually making a very good case against the "3 kids in a trenchcoat" theory.

 

[TomC]

It is in fact a textbook argument from idiocy to state that because you personally cannot understand something, it is wrong.

You're discussing this with an internet poster who's education does not extend far enough to realize that the existence of the "condition" of homosexuality has been demonstrated.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

It is in fact a textbook argument from idiocy to state that because you personally cannot understand something, it is wrong.

You're discussing this with an internet poster who's education does not extend far enough to realize that the existence of the "condition" of homosexuality has been demonstrated.
Tom

Fair enough.

And a flat earther no less.

They rejected my "position" when the position they quoted to reject is that there is currently are 10 million adult eunuchs, Hijra, many who sought out entry to the Hijra community themselves prior to or during early puberty. It was merely an observation that there are adults who are eunuchs! And they "rejected" it.

Like, it doesn't get any more "sophisticated" than that*. And by that I mean "resulting from sophistry"

*It does, I'm being hyperbolic.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

It is in fact a textbook argument from idiocy to state that because you personally cannot understand something, it is wrong.​

You're discussing this with an internet poster who's education does not extend far enough to realize that the existence of the "condition" of homosexuality has been demonstrated.​

I assure you, I am thoroughly conversant with your belief system. For I too was once a believer in the same dogma. In fact, I can argue your side of the debate with greater clarity and persuasion than you could ever hope to achieve yourself.
 The passive assent to dogmatic teachings is not exactly the epitome of erudition. You may hold the contrary perspective, but I urge you to entertain an alternative point of view.
 In your world, the more dogmas one can swallow like a well-trained parrot, the more educated one is deemed to be. But in my view, a better mark of an erudite mind would be the number of falsehoods one is able to see through and reject with aplomb.
 Anyway, for the sake of your own intelligence, do entertain the notion that there may be other avenues of thought worth exploring than those with which you were indoctrinated. Unshackle yourself from your preconceptions. Grant yourself the gift of intellectual curiosity.
 It is only through the fearless exploration of differing ideas that one can truly broaden and enrich one's understanding of the world.
​

 

[TomC]

For I too was once a believer in the same dogma. In fact, I can your side of the debate with greater clarity and persuasion than you could ever hope to achieve yourself.

I beg to differ.

But I don't care enough to discuss.
Tom

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

It is in fact a textbook argument from idiocy to state that because you personally cannot understand something, it is wrong.​

You're discussing this with an internet poster who's education does not extend far enough to realize that the existence of the "condition" of homosexuality has been demonstrated.
Tom​

And a flat earther no less.​

Every repetition of this falsehood, so thoroughly debunked and discredited, shall be met with a reiteration of the correction. The malicious intention to besmirch my character with baseless slander, merely because of a disagreement in viewpoint. shall not be tolerated. You persist in perpetrating a falsehood, despite having been corrected on the matter not once, but twice. Your disagreement with my opinion does not provide you with immunity to engage in slander. No matter; as I say, I shall simply repeat my correction each and every time you persist in repeating this lie. Setting the record straight is no skin off my nose. It's just a matter of copying and pasting this exact message verbatim every time you repeat the slander.
 You have accused me of subscribing to the belief in a flat earth, which I assure you is most erroneous. I am what is called a sceptic, inclined to cast doubt upon all things, and to subject all things to the closest scrutiny. I have a deep-seated distrust of claims that are made without evidence, & I am ever vigilant against the seductions of ideology.
 Your ideological tribalism, however, strikes me as most curious. You appear to define your tribe along the lines of ideology, rather than by bloodlines, & you have attempted to place me within the confines of an opposing tribe. But I am not so easily confined. Radical scepticism resists categorisation, & I shall not be swayed by the ideological prejudices of others.
 I must confess, I am pleased that your co-ideologues had recently brought to my attention the idea of a flat earth. For although I have not hitherto given the notion the slightest consideration, the inordinately hostile response with which my sceptical inquiries were received, and the mendacity with which you have attempted to place me within an ideological camp to which I have hitherto been jolly indifferent, has sparked my curiosity.
 It is my experience that whenever a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry provokes this degree of unwarranted animosity, investigating the claims of the dissenting group invariably proves a most fruitful endeavour.
 Therefore, I now feel compelled to examine the arguments put forth by the proponents of the flat earth theory. Naturally, I shall subject their claims to the same rigorous scrutiny that I apply to all other ideas.​

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

For I too was once a believer in the same dogma. In fact, I can your side of the debate with greater clarity and persuasion than you could ever hope to achieve yourself.​

I beg to differ.​

You would beg, wouldn't you? Well, please do not feel compelled to grovel and plead for permission to hold an alternate viewpoint in my presence. I find it disgusting. One need not be a defeated soul just to express disagreement.
 It does seem that you are ensnared in a labyrinth of ideological error, and if you are to extricate yourself from this perilous state, you must exert a greater degree of intellectual fortitude.
 The path of truth is not an easy one to traverse, but with unwavering determination and an unflagging spirit, even you can aspire to a more accurate understanding of the truth.​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jarhyn,

Sir & Madam, I must express my disappointment with your reply. It is deficient in content and seems to be a mere congeries of meaningless and inapposite phrases. Pure gibberish.​

*telephone rings*

Hey Pa... there is a Pot on the phone for you.

 

[Toni]

...​

Also, there seems to be the peculiar attitude that transgender procedures are common and considered a formality... someone says something, then the surgery is that afternoon like if they had a burst appendix. That isn't how this works. So I'm uncertain why people are going as if it is.

Bad faith, a desire to see kids hurt for personal amusement or vindication, a desire to spin rhetoric towards reproductive supremacy, or some other such thing.

To quote someone who is most certainly not three kids in a trenchcoat:
Pure evil.

I don't think anyone or hardly anyone wants to see kids hurt. I think a lot of people don't really understand the issues, are concerned about irreversible life changing surgery and treatments for young children and some people simply do not believe that trans individuals exist.

 

[Oleg]

The pendulum looks to be swinging back from crazy.

Governor Kotek: Churchill assignment 'woefully inappropriate and unacceptable'

The governor is "appalled" at a Churchill High School Health 2 - Human Sexuality assignment where students were asked to write about a sexual fantasy.In a state

katu.com

The governor is "appalled" at a Churchill High School Health 2 - Human Sexuality assignment where students were asked to write about a sexual fantasy.

 

[ZiprHead]

You would beg, wouldn't you? Well, please do not feel compelled to grovel and plead for permission to hold an alternate viewpoint in my presence. I find it disgusting. One need not be a defeated soul just to express disagreement.

It does seem that you are ensnared in a labyrinth of ideological error, and if you are to extricate yourself from this perilous state, you must exert a greater degree of intellectual fortitude.

The path of truth is not an easy one to traverse, but with unwavering determination and an unflagging spirit, even you can aspire to a more accurate understanding of the truth.

It's like Donald Trump was mated with a dictionary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...​

Also, there seems to be the peculiar attitude that transgender procedures are common and considered a formality... someone says something, then the surgery is that afternoon like if they had a burst appendix. That isn't how this works. So I'm uncertain why people are going as if it is.

Bad faith, a desire to see kids hurt for personal amusement or vindication, a desire to spin rhetoric towards reproductive supremacy, or some other such thing.

To quote someone who is most certainly not three kids in a trenchcoat:
Pure evil.

I don't think anyone or hardly anyone wants to see kids hurt. I think a lot of people don't really understand the issues, are concerned about irreversible life changing surgery and treatments for young children and some people simply do not believe that trans individuals exist.

I think some people are so self absorbed that they can't imagine life outside their own experiences and those around them. And if it is foreign to them, it can't be good.

With trans, poeople said stupidly, "Well I put on my mother's shoes as a kid, that doesn't mean I'm trans." No shit Sherlock.

 

[Oleg]

With trans, poeople said stupidly, "Well I put on my mother's shoes as a kid, that doesn't mean I'm trans." No shit Sherlock.

Yeah. That's why such behavior shouldn't be used to diagnose a child as trans. Let them be children. Let them grow up.

 

[Jarhyn]

For I too was once a believer in the same dogma. In fact, I can your side of the debate with greater clarity and persuasion than you could ever hope to achieve yourself.

I beg to differ.

But I don't care enough to discuss.
Tom

The fact is that they fail to explain what they believed or why they believed it, so we all can fairly well assume that they are merely Lying for Jesus.

You shouldn't feel bad about not caring to discuss because they haven't actually discussed anything yet.

They have repeated claims, made exactly in the model of the sort of false claims people make, in exactly the sort of way people do specifically when the claims are false: without detail, or any examination of defense.

13 year olds are not adults.

If someone wants to fuck a 13 year old, don't. They should find an adult who will act like they are 13, and fuck the adult instead.

But instead of finding adults to roleplay and fuck, most such people take measures that loudly decry people who are more visible than them (and visible because they find ethical channels for their preferences, no less), so as to not be seen as they bottle up their feelings to the point that they engineer an excuse or opportunity to touch children.

I was more convinced at the adulthood of one Vincent Adultman of Bojack fame.

 

[Toni]

The fact is, I have already discussed why there's no need or call to discuss the cornucopia of kinks other than to help someone know from all the rest of us that it's normal to like, really be into sniffing smelly socks or whatever, and that can be accomplished by a book on the shelf on the library.

My biggest question for all the parents who would object to reference material on the observed divergence of the human sexual condition is if they really actually want their kid to grow up unable to ask his perspective sex partners if they're into having them sniff their feet at an appropriate stage in pursuit of a relationship, as if they want them to live in a world where when the discussion is broached, they are laughed at or scolded rather than simply answered, allowed to be either happy or disappointed, and step forward to ask the next person (or not, as needs dictate).

Learning how to have healthy social and yes sexual relationships requires understanding that certain things are a lot more normal than a teenage peer group may be aware of.

That involves having open access to books, and, yes, teachers that will answer their questions honestly and openly as appropriate, and explain through the reasons inappropriate questions are not answered.

If parents are up in arms about access to information that keeps people safe and delays the onset of shared sexual behaviors, they can BE up in arms until they get over it.

It would be a very rare person, much less teacher, who could openly answer any question about sex and sexuality with the knowledge, compassion coupled with detachment and lack of judgment. It's not that easy to do to talk to your own kids. Mine did not particularly want certain information from me--and we're only talking condoms.

Whether or not you think that parents getting up in arms will simply be some minor thing or not, you are wrong: MUCH less has caused more strife than you can imagine. I can remember maybe 25 years ago, the local high school auditorium filling to the brim, with overflow in the school lobby because, get this: the school had put up posters suggesting that if your friend came out to you as gay, you should be supportive. You know, instead of ridiculing them or beating them up. Ultimately, the posters came down because they were published by--get this: a Lutheran church (I forget which synod). So you can imagine just how low key they were. And nope, people were not up in arms because they didn't go far enough or because they were published by a church: They did not want schools to suggest that being gay was OK in any way, shape or form.

The fact is that no sex education course at any school is going to be so all encompassing that they cover all or perhaps most possibilities. The best thing is to cover basic principles: What causes pregnancy, with an emphasis that girls and women do not necessarily ovulate on a predictable schedule so that window of time when pregnancy can occur is not set in stone, is variable in duration and timing and can even happen more than once in a single month. That sex is natural, normal and should not cause pain for anyone. That participants should feel pleasure. That consent --clear and enthusiastic consent is mandatory! What parts of the body produce its own lubrication and what does not. What kind of lubricant is necessary or advisable in what kind of situation. The incompatibility of many lubricants and most condoms. The fact that condoms and birth control pills and every form of birth control invented has some non-zero failure rate. That if something is causing pain, it should be stopped immediately. That pleasure is supposed to be mutual. Also ==and this would be extremely controversial in virtually any school: various forms that sexuality takes.

And that is not even touching the emotional and social ramifications of sex for teenagers and for adults, the issues of consent between adults and minors (there is no such thing), and so on. Including pertinent Romeo and Juliet laws.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

With trans, poeople said stupidly, "Well I put on my mother's shoes as a kid, that doesn't mean I'm trans." No shit Sherlock.

Yeah. That's why such behavior shouldn't be used to diagnose a child as trans. Let them be children. Let them grow up.

It isn't being used that way! The alt-right really think their strawmen exist.

 

[Toni]

...​

Also, there seems to be the peculiar attitude that transgender procedures are common and considered a formality... someone says something, then the surgery is that afternoon like if they had a burst appendix. That isn't how this works. So I'm uncertain why people are going as if it is.

Bad faith, a desire to see kids hurt for personal amusement or vindication, a desire to spin rhetoric towards reproductive supremacy, or some other such thing.

To quote someone who is most certainly not three kids in a trenchcoat:
Pure evil.

I don't think anyone or hardly anyone wants to see kids hurt. I think a lot of people don't really understand the issues, are concerned about irreversible life changing surgery and treatments for young children and some people simply do not believe that trans individuals exist.

I think some people are so self absorbed that they can't imagine life outside their own experiences and those around them. And if it is foreign to them, it can't be good.

With trans, poeople said stupidly, "Well I put on my mother's shoes as a kid, that doesn't mean I'm trans." No shit Sherlock.

No joke. One of my sons used to pretend to breastfeed his stuffed Mickey Mouse while I fed his sibling. Another used to like to try on my bras. ALL of them, male and female, liked to wear my shoes (I have small feet and it was less clumsy than their father's shoes). One liked to wear some of my jewelry. One wanted to go by MY name (I explained that I was flattered but it would be confusing). Don't even get me started on all of the various costumes I sewed. Guess what? No one grew up to be a puppy or an ewok or a tiger or a TMNT. Or a knight or a princess.

 

[ZiprHead]

With trans, poeople said stupidly, "Well I put on my mother's shoes as a kid, that doesn't mean I'm trans." No shit Sherlock.

Yeah. That's why such behavior shouldn't be used to diagnose a child as trans. Let them be children. Let them grow up.

You have some incidents of that actually happening?

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

*telephone rings*
Hey Pa... there is a Pot on the phone for you.​

There seems to be an issue on your side of the communication.​

You would beg, wouldn't you? Well, please do not feel compelled to grovel and plead for permission to hold an alternate viewpoint in my presence. I find it disgusting. One need not be a defeated soul just to express disagreement. It does seem that you are ensnared in a labyrinth of ideological error, and if you are to extricate yourself from this perilous state, you must exert a greater degree of intellectual fortitude. The path of truth is not an easy one to traverse, but with unwavering determination and an unflagging spirit, even you can aspire to a more accurate understanding of the truth.​

It's like Donald Trump was mated with a dictionary.​

On the contrary. I find myself a neutral observer in the theatre of politics, a radical sceptic towards that which is questionable. I stand devoid of allegiance to any political faction.
 Not only do I share no affinity with Mr. Trump, but I oppose him more fervently than even you, my dear interlocutor. For not only do I dismiss the gentleman, but I likewise reject the Democrats – the "Team Pepsi" to his Republican "Team Coca Cola." It is my belief that these two entities are forever entwined in a complex dance. Your support for one is, in essence, support for what Mr. Trump symbolises.
 You, my dear, with respect, remind me of the naïve simpleton who believes he has dealt a blow to Pepsi merely by consuming Coca Cola, ignorant of the fact that both beverages fall under the same corporate umbrella.
 I stand in opposition to not only Mr. Trump but also Mr. Biden, more so than any participant in this virtual salon.
 Your predilection for ideological tribalism, my dear, is the principal source of your confusion. For you seem to delineate the boundaries of your tribe through the lens of ideology rather than the ties of blood, and you strive to cast me into the ranks of a rival tribe.
 Radical scepticism defies classification, and I remain impervious to the political biases of others.
 The term "ideological tribalist" seems most fitting to describe you, my dear, and it appears an apt description of many of my other detractors as well.​