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

[Loren Pechtel]

Should sex ed also discuss bondage? Nipple rings? Piercings?

I also see it as unnecessary. A good comprehensive sex education would include information about being careful about what one inserts into any orifice in one's body. And that porn is not a good place to learn about sex acts or techniques or pleasure. And if something hurts, don't do it. And do no harm.

You seem to be mixing up the issue of what should be in class vs what should be in the library.

Your examples should at most be lightly touched upon in class. Good information should be in the library.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should sex ed also discuss bondage

Not in highschool.

Safe-word play and asymmetrical relationships (the core primative tools of consensual bondage) are a college level subject, that should be offered for free to anyone, at colllege quality.

Once again, I think it's something that might be lightly touched upon earlier. Basically just a mention of learning more before engaging in any such things.

And then immediately rush to a bookstore, buy an orientation and sexuality-agnostic book about anal safety, and tuck it into the bookshelf in the A's before they have the idea to check your library.

If I had kids there would be comprehensive sex ed books lying around. And a rule that you must take a condom along on any date. Used or not, it doesn't get returned.

Or better yet, already have that book living there on the shelf, because they probably won't listen to you.

Either way, the book will disappear, maybe a little while, maybe forever.

I expect that the biggest problem with Loren's approach would be kids just stealing the books rather than ever checking them out OR returning them. The school probably wouldn't want them back anyway. Every new semester they would need to order a case of them, in paperback only.

Yeah, that could prove a problem. I think it would be worthwhile, though.

I guarantee glossaries of terms, the book about anatomy, and MAYBE one or two select titles about improving the quality of the experience would vanish in large quantities, with books on anal (ones that say "for the most part, it's just uncomfortable and painful if you lack an effective prostate") probably coming up missing around a quarter as often.

Yeah, the kink ones wouldn't vanish as much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, the biggest problem would be the parents and community members getting all up in arms. Enabled in part by what kids brought home. Seriously, parents get all bent out of shape at teaching kids anything about sex. For myself, the only time I got upset was when my kid's biology teacher told them stuff that was wrong and wrong in ways that likely would lead to a bunch of unintended pregnancies. My kid was not happy that I corrected the teacher's 'facts' and backed it up with actual medical information--but to their great relief I did not storm the school and ask WTF??????

State-mandated garbage or just wrong?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

​

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.

Per contra, it is a procedure most foul and odious, which incurs a higher rate of self-slaughter among those who undergo it than among those who do not. This is, of course, an inevitable outcome, for the result is maladaptive & contrarious to one's biological nature. It also does not resolve the underlying problem but only reinforces it. Yet population reduction is the objective behind the promotion & sanctioning of such procedure. It is an added boon to those who would see certain members of our society removed, a policy with which you unwittingly agree. I must say, I find it curious that you support the manipulation of breeding, a course of action that is not in keeping with your apparent values. It is a eugenical sterilisation policy that you are supporting. I suppose this was the only way to secure left-wing approbation for such measures. Well, I've got to hand it to the ruling powers; it worked like a charm. Millions of midwits got trickt by it.​

The research that supposedly shows the higher suicide rate actually shows that it was a problem with how it's handled and the problem has gone away.

Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal

A 2011 Swedish study proves that trans people are more suicidal due to transition, are likely rapists and that trans women exhibit male socialization. Or does it? Perhaps you’ve heard that a …

www.transadvocate.com

And you realize trans is not the primary reason people do not reproduce??

Plenty of couples simply choose not to have children. Plenty of couples can't for some reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting some information be discovered after high school.

Reality: Sex ed on average delays the age of first intercourse.

Where have I suggested that I disagree? I am
whole heartedly in favor of good, comprehensive, age appropriate sex education. Starting in elementary school.

You say you are for sex-ed, but when it comes down to the details you're opposed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality: Sex ed on average delays the age of first intercourse.

That is precisely the point. See above. This is very connected with the promotion of transsexualist ideology. Why indeed is it promoted? Do you think the ruling powers care about the well-being transsexuals? Assuredly not. It is all about convincing as many people as possible to sterilise themselves by way of castration, the taking of hormon-blockers, and/or the adoption of sterile lifestyles generally incompatible with having children. It is publicly admitted that the ruling powers harbour a desire to bring down the population, to a number they have deemed desirable, by the year 2040. Have you ever wondered how they intend to achieve this ambitious goal? Why, the answer is before your very eyes. The methods they are employing are clear and unmistakable, with their ultimate objective being the reduction of fertility rates and increasing the death rates. It is not to say that their useful idiots, the true believers, are driven by similar motivations. The intentions, however, of those who hold the reins of power cannot be denied. Conspiracy theory? No, by definition it is not; for it is publicly acknowledged. They cannot be held accountable for conspiring to commit any crime, because they have wisely taken the measure of publicly declaring their goals and intentions.​

Publicly admitted by who?! The Reptilian Overlords?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And holy shit, "female castration"?!?

That's a pretty hyperbolic way to discuss getting your tubes tied, and fuck you if you think people shouldn't do that or want that for themselves if that's what they want.

Wouldn't castration be the removal of the ovaries, not merely getting the tubes tied or removed? (Yes, there's a version where they take the tubes out entirely--lower failure rate.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

 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.​

Being a skeptic of something where the evidence is overwhelming is simply a fancy way of being a denier.

If the Earth isn't round how can I be here? I have left home going west and returned still going west. Twice.

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.​

Except you haven't cited any evidence against a round Earth or for a flat Earth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

How you differentiate when the presentation is the same? Why do detransitioners exist? Let's let them grow up and mature before they make irrevocable life decisions.

Not taking the puberty blockers is also an irrevocable life decision.

And the main reason detransitioners exist is because of the witch-hunting from the right. It's not that they felt they made the wrong choice, but they were bullied into going back. Don't blame us for a problem that's 80% caused by your side!

 

[Toni]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting some information be discovered after high school.

Reality: Sex ed on average delays the age of first intercourse.

Where have I suggested that I disagree? I am
whole heartedly in favor of good, comprehensive, age appropriate sex education. Starting in elementary school.

You say you are for sex-ed, but when it comes down to the details you're opposed.

No.

 

[Toni]

No, the biggest problem would be the parents and community members getting all up in arms. Enabled in part by what kids brought home. Seriously, parents get all bent out of shape at teaching kids anything about sex. For myself, the only time I got upset was when my kid's biology teacher told them stuff that was wrong and wrong in ways that likely would lead to a bunch of unintended pregnancies. My kid was not happy that I corrected the teacher's 'facts' and backed it up with actual medical information--but to their great relief I did not storm the school and ask WTF??????

State-mandated garbage or just wrong?

Just stupidly, arrogantly absolutely wrong.

I do not live in a state where teachers are supposed to be automatons who parrot what they are ordered to say.

 

[Toni]

Should sex ed also discuss bondage

Not in highschool.

Safe-word play and asymmetrical relationships (the core primative tools of consensual bondage) are a college level subject, that should be offered for free to anyone, at colllege quality.

Once again, I think it's something that might be lightly touched upon earlier. Basically just a mention of learning more before engaging in any such things.

And then immediately rush to a bookstore, buy an orientation and sexuality-agnostic book about anal safety, and tuck it into the bookshelf in the A's before they have the idea to check your library.

If I had kids there would be comprehensive sex ed books lying around. And a rule that you must take a condom along on any date. Used or not, it doesn't get returned.

Or better yet, already have that book living there on the shelf, because they probably won't listen to you.

Either way, the book will disappear, maybe a little while, maybe forever.

I expect that the biggest problem with Loren's approach would be kids just stealing the books rather than ever checking them out OR returning them. The school probably wouldn't want them back anyway. Every new semester they would need to order a case of them, in paperback only.

Yeah, that could prove a problem. I think it would be worthwhile, though.

I guarantee glossaries of terms, the book about anatomy, and MAYBE one or two select titles about improving the quality of the experience would vanish in large quantities, with books on anal (ones that say "for the most part, it's just uncomfortable and painful if you lack an effective prostate") probably coming up missing around a quarter as often.

Yeah, the kink ones wouldn't vanish as much.

I don’t agree, but then I’ve spent a good portion of my adult life with kids and adolescents. Some of the suggestions people have made would absolutely overwhelm students even in high school—abd cause them to shut down rather than take in information. I’m not suggesting that there will be NO students who are curious about sex toys or bdsm, but plugs, etc. just as there absolutely are high school students who are ready for quantum physics.

Insisting your imaginary high schooler take a condom on every single date might not be received as you think it would or should be. Or produce the results you think it would. Kids can be surprisingly prudish about discussing sex and birth control with their parents. Attempting to dictate anything about their sex lives is… counterproductive.

It’s much better to build a warm, open and trusting relationship with your kid starting at birth and building as time goes on. You want your kids to be able to come to you —or another trustworthy adult for information and help when they need or want it.

 

[Jarhyn]

And holy shit, "female castration"?!?

That's a pretty hyperbolic way to discuss getting your tubes tied, and fuck you if you think people shouldn't do that or want that for themselves if that's what they want.

Wouldn't castration be the removal of the ovaries, not merely getting the tubes tied or removed? (Yes, there's a version where they take the tubes out entirely--lower failure rate.)

Fair. Though it could be considered as either. Personally, I don't see a problem with either castration or ligation, hysterectomy, etc, as long as the person getting it sought the procedure for themselves and underwent any mandatory waiting period.

As to the physical removal of gonads, even as someone looking to enthusiastically get that accomplished ASAP, that can always wait until 18, possibly even 21, and placed after an additional some months or years of hormone removal/replacement, assuming some medical condition has not already rendered them nonfunctional or painful.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

 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.​

Being a skeptic of something where the evidence is overwhelming is simply a fancy way of being a denier.​

My dear, the term 'denier' reeks of religious connotations, whereas I am but a sceptic. To deny suggests an assertive rejection, whereas my stance is one of withholding belief in the declarations of two opposing factions. In essence, my position cannot be accurately described as one of denial, but rather a cautious reservation of judgment.
 The insistence on assigning me to one camp or the other stems from that very ideological tribalism to which I previously made reference. Such tendencies impede one's ability to engage in open and unbiased discourse.
 I stand as a steadfast sceptic, acutely cognizant of the dearth of evidence that pervades this matter from all directions. The very essence of our world remains an enigmatic puzzle, and those who feign certainty are merely indulging in self-deception. You, my dear fellow, purport to possess knowledge beyond your grasp, while I, on the contrary, humbly claim less than the extent of my true understanding.
 Now, should you feel compelled to label me a denier of both the flat earth and globe earth theories, despite the imprecision of the term 'deny' as previously explained, I shall concede that this at least approaches a more accurate portrayal of my position than 'flat earther'—an absurdity, considering that I have the same sceptical attitude towards flat earth theory that in the case of the globe earth you equate with 'denial'. Be consistent. In any event, if you find it necessary to confine my views within the realm of negative epithets, do proceed with this designation (flat-earth-and-globe-earth denier), though a more precise description ('sceptic') might be better suited.
 But pray, let us not dally with imprecise labels when the true essence of my stance may be aptly captured by such terms as 'radical scepticism,' 'consistent scepticism,' or, if you will, 'consistent logician.' These descriptors, my dear fellow, convey the very heart of my philosophical inclinations.
 For indeed, one must wonder, what purpose does it serve to weave falsehoods regarding my beliefs? Such deceptions hold no merit in the pursuit of truth or the cultivation of meaningful discourse. Let us, instead, engage in sincerity and rationality as we venture forth in our quest for enlightenment.​

If the Earth isn't round how can I be here? I have left home going west and returned still going west. Twice.​

 For aught I know to the contrary, our earth may well be a sphere of magnitudes vastly grander than anyone has ever dared to conceive, or perhaps it bears no discernible shape or foundation whatever, and could be likened to a holographic projection, as a natural phenomenon that defies conventional understanding. It could even be the 'basement' of the universe, for lack of a better term, with you circumnavigating the North Pole in a big circle which would be indistinguishible from a straight line, a phenomenon that would hold true on both a spherical and flat plane, by the way. Alas, the example you provide does not favour one model over the other. In truth, neither you nor I can profess to be in possession of any certitude regarding the nature of our earth. Those who claim to have unshakable knowledge on such enigmatic matters are merely indulging in the sweet deception of self-delusion​

Except you haven't cited any evidence against a round Earth or for a flat Earth.​

 One need not present evidence for this or that stance when one adheres to neither. The absence of compelling evidence for either side only serves to fuel my scepticism towards both positions. What meets the eye, it seems, is either a web of deceit spun by the proponents of each view or a collection of observations compatible with an array of models, encompassing the globe and flat earth theories among others. Truly, the situation presents itself as a bewildering muddle.​

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact that someone hasn't a strong position on, say, the shape of the earth, is kind of laughable.

It's basic geometry, and I can think back on my life to multiple times where I had to directly rely on the shape of the earth being spherical to accomplish some task, mostly with aligning satellite dishes to geosynchronous orbit.

I can think of many more instances in my professional life, like needing to understand the impacts of longitude and latitude on a laser gyroscope, and correcting out rotational forces to prevent directional drift on the system's calculated directional and inertial solution.

Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with Texas attempting banning adults from having elective surgeries and taking medications for themselves, other than to showcase the depths of ignorance and sophistry present in the core argumentation against gender transition.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Part 1 of 2.​

The fact that someone hasn't a strong position on, say, the shape of the earth, is kind of laughable. It's basic geometry, and I can think back on my life to multiple times where I had to directly rely on the shape of the earth being spherical to accomplish some task, mostly with aligning satellite dishes to geosynchronous orbit. I can think of many more instances in my professional life, like needing to understand the impacts of longitude & latitude on a laser gyroscope, & correcting out rotational forces to prevent directional drift on the system's calculated directional & inertial solution. Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with Texas attempting banning adults from having elective surgeries & taking medications for themselves, other than to showcase the depths of ignorance & sophistry present in the core argumentation against gender transition.​

Should you persist in your volition to participate in disquisition upon this theme, I shall be charmed to accommodate your intellectual propensities with consummate delectation.
 Your riposte, ever consonant with your customary predilections, bears semblance to an empty vessel, bereft of pith & substance, & proffering no succor to the parched lips of knowledge. It serves merely as a soliloquy of subjective sentiment, an autobiographical vignette of introspective affection which does scant to further our mutual pursuit towards the enigmatic Truth.
 A most illogical peregrination, I must say,—if Verity be your destination.
 The very thought that an individual might feign an enlightened view on a matter on which the means of corroboration reside beyond his compass, & for which each disquisition, irrespective of the faction whence it emanates (be it flat earther or globe earther), not only finds itself susceptible to disammbly & dismantlement, but is equally congruous with a myriad of contrarious paradigms & models, is, intrinsically, a supremely derisible exhibition
 You feign knowledge of the truth on this matter, whilst I see through the pretension, & descry the masquerade abaft your ostentatious façade. It is this selfsame hubris that shall usher you towards your own perdition,—not inanalogous to a moth drawn to a flame, incognizant of its impending expiration.
 Your ruminations convey no novel or unprecedented epiphanies for one who has, like myself, consecrated innumerable hours to cogitating the very depths of such matters. Be assured, you have neither stumpt nor caught me unawares. Your insinuations, hitherto, have been naught ’cept a cavalcade of nebulous allusions to unspecified contentions. I am intimately conversant with every possible casuistry you might proffer, & could readily champion the rationale behind your own belief system with far more adroitness than what you yourself have exhibitted thus far.
 To be continued.​

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Part 2 of 2.​

---

 This proficiency, you see, emanates from my impartiality, a vantage point unoccluded by emotion & prejudice. Unlike you, I do not sift sapience & perspicacity to fortify my stance, nor do I luxuriate in vainglorious & self-laudatory chimæræ of possessing unobtainable sagacity.
 As a dispassionate spectator who abstains from vowing fealty to any faction, I adjudge the spectacle you present to be an excleedingly laughsome burlesque, I am obliged to aver.
 You treat of supposed evidences reposing within the unassuming plicatures of rudimentary geometry. Likewise I erstwhile nurtured such postulation, which peradventure dissuades us both from probing more deeply into the matter. Nonetheless, upon venturing into the labyrinthine realm of sphærical trigonometry, astonomy, astrophysics, & so on, I unveiled the inadequacy of such surmrisal.
 It was an illumination to me that p’raps others mayn’t have scrutinised the matter as comprehensively as I’d thitherto envisioned, & that the resolution might be enshrouded within the very simplicity we had taken for graunted.
 Alas, my investigation led me to the conclusion that the elementary level is not the locus wherein the solution abides.
 You haven’t discomposed me in the merest iota, for my odyssey has led me far beyond such facile & cursory considerations.
 All you’ve done with your soliloquy of subjective sentiments is limn a simulacrum of your self, painting a self-portrait which masquerades as an argument. Truly, such an illogical proceeding contributes not a whit towards our endeavour to understand anything approaching verisimilitude.​

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

It appears that you have once again crafted a strawman argument, rather than engaged with the actual arguments I have put forth. Once again, you misrepresent my words.
 You make it appear, once again, as though I had spoken something which I would have vehemently opposed. I chose to phrase my thoughts in a manner different from the one you have so carelessly “paraphrased” because I had no intention of conveying the message that you so inaccurately attribute to me.
 Had I intended for such a meaning to be conveyed, I would have crafted my words differently. But, alas, once again, my words were not given the proper consideration, and were instead recklessly misconstrued to suit your own malevolent designs.
 To craft a strawman argument is, as I told you last time you did this, a recourse oft-employed by those who find themselves in the wrong, seeking to obscure the truth and bolster their own failing position.​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You didn't present an argument. The string of redundancy and insults you parsed together was just that, redundant and insulting. Also, you seem unfamiliar with the term strawman.

Your presentation of an argument at best seems to be that of a "skeptic". Which must be great, because when embracing skepticism to the extent you are claiming, you don't actually hold any viable position, which requires no effort on your part. You can just reign over all those you see beneath you with you own self wonder in to how "aware" your void skepticism is.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

I recommend the acquisition of the skill of perusing multiple textual strands. Next time you feel compelled to nip at my heels, which is all you can do, I entreat you to scrutinise meticulously the substance of the prose to which you are replying. And should this endeavour prove excessively formidable, perchance a temporary respite from libations may be in order.
 In the scarce occasions when I indulged in inebriants, I lucidly recollect one of the most repellent aspects of the beverage was its penchant for eliciting in me a distinct aversion toward perusing more than a mere two lines of textual content.
 The effect of the substance was such that it left me bereft of any proclivity or yearning to interact with more protracted sections of literary dialogue.
 This encounter was so contrarious to my sensibilities that I acquired a pronounced distaste for alcohol consumption, and henceforth abstained from engaging in the quaffing of the venom.​