Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Miri Islands wrote:I've been in favor of removing sales taxes as they are inherently a regressive tax and puts extra unnecessary cost on consumers. IDK why lefties don't want to remove those taxes if they want to help the poor

Because it gives the govt the excuse to surveille the evil capitalizt businesses? ;)

***Note: Cats on keyboards and editing posts do not mix...

Narland wrote:Because it gives the govt the excuse to surveille the evil capitalizt businesses? ;)

***Note: Cats on keyboards and editing posts do not mix...

Is that why theres two deleted posts?

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Human babies are disgusting.

God I hate children

Narland wrote:Cats on keyboards and editing posts do not mix...

I love cats

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Human babies are disgusting.

I agree

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Say no to the national bank and paper money.

This message brought to you by Andrew Jackson's ghost.

Welp, time to call Ghostbusters

West Smolcasm wrote:Welp, time to call Ghostbusters

Even as a ghost Jackson is a bad ass. We're gonna have to do better than GB2016 at the very least

Miri Islands wrote:Even as a ghost Jackson is a bad ass. We're gonna have to do better than GB2016 at the very least

do you think playing Neil Cicierega's "Bustin" on loudspeakers would work well enough

Narland

West Smolcasm wrote:do you think playing Neil Cicierega's "Bustin" on loudspeakers would work well enough

Not if Jackson has a few canes laying around

Narland

Thoughts on the sokal squared scandal?

What do you guys think is the basis of all freedom? For example, to me Economic freedom (including things such as property rights) is the base of it, because I'd rather be able to farm or use resources on my land rather than vote if I had to chose. Thoughts?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miri Islands wrote:Is that why theres two deleted posts?

I usually give my cat 1/2 hour of playtime a day and put it off. She wanted attention so I tried to play with her and a mouse toy on a string at the same time as editing the draft. The wrong stuff posted. I waited until later but was too tired to notice that what I saved was what should have been deleted, so I deleted that post as well.

It was in response to the post regarding sales tax.

I was trying to whittle down 5 verbose paragraphs regarding what sense an end-user sales tax makes with the unconstitutional and illegitimate fiducary/monetary/banking system we in the US are straddled with; and how the incestuous relationship between Congress and the Banksters (FRB, Goldman Sachs, et al.) creates the grievous {tax & spend "stimulus packages" => boom/bust bubbles, unemployment, inflation => repeat} -- that most insidious form of taxation that hurts the poor in shadows by devaluing what little they have at a higher rate than anyone else.

LSH: With the dishonest banking and unsound money we have an end user sales tax makes the most sense in the long run. All taxation hurts the poor. The big question is how much more do we want to punish the rich for escaping poverty? With a sound currency and honest banking system property taxes and wealth taxes make the most sense and VAT and end user sales taxes reek the most havoc. With a "certificate of indebtedness" currency masquerading as US notes, property taxes (especially on real estate like people's homes) and income taxes destroy individual productivity the most.

I usually give her 1/2 hour of playtime a day and put it off. She wanted attention so I tried to play with her and a mouse toy on a string at the same time as editing the draft. The wrong stuff posted. I waited until later but was too tired to notice that what I saved was what should have been the edits, so I deleted it as well.

Jadentopian Order wrote:God I hate children

I love cats

Dr. Claw I presume? :)

Jadentopian Order

Skaveria wrote:Thoughts on the sokal squared scandal?

One of those things many of us were tempted to do in college, but we wanted to grad-gee-ate. I think it is hilarious on one level but it soberingly helps highlight the tragic flaws in the peer review journal system when it is abused by Academicians with too much power and an ideology to protect instead of doing double-blind studies and statistics properly.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics -- FDR

New Scotish Republic Of The Pacific wrote:What do you guys think is the basis of all freedom? For example, to me Economic freedom (including things such as property rights) is the base of it, because I'd rather be able to farm or use resources on my land rather than vote if I had to chose. Thoughts?

I would say the bais of freedom is summed up from the Natural Law (all things have a nature and it is the nature of things to do accordingly. Intelligence is in knowing this. Wisdom is in knowing how this is using right reason. Conscience is in recognizing this justly, truthfully, and elegantly (procedurally, aesthetically for oneself and others liberally and equally -- the English falls short for the concept beauty).

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:This is not the basis of freedom. This is a game of "would you rather."

The basis of Freedom though? Life, Liberty, and Property, three indispensable and equal requirements of a society. Life without property and liberty cannot be called life, life and liberty without property necessitates that neither life nir liberty are guaranteed, and property without liberty or life cannot truly be called freedom.

You have no guarantee to your property if you do not have a guarantee thar no one can kill you, and if you have no say in your government, neither life nor property can truly exist.

I have to disagree with the last part as any system is rife with abuses on property rights especially. In fact, in democracies, politicians use involuntary seizure of property (imminent domain) to basically buy votes with promises of development. A dictator wouldn't have such pressure in a similar situation where imminent domain is a tool of the government. It is much less likely to be used. I love freedom but democracy does not lend itself to it tbqh tyrany by majority happens even in republics. Look no further than California. The state has consistent democratic super majorities and they can do basically whatever the hell they want. It can be worse than a dictator sometimes as there is this illusion that things will change next time and people will come to their senses.

Miri Islands wrote:I love freedom but democracy does not lend itself to it

Which is, of course, why the United States isn't a democracy.

Or, at least, wasn't established as one.

California and New York only serve to highlight why it should never be one.

Narland

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Abolish the government but unironically

Miencraft, Narland

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Personal liberty and property rights are intrinsically tied.

Without the latter, we are simply creatures of the public sphere, who's every action becomes accountable to the greater body. The laws on smoking, for example, encompass every section of the public sphere, and through regulation, parts of the private sphere. But shouldn't it be up to the property owners to decide if their bar allows smoking?

Narland

Libertarian dictatorship=best dictatorship

Less Hitler, more Hoppe

Republic Of Minerva

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:A free society cannot exist under a dictatorship. A Libertarian dictatorship is even less likely to exist, and if it could, the question is why you'd even want it. If one cannot expect to live if he disagrees with the general opinion of society, or that of the regime that rules him, he is a slave. Where one cannot protect his property through the ballot box, relying solely on the benevolence of an all-powerful, unchecked leadership woth everything to gain, he is a slave. Life, Liberty, and Property are equally important, inseparable, and fundamental. A better and more logical trinity than any other.

A free society cannot exist without rights enshrined and protected by a judiciary. A monarchy, Dictatorship, democracy or republic can all equally deprive rights. I just think a dictator is more likely to not infringe on those rights as democracies as people suck and they will vote for actions taking away people's rights. Think Patriot act or even the fact that people elected Hitler even though he campaigned on taking away rights of minorities. Just a quick thought as I have to get back to work

SUPREME HEADQUARTERS

ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is will trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Narland, Rateria

Wew. I got my classification to benevolent dictatorship

Narland, Skaveria

Miri Islands wrote:Wew. I got my classification to benevolent dictatorship

Congratulations on getting your prefered title.

I don't have one I prefer personally. I remember one of my long-term goals was abolishing taxation, that took forever. I've been working on getting my government to spend 50% military, 50% police, with no income tax. A true night-watchman state.

Narland, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Libertarian dictatorship=best dictatorship

Less Hitler, more Hoppe

No Hitler, All Hoppe! The Dictatorship of the Libertariot is technically an oxymoron, but it is fun to speculate, kind of like the sound of purple, or Luddite Futurists.

Rateria

Narland wrote:No Hitler, All Hoppe! The Dictatorship of the Libertariot is technically an oxymoron, but it is fun to speculate, kind of like the sound of purple, or Luddite Futurists.

Speculation is half the fun. The other half of the fun is actually doing it which has led to great triumphs like the United States and great failures like the Soviet Union. I just wish some of the other enlightenment philosophers got their way. We've seen Locke and Smiths ideas played out in America then watched Rousseau's ideas fail in France. I want to see hobbes or Voltaire get a swing at it.

Miri Islands wrote:Wew. I got my classification to benevolent dictatorship

Skaveria wrote:Congratulations on getting your prefered title.

I don't have one I prefer personally. I remember one of my long-term goals was abolishing taxation, that took forever. I've been working on getting my government to spend 50% military, 50% police, with no income tax. A true night-watchman state.

I have gotten as close as I can to my preferred state, so I do not answer the issues any more for fear of making it worse. I cant seem to get the three freedoms equally high, nor taxes below .001 GPD, (we have instead a PHI -- Pursuit of Happiness Index) but have finally limited the govt to mostly education -- my interpretation library archives, academic and cultural repositories, statistical information, free flow of information, and standardization of weights and measures. The states and cantons handle their own military for which the Commonwealth drafts during a time of war for want of a standing Army in peacetime. The standing Commonwealth Navy is funded by the several States and Cantons but operated as an amalgam through the Combined Defense Forces of the Commonwealth.

A Nightwatchman State that ever seeks to progress to functional Anarchy is the way to go. I would love to live in a nation where the Conservatives are Libertarian and the "progressivists" are ever seeking to constitutionally shed what little artificially external government coercion that still needs to exist to stop force and fraud. It still irks me that those who call themselves Progressives want to progress us to death (not to mention progress us to forced labor and depredation to boot).

Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:Speculation is half the fun. The other half of the fun is actually doing it which has led to great triumphs like the United States and great failures like the Soviet Union. I just wish some of the other enlightenment philosophers got their way. We've seen Locke and Smiths ideas played out in America then watched Rousseau's ideas fail in France. I want to see hobbes or Voltaire get a swing at it.

I would think that half of Rousseau's ideas had sway with our founders. Hobbes seems alive and well in Post WW2 US Beltway/Deep State and in Post Cultural Revolution US Cityscapes the Voltaire is strong in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, not to mention any Magistrate Court where the judge thinks himself/herself the benevolent dictator instead of honoring his/her Constitutional duties.

Narland wrote:I would think that half of Rousseau's ideas had sway with our founders. Hobbes seems alive and well in Post WW2 US Beltway/Deep State and in Post Cultural Revolution US Cityscapes the Voltaire is strong in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, not to mention any Magistrate Court where the judge thinks himself/herself the benevolent dictator instead of honoring his/her Constitutional duties.

If it was as voltaire wanted the judges would be performing their Constitutional duty. A dictator that doesn't follow the constitution and violates rights is a Tyrant. I think you also misrepresented Hobbes by associating him with the deep state. While he was influenced by Machiavellian politics, his idea was an absolute enlightened monarch with divine right to rule

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:SUPREME HEADQUARTERS

ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is will trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

That generation of Allied Forces from the four corners of the Earth gave they all. I hope that their sacrifices to deliver us from Fascism, National Socialism and Imperialist Conquest are never forgotten. May we learn from history and honor their memory.

***WW2 Anecdote Alert***

My maternal Grandfather would be 100 this year (20 years after his passing). He was airdropped 14 miles off course and caught in a slough with a dozen others being picked off by a sniper. A french resistance fighter saved their lives and helped guide them until there was a front to get back to, demolishing enemy targets along the way. He fought from Northern France thru the Battle of the Bulge all the way to the Austrian Expedition and back to the Berlin Occupation. Of his original troop I am told only 4 survived.

He wouldn't talk about his service except rarely here and only briefly usually during watching a war movie to point out some inconsistency -- like how they saved the Lipizzaner herd wasn't anything like the movie. I had to find out most of it by looking up his endeavors when I was in Europe and from some of his war buddies that also survived. He was in the same unit that captured the corpulent Goering trying to pass himself off as a German infantry private when all the other surrendered privates were skin and bones from the devastation of war. "Goering was very easy to spot."

***End Anecdote***

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Narland wrote:That generation of Allied Forces from the four corners of the Earth gave they all. I hope that their sacrifices to deliver us from Fascism, National Socialism and Imperialist Conquest are never forgotten. May we learn from history and honor their memory.

***WW2 Anecdote Alert***

My maternal Grandfather would be 100 this year (20 years after his passing). He was airdropped 14 miles off course and caught in a slough with a dozen others being picked off by a sniper. A french resistance fighter saved their lives and helped guide them until there was a front to get back to, demolishing enemy targets along the way. He fought from Northern France thru the Battle of the Bulge all the way to the Austrian Expedition and back to the Berlin Occupation. Of his original troop I am told only 4 survived.

He wouldn't talk about his service except rarely here and only briefly usually during watching a war movie to point out some inconsistency -- like how they saved the Lipizzaner herd wasn't anything like the movie. I had to find out most of it by looking up his endeavors when I was in Europe and from some of his war buddies that also survived. He was in the same unit that captured the corpulent Goering trying to pass himself off as a German infantry private when all the other surrendered privates were skin and bones from the devastation of war. "Goering was very easy to spot."

***End Anecdote***

Its always great hearing the stories of those who's family had served. So I'm going to take the chance to share some of mine.

My grandfathers brother, though he was sort of a grandfather to me as my grandfather died when my dad was 17, fought in the battle of the bulge as well. He lasted from D-Day plus one to the liberation of Czechoslovakia. My Mothers Father however wasn't as lucky, he lasted from D-Day plus 6 to June 23. Just one day longer than the average infantryman. He was near-fatally wounded in the forests near Cherbourg after being hit by anti-air guns converted to anti-personal, he ended up spending 2 years in the hospital. He was just 19 at the time. A more fun anecdote of his, he trained in the 42nd (Rainbow) Infantry Division and then later transfer to the 79th (cross of lorraine) Infantry Division before deploying. He met my grandmother at the Rainbow Rendezvous( A dancing venue formally in Salt Lake City), And her name is Lorraine.

Narland, Rateria

I have not been able to reach forum.nationstates.net in a couple of days. Anyone else have the same issue?

Narland wrote:I have not been able to reach forum.nationstates.net in a couple of days. Anyone else have the same issue?

Never bothered getting on there

I'm finally making contact with my local LP affiliate in a few weeks. I'm convinced 90% of the reason we don't have a Libertarian president is the fault of the Libertarian party. I've been trying to make contact for so long. I'm having to go a county over to even find an active chapter.

Skaveria wrote:I'm finally making contact with my local LP affiliate in a few weeks. I'm convinced 90% of the reason we don't have a Libertarian president is the fault of the Libertarian party. I've been trying to make contact for so long. I'm having to go a county over to even find an active chapter.

Part of the problem is nobody takes them seriously and because of that they have scarce resources

Skaveria wrote:I'm finally making contact with my local LP affiliate in a few weeks. I'm convinced 90% of the reason we don't have a Libertarian president is the fault of the Libertarian party. I've been trying to make contact for so long. I'm having to go a county over to even find an active chapter.

If people truly believed in a libertarian party and were truly willing to cooperate to advance the cause of liberty, we'd have a much stronger one right now.

Of all of the potential supporters that a genuine libertarian movement might have, however, the smart ones are hopping on the Democratic bandwagon, the ambitious ones are trying to reform the Republican one, and the vast majority of others are looking to the current president, throwing up their hands, and saying "good enough" or even "exactly what we needed" when we all know, deep down, that it is not so.

West Smolcasm wrote:If people truly believed in a libertarian party and were truly willing to cooperate to advance the cause of liberty, we'd have a much stronger one right now.

Of all of the potential supporters that a genuine libertarian movement might have, however, the smart ones are hopping on the Democratic bandwagon, the ambitious ones are trying to reform the Republican one, and the vast majority of others are looking to the current president, throwing up their hands, and saying "good enough" or even "exactly what we needed" when we all know, deep down, that it is not so.

Imo Trump is more libertarian than the average Republican. Paul would've been the dream, but Trump isn't bad.

Despite what the left says, Trump is way more socially liberal than previous administrations. Honestly the ONLY social policy I can think of that I disagree with is the trans military ban.

He posed behind a rainbow flag for goodness sakes, that would've torpedoed any candidate's campaign that was pandering to evangelicals.

I heard him say, in a room full of Republicans, on live television, that "Planned Parenthood does some wonderful things." That in itself should've cost him the nomination. He was talking about things other than abortion though.

He was loved by the black community for years until he ran for president, but they accuse all Republicans of racism when they run. They pick the most moderate, milk-toast Republican to fake "love" until they actually try to do anything remotely conservative. This go around it was Kasich, next it'll probably be whoever hints at primarying him.

The only non-libertarian economic policies are the tariffs and subsidies, but he's been slashing taxes and regulations like a modern day Reagan champion.

Give him his credit guys.

Pevvania

Jadentopian Order wrote:Abolish the government but unironically

this but unironically

Miencraft, Narland

I do support Trump's tariff war on China. China doesn't have a remotely free market workers are literally enslaved in many parts of the country and with central planning they can manipulate their currency to get out of debt. China should be reigned in and allow workers freedom to self determination and control their monetary manipulation. Otherwise I don't care if China subsidizes their businesses it means they're basically giving us money when we import their products. The tarriffs on Mexico are harder to justify but I do appreciate that there's no military threat being made. As for the trans military ban I have this to say. I was rejected from the Navy for having Asperger's syndrome. I'm fairly normal and I would be able to function in any assigned role and do it exceptionally well. Trans people literally have a cripling disphoria yet we allow them to serve. It may be a tired mantra but military service is not a right

Pevvania

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:If transsexuals have crippling disphoria, there must be something causing it... Probably has nothing to do with their social status.

If you're saying that trans people are trans because society doesn't like them being trans it doesn't make any sense. According to the NHS in the UK gender disphoria is most likely caused by hormonal problems during pregnancy

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:If transsexuals have crippling disphoria, there must be something causing it... Probably has nothing to do with their social status.

The Transsexual suicide rate is 40%.

The only other suicide rate that's ever been comparable was that of Jews under Nazi rule.

So, one would HAVE to argue that trans people are as oppressed as them to explain away their suicide rate by cultural oppression.

This seems obviously false, that means then, that there is something about being trans in itself that causes depression and suicidal tendencies.

The suicide rate appears to be static pre and post transition as well.

The way I see it being trans is like an affliction, there's nothing immoral about it, It's just something one must cope with. Every male to female transexual wishes they were born female, as well as female to male, or at least that'd seem logical to me.

The brain and the body are not aligned with each other. The current thinking is to change the body to match the mind, but perhaps we should consider changing the mind to match the body?

I know that sounds an awful lot like throwing trans people in mental institutions, and I'm not saying that, but based on the logic I gave in the first few paragraphs, is this not something worth considering, changing the mind?

New poll in Zentari, come and vote!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=143687

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Imo Trump is more libertarian than the average Republican. Paul would've been the dream, but Trump isn't bad.

Despite what the left says, Trump is way more socially liberal than previous administrations. Honestly the ONLY social policy I can think of that I disagree with is the trans military ban.

He posed behind a rainbow flag for goodness sakes, that would've torpedoed any candidate's campaign that was pandering to evangelicals.

I heard him say, in a room full of Republicans, on live television, that "Planned Parenthood does some wonderful things." That in itself should've cost him the nomination. He was talking about things other than abortion though.

He was loved by the black community for years until he ran for president, but they accuse all Republicans of racism when they run. They pick the most moderate, milk-toast Republican to fake "love" until they actually try to do anything remotely conservative. This go around it was Kasich, next it'll probably be whoever hints at primarying him.

The only non-libertarian economic policies are the tariffs and subsidies, but he's been slashing taxes and regulations like a modern day Reagan champion.

Give him his credit guys.

I respectfully disagree with you on some of these things. I don’t know about some of the things mentioned, so I won’t act like a know-it-all. Being me, I’ve paid great attention to Trump’s stance on the right to bear arms. Trump endorsed red flag laws, banned bump stocks, and appears to be looking into banning sound suppressors. We both know that this isn’t very libertarian, so you might add this to social policies you disagree with. I don’t know much about Trump being loved by the black community or being more socially liberal. Could you help me with that? Thanks.

Pevvania, West Smolcasm

Rateria wrote:I respectfully disagree with you on some of these things. I don’t know about some of the things mentioned, so I won’t act like a know-it-all. Being me, I’ve paid great attention to Trump’s stance on the right to bear arms. Trump endorsed red flag laws, banned bump stocks, and appears to be looking into banning sound suppressors. We both know that this isn’t very libertarian, so you might add this to social policies you disagree with. I don’t know much about Trump being loved by the black community or being more socially liberal. Could you help me with that? Thanks.

Well... he was a Democrat for many years, desegrigated a club in Florida, He's posed with many black leaders such as Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, the Planned Parenthood comment I mentioned makes him more socially liberal than many Republicans on that issue, posing behind a pride flag after Orlando, there's other examples too. That's just to name a few.

I don't support his restrictions on the second ammendment, I think he was made to do that after these last few shootings for optics.

Pevvania, Rateria

I agree the bump stock ban was for optics. It was still fairly early in his presidency where he was trying to raise an olive branch to the Democrats. He soon discovered the Democrats are partisan hacks and he's given up on trying to please them

Skaveria wrote:He posed behind a rainbow flag for goodness sakes,

What a hero. /s

Skaveria wrote:The Transsexual suicide rate is 40%.

The only other suicide rate that's ever been comparable was that of Jews under Nazi rule.

So, one would HAVE to argue that trans people are as oppressed as them to explain away their suicide rate by cultural oppression.

This seems obviously false, that means then, that there is something about being trans in itself that causes depression and suicidal tendencies.

The suicide rate appears to be static pre and post transition as well.

In regards to that last point, this seeming equivalence in rate is a weakness of many studies and reports - apparently it's very difficult to reliably collect information on what point in a given transgender person's life that suicide is committed or attempted, and people draw the inference that sex reassignment is an ineffective treatment for suicidal tendencies because the morbidity rate is the same or higher among post-op trans people than pre-op trans people (even though this is a statistical near-inevitability considering that post-op people were themselves once pre-op). In what few studies have been conducted to compare the quality of life between pre-op and post-op individuals, the general trend indicates that transition substantially reduces the overall rate of suicide attempts following it, but not by enough to reach (or even become lower than) the suicide rate of the overall population - that is to say, transition in and of itself has not been demonstrated to be a cure for suicidal tendencies among trans folk, but an argument could easily be made for it being an effective part of treatment.

I also found a survey analysis that is consistent with the figures you've provided that sheds some light on the incidence of depression and suicidal tendencies, citing both internal and external factors. It's far from a complete analysis, but provides a pretty exhaustive list of risk factors and comparisons of suicide attempt rates between these factors: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

Skaveria wrote:The way I see it being trans is like an affliction, there's nothing immoral about it, It's just something one must cope with. Every male to female transexual wishes they were born female, as well as female to male, or at least that'd seem logical to me.

The brain and the body are not aligned with each other. The current thinking is to change the body to match the mind, but perhaps we should consider changing the mind to match the body?

I know that sounds an awful lot like throwing trans people in mental institutions, and I'm not saying that, but based on the logic I gave in the first few paragraphs, is this not something worth considering, changing the mind?

I would make a joke about this being an armchair physician's hypothesis, but all things considered, this isn't an innately unreasonable position. I do, however, see it as unfeasible for three major reasons:

1. Given our existing medical procedures, general knowledge of human anatomy/psychology, and rate of scientific advancement in the fields of medicine, it is far, far more simple (comparatively speaking) to alter (most of) the sexual characteristics of the body than to so much as tune the delicate instrument that is the human mind. It turns out that our advances in hormone replacement therapy, sexual reassignment surgery, and any practices related to these have greatly outpaced our strides in comprehensive psychiatry and psychotherapy.

2. Supposing it were possible and desirable for trans people to alter their minds, and not their bodies, such that their gender identities and sexes assigned at birth are at last aligned (and that's a very big supposing), the ethics of doing so would be questionable at best. It seems to me as though there is something inherently problematic about semi-eugeneically selecting against mental traits on the grounds of them being "different" or "undesirable." To give a non-trans-related anecdote about this concept, there was a time that I had a number of friends with higher-functioning autism who - despite any difficulties they may have faced because of it - were horrified at the implications of activist groups claiming that autism is something to be cured (by utterly eliminating its risk factors) rather than treated. One must suggest "curing" a mindset that deviates from the norm with care, lest it sound like a call for indirect genocide.

3. The "affliction" you speak of demonstrably lacks a silver bullet - be it a cure or even a treatment. It would seem that this is because gender dysphoria and euphoria affect everyone differently: some trans people wish they were born cis while others do not, some trans people seek/are on/have been on HRT whereas others do not, some trans people seek/have gotten SRS whereas others have not, and some trans people experience intense gender dysphoria whereas others experience little to no dysphoria (rather, they experience euphoria when presenting as their identified gender). A single all-case treatment does not exist; quite frankly, I don't believe it ever will, even if we were to assume that the as-of-yet unsolved mysteries of the human mind will be anything to go on once we've solved them.

This is not to say, however, that the state of the mind is wholly irrelevant to the treatment of the body; I posit that the most reliable, attainable treatment for a transgender individual's risk of suicide is a combination of transition (only if/to the degree desired by the person), gender therapy (to the extent desired by the person), proper treatment for any tangential medical conditions, and an accepting and safe social environment. I consider the culmination of these factors to be essential in limiting the harm caused by gender dysphoria to its very minimum.

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

West Smolcasm wrote:What a hero. /s

In regards to that last point, this seeming equivalence in rate is a weakness of many studies and reports - apparently it's very difficult to reliably collect information on what point in a given transgender person's life that suicide is committed or attempted, and people draw the inference that sex reassignment is an ineffective treatment for suicidal tendencies because the morbidity rate is the same or higher among post-op trans people than pre-op trans people (even though this is a statistical near-inevitability considering that post-op people were themselves once pre-op). In what few studies have been conducted to compare the quality of life between pre-op and post-op individuals, the general trend indicates that transition substantially reduces the overall rate of suicide attempts following it, but not by enough to reach (or even become lower than) the suicide rate of the overall population - that is to say, transition in and of itself has not been demonstrated to be a cure for suicidal tendencies among trans folk, but an argument could easily be made for it being an effective part of treatment.

I also found a survey analysis that is consistent with the figures you've provided that sheds some light on the incidence of depression and suicidal tendencies, citing both internal and external factors. It's far from a complete analysis, but provides a pretty exhaustive list of risk factors and comparisons of suicide attempt rates between these factors: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

I would make a joke about this being an armchair physician's hypothesis, but all things considered, this isn't an innately unreasonable position. I do, however, see it as unfeasible for three major reasons:

1. Given our existing medical procedures, general knowledge of human anatomy/psychology, and rate of scientific advancement in the fields of medicine, it is far, far more simple (comparatively speaking) to alter (most of) the sexual characteristics of the body than to so much as tune the delicate instrument that is the human mind. It turns out that our advances in hormone replacement therapy, sexual reassignment surgery, and any practices related to these have greatly outpaced our strides in comprehensive psychiatry and psychotherapy.

2. Supposing it were possible and desirable for trans people to alter their minds, and not their bodies, such that their gender identities and sexes assigned at birth are at last aligned (and that's a very big supposing), the ethics of doing so would be questionable at best. It seems to me as though there is something inherently problematic about semi-eugeneically selecting against mental traits on the grounds of them being "different" or "undesirable." To give a non-trans-related anecdote about this concept, there was a time that I had a number of friends with higher-functioning autism who - despite any difficulties they may have faced because of it - were horrified at the implications of activist groups claiming that autism is something to be cured (by utterly eliminating its risk factors) rather than treated. One must suggest "curing" a mindset that deviates from the norm with care, lest it sound like a call for indirect genocide.

3. The "affliction" you speak of demonstrably lacks a silver bullet - be it a cure or even a treatment. It would seem that this is because gender dysphoria and euphoria affect everyone differently: some trans people wish they were born cis while others do not, some trans people seek/are on/have been on HRT whereas others do not, some trans people seek/have gotten SRS whereas others have not, and some trans people experience intense gender dysphoria whereas others experience little to no dysphoria (rather, they experience euphoria when presenting as their identified gender). A single all-case treatment does not exist; quite frankly, I don't believe it ever will, even if we were to assume that the as-of-yet unsolved mysteries of the human mind will be anything to go on once we've solved them.

This is not to say, however, that the state of the mind is wholly irrelevant to the treatment of the body; I posit that the most reliable, attainable treatment for a transgender individual's risk of suicide is a combination of transition (only if/to the degree desired by the person), gender therapy (to the extent desired by the person), proper treatment for any tangential medical conditions, and an accepting and safe social environment. I consider the culmination of these factors to be essential in limiting the harm caused by gender dysphoria to its very minimum.

I understand that posing behind a rainbow flag doesn't mean much in itself; I only brought that up because he did it while knowing he needed to maintain evangelical support.

I also do understand the ethical implications of altering people's minds, BUT I think it should be presented as an option for a transgender person to consider doing voluntarily.

I also would have to point out that, as I'm sure you know, transitioning and hormone therapy are not harm-free. I've heard of cases where people have undergone gender reassignment surgery and came out of it unable to feel sexual stimulation. You might scoff and say that presenting an outward self that's reflective of your inward self is far more important than experiencing sexual pleasure, but that depends on the individual and what value they place in such things.

I completely agree that a loving and safe environment is essential to anyone's well-being, but especially a person who is suffering.

I would have to disagree, however, that transgenderism is not something to be cured. Is that not what transitioning does itself. A fully transitioned transgender person is essentially cured. They are essentially Cisgender to the eye. All their symptoms are past I would think, if gender disphoria is by definition every negative thing a transgender person experiences in relation to what gender their body appears to be.

Your relation to autism is interesting as well. It's different for people with higher functioning autism. They are not as negatively effected, but take one who is non-verbal. If they could speak, surely they'd say they wished to be cured?

I thought that's why it's called TRANSgender, one is transitioning, going from point A to point B, from beginning to end, from start to finish. I don't understand identifying with the process when there is a clear goal.

I also don't like how transitioning and hormone therapy are the immidiate solutions our culture seems to push. They say that even a child can be transgender. I'm not sure about that. There was a story about a six year old going on hormone treatments because he said to his parents: "I want to be a girl." That can't be the only evidence considered when you determine if a child is actually transgender. I know because when I was six years, I wanted to be a dragon... I didn't need adults to start gluing scales to my back. A thorough, clinical, psychological evaluation must happen prior to treatment.

I'm also afraid that Cis children will mistakenly think they are trans and ask their parents to put them on hormone blockers due to all the attention it's getting in the news.

Here's a hypothetical: If there's a boy, and all his friends are identifying as trans around him, he, perhaps, will too. If he's put on hormone blockers at twelve years old, while he's still developing he will make changes to his body that cannot be undone later, let's say he realizes he's actually NOT trans by seventeen. Well, by that time the boy has underdeveloped primary sex charictorists and budding breasts. If he didn't have disphoria then, he certainly does now.

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:I understand that posing behind a rainbow flag doesn't mean much in itself; I only brought that up because he did it while knowing he needed to maintain evangelical support.

He is sooo brave. If I did what he did around his supporters, I would just diiie.

...possibly literally depending on the circumstances.

Skaveria wrote:I also do understand the ethical implications of altering people's minds, BUT I think it should be presented as an option for a transgender person to consider doing voluntarily.

Hell, there's probably at least one person out there who would go for it if it were an option. Really, it's framing it as the solution that elicits such horror.

Skaveria wrote:I also would have to point out that, as I'm sure you know, transitioning and hormone therapy are not harm-free. I've heard of cases where people have undergone gender reassignment surgery and came out of it unable to feel sexual stimulation. You might scoff and say that presenting an outward self that's reflective of your inward self is far more important than experiencing sexual pleasure, but that depends on the individual and what value they place in such things.

I also don't like how transitioning and hormone therapy are the immidiate solutions our culture seems to push.

This is a pretty woke take without the rest of the baggage, to be quite honest. Transition isn't for everyone, and even people who might pursue it might not want certain parts of it, and that's okay. In my case in particular, it is important to me that I take steps to ensure that my outer self reflects my inner self, and I'm eagerly anticipating the opportunity to start HRT; SRS, however, is something I'm still mulling over, in part because there is indeed considerable pressure for a trans person to get it even if it isn't necessarily something they want for themselves. When the time comes for me to make a decision, it will be after I've armed myself with information and given careful consideration to what exactly it is that I want.

Which brings me to a related concept:

Skaveria wrote:They say that even a child can be transgender. I'm not sure about that. There was a story about a six year old going on hormone treatments because he said to his parents: "I want to be a girl." That can't be the only evidence considered when you determine if a child is actually transgender. I know because when I was six years, I wanted to be a dragon... I didn't need adults to start gluing scales to my back. A thorough, clinical, psychological evaluation must happen prior to treatment.

I'm also afraid that Cis children will mistakenly think they are trans and ask their parents to put them on hormone blockers due to all the attention it's getting in the news.

Here's a hypothetical: If there's a boy, and all his friends are identifying as trans around him, he, perhaps, will too. If he's put on hormone blockers at twelve years old, while he's still developing he will make changes to his body that cannot be undone later, let's say he realizes he's actually NOT trans by seventeen. Well, by that time the boy has underdeveloped primary sex charictorists and budding breasts. If he didn't have disphoria then, he certainly does now.

The good news is that you're not the first to think these things. Your instincts are right on the money: professing a desire to be the opposite sex can't be the only evidence considered, there must be a thorough, clinical, psychological evaluation prior to treatment, and there does eventually come a point at which hormone blockers cause irreversible changes (though no more so than letting puberty run its course). And these are precisely the sorts of things that doctors and therapists who specialize in trans healthcare (particularly insofar as it pertains to children) have considered and are continuing to address.

In situations like these, the concept of informed consent is paramount. I consider gender therapy and the detailed summation of any recommended treatment to be a very important means of gauging the best interests and desires of a patient, regardless of age; when people say they want to transition, they need to know what they're getting into, and I feel that the medical systems of most first world nations already do a decent job of impressing this onto them.

In this, it seems, the real danger equates to the very sort of misconduct and unprofessionalism that plagues the medical profession in general: the doctor telling the patient what the patient wants, especially for the purposes of denying treatment. As terrifying as the hypothetical situation of a cis child being diagnosed as trans might be (and as indicative as it would be of this sort of problem), this far more typically manifests in practice as gatekeeping: telling trans people that they aren't trans enough and forbidding them from receiving HRT/SRS even if they've weighed the risks and still consider it to be worth it. If there is one aspect of malpractice that must be feared and stopped, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to consider it to be this.

Skaveria wrote:I thought that's why it's called TRANSgender, one is transitioning, going from point A to point B, from beginning to end, from start to finish. I don't understand identifying with the process when there is a clear goal.

Trans- is a Latin prefix meaning "across," "beyond," "on the other side of;" for the purposes of the word transgender, it symbolizes the disconnect between one's gender identity and the sex they were assigned at birth. Contrast cis-, meaning "on the near side of" or "on the same side of."

The identification is not with the process - which not everyone chooses or even desires to undergo - or the goal - which is different for everyone - but with one's gender identity even in spite of the sex one was assigned at birth. When I say that I'm trans, what I mean is that I know myself not to be a man despite my anatomy and birth certificate seemingly indicating otherwise. I wear the label "transgender" without regret because I feel it symbolizes the conviction with which I know myself even in the face of an apparent disconnect between how I perceive myself and how most people once perceived me.

Skaveria wrote:I completely agree that a loving and safe environment is essential to anyone's well-being, but especially a person who is suffering.

I would have to disagree, however, that transgenderism is not something to be cured. Is that not what transitioning does itself. A fully transitioned transgender person is essentially cured. They are essentially Cisgender to the eye. All their symptoms are past I would think, if gender disphoria is by definition every negative thing a transgender person experiences in relation to what gender their body appears to be.

It's not usually as simple as all of that - which, in and of itself, is a tragedy. I'm sure many people who have "fully" transitioned, even those who seemingly effortlessly pass as cisgender to all who know them, still have bad days. Maybe they might even still feel dysphoria, possibly in regards to circumstances out of their control such as their birth.

Contrariwise, I'm sure some trans people out there are perfectly happy being non-op provided that they live in an environment where they can safely express themselves. For such people, the "cure" is little more than personal freedom - can, at that point, their identity really be considered something that needs curing?

One point against being transgender being a curable condition is that it isn't necessarily a negative. I, for one, don't particularly lament being assigned male at birth - sure, it would make life a hell of a lot simpler if my gender identity were male or if I had simply been born a woman in mind and body, but I wouldn't have had the experiences I've had if that were so... and I wouldn't trade my experiences for the world. I think that coming to terms with my identity really helped me to develop maturity and compassion for other people; moreover, I survived absolutely miserable teen years and feel much stronger for having done so. Yes, I do experience some dysphoria; however, not only do I seem to have it better than some, but I can also safely say that the euphoria that comes with simply being me makes it all worth it. For years, I didn't know who I was, and I am just so damn happy to have figured it out - I like myself now that I've found myself.

Skaveria wrote:Your relation to autism is interesting as well. It's different for people with higher functioning autism. They are not as negatively effected, but take one who is non-verbal. If they could speak, surely they'd say they wished to be cured?

Maybe. We don't know. That is also really sad.

Anyway, I'd like to say that I'm quite enjoying our discussion and think that you bring up some really interesting points.

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

West Smolcasm wrote:He is sooo brave. If I did what he did around his supporters, I would just diiie.

...possibly literally depending on the circumstances.

Hell, there's probably at least one person out there who would go for it if it were an option. Really, it's framing it as the solution that elicits such horror.

This is a pretty woke take without the rest of the baggage, to be quite honest. Transition isn't for everyone, and even people who might pursue it might not want certain parts of it, and that's okay. In my case in particular, it is important to me that I take steps to ensure that my outer self reflects my inner self, and I'm eagerly anticipating the opportunity to start HRT; SRS, however, is something I'm still mulling over, in part because there is indeed considerable pressure for a trans person to get it even if it isn't necessarily something they want for themselves. When the time comes for me to make a decision, it will be after I've armed myself with information and given careful consideration to what exactly it is that I want.

Which brings me to a related concept:

The good news is that you're not the first to think these things. Your instincts are right on the money: professing a desire to be the opposite sex can't be the only evidence considered, there must be a thorough, clinical, psychological evaluation prior to treatment, and there does eventually come a point at which hormone blockers cause irreversible changes (though no more so than letting puberty run its course). And these are precisely the sorts of things that doctors and therapists who specialize in trans healthcare (particularly insofar as it pertains to children) have considered and are continuing to address.

In situations like these, the concept of informed consent is paramount. I consider gender therapy and the detailed summation of any recommended treatment to be a very important means of gauging the best interests and desires of a patient, regardless of age; when people say they want to transition, they need to know what they're getting into, and I feel that the medical systems of most first world nations already do a decent job of impressing this onto them.

In this, it seems, the real danger equates to the very sort of misconduct and unprofessionalism that plagues the medical profession in general: the doctor telling the patient what the patient wants, especially for the purposes of denying treatment. As terrifying as the hypothetical situation of a cis child being diagnosed as trans might be (and as indicative as it would be of this sort of problem), this far more typically manifests in practice as gatekeeping: telling trans people that they aren't trans enough and forbidding them from receiving HRT/SRS even if they've weighed the risks and still consider it to be worth it. If there is one aspect of malpractice that must be feared and stopped, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to consider it to be this.

Trans- is a Latin prefix meaning "across," "beyond," "on the other side of;" for the purposes of the word transgender, it symbolizes the disconnect between one's gender identity and the sex they were assigned at birth. Contrast cis-, meaning "on the near side of" or "on the same side of."

The identification is not with the process - which not everyone chooses or even desires to undergo - or the goal - which is different for everyone - but with one's gender identity even in spite of the sex one was assigned at birth. When I say that I'm trans, what I mean is that I know myself not to be a man despite my anatomy and birth certificate seemingly indicating otherwise. I wear the label "transgender" without regret because I feel it symbolizes the conviction with which I know myself even in the face of an apparent disconnect between how I perceive myself and how most people once perceived me.

It's not usually as simple as all of that - which, in and of itself, is a tragedy. I'm sure many people who have "fully" transitioned, even those who seemingly effortlessly pass as cisgender to all who know them, still have bad days. Maybe they might even still feel dysphoria, possibly in regards to circumstances out of their control such as their birth.

Contrariwise, I'm sure some trans people out there are perfectly happy being non-op provided that they live in an environment where they can safely express themselves. For such people, the "cure" is little more than personal freedom - can, at that point, their identity really be considered something that needs curing?

One point against being transgender being a curable condition is that it isn't necessarily a negative. I, for one, don't particularly lament being assigned male at birth - sure, it would make life a hell of a lot simpler if my gender identity were male or if I had simply been born a woman in mind and body, but I wouldn't have had the experiences I've had if that were so... and I wouldn't trade my experiences for the world. I think that coming to terms with my identity really helped me to develop maturity and compassion for other people; moreover, I survived absolutely miserable teen years and feel much stronger for having done so. Yes, I do experience some dysphoria; however, not only do I seem to have it better than some, but I can also safely say that the euphoria that comes with simply being me makes it all worth it. For years, I didn't know who I was, and I am just so damn happy to have figured it out - I like myself now that I've found myself.

Maybe. We don't know. That is also really sad.

Anyway, I'd like to say that I'm quite enjoying our discussion and think that you bring up some really interesting points.

I'm just mulling this topic over. I don't really have a solid viewpoint on it yet, that's why my thoughts are so disjointed.

I'd also like to say that I believe any adult has the right to do whatever they want to their own body. My question was never about the right to transition, but rather if transitioning is necessarily right.

I also don't necessarily think that doctors should be bound by a code of ethics other than the NAP. I believe a person has the right to seek doctor-assisted suicide and if a person wants a doctor to amputate one of their healthy limbs, I believe the doctor has the right to accept the job and get paid.

Essentially all operations should be treated like cosmetic operations. Provide the customer with the best information, but if they persist on doing something that's obviously bad for them, it should be llegal to do it. Both parties consent.

That brings up mental illness however, you cannot form a contract with someone out of their mind... But what if they displayed rationality in every other aspect of their personality except for wanting their limb amputated?

Is the fact that they want their limb amputated in the first place reason enough to assume their not in a state to consent? What if they can display logical reasoning, no matter how flawed it may be, for wanting the limb amputated? Are they even obligated to give you a reason?

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Skaveria wrote:I'm just mulling this topic over. I don't really have a solid viewpoint on it yet, that's why my thoughts are so disjointed.

I'd also like to say that I believe any adult has the right to do whatever they want to their own body. My question was never about the right to transition, but rather if transitioning is necessarily right.

I also don't necessarily think that doctors should be bound by a code of ethics other than the NAP. I believe a person has the right to seek doctor-assisted suicide and if a person wants a doctor to amputate one of their healthy limbs, I believe the doctor has the right to accept the job and get paid.

Essentially all operations should be treated like cosmetic operations. Provide the customer with the best information, but if they persist on doing something that's obviously bad for them, it should be llegal to do it. Both parties consent.

That brings up mental illness however, you cannot form a contract with someone out of their mind... But what if they displayed rationality in every other aspect of their personality except for wanting their limb amputated?

Is the fact that they want their limb amputated in the first place reason enough to assume their not in a state to consent? What if they can display logical reasoning, no matter how flawed it may be, for wanting the limb amputated? Are they even obligated to give you a reason?

I think I'm finally starting to understand why it takes doctors so long to get through medical school

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Skaveria wrote:Well... he was a Democrat for many years, desegrigated a club in Florida, He's posed with many black leaders such as Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, the Planned Parenthood comment I mentioned makes him more socially liberal than many Republicans on that issue, posing behind a pride flag after Orlando, there's other examples too. That's just to name a few.

I don't support his restrictions on the second ammendment, I think he was made to do that after these last few shootings for optics.

I’ve heard criticisms of Trump regarding his treatment of both black people and the LGBT community. If I remember correctly, there was a whole thing about Trump refusing to sell his real estate properties to black tenants, but I’m not very educated on that matter, and this was long before his presidency.

The LGBT people I’ve talked to don’t seem to view him positively either. Then again, I tend to have a lot of experience with leftists and liberals who happen to be in this community, who surely don’t like him. They sure hate the transgender military ban, that’s for sure. Other than that, I’d have to ask the people I know about other LGBT-related issues.

As for Trump’s stance on gun restrictions, I don’t think that he’s doing any of it for political posturing. Trump came out saying of suppressors that “I don’t like them at all.”

Miri Islands wrote:I agree the bump stock ban was for optics. It was still fairly early in his presidency where he was trying to raise an olive branch to the Democrats. He soon discovered the Democrats are partisan hacks and he's given up on trying to please them

I suspect that the bump stock ban wasn’t an olive branch move. I genuinely think that he’s at least somewhat anti-gun. My response above has more of my opinion. “Take the guns first, due process second.” doesn’t sound very supportive of gun rights to me. In my opinion, it is also worth noting that Democrats and Democrat-leaning media said very little about his bump stock ban, even though they have advocated for such a restriction. I suspect that if suppressors are banned, Democrats will have a similar reaction.

Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The self-delusion of the establishment media is utterly astounding. Within hours of reaching a historic deal with Mexico to actually get them to enforce immigration law, the New York Times puts out a story smugly claiming that this deal has been in the works for months, long before Trump's tariff threats. Regardless of whether this is true (and knowing this paper's abysmal track record, there's a good chance it's not), it still would've been a deal negotiated by the Trump administration. So really it's just a question of timing. These people are so eager to deprive our president of a victory, and it makes me sick.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, Skaveria

Miri Islands wrote:I do support Trump's tariff war on China. China doesn't have a remotely free market workers are literally enslaved in many parts of the country and with central planning they can manipulate their currency to get out of debt. China should be reigned in and allow workers freedom to self determination and control their monetary manipulation. Otherwise I don't care if China subsidizes their businesses it means they're basically giving us money when we import their products. The tarriffs on Mexico are harder to justify but I do appreciate that there's no military threat being made.

I am totally for free trade, and one of my biggest problems with Trump during the campaign was his fondness for protectionism, but we do not have free trade, we have managed trade, as Ron Paul used to say. Any tools, political or economic, we can use to end China's abusive and one-sided trade policies, we should use them as aggressively as we can. The administration has successfully leveraged tariffs to extract trade deals and concessions from South Korea, Canada, Mexico and Europe. China does not fold as easily, but hopefully we'll see some progress.

Rateria wrote:I respectfully disagree with you on some of these things. I don’t know about some of the things mentioned, so I won’t act like a know-it-all. Being me, I’ve paid great attention to Trump’s stance on the right to bear arms. Trump endorsed red flag laws, banned bump stocks, and appears to be looking into banning sound suppressors. We both know that this isn’t very libertarian, so you might add this to social policies you disagree with. I don’t know much about Trump being loved by the black community or being more socially liberal. Could you help me with that? Thanks.

I agree [nation=short]Rateria[/nation] that Trump has left much to be desired on gun policy. While I understand the bump stock ban was done more for optics than anything else, he got no concessions from Democrats in return whatsoever, so he eroded 2nd Amendment rights for nothing.

Trump was in many ways idolized by the black community before he ran for president. He was a fixture of rap songs since the 1980s, won a civil rights award when he was a developer alongsidep Mohammad Ali and Rosa Parks, and even scored very high poll numbers (in the 40-50% range if I recall correctly) when running for the Reform Party nomination in 1999/2000. Skaveria's point is that Trump notably departed from the conservative orthodoxy on a number of issues when running for president, affirming he accepted same-sex marriage as settled law, pledging to defend LGBTs against radical Islam and saying he'd allow Caitlyn Jenner to use any bathroom in Trump Tower she'd choose. His administration's actual policies have been, admittedly, pretty one-sided in repealing federal protections for gays and trans people, but much of this can be defended on the grounds of state's rights and whether these protections are within the scope of the federal government.

Rateria, Skaveria

West Smolcasm wrote:2. Supposing it were possible and desirable for trans people to alter their minds, and not their bodies, such that their gender identities and sexes assigned at birth are at last aligned (and that's a very big supposing), the ethics of doing so would be questionable at best. It seems to me as though there is something inherently problematic about semi-eugeneically selecting against mental traits on the grounds of them being "different" or "undesirable." To give a non-trans-related anecdote about this concept, there was a time that I had a number of friends with higher-functioning autism who - despite any difficulties they may have faced because of it - were horrified at the implications of activist groups claiming that autism is something to be cured (by utterly eliminating its risk factors) rather than treated. One must suggest "curing" a mindset that deviates from the norm with care, lest it sound like a call for indirect genocide.

I think to call it genocide is quite an exaggeration, and even using the word eugenics is a bit loaded. I'm aware there's something called the neurological diversity movement that shares the beliefs you describe, but I think even that goes too far. Perhaps we could say that we're all different, and some autistic people certainly have some very desirable intellectual traits. But I've met kids with severe developmental disabilities as a result of autism or Asperger's, and have parents that go through things you wouldn't believe. I'm sure in some cases, maybe not all, both people with these conditions and their parents would embrace a cure to these issues if one existed. I'm sure the same could be said with trans people. Most trans people would tell you they didn't ask to have gender dysphoria and just want to feel like regular human beings.

Science has advanced to such a degree, I think, yes, there will eventually be a day where we can program the human mind. It's a type of computer, after all.

Miencraft, Skaveria

So I learned a new term today. During one of my Facebook debates I was accused of "sea-lioning"

Which apparently is asking multiple questions in bad faith while appearing civil

How would one disprove this claim? It seems as though It's just a weapon to silence the debate.

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:So I learned a new term today. During one of my Facebook debates I was accused of "sea-lioning"

Which apparently is asking multiple questions in bad faith while appearing civil

How would one disprove this claim? It seems as though It's just a weapon to silence the debate.

Skaveria man bad

Narland, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Skaveria wrote:So I learned a new term today. During one of my Facebook debates I was accused of "sea-lioning"

Which apparently is asking multiple questions in bad faith while appearing civil

How would one disprove this claim? It seems as though It's just a weapon to silence the debate.

Never heard the term before but it sounds like a stupid excuse to silence the debate

Narland, Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Skaveria man bad

ITS CURRENT YEAR

Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:Never heard the term before but it sounds like a stupid excuse to silence the debate

Yeah, it wouldn't suprise me if the term was coined in an activist field within the last three years.

Narland, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:So I learned a new term today. During one of my Facebook debates I was accused of "sea-lioning"

Which apparently is asking multiple questions in bad faith while appearing civil

How would one disprove this claim? It seems as though It's just a weapon to silence the debate.

Sea-lioning? That’s new to me. I did a quick search and read the Wikipedia article. I can see how “sea-lioning” can be an actual tactic, but the phrase could easily be thrown around to the point that it is an empty accusation. I think that I would easily be accused of this due to my mannerisms, if I actually spent time in social media debates.

Here’s the article for anyone who wants it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Skaveria wrote:So I learned a new term today. During one of my Facebook debates I was accused of "sea-lioning"

Which apparently is asking multiple questions in bad faith while appearing civil

How would one disprove this claim? It seems as though It's just a weapon to silence the debate.

In my day, this was called the Socratic method, and doing it well was seen as the mark of a great debater.

Narland, Rateria

Rateria wrote:Sea-lioning? That’s new to me. I did a quick search and read the Wikipedia article. I can see how “sea-lioning” can be an actual tactic, but the phrase could easily be thrown around to the point that it is an empty accusation. I think that I would easily be accused of this due to my mannerisms, if I actually spent time in social media debates.

Here’s the article for anyone who wants it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Yeah, the trouble with it is that it's hard to distinguish from just using questions in a debate format.

Usually when I ask questions in a debate, it's not really for the answer, it's to point out inconsistencies. I GUESS you could call that asking questions in bad faith...

Narland, Rateria

West Smolcasm wrote:In my day, this was called the Socratic method, and doing it well was seen as the mark of a great debater.

I know, how are you supposed to debate if you can't inquiry your opponent.

I did a little research and it originated from a comic in 2014 where a sea-lion keeps asking a person quesions Ad Nausium when the person had no interest in actually defending the position.

Rateria

http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Here's a link to said comic

Pevvania wrote:I think to call it genocide is quite an exaggeration, and even using the word eugenics is a bit loaded. I'm aware there's something called the neurological diversity movement that shares the beliefs you describe, but I think even that goes too far. Perhaps we could say that we're all different, and some autistic people certainly have some very desirable intellectual traits. But I've met kids with severe developmental disabilities as a result of autism or Asperger's, and have parents that go through things you wouldn't believe. I'm sure in some cases, maybe not all, both people with these conditions and their parents would embrace a cure to these issues if one existed. I'm sure the same could be said with trans people. Most trans people would tell you they didn't ask to have gender dysphoria and just want to feel like regular human beings.

Science has advanced to such a degree, I think, yes, there will eventually be a day where we can program the human mind. It's a type of computer, after all.

I think I'd like for human brains and computers to be considered distinct from one another for as long as is feasible; I wouldn't really want to live in a world where laypeople and lawmakers treat the former as they currently do the latter.

Indeed, as promising as medical technology that would allow us to rewrite the human brain would be, it would be ideal for society to advance culturally before it attains it; giving people the power to do this without first impressing on them why it would be wrong to, say, eliminate neurologically diverse traits without good reason, tamper with one's memories/personality without their informed consent, or otherwise re-enact gritty, dystopian science fiction could conceivably be quite dangerous.

That said, once such technology is developed - and once society has advanced to the point at which it can be safely used - it stands to benefit millions. In the time it takes to do this, however, it's also quite likely that we'll see further advances in HRT, SRS, and related procedures; on account of this, I don't think that the capacity to change a transgender individual's mind will ever truly eclipse that of their body. Besides, I would much rather see my outward presentation conform to my identity than the other way around, and I doubt I'm alone in thinking so.

Under the premise that a fetus is a person, and a woman's body is her property, would a rape victim then have the right to vacate the fetus?

I make the distinction for rape because in other instances, the woman would be responsible for the fetus being there.

It'd essentially be like forcing a person onto your property and then accusing them of tresspassing.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:All I know is that women are kinda gross.

Maybe you're kinda gross

Oooh gottem

Skaveria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:All I know is that women are kinda gross.

The more intelligent and creative the mind, the more beautiful they seem. I tend to find them cuddlesome -- except for the stalkers. The stalkers are rather intimidating. I avoid the ones desperate to prove her love by carving our initials on my spleen.

As a young man I discovered that nothing is sexier than a resolute soldier in uniform holding an Uzi. She was demanding our papers (from an irregular border crossing). I said that I would show her mine if she would show me hers. She did and I memorized her name and looked her up when we were off duty. When it was finally time to leave Israel, she said that she was glad she didn't shoot me. :) I'm kinda glad too.

Rateria

Narland wrote:The more intelligent and creative the mind, the more beautiful they seem. I tend to find them cuddlesome -- except for the stalkers. The stalkers are rather intimidating. I avoid the ones desperate to prove her love by carving our initials on my spleen.

As a young man I discovered that nothing is sexier than a resolute soldier in uniform holding an Uzi. She was demanding our papers (from an irregular border crossing). I said that I would show her mine if she would show me hers. She did and I memorized her name and looked her up when we were off duty. When it was finally time to leave Israel, she said that she was glad she didn't shoot me. :) I'm kinda glad too.

That's... The most romantic thing I've ever read.

Rateria

[nation]

Skaveria wrote:That's... The most romantic thing I've ever read.

She was that one who got away. :) At the time she spoke 5 languages, had a degree in journalism, was working on parliamentary law, and was aiming for a doctorate in international justice. She was (and is) afraid of nothing.

We had a similar passion in library and archival sciences, polymathy, philosophy, and husbandry. I wanted her to come to America and help homestead a ranch (I was an ornery Murikan). She wanted me to stay in Israel and homestead in the Golan region (She was Sabra through and through). We agreed to "Sing in the Sunshine" and during that time we were best friends. About 3 years afterward, she married a kibbutz leader in the late stages of de-kabbutzing. We've talked a few times since thanks to the internets. :)

Rateria

Narland wrote:[nation]She was that one who got away. :) At the time she spoke 5 languages, had a degree in journalism, was working on parliamentary law, and was aiming for a doctorate in international justice. She was (and is) afraid of nothing.

We had a similar passion in library and archival sciences, polymathy, philosophy, and husbandry. I wanted her to come to America and help homestead a ranch (I was an ornery Murikan). She wanted me to stay in Israel and homestead in the Golan region (She was Sabra through and through). We agreed to "Sing in the Sunshine" and during that time we were best friends. About 3 years afterward, she married a kibbutz leader in the late stages of de-kabbutzing. We've talked a few times since thanks to the internets. :)

This would make a great romance book, not gonna lie

Rateria

Erinzanski wrote:This would make a great romance book, not gonna lie

Or a musical.

American in Israel, or perhaps a The American on the Roof. If you move the setting around a bit you could make it West Bank Story or perhaps a very strange version of Oklahoma

Narland, Rateria

Sad to see Sarah Sanders leaving the White House. She did an absolutely tremendous job as press secretary, and dealt with the leftist media very well through an unceasing barrage of attacks, smears, lies, personal insults and public shamings. She has been treated horribly by the amoral press and deserves time to rest and relax!

Miencraft, Narland, Skaveria, Miri Islands

Pevvania wrote:Sad to see Sarah Sanders leaving the White House. She did an absolutely tremendous job as press secretary, and dealt with the leftist media very well through an unceasing barrage of attacks, smears, lies, personal insults and public shamings. She has been treated horribly by the amoral press and deserves time to rest and relax!

I've always found leftists to be incredibly inconsistent with their worldview.

They're against body-shaming, except for when they call Sarah Sanders a fat troll. Come to think of it, It's been incredibly commonplace to insult the appearance of Republicans in leftist circles.

From fat-shaming Chris Christy, to making fun of Trump's hair, spray-tan, and making a sculpture of him with an incredibly small penis and presenting it in the middle of New York City, calling Mitch McConnell a turtle for years (although I find that one funny myself).

The rule seems to be, "It doesn't count if the target is a Republican."

Pevvania, Narland

Skaveria wrote:Yeah, the trouble with it is that it's hard to distinguish from just using questions in a debate format.

Usually when I ask questions in a debate, it's not really for the answer, it's to point out inconsistencies. I GUESS you could call that asking questions in bad faith...

Critical thinking is the last refuge of mean people what should be banned from social media. Not only that, cogency hurts people's feelings and makes them feel unsafe turning the world into a worse place. Thankfully one can escape reason by going to a university safe space.

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Muh Roads wrote:Nope.

what about not nope

I'll make fun of republicans the exact same I make fun of democrats theyre both a cancer to America

Republic Of Minerva

Skaveria wrote:I've always found leftists to be incredibly inconsistent with their worldview.

They're against body-shaming, except for when they call Sarah Sanders a fat troll. Come to think of it, It's been incredibly commonplace to insult the appearance of Republicans in leftist circles.

From fat-shaming Chris Christy, to making fun of Trump's hair, spray-tan, and making a sculpture of him with an incredibly small penis and presenting it in the middle of New York City, calling Mitch McConnell a turtle for years (although I find that one funny myself).

The rule seems to be, "It doesn't count if the target is a Republican."

I've noticed this too I occasionally get things online like I'm just pretending to be gay when I argue against leftist positions

Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:I've noticed this too I occasionally get things online like I'm just pretending to be gay when I argue against leftist positions

I really hate that for you. It doesn't make any sense either, libertarians are typically culturally liberal anyways.

I tend to distinguish between being culturally liberal and being culturally leftist though.

Liberal: "How about gay people have equal rights?"

Leftist: "Heterosexuality is a social construct that only reflects the anglo-colonialist view of gender, ergo, we're all gay, whether you like it or not."

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I don't think this is a very common thing for leftists to say.

I was embellishing by using a bunch of buzzwords they typically use.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I don't think this is a very common thing for leftists to say.

You'd be suprised. My brother's gf complains to him all the time about how her sociology professor says everything is a social construct

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.