Dan, being incapable of arguing against truths presented in the blog posts of others, within the comments section which follow them, and even in the comment threads on his own blog, will inevitably go off on tangents to issues where he believes he has stronger footing. It's rarely the case, but that's what he does. So in a post about presenting a fuller, more comprehensive history of slavery and race in America, Dan eventually branched off by bringing up "transgenderism". Naturally, Dan is a big believer in it and of course those who don't are responsible for all the suffering experienced by those sadly disordered people.
In the "discussion" following the post in question, where he was failing to get traction with his substance-free comments and responses, Dan fancied he'd found a winning strategy by bringing up Texas Governor Greg Abbott's plan to use child abuse laws to fight against adults who put their minor children through "sex reassignment" protocols. To Dan, Abbott's concern for the welfare of minors is an assault on "innocent" "trans" people which will lead to many deaths. Dan provided no evidence of this wild claim...that there's a direct connection between opposing the notion that one is normal if one believes one's "gender" is something other than what their biological sex dictates and subsequent psychotic behavior by "trans" people. That is, there's nothing at all wrong with the mind of such people. It's their bodies which are the problem and to deny this unproven "fact" drives people to physically assault "trans" people and drives "trans" people to kill themselves.
In any case, Dan was livid that anyone would regard this condition as mental illness, disorder and without scientific basis (all of which is true), and as is his want, he demanded proofs and evidence as if that's what he does to support claims of his own.
Well, that wasn't the place for such things as that post had nothing to do with sexual perversions and disorders. So, as luck would have it, Wintery Knight provided a post of his own which addresses that which I believe provoked Abbott's proposed legislation:
https://winteryknight.com/2022/03/06/far-left-students-shout-down-father-who-lost-his-child-to-transgenderism/
This post presents stories of the very people I believe Abbott had in mind, and WK has provided such solid and factual cases which bear out all that honorable, honest people have said about this issue, and specifically abut Abbott's bill. The "adults" in these stories who are guilty of child abuse are supported by other morally bankrupt adults, such as judges, lawyers and spokespeople for groups advocating for sexual perversion as normal. In the highlighted story, the "mother" is not even enabling the boy, but pushing him toward that which the boy apparently has no interest. This is a worst case scenario of such abuse. But even were the boy...who is only 6 years old...was an example of what the "transsexualism" "experts" qualify as an actual "transsexual", it ignores the FACT that kids are not possessed of reason at 6 years old which would support any claim to be of the opposite sex as something a rational, responsible and MORAL adult should respect as fact.
In most, if not all, United States of America, one is not a legal adult until one has lived a full 18 years. For "progressives", one can go twice that long before being an actual adult in terms of common sense and morality. Some never mature at all, except physically. But as in legal terms 18 is the point at which one is considered an adult, it makes perfect sense to deny anyone younger to wait until that point before any sex "reassignment" is allowed for them. If one truly cares about such kids, this is a most minimum level of proving that. Any therapy provided should focus on helping kids cope with the feelings they have which compel them to believe they're not what their biology says they are, as well as helping parents cope, too.
"Progressives"...who are morons...find this to be government interference in the same way they find restricting the murder of kids in the womb to be restrictive. Yet both are simply the most compassionate policies which focus on the parties most deserving of it...the kids. I don't give a flying rat's ass what some leftist asshole parent feels about either of these two issues. It's not about them despite their completely selfish motivations. "Progressives" are masturbatory. It's all about feeling good to them. It's all about how they feel. It's all about how they "feel". It's not about the kids, which is just something they say to drum up support for that which is really all about them.
To that end, they promote the false claim asserting science backs their beliefs. Yet they provide nothing which really bears that out. Dan provided an example of what constitutes "evidence" in the aforementioned conversation two posts ago which wasn't evidence at all, while demanding evidence for the moral side of the debate as if evidence has never been provided in previous discussions. (To Dan, each new discussion means he can pretend the issue on the table has never been discussed before, and he can make all the assertions which have already been roundly debunked. This would make sense if his opponents weren't those who debunked those assertions in the first place.)
Abbott's proposal is wise, compassionate and demonstrates a level of concern for kids the "progressive" can never understand given their wanton self-centered nature. They're willing to sacrifice the best interests of minors for the sake of their vile, perverse and masturbatory agenda. Dan is totally down with that. Dan is contemptible.
ADDENDUM:
While the links in WK's post are old (from 2018 and 2016), I wonder if any who support the LGBT agenda can provide more recent studies which contradict the evidence presented involving suicide rates of "trans" and homosexual teens (I think the older study addresses homosexuals in general). In the meantime, I will be on the lookout for studies from a more recent period to see if the percentages have changed or remain the same.
https://winteryknight.com/2022/03/28/new-study-more-than-half-of-all-female-to-male-transgender-teens-attempt-suicide-3/
90 comments:
So much false, stupid and just wrong and plain immoral here. First, the rightwing disinformation campaign you cited from a far rightwing nutjob media "source" about the Younger child...
"However, the conservative campaign spread incorrect fears that Georgulas was seeking to immediately “chemically castrate” the child — a misinformed, scary-sounding reference to hormone medications that would suppress Luna’s testosterone production and replace it with estrogen, which would typically be years in Luna’s future, according to standard medical guidelines. The only plans Georgulas had, according to court transcripts, was to take Luna to a Children’s Health clinic for transgender kids in Dallas. There, they would discuss a plan for potentially starting her on puberty blockers, which are reversible, in the next few years if Luna’s gender dysphoria persists. (The clinic did not return Vox’s requests for comment.)
Seizing on Younger’s narrative of Georgulas manipulating her child, right-wing media outlets like LifeSiteNews and the Daily Wire also accused Georgulas of forcing Luna to be transgender “because she wanted a girl.” But that claim seems rather flimsy because Georgulas has two older daughters from a prior marriage.
In court testimony, Georgulas said that she would prefer if Luna were not transgender, but she supports her child’s gender identity regardless of her own feelings. “From my knowledge as a pediatrician and also from the research I’ve done, it is better to affirm for the psychological well-being of the child … [doctors recommended] that we affirm the child’s choices, whatever those choices are,” she said."
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/11/20955059/luna-younger-transgender-child-custody
and...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50172907
When you resort to citing non-reputable sources passing on fake information, that's a sure sign you're on the wrong path.
There seriously is just TOO much false, stupid and wrong on your source and on his sources. WK sounds very much like an anti-woman conservative as too many conservatives have become these days, pathetic little boys who want women to behave just the way they want.
The points remain:
1. The APA, AMA, AAP, etc and other expert medical/psychological groups all agree that there is harm in taking steps to demonize/oppress/marginalize LGBTQ folks.
2. You are not pointing to ANY medical/psychological experts to support your personal biases and hate. We don't care what ultra-conservative, irrational and emotionally fragile men think about these issues if they have no expertise or data or science to support their irrational and biased conservative hunches.
3. Likewise, you can't point to a SINGLE PLACE in the Bible where being transgender is condemned or that it's a morally good thing to oppress and try to prosecute/persecute LGBTQ folks, transgender folks or their families/supporters.
In short, you have NO experts and NO biblical support for your anti-trans bigotry.
Given that, we just don't give a damn about your personal emotionally fragile male hunches and hatreds and prejudices.
March 6, 2022 at 5:09 PM
It's amazing you demean center-right sources with impunity, and then offer something like Vox.com as a legitimate news source:
"Thus for Klein, the job of experts is not to give the public raw information, so that it can come to its own conclusions. The job of experts is to process the information themselves, and tell the public what it ought to have concluded. They are not here to help you figure out what you believe. You are a hopelessly irrational consumer. They are here, rather, to tell you what to think."
I highlighted that last sentence because it's telling, particularly for this issue. It's the pro-LGBT "experts" in a nutshell. They don't produce evidence, they produce data and tell moronic lefties what they want the data to mean. It's why you people never produce the definitive studies which proof your assertions that gender "dysphoria" isn't still the disorder it had always been until enough pro-LGBT "experts" said otherwise. Here's more from this lefty source:
"...when a Vox-er declares a scandal to be “bullshit,” he intends it as fact rather than opinion. There is no attempt to distinguish between the journalistic and the editorial. It all blurs together as “analysis.” Vox is therefore an exercise in the simultaneous having and eating of cake; it wishes to both make strong value-laden assertions and be trusted as neutral and dispassionate. This means that Vox inherently practices a crude and cruel form of rhetorical dishonesty: it treats matters of profound complexity as if they are able to be settled through mere expertise. If anyone disagrees with what the wonks have concluded, they must be dumb, delusional, or both.
As conservatives quickly pointed out after Vox’s debut, this ends up meaning that liberal political values are implicitly assumed to be factually correct."
That's just SO Trabue! No wonder you cited it!
Again, I chose to link to this article because Nathan J. Robinson is a lefty. Had I chosen any of the conservative criticisms available, you'd dismiss them as you do all conservative sources without addressing what's presented as fact. It's what you do.
At the same time, I would be remiss if I were to now avoid addressing the substance of the Vox article you posted. But before I do, I have ascertained the extreme bias of the author, "Katelyn" Burns, as well as a little something about her erratic personality. But my response will have to wait until tomorrow or possibly the next day. My plate is currently quite full. No doubt you'll inundate me with a diaper full of your shit before I do.
BBC.
Anyone who cites the crackpot, tinfoil and conspiracy nut sources you do - the most disreputable and dishonest and, sometimes, just outright crazy - has no credibility to criticize ANYONE else's sources.
And I cited BBC right along with Vox, which is, indeed, left-leaning. They certainly spin things left, but they don't tend to make up shit wholesale like your sources JUST DID and as has been demonstrated and which is clear to anyone not deluded.
WND!? Snort!
Marshal... "you demean center-right sources..."
Lifesitenews is the "source" listed by WK. That source has been described as
"Bias: Hyper-Partisan Right
Reliability: Unreliable, Problematic"
https://adfontesmedia.com/lifesite-news-bias-and-reliability/
NOT "center-right." NOT reliable or hell, not even honest.
More reports on LSN:
"The ultraconservative website LifeSiteNews has been removed from Facebook, with the tech giant accusing the group of violating policies regarding COVID-19.
LifeSiteNews, an often faith-themed website that Snopes.com describes as “a known purveyor of misleading information,” announced the Facebook ban on its own website Tuesday (May 4)."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/coronavirus/lifesitenews-removed-facebook-violating-covid-19-misinformation-policies
(that source, itself, is a Catholic news group, fyi)
"LifeSiteNews (or simply LifeSite) is a Canadian Catholic far-right anti-abortion advocacy website and news publication. LifeSiteNews has published misleading information and conspiracy theories, and in 2021, was banned from some social media platforms for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeSiteNews
Or this, from a health reporting website:
"Misleading"
"Inaccurate"
"Flawed Reasoning"
https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/lifesite-news/
And again, people who routinely cite the religious zealots and tinfoil hat "sources" have no credibility when accusing other groups of flawed reporting.
Is Vox fairly far left in its bias and editorializing? Yes. Do they pass on bad facts? Not generally.
And the info in Vox was backed up by BBC, which IS a great actual news source.
Unlike tinfoil.com, etc.
Though I have periods where perusing the blogs is difficult, I still check in to see if new comments are in moderation so that the post stays current for the three people who read and comment. In doing so, I read the comments before posting them for a variety of reasons and note in Dan's comments great irony. What's the title of this post? It was written to address tangents forced by Dan at a previous post. And what do we see here? We see Dan going off on another tangent. This post isn't about media bias. It's about adults abusing kids in the name of the lie-based LGBT agenda. Does Dan address this at all? Not so far. He prefers to demean the sources cited which affirm the premise that there are adults exploiting kids in this fashion. The only course of action for an honest person is to them find evidence which addresses the contention. Dan doesn't do this. He focuses on whether some other source finds the source used, in this case by Wintery Knight, too biased or unreliable. To do this, Dan uses sites which themselves are biased and only rendering opinion as to reliability. I haven't seen on such site to date which has not be perfect in such reporting. Despite their best intentions, such "fact-check" type sites don't provide the service they think they do, because they're used by low intellect people like to provide a means by which they can avoid addressing the topic at hand. In doing this, he puts those sources against his own which these questionable "monitors" regard as reliable. So, because Ad Fontes says a source is reliable, it is, and if Ad Fontes says another source isn't, it is not and that's all Dan needs. What a tool. I'll have more on this later.
This notion that the Truth of a report is can be determined based on the bias of the outlet that reported it, is simply bizarre.
Why not just stop all restrictions on all elective medical procedures for minors?
I'll also note that it's impossible to fully address this topic without taking into account how it's being handled in other countries. The reality is that in may controversial medical areas, other countries move faster than the US, yet somehow that US always catches up eventually.
It appears as though Dan is suggesting that he's only OK with "puberty blockers" being given to minor children because they are "reversible", is "fully reversible" the line? Are we drawing a line between biologically "reversible" and how they affect non biological areas of development? It'd be interesting to see if Dan would be able to make a categorical and unequivocal statement about what procedures he would oppose being performed on minor children.
https://www.transgendertrend.com/nhs-no-longer-puberty-blockers-reversible/
I guess the NHS is probably one of those anti-science organizations Dan likes to bitch about and the "Transgender Trend" is one more right wing propaganda organization.
1. YOU brought up the notion of disreputable sources. You did so by citing disreputable sources and by complaining about one of my sources.
2. I DID respond to the point of your post by noting the real experts who disagree with your dangerous anti-science attacks and by noting that you have ZERO Biblical support for your cultural biases.
Until you offer something beyond stupidly false claims from non-sources, what else is there to respond to?
Marshal... "In any case, Dan was livid that anyone would regard this condition as mental illness, disorder and without scientific basis (all of which is true).."
1. Yet, the fact is, you have not presented a single bit of data or expert opinion to support your insane hutch.
2. At any more livid that you don't believe the the data that I would be if you said you thought the moon was made of cheese. It's an insane opinion not based on reality or expert opinion or data.
I'm not livid that you are ignorant. I do point out the reality that your position, like that of the oppressors in Texas, is a dangerous one that causes real harm to people according to the experts. Read the data.
And so, until the ignorant and bigoted can provide data to support any claims they make, I will denounce their hunches as factually being ignorant and dangerous.
I'm doing my part to save lives based on the best science. You're doing your part to oppress and cause harm.
Clearly a 3 year old, or an 8 year old, or a 12 year old is completely prepared and competent to consent to these sorts of medical procedures, and to fully grasp the risks and everything involved in these sorts of medical procedures. Because absolutely no child has ever wanted to be something other then what they were when they were young.
Dan is a big one for confirmation bias. It's how he knows conservative sources are crap. Because lefty sources told him what he wants to believe is true. We see it in his Vox offering, as the dude doing the reporting (that dude being Katelyn Burns) goes out of his way to affirm everything a sap like Dan wants to believe. Dan, who fancies himself a journalism student, has no problem with the absolute bias of Burns as he ignores the fact that the Younger boy is a boy, constantly referring to him by a female name and with female pronouns. "But, but, but that's how the child identifies!!!" the lefty moron will say. Fine. But that doesn't mean a journalist is obligated to ignore truth to appease that child's feeling. If the kid identified as a bear, would the pro-"trans" journalist refer to the kid as a Grizzly? I doubt it. But Burns, who himself is a liar...his insistence he's a woman is alone proof of that, purposely rejects the facts in order to push the agenda, further validating the claim of adults exploiting children for "the cause".
And like Dan's practice of attacking a source rather than the info the source provides, Burns attacks the boy's father and his character. Well, the dude might be an asshole for all I know, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about the proper course to take in dealing with his son's "feelings". He understands the reality that feelings aren't the same as facts and just because he...or even Burns...believes himself to be a girl (if that's really true), it isn't a medical or psychological basis for determining if it's true.
More importantly, when we read on about this case, we find that the "experts" believe it best to appease the child's goofy self-image. Again, if a 6 or 7 year old boy believed himself to be a porpoise, would anyone be obliged to refer to the kid as such? It's absurd, and worse, it's journalistic malpractice. Journalists are supposed to report facts. The kid is NOT a girl.
As to that, the very "experts" who promote this lie acknowledge the kid's age compels them to wait to administer anything other than foolish advice to enable his fantasy. It's as if they're talking out both sides of the mouth. The kid's too young, but old enough to know he's a girl? How does that work exactly? No. This is adults promoting an agenda and exploiting the child for the purpose. So what if the child protests? Is that somehow out of character for children? Kids always happily set aside their desires when guided by their parents? There's nothing about the lefty position on this which isn't absurd at best, and plenty to prove it's heinous.
More...
There's much out there which looks to use scientific data to promote the lie as truth, to prove that we who prefer truth must set it aside for the sake of those who don't. Yet the data isn't proof but just data, and these asshats regard them as proof of their positions while honest professionals see them as simply explanations for why these people are disordered. That is to say, we don't have any justification for regarding "trans" people as normal. We have explanations for why they're not and for society to misuse data to promote disorder as normal is not what mature adults do.
It can't be helped that some who are disordered in this way might resort to hurting themselves, or that other might choose to hurt them. None of that stands as justification for promoting the lie. But that's what lefties do as well.
But the main point of this "Luna" Younger issue is what to do about kids, especially those as young as James, when they get it in their all too young minds they are something they are clearly and factually not. His mother and the leftist witch doctors and quacks, on the other hand, are quick to treat him as "transgendered" rather than just a small boy who is going through a phase. Everyone from whom she seeks advice is pro-LGBT and for these hammers, the poor boy is just their next nail.
March 7, 2022 at 1:35 PM
"1. YOU brought up the notion of disreputable sources. You did so by citing disreputable sources and by complaining about one of my sources."
This is rich, but so Trabue. I brought up the notion of disreputable sources by citing sources Dan regards a disreputable because some site of his stroked his confirmation bias. On the other hand, I complain about Dan's sources because they fail to do what Dan cited them to do. What's more, I demonstrate they're as bad as he needs to believe mine are. You cite the BBC as if it's pure as the driven snow, but not all Brits agree and they're own employees speak of how biased they are. The more biased, the less likely one will receive accurate information not intended to influence. Then there's that "reliability" issue.
"2. I DID respond to the point of your post by noting the real experts who disagree with your dangerous anti-science attacks and by noting that you have ZERO Biblical support for your cultural biases."
First, I've not mentioned Scripture in this blog or in response to any of your off-topic comments at the other post. But I have brought forth a very strong Scripture-based argument which you just reject out of hand because it doesn't satisfy your self-serving criteria of being put forth in a narrowly specific way, such as "I, the Lord your God, hates transsexuals" or some such. In the meantime, you use your "reason" to twist and contort whatever you think you can twist and distort a passage enough to stand as a legitimate argument for each of your positions. You take literally what you believe serves you to do so, and find "nuance" which the text does not possess to serve you as necessary as well. But I may get to Biblical support later, though it isn't necessary for this post.
Before I forget, Dan criticized LifeSiteNews over being banned by social media for "misinformation" regarding COVID-19. Who hasn't? That's hardly worthy of acknowledging, much less using that as a reason to disparage. Social media has been total assholes with regard what it allows or prohibits and to be cancelled by any of them lends a news source credibility, not lessens it.
"Until you offer something beyond stupidly false claims from non-sources, what else is there to respond to?"
The point of the post, which is the exploitation of minors to promote the lie of the LGBT agenda, in this case, the lie of "transgenderism". That's the only thing to which you should have been responding. You chose to attack the sources as if your low opinion of them means what they report is automatically false, while not doing jack to defend with evidence the exploitation the post addresses. All you've provided are like-minded opinions from "experts" you favor because of those opinions, but no evidence of any kind.
March 7, 2022 at 1:43 PM
"1. Yet, the fact is, you have not presented a single bit of data or expert opinion to support your insane hutch."
Sorry, Nancy, but this is where YOU are supposed to bring the evidence debunking assertions the condition is mental illness, disorder and without scientific basis. It's because no one brings such evidence Occam's razor applies. Indeed, from weak attempts I've seen thus far, the simpler explanation just makes the most sense. Here we see a male who despite all factual evidence to the contrary, identifies as a woman. The problem is not the fully functioning body. It's the mind.
"2. At any more livid that you don't believe the the data that I would be if you said you thought the moon was made of cheese."
What "data"? You haven't brought any. You brought opinions. And I wonder...how many of those who push the same opinion as you have done anything to confirm the data, rather than just use it to affirm their own biases? Which of them were involved in any of the "research" said to suggest the disorder is simply normal and worthy of cultural and legislative changes?
"I'm not livid that you are ignorant."
It's a good thing, given I'm not ignorant, except of the research those of your kind won't produce. As such, you've no cause to be livid, especially as you're really not. You're a petulant child whining when others won't accept the lie you're so willing to believe and perpetuate.
"I do point out the reality that your position, like that of the oppressors in Texas, is a dangerous one that causes real harm to people according to the experts. Read the data."
What data? The opinions of pro-LGBT "experts" who assert it's people who care for the welfare of others who are the cause of any harm the disordered experience? What data can you provide which makes that lie true? I'll wait here while you once again provide nothing.
"And so, until the ignorant and bigoted can provide data to support any claims they make, I will denounce their hunches as factually being ignorant and dangerous."
So, you denounce as ignorant, bigoted and dangerous those who acknowledge the obvious...that your kind are always the true danger to minors; that you have no evidence to support your opinions that the minors in question are best served by appeasing and enabling their disordered self-perception. It would be hilarious if not so absolutely false to assert such people are "factually" ignorant and dangerous without actually presenting "facts" to back up the charge. No, little Missy. It's YOU who is obliged to provide evidence here. You never do. That dude Katelyn Burns didn't. Quotations of the AMA's, APA's and AAP's position aren't evidence. It's not data. It's nothing but pro-perv spewing.
"I'm doing my part to save lives based on the best science."
How can you be when you've provided nothing to show your side is doing that? Assertions aren't data. Opinions aren't evidence.
"You're doing your part to oppress and cause harm."
How can we be when you've provided nothing to show our side is doing that? Assertions aren't data. Opinions aren't evidence. This is most particularly true when being farted out the mouths of leftists.
Marshal... "The point of the post, which is the exploitation of minors to promote the lie of the LGBT agenda, in this case, the lie of "transgenderism"."
But you've provided NOTHING - not a damn thing but lies and bigotry and hate - to support this notion you hold IN YOUR HEAD and with NO DATA FROM EXPERTS or from the Bible to support your oppressive hateful bigotry.
What about that do you not understand?
I almost forgot! I need to address this crap from Dan's comment on March 6, 2022 at 5:44 PM. It's really stupid and insulting and very much irrelevant to the topic. It's another way Dan responds to facts and truths he does not like and can't debunk...attack the source:
"WK sounds very much like an anti-woman conservative as too many conservatives have become these days, pathetic little boys who want women to behave just the way they want."
It should be crystal clear by now to anyone who's spent even a brief amount of time reading this blog, or those with a strong stomach, Dan's blog, how things "sound" to Dan indicts Dan's character and intelligence. Anytime Dan reads a conservative's words, "it sounds" like something bad, simply because it needs to be because it is the opposite of Dan's position and thus is likely true and moral. Dan doesn't do true and moral.
Proving once again that Dan doesn't know jack shit about conservatism, he pretends they're "anti-woman", because to the "progressive", conservatives are everything evil the progressive needs them to be when the "progressive" can't argue against the truth they speak or the Christian ideals they represent and perpetuate in their actions, not just in vague speech like the "progressive". Conservatives "want" women to behave the same way they "want" men to behave...morally, intelligently, logically...as if they believe there is something called "morality", "intelligence" and "logic" which isn't just a freakin' punchline or campaign slogan as those things are for "progressives". Wintery Knight is among Christian conservatives who feel this way (if I may be so bold as to speak for him...after all, unlike Dan, I actually read his blog). He's an immigrant who has remained chaste and he does not believe that bedding a woman is moral outside of marriage and that women who disagree are probably not good Christian women who can pair with him to form the type of marriage God has in mind. "Progressives" don't feel that way. For those like Dan, God's got nothing to do with it. For those like Dan, God loves everything we do and doesn't care if we reject everything He's said about how we should live our lives. WK isn't like that. He actually seeks to please God, even at his own expense. Admirable stuff "progressives" can't comprehend...like conservatism.
Given what we know about Dan, Dan isn't worthy to wipe the sweat from WK's crotch. Comparing the two blogs, we see a far better understanding of and devotion to the Will of God and the teachings of Scripture when reading WK's blog than we ever will reading Dan's. Dan will ask for evidence, no doubt. The evidence is clear to see by reading both blogs at length. The more one reads, the more crystal clear it becomes.
Marshal... " I brought up the notion of disreputable sources by citing sources Dan regards a disreputable because some site of his stroked his confirmation bias."
You bring up disreputable sources all the time because you CITE disreputable, non-journalistic sources. As a point of reality.
WND is not a real news group operating with journalistic best practices. Anyone who is informed can see that. Same for "lifesitenews." Same for your other various non-journalistic sources. You rarely to never cite actual news groups - BBC, NPR, New York Times, AP, or even Fox News.
That your stories regularly are so pathetic, grade-school writing and non-news-ish that even Fox News wouldn't report them is a sign.
Look, Vox is not a journalistic outfit. They're an opinion/policy wonk source, offering left-leaning opinions about actual news. But when they reference a story, they're generally getting the facts right, they're just giving it the spin of a liberal organization.
But your sources aren't even doing that, more often than not. They're making up facts and twisting facts to the point that it's not factual or intellectually honest.
On this point, Craig said... "This notion that the Truth of a report is can be determined based on the bias of the outlet that reported it, is simply bizarre."
NOT what I said. If you're reading my words and interpreting them to mean that, YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD. Again. I've never said that.
What I AM saying is that, as Paul said:
"Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”
IF you're citing wackos who regularly report fake news, make up stories, twist facts and generally are NOT reliable, then YOUR CHARACTER is being corrupted. If you're citing the KKK Magazine as a source to "show" that black people are lesser than white people, it doesn't MATTER if they're citing some (wacko) expert, that you're listening to such deviants and relying upon their testimony, that undermines YOUR credibility.
That you think character and credibility doesn't matter when it comes to citing sources about information, that's truly bizarre.
Marshal... "he pretends they're "anti-woman","
Another stupidly diabolically false claim. I've never said that nor do I pretend that. My mother, father and many dear family and friends were/are incredibly conservative and most of them are not anti-woman.
The problem with modern conservatives is that they read one line that offends them and instead of seeking understanding, they presume that the author is saying something they've never said nor believe.
But stupidly false claims remain stupidly false, no matter how incompetent the person who writes them is when it comes to understanding words and stuff.
March 7, 2022 at 6:55 PM
"But you've provided NOTHING - not a damn thing but lies and bigotry and hate - to support this notion you hold IN YOUR HEAD and with NO DATA FROM EXPERTS or from the Bible to support your oppressive hateful bigotry."
First, I don't deal with lies, bigotry or hate. I'm not a "progressive" "Christian".
Secondly, I didn't provide lies, bigotry OR hate in my post. Again, I'm not a "progressive" "Christian".
Thirdly, the post contains WK's fine reporting on the Texas issue which stands as evidence of the point of the post, providing stories which speak to adults exploiting kids to promote The Agenda Which Doesn't Exist.
Fourth, the claim that your agenda is a lie is based on the lack of truth and evidence provided by proponents of the agenda to prove a single damned thing they say. In all my research, I've never seen anything which is more than "a suggestion of a possible clue" to why anyone would be any of the sundry members of the LGBT+ community. With this all in mind, the ball was in YOUR court to provide the evidence you think is all over the freakin' place because "experts" told you so. One would think that a proponent of that narrative would have the definitive evidence at the ready. Instead, we get YOU, whining in your typical little 5 yr old petulant girl that opponents of this wickedness are "hateful liars and bigots".
"What about that do you not understand?"
Not a f**king thing.
Marshal... " In all my research, I've never seen anything which is more than "a suggestion of a possible clue" to why anyone would be any of the sundry members of the LGBT+ community."
Unless you're a researcher using scientific methods to understand sometimes complex matters, you have NOT DONE A DAMN BIT of research.
You've read bigoted idiots to confirm your bigoted oppression and hatred. Don't inflate what you do to something it isn't.
You're not a researcher. Not even a casual, armchair one.
But how about that "research" you've done? Who were the authorities speaking to the topic? What LGBTQ experts have you read thoroughly? Beyond tinfoil websites, what serious research have you read about the topic? What AMA/APA data are you aware of? How many LGBTQ experts have you read talking about the LGBTQ experience? Have you read even ONE book written by an LGBTQ person, start to finish?
If you've read ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY the wacky opinions of anti-LGBTQ folks, then why would we take that any more seriously the white supremacist who has "researched" the black experience by reading what the KKK "researchers" have said?
Give us a reading list, Marshal, to try to add some credibility to your tattered reputation.
Just checking in, so I haven't time to get deep. But at this point, it's not up to you to dictate to me after I've presented solid evidence in the past to bolster my position. No, Skippy. It's up to YOU to provide something which proves ANYTHING coming from your deviant LGBT overlords. When you can do that, then you can dare ask any more from those who can see clearly what's true and what's not. For example, what AMA/APA data can you present that isn't any more than what you've offered thus far, which is just another source with the same opinion as you. Opinions aren't evidence.
But here's the thing: you pretend EVERY source which opposes the non-science of the LGBT agenda to b "wacky opinions of anti-LGBT folks" and insist the only legit info comes from the LGBT folks who are wacky by virtue of being LGBT. Honest people of character know what is normal and LGBT people are not normal. Thus, it is up to you to provide the definitive evidence you clearly need to believe exists to prove honest people wrong. Until then, it your perversion enabling, infanticide defending, soulless reputation which is tattered.
What you're completely failing to understand is that YOU HAVE NO DATA ON WHICH TO guess that somehow LGBTQ folks are "wrong" or whatever hateful attack words you want to use. YOU HAVE NO experts who agree with your feelings.
All the experts in the various related fields - APA, AMA, AAP, etc, all recognize that there is nothing innately wrong with being LGBT or Q. You have ZERO expert opinion on your side that comes from professional organizations. You have religious zealots - FOTF, Muslim extremists, Mormon extremists, etc - who are hateful of LGBTQ matters and disapprove of it because of their cultural religious traditions, but you have no scientific groups of professional, accredited, peer-reviewed experts in these fields to support your biases.
AND in the case of transgender folks, you have ZERO biblical references to suggest that God condemns it. Literally nothing but your bigoted religious traditions.
IF you want to make a case that the experts are all wrong and little Marshal is correct, THEN you have to find somebody who knows a damned thing about the topic and has actually studied the field and has data-driven evidence that can withstand peer review to support your feelings.
I'm standing with the experts. The onus is on YOU to provide ANY data/evidence as to why we should agree with the religious biases and bigotries of fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and Muslims.
Marshal... "the post contains WK's fine reporting on the Texas issue"
WK is not doing "reporting." WK is not a journalist and does not write in a style consistent with journalistic integrity. The same is true for the various sources you regularly cite - WND, LifeSite, etc... - these are NOT journalistic organizations and their writers are not reporters. Hell, half the time, they're barely adult level writers, given their lack of reasoning or consistency or fact checking.
YOU and your colleagues are NOT researchers and the reading you do is NOT research.
Words have meanings and you're using them wrong, elevating poor writing and thinking into "reporting" and "research."
Expert opinion:
SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — America's leading psychiatric organization has adopted a resolution which states
being transgender is not a mental disorder.
The resolution also
strongly rebukes "conversion therapy" that aims to
change anyone's gender identity or sexual orientation.
It's a resolution that was welcome news to Utah's transgender advocates.
The resolution stands in stark contrast with the field of psychology's history towards transgender and non-binary people and issues like gender identity. The resolution declares:
Diversity in gender identity and expression is part of the human experience
and transgender and gender nonbinary identities and expressions are healthy,
incongruence between one’s sex and gender is neither pathological nor a mental health disorder."
According to its website, The American Psychological Association (APA) is the "leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 122,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members."
https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/being-transgender-not-a-mental-disorder-americas-leading-psychiatric-organization-says
So, I GET that Marshal, the guy who sometimes writes on a blog, considers, in his little mind and within his human religious traditions that align with extremist fundamentalist Muslim traditions and others like it, that MARSHAL THINKS it's "disordered" thinking to not conform to MARSHAL's bigoted opinions, but Marshal is no expert on gender expression, is he?
So, who to trust? Leading groups of professionals across multiple related fields or some religious white guy who disagrees with them based upon nothing but his religious prejudices and ignorance?
Be serious.
More research and expert opinion from actual experts...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/07/health/conversion-therapy-personal-and-financial-harm/index.html
Art,
What's interesting about WK, is that his pieces are usually filled with active links to sources. That's why I occasionally share his posts. It's easier to post the link to his piece, than to dig through all the sources he cites. While he probably isn't a journalist in the classic sense, he's clearly reporting and aggregating various news stories from various news (and other) sites. The problem is that Dan conflates his dislike of a particular source, with the Truth that the source reports. It's this sort of bias against particular sources, without regard to the Truth or accuracy of their reports that is problematic.
Strangely enough, he's been known to cite some far left sources/affinity groups as if they are somehow unbiased and Truthful.
Craig... "What's interesting about WK, is that his pieces are usually filled with active links to sources. "
But if the sources are junk sources - and the ones I've seen have all been fully unreliable and false tin-foil types "sources" - then you're links mean jack shit.
Garbage in, garbage out.
It has nothing to do with disliking a "source" and everything to do with pointing out the reality that bad sources provide bad information. Half truths can be more dangerous than full on lies.
Why? Because the weak-minded can be fooled.
The point remains: I'm citing experts and groups of experts that are all united in scientific, rational opinions.
You all cite far right tinfoil types non-experts and fearmongers.
Don't be deceived, God will not be mocked. A man will reap whatever he sows.
All the experts in the various related fields - APA, AMA, AAP, etc, all recognize that there is nothing innately wrong with being LGBT or Q
Self-proclaimed experts supported by LEFTISTs. It's all ideological b. s.
There is one very SCIENTIFIC thing proving against the whole idea of "transgenderism"--it's called biology. No one can change one's gender by pills or surgery. A male will always be a male and a female will always be a female. Yet those who disagree always tell everyone else to "trust the science" for every agenda they promote. Talk about science-deniers -- Trabue and is ignorant ilk have absolutely no understanding of real science.
Oh, and by the way, biology also speaks against homosexual behavior.
March 7, 2022 at 7:35 PM
"You bring up disreputable sources all the time because you CITE disreputable, non-journalistic sources. As a point of reality."
Your labeling of my sources as "disreputable" doesn't in the least make them so. That's just disreputable you giving your worthless opinion instead of providing evidence to debunk what my "disreputable" sources claim. You're not "reputable" enough to criticize, especially given your own constant lying on your blog and the blogs of others.
"WND is not a real news group operating with journalistic best practices."
This is funny coming from a pom-pom girl for NPR, BBC, NYT, etc. Of course it's a "real news group". The same is true of Life Site News. But you take your cues from leftist "fact-checkers" of media news sources, all of which curiously rate most lefty sites as more reliable, while strangely judging most conservative sites less reliable. Funny how that works out.
"You rarely to never cite actual news groups - BBC, NPR, New York Times, AP, or even Fox News."
Why would I? They're not necessarily the epitome of journalistic integrity you stupidly expect me to believe they are, especially after having done several posts related to media malfeasance. But even here, I've provided links attesting to their lack of integrity (BBC and Vox), and the NY Times is damned near famous for their crap reporting (their "Russian Collusion" crap alone demands Pulitzer take back their worthless prize). And just Google "the lies of NPR" and see what you get. You've got a lot of nerve accusing conservative sights of being "disreputable".
P.S. I rarely visit Fox's online site. In fact, I only check it out when encouraged to read a specific story by my wife, who looks at it semi-regularly. I watch a few of their shows fairly often, but I don't start until after their news show. However, I've not found any case where their news reporting on their opinion shows have been as egregiously in error (to be generous) as your favored outlets, and they're definitely far quicker to retract and correct errors they make.
"That your stories regularly are so pathetic, grade-school writing and non-news-ish that even Fox News wouldn't report them is a sign."
I don't find it particularly troubling that all news sources don't focus on the same stories...not even when your crappy sources do it. It's a real non-issue and a laughable criticism.
"Look, Vox is not a journalistic outfit."
Yet it's the first one you cited, and the dude's reporting was far less than objective and purposely lied, as noted above. It was a hit piece on the father, Abbott and his proposed policies banning the abuse of minors who are vulnerable to suggestion by adults.
"But your sources aren't even doing that, more often than not. They're making up facts and twisting facts to the point that it's not factual or intellectually honest."
Sez you...the boy who thinks there are more than one gender. Talk about twisting facts!!
From here:
"On this point, Craig said... "This notion that the Truth of a report is can be determined based on the bias of the outlet that reported it, is simply bizarre."
NOT what I said." To here:
"That you think character and credibility doesn't matter when it comes to citing sources about information, that's truly bizarre."
...we find one of the best examples of your hypocrisy. In the middle of those quotes, you dare to quote from Scripture to accuse us of "citing wackos who regularly report fake news, make up stories, twist facts and generally are NOT reliable". That's just your worthless and biased opinion and you've offered no evidence that it's as you say. Worse, you just described sources you favor, such as NPR, BBC, NYT and the like. Each of those and others you've cited have all been proven at one time or another to be guilty of that which you accuse conservative or right-leaning sources.
Your character was already corrupted before you took up with that bad company. Scavenger birds of a feather you are.
But to your "rebuttal" of Craig's comment, you have indeed indulged in rejecting sources for their leanings without truly considering the point of whatever story you reject. It's pretty much expected of you at this point. In the meantime, you choose your sources by that which gives you a tingle, never mind the veracity and validity of the topic discussed. A good example are "studies" you presented defending parenting of children by lesbians, all of which were quickly shown to be crap studies for a variety of reasons. You didn't look for quality in any of those studies. You simply chose them because of the conclusions at the end of them. Bad studies presented as good studies by an alleged journalism student who did no research at all as to the quality of those studies. Typical of the sources you favor as well.
We most certainly do revere character and credibility when it comes to citing sources about information. That's why we steer clear of the enemies of the people from whom you get your marching orders.
March 7, 2022 at 7:38 PM
"Marshal... "he pretends they're "anti-woman","
Another stupidly diabolically false claim. I've never said that nor do I pretend that."
Was it the "he pretends" part? It must be because on further reflection, you're not pretending when you describe conservatives as "anti-woman" as you did in the following comment from March 6, 2022 at 5:44 PM: "WK sounds very much like an anti-woman conservative as too many conservatives have become these days, pathetic little boys who want women to behave just the way they want."
Or maybe the "stupidly diabolical" part was not acknowledging how you hedged your bet with the "as too many conservatives" bit, allowing you to attack conservatives by pretending you're not attacking them all. You must confuse us for "progressives".
"The problem with modern conservatives is that they read one line that offends them and instead of seeking understanding, they presume that the author is saying something they've never said nor believe."
Here you deride "modern" conservatives by asserting they are as easily led as lefties are and worse, as stupid as lefties are for not "seeking understanding" after a clear insult has by laid down by you. You pretend conservatives...OOPS!..."modern" conservatives of being anti-woman. Don't deny it. It's what all you lefties are told to say about conservatives (proving yet again you know nothing about conservatism..."modern" or otherwise.
"But stupidly false claims remain stupidly false, no matter how incompetent the person who writes them is when it comes to understanding words and stuff."
HEY LOOK, FOLKS!!! A RARE MOMENT OF HONEST FROM DAN AS HE DESCRIBES HIMSELF TO A T!!!
March 7, 2022 at 8:21 PM
"Unless you're a researcher using scientific methods to understand sometimes complex matters, you have NOT DONE A DAMN BIT of research."
Real journalists do research on a wide variety of topics. They don't put on lab coats and mix chemicals in beakers in preparation for a story. They might not have mentioned this where you learned to be "a journalism guy" in jurnilisim skool. But it doesn't take a doctorate to recognize bullshit methodologies of those oh, so genius pro-LGBT researchers, especially when there are enough honest people of science who have explained why the pro-LGBT studies are crap.
"You've read bigoted idiots to confirm your bigoted oppression and hatred."
This is what you tell yourself when the lies and fraudulence of you pro-LGBT studies are exposed. Instead of doing research yourself to compare one argument against the other, you simply crap on those who expose your vaunted "experts" for the liars they are.
"You're not a researcher. Not even a casual, armchair one."
research
rĭ-sûrch′, rē′sûrch″
noun
1. Careful study of a given subject, field, or problem, undertaken to discover facts or principles.
2. An act or period of such study.
3. Diligent inquiry, examination, or study; laborious or continued search after facts or principles; investigation: as, microscopical research; historical researches.
All this describes what I do to fact-check your claims and to debunk them. (which I've always done extremely well, as evidenced by your inevitable insults and pleas to a God in whom you don't even believe) I've never claimed to go beyond that level of research to get the facts on the issues we discuss and you pervert, as you are wont to do with world-class regularity. You seem never to do this (I'm being generous here...I don't think you do it at all). You find headlines which arouse you, perhaps do a cursory read but more likely jumping to the conclusion, and think you've got slam dunk evidence to support your deviant positions. I can't tell you how many articles and papers I chose to reject rather than provide a link because the quality was poor, the argument was poor, etc. I'm all the researcher I need to be for the likes of you, and then some.
March 8, 2022 at 8:32 AM
"What you're completely failing to understand is that YOU HAVE NO DATA ON WHICH TO guess that somehow LGBTQ folks are "wrong" or whatever hateful attack words you want to use. YOU HAVE NO experts who agree with your feelings."
What you're completely failing to understand is that you you aren't even describing the issue here, which is that it is up to the pro-LGBT crowd to prove what THEY say, particularly as they intend to influence legislation and public policy to accommodate their disordered perversions. You're completely failing to understand (that's not true...you're blatantly lying) that regarding someone as "wrong" is not hateful in the least. You simply want it to be because you have no real argument. Again, as you do with conservative leaning news sources, you demonize the messenger to justify rejecting the message you won't even peruse. It's what people who are wrong always do.
In addition, I, like most conservatives, don't deal in "feelings" on matters such as these. That is, except for the feeling we have when confronted with obvious bullshit, such as the LGBT agenda. There's no truth in it. It's self-evidently crap. It doesn't pass the smell test for any honest person of character. This "feeling" provokes a desire to get the facts which thus far don't align with the reality they wish existed. Studying the LGBT side of the issue provides nothing of substance, and there are enough experts of character who debunk their lies easily.
"All the experts in the various related fields - APA, AMA, AAP, etc, all recognize that there is nothing innately wrong with being LGBT or Q."
There's a vast chasm between "recognizing" what has personal appeal versus presenting actual evidence for that which has personal appeal. Where's the evidence? There is none. There is only data manipulated to push the lie.
"You have ZERO expert opinion on your side that comes from professional organizations."
Except for all I've presented in discussions past which you simply dismiss and reject for no other reason than your inability to counter it with substance. As always, with each new post, you pretend none of that ever happened, because you're a liar. As I type this, there are about a half dozen comments in moderation, most of them yours, with one which won't be allowed. I'll explain that when I'm good and ready. After I get caught up, I'll be posting the rest and maybe then I'll consider once again providing examples of honest professionals debunking and refuting the crap you find so compelling despite it being crap.
"You have religious zealots - FOTF, Muslim extremists, Mormon extremists, etc - who are hateful of LGBTQ matters and disapprove of it because of their cultural religious traditions, but you have no scientific groups of professional, accredited, peer-reviewed experts in these fields to support your biases."
I never cite "zealots" of any religion. I sight Biblical scholars who don't distort Scripture to convince the weak minded that God changed His mind on human sexuality. What you refer to as "zealots", honest people of character regard as those who teach the truth about God's will and expectations regarding human sexuality. In simpler terms, they're not liars like you are.
"AND in the case of transgender folks, you have ZERO biblical references to suggest that God condemns it. Literally nothing but your bigoted religious traditions."
More importantly, you have nothing which so much as hints that God doesn't condemn it or homosexuality or any of the other perversions you favor. At some point later, I may provide legitimate scholarship on the issue...also that which I've provided in the past and you've rejected simply because you can't deal with the truth.
"IF you want to make a case that the experts are all wrong and little Marshal is correct, THEN you have to find somebody who knows a damned thing about the topic and has actually studied the field and has data-driven evidence that can withstand peer review to support your feelings."
If you want to make a case that your "experts" are correct and little Danny-girl is correct, then you have to produce any of those definitive studies I've been requesting for about 14 years now going back to my earliest posts. All that time and you've provided nothing but assurances your "experts" have proven your position. I mean, YOU'RE supposedly the boy with the "experts" who know a damned thing about the topic. Where's the beef, Chuckles? And are you really going to try that "peer review" crap again?
"I'm standing with the experts. The onus is on YOU to provide ANY data/evidence as to why we should agree with the religious biases and bigotries of fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and Muslims."
No you're not. You're standing with liars. The onus is on YOU to provide substantive evidence that the claims of the LGBT activists are true. And keep in mind, that's just to get to the point of determining whether or not these sad people should be treated as if their condition is immutable in the manner race and sex is (ACTUAL sex, not freak sex that turns you on). Note also that your defaulting to your standard "demonize the opposition" is plain as day. "Biases and bigotries"? You're lying again and lying intentionally.
Marshal... "You're standing with liars."
So here's the problem. Part of the problem. You're making a crazy sounding claim there... and with NOTHING to support it.
You're suggesting/stating that ALL of these doctors and ALL these psychiatrists and ALL these psychologists and ALL these mental health experts in ALL these different areas and ALL these different groups and ALL these different organizations... That they're ALL lying! That's not rational. AND and you're providing NO data or evidence to support such a crazy sounding claim.
Do you not see how irrational and conspiratorial and crazy that sounds? And with NO evidence, just the claim of "Marshal on the internet. "
!
WHY would anyone take that seriously?
Marshal...
"Note also that your defaulting to your standard "demonize the opposition" is plain as day. "Biases and bigotries"
If you have no medical or scientific or expert data to support your claim, and all you have are your religious traditions and biases, how's that anything but just stating a fact?
Marshal...
"which is that it is up to the pro-LGBT crowd to prove what THEY say..."
They have. With good reason, first hand experience, data, and expert opinion. If you want to disagree with experts and people who know better than you, then YOU have to provide something. The onus is on YOU.
But oppressors always like to ignore experts and go with their own feelings and emotions and thuggish demands. You're just traveling down the same path as many oppressors have in the past.
March 8, 2022 at 8:42 AM
In this comment, Dan makes more unsupported assertions and does so as if he's making objective criticism. Of course, his assertions are nothing more than manifestations of his hatred for truth.
"YOU and your colleagues are NOT researchers and the reading you do is NOT research."
Actually, reading's essential for doing research of any kind and level. Unfortunately for you, it requires doing so with an open mind seeking truth, as opposed to anything which can be spun to be supportive of your corruption.
"Words have meanings and you're using them wrong, elevating poor writing and thinking into "reporting" and "research.""
This is ironically funny coming from a "progressive" who favors altering meanings of words to suit the cause of all things "progressive" (meaning: deviant). The obvious examples of course are words like "marriage", "family", "male and female", "truth", "reality", "rationality", "Christian".
March 8, 2022 at 8:47 AM
Expert opinion:"
...is worthless without the evidence and proofs to support having it. Thus, the APA's "opinion" regarding the mental health of those who suffer from gender identity disorder is also worthless if there's no evidence, proof, data, studies which serve to legitimize that opinion. Still waiting on it.
"According to its website, The American Psychological Association (APA) is the "leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 122,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members.""
How many of those 122,000 members agree with the opinion you find so compelling? How many of them can cite whatever evidence we're supposed to accept actually exists which justify no longer regarding the condition as a mental illness/disorder? I would have to think some of them are honest people, but I could be wrong about that.
"So, I GET that Marshal, the guy who sometimes writes on a blog, considers, in his little mind and within his human religious traditions that align with extremist fundamentalist Muslim traditions and others like it, that MARSHAL THINKS it's "disordered" thinking to not conform to MARSHAL's bigoted opinions, but Marshal is no expert on gender expression, is he?"
What are trying to do? Hurt my feelings?
You get very little because you're a chump for perversion and disorder, like a good little "progressive" should be. My mind might indeed be little. I can't imagine, then, just how small yours must be given your inability to make a case or find evidence to help you do so. No where have I brought up religion in this discussion. And while I've already, in past discussions, made a far better case for my position being aligned with Scripture than your laughable attempts to pervert Scripture to support yours (like the slavers did to support slavery), I don't need to cite Scripture to oppose this sad illness being promoted as normal. That's because all honest people can easily see you people are full of crap and the assertions of the LGBT activists are unsupported in every way.
But it's not my opinions which matter. It's disordered because biology doesn't support it, and psychology has no scientific justification for insisting it isn't. Unlike you...and evidently the APA...facts determine my positions, not feelings and disordered compulsions. I don't claim expertise. I claim common sense and that tells me if there is no evidence or definitive studies I can see (as none of you people ever present them), then Occam's razor applies.
"So, who to trust? Leading groups of professionals across multiple related fields or some religious white guy who disagrees with them based upon nothing but his religious prejudices and ignorance?"
Well, I'm certainly not going to trust groups of woke professionals promoted as infallible by a non-religious white asshat from Louisville. Especially when no science is ever presented which definitively proves their position. You pretend I speak in ignorance, yet you've yet to enlighten...which is strange coming from an expert like you. My position is indeed based on science. It doesn't support your premise.
March 8, 2022 at 9:39 AM
Your CNN link (CNN being an unreliable news source, but the question is...can we trust what it reports in this link?) is a tangent. Linking to something which presents more people saying the same thing doesn't help when your obligation is to provide evidence to support the LGBT position. I may come back to this later, but it is not on topic except tangentially...which isn't good enough for you.
Marshal... "it's not my opinions which matter. It's disordered because biology doesn't support it, and psychology has no scientific justification for insisting it isn't."
Last time: PROVE IT.
You HAVE to do something more than just say "all those experts are wrong" or "biology doesn't support it." WHO SAYS biology doesn't support it or that all these experts are wrong??
Your say-so doesn't mean a thing.
Here is some of the science behind why virtually all experts disagree with your non-expert hunches...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm
That You don't understand the science is not assigned the experts are liars or wrong. A 3rd grade understanding of biology does not trump years of expertise, research and personal experience.
This notion that Truth is determined by what Dan thinks of the source reporting on a story is simply one more manifestation of his hubris.
I guess that means that any news source referencing the "Don't say Gay" bill in FL is automatically not reliable.
As always, you're reading my words and putting meaning into them that I did not say. That makes you an unreliable reporter. I never said any of that, Craig.
In short, you're reading like a grade school student. of course there are many legitimate news sources citing the don't say gay attacks in Florida. That doesn't make them unreliable... perhaps their coverage of it does, if they pass on fake news.
The fact is, for rational adults, poor writing, non-journalistic, conspiracy- prone "sources " are NOT reliable. I don't know why I have to state that or why you defend fringe sources as if they're actually reliable.
And for the record, it is entirely possible that such fringe sources pass on actual correct news from time to time. That's sort of the point. A place that will sometimes pass on correct factual news and other times pass on conspiracy theories is a dangerous source because you don't know WHAT, if anything, to trust
Again, this is Adulting 101. Not sure what's hard for you all to understand about this.
March 8, 2022 at 4:00 PM
Note how I'm responding to every comment Dan has posted in order. I post the time and date so it's easy to find the crap to which I'm responding. In the meantime, Dan continues to add more comments. That's not necessarily of concern, but any expectation that I must respond to new comments before I've finished responding to the older comments is not my concern. My concern is preventing the typical "not answering questions" claim from the guy who still hasn't posted any definitive proof the the claims of the LGBT agenda, while insisting I, and those others who oppose the notion, provide proof debunking those claims...which is not unlike demanding proof water isn't wet.
"But if the sources are junk sources - and the ones I've seen have all been fully unreliable and false tin-foil types "sources" - then you're links mean jack shit."
See? This is an example of YOUR fragility, as you again attack our sources as junk instead of examining and critiquing the information the source provides. You've confirmed in your mind our sources are junk and that justifies dismissing everything they say. The problem, however, is that you aren't providing reliable information by citing the sources you use. We know this by actually reading the links you post, despite your not having done so yourself, and dealing with what the links present despite knowing the source has a history of journalistic malfeasance. See the difference here? While we find the info you provide to be wanting, it's not because the source presenting it is known to be unreliable, but because the info itself doesn't do what you present it to do. In the meantime, you simply dismiss out of hand...write off...the info we present because you've convinced yourself the source which provides that which you find offensive is "junk". Very convenient, but very dishonest.
What's more, you "confirm" you preconceived notions by finding what unreliable cites have told you about our sources. Those cites themselves are less than reliable, but if they crap all over conservatives sites, to you they're golden.
"It has nothing to do with disliking a "source" and everything to do with pointing out the reality that bad sources provide bad information."
Nonsense, and your inability to debunk the info in our sources belies nicely that claim. Indeed, this very quote from you does as well, as it suggests the sources you've wildly determined are bad means there's no point at looking at the info. You dislike the source because you've unjustly determined they're bad and your dislike is all you need to dismiss the info as "likely" to be bad. How very mature.
"Half truths can be more dangerous than full on lies."
How absurd. "Half true" is not true at all, unless you mean not all the info is accurate. Good gosh, that describes your sources to a T! (But that's assuming as much as half from your sources is true.)
"Why? Because the weak-minded can be fooled."
You're wonderful proof of that!
March 8, 2022 at 4:01 PM
"The point remains: I'm citing experts and groups of experts that are all united in scientific, rational opinions."
I'm sure the same was said of "experts and groups of experts" all united in the "scientific, rational opinion" that leeches and blood-letting were efficacious. We're well aware of whom you cite. We're well aware they all agree with whomever did the actual research they all pretend is good enough to support the claims of the LGBT activists. None of it makes their opinions either rational or worth a damn.
"You all cite far right tinfoil types non-experts and fearmongers."
And once again you intentionally malign those with far more knowledge of the subject matter than you're honest enough to acknowledge simply because they conflict with your preferred supporters of dysfunction and disorder.
"Don't be deceived, God will not be mocked. A man will reap whatever he sows."
Words for you to live by, as you continue to mock God in your rebellion.
March 9, 2022 at 8:22 AM
"Marshal... "You're standing with liars."
So here's the problem. Part of the problem. You're making a crazy sounding claim there... and with NOTHING to support it."
Once again, you pretend we haven't done this dance before. I've presented evidentiary support for my position in the past, against which you've presented nothing but dismissive writing off of the info, likely never even perusing it in the least. I've got plenty. It's coming, but after I've shown the problems with your "evidence" which isn't the evidence I've been demanding of you.
"You're suggesting/stating that ALL of these doctors and ALL these psychiatrists and ALL these psychologists and ALL these mental health experts in ALL these different areas and ALL these different groups and ALL these different organizations... That they're ALL lying!"
Well, some are lying, some are just wrong and others are a bit of both if they're trying to use whatever it is they present as research to support treating LGBT people as if they're just as normal as normal people. That's patently absurd on every level, and self-evidently so. But everything I've read which you've provided by ALL these people do nothing but suggest the possibility they've found something which explains it all. That's not "proof" in the least. You've provided another example below about which I'll comment later.
"That's not rational. AND and you're providing NO data or evidence to support such a crazy sounding claim."
What's "not rational" is whining about me not providing when the onus is on you here, not me.
"Do you not see how irrational and conspiratorial and crazy that sounds? And with NO evidence, just the claim of "Marshal on the internet. ""
Are you really suggesting I've been implying something I insist I don't intend? Hmmm.
The fact is that you need it be taken as irrational and conspiratorial, even though I've not made any claim of the sort (except to concede your inference might be true). My position is simply that your side has NOT provided science to back up what they want us to believe about LGBT people. They've done no more than take a collection of data and say "this suggests the possibility". But even those suggestions require making assumptions not in evidence. Again, I'll get to that later.
"WHY would anyone take that seriously?"
Well, honest people would ask why I take any given position which seems at odds with theirs, as if they're really seeking truth, rather than supporting an agenda and forcing data to rationalize doing so. I don't need to wonder why people like you wouldn't take me seriously.
March 9, 2022 at 8:24 AM
"If you have no medical or scientific or expert data to support your claim, and all you have are your religious traditions and biases, how's that anything but just stating a fact?"
First, as I've said more than once, you pretend this is the first time we've discussed these issues on dysfunction and disorder. Data supporting my position has been provided in discussions past. Thus, I absolutely have more than the truth of Scripture to go on, though Scripture isn't required here as we aren't dealing with the morality of the behaviors in which these sad victims of mental dysfunction engage. Among that is the absolute lack of science which justifies enabling these people. Still waiting.
March 9, 2022 at 9:14 AM
"Marshal...
"which is that it is up to the pro-LGBT crowd to prove what THEY say..."
They have. With good reason, first hand experience, data, and expert opinion."
Uh...no...they haven't, and that's the problem here. They assert "reason" but provide none. Their "first hand experience" is the experience of the dysfunctional and completely anecdotal...told from the perspective of those who lack the character to overcome or merely cope with their dysfunctional urges and desires. There's no data which backs up their claims and "expert" opinion is the opinion of like-minded people, devoid of objectivity. Some of those "experts" suffer from the same dysfunction and disorder.
"If you want to disagree with experts and people who know better than you, then YOU have to provide something. The onus is on YOU."
This is yet another ongoing problem. You start well after the beginning, which is that there are only two sexes and thus only two genders ("gender" being a word which has never been used to describe one's self until it became a way to defend the enabling of dysfunction). So since the starting point is the long held truth of only two sexes, it is up to those who pretend otherwise to prove it is no longer true. To date, everything they insist is true has only been assertion without evidence. Just believe it or you're a bigot or suffering from some invented phobia. It's not enough to say your "experts" know more than I do. They still have to prove their claims. They haven't and you've not provided a damned thing that shows they have.
"But oppressors always like to ignore experts and go with their own feelings and emotions and thuggish demands. You're just traveling down the same path as many oppressors have in the past."
You mean like those oppressors who murder infants in the womb do? I think it's far more "oppressive" to enable the disordered in their dysfunction to a point of no return.
March 10, 2022 at 4:52 AM
"Marshal... "it's not my opinions which matter. It's disordered because biology doesn't support it, and psychology has no scientific justification for insisting it isn't."
Last time: PROVE IT."
1st, I don't believe in the slightest this will be the last time you dare give me an ultimatum on my blog.
2nd, you have it backwards. It's your side making the claim that these people are not dysfunctional. Your side has yet to provide the definitive proof which justifies enabling these people and enacting legislation which does as well at the expense of the rest of us.
"You HAVE to do something more than just say "all those experts are wrong" or "biology doesn't support it.""
No. They have to prove there's biology to support it, not simply say there is. Thus, the "experts" are wrong for saying they have science behind transgenderism (or homosexuality) when they haven't proven such by presenting said science.
"WHO SAYS biology doesn't support it or that all these experts are wrong??"
Those who've reviewed their research and studies and found them flawed or lacking said proofs. Those can be other experts in the field...of which enough of them exist...or simply the average joe who isn't as dumb as a box of lefties and know how to read. I'm almost at that point where I can provide an example of just how you've failed again to provide.
"Your say-so doesn't mean a thing."
Not to immoral "progressive" asshats like you who think you're better people for being immoral "progressive" asshats. But to those who actually read what I say, consider what I say and are honest people of character, my say-so stands as giving direction to where truth can be found. Sounds bold and presumptuous, but I'm just comparing myself to the very low bar which is Dan Trabue.
OK...here it comes...
Marshal... "It's your side making the claim that these people are not dysfunctional."
YOU have the outlier, unsupported by expert opinions.
When someone claims that Biden is secretly a lizard alien in disguise...
When someone claims the Earth is flat and 6000 literal years old...
When someone claims that gasoline cars improve the quality of air...
When someone claims that LGBTQ-affirming parents are child abusers...
When ANYONE disputes common knowledge as supported by experts and peer review...
It is ALWAYS the outlier, outside-expert consensus to disprove the facts and informed opinions of the experts.
And it can and SHOULD be done by these outliers, IF they can make their case. Scientists and rational, informed adults will WELCOME it.
Ultimately, most people - including white Southerners - appreciated and agreed with the minority opinion of the abolitionists, so violently opposed by the white church and men, especially in the South... eventually, the minority abolitionist position won the day. But they had to make their case.
It's the outliers who are obliged to make their case. IF they can.
At the very least, in regards to LGBTQ positions you hold, can you acknowledge they are the outlier group societally and especially amongst the expert groups (AMA, APA, AAP, WHO, etc, etc)?
Uh...sorry...it's not coming. Not yet. Though I've read both of Dan's articles in my search for truth before Dan even post them, there are links within them I want to peruse before responding. A cursory look, however, doesn't provide much hope. Both articles are doing nothing but pointing out what ISN'T happening in the developmental processes which result in LGBT people. In other words, they're describing dysfunction in those processes which bolster my position that these people are thus "dysfunctional", and their desires as a result of that dysfunction are then disordered.
However, as I said, I wish to peruse the links within first. I will say that initially, having done so to some extent has supported other aspects of my position. But I want to be sure I'm understanding it all as I believe I am.
Patience is expected.
the expert groups (AMA, APA, AAP, WHO, etc, etc
Nothing like relying on a bunch of LEFTIST hack organizations!
Dan... "At the very least, in regards to LGBTQ positions you hold, can you acknowledge they are the outlier group societally and especially amongst the expert groups (AMA, APA, AAP, WHO, etc, etc)?"
This point I'm making is critical for modern conservatives to fully understand.
IF it is factually true (and it is) that the vast majority - not just a simple 51%, but the vast majority - of experts and people with personal experience and GROUPS of experts...
AND it is also the case that the majority of citizens believe the experts and disagree with non-expert conservative opinions and policies (and that, too, is generally true, depending on the question and poll)...
THEN, if conservatives want to create policy that diverges from expertise and popular vote, they will have to make some credible, data driven case for their dangerous hateful policies.
Only a group of fascists would try to force unwanted laws against the will of the People.
Glenn... "Nothing like relying on a bunch of LEFTIST hack organizations..."
Another empty and unsupported claim the the Trump-servative world of modern conservatives who repeatedly show themselves to be intellectually lazy and unconcerned about facts or truth. For today's mainstream conservatives and white evangelicals, they repeatedly show that they think it's sufficient to make a claim and make serious allegations with no support.
Where is your support that ALL these professionals and groups are "leftists and hacks.."?
It's a stupidly false, or at least misleading, and certainly unsupported claim.
Do medical professionals and mental health professionals tend to be more liberal?Increasingly, yes. But that wasn't true in the past. It's a relatively new phenomena meaning there are plenty of conservative doctors still out there. According to the data. See the first link below.
But does that mean that being more liberal makes one a "hack..." (whatever you mean by that)? You have zero support for this. It's a stupidly false bit of slander and uneducated gossip mixed in with tin foil conspiratorialism.
The question conservatives should be concerned with is not, is there a vast left wing conspiracy among all the smart people pull to destroy the world?? That one's a crazy yes.
The questions you should be asking yourselves are...
1. why is it that the more educated you get, the more you tend to support rational liberal policies?
2. why do more educated and liberal people tend to go into helping fields like teaching, college professors, healthcare, mental health care, social work, environmentalism, etc?
3. Why do more educated people support liberal policies?
4. Is it possible that you all hold positions that are often simply less well-informed and less-educated? Is it possible that the more you learn about different fields, the more you understand why more liberal policies make sense?
6. And finally, Is it rational to think that becoming more educated means you've become indoctrinated into a mass left wing Conspiracy? OR is it more likely that the more you learn about these topics and better informed you are, the more liberal policies makes sense. Indeed, that they aren't even necessarily liberal policies, just rational ones?
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/doctors-once-gop-stalwarts-now-more-likely-to-be-democrats-11570383523
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/01/14/professionals-are-trending-left-and-liberal-direction-most-issues-blue-collar
OK. I said I was going to respond to Dan's links and those links were from his comment of the following date:
March 10, 2022 at 9:52 AM
"Here is some of the science behind why virtually all experts disagree with your non-expert hunches...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm
That You don't understand the science is not assigned the experts are liars or wrong. A 3rd grade understanding of biology does not trump years of expertise, research and personal experience."
Dan's totally unjustified arrogance and condescension aside, there is nothing in Dan's links which accomplishes what he's obligated to provide. And frankly, one doesn't need a PhD in biology to understand when proof doesn't exist nor when research data fails to provide evidence. In the case of both of these links, we see at best no more than assertion that what is learned about the brain and human development proves or is actual evidence of the claims of the LGBT activist (here, of course, the issue is "transgenderism"), particularly the "born that way" argument.
Here, we must first acknowledge what that means, both from those who perpetuate that nonsense, as well as from those who argue against it. I think that can be easily done by simply pointing out that biology is indeed a factor in what we believe about ourselves and others. But there's a starting point which is ignored by the left, which is an ideal. That ideal is male and female. Our biology is intended to perpetuate that ideal for the purpose of the survival of our species. A willful departure from that ideal leads to problems we can easily discuss another time, yet exist in a very blatant manner.
The left ignores that ideal in their effort to promote the fallacy that "diversity is our strength", which is lefty speak for "I don't want to adhere to traditional understandings of morality, virtue and character". The right adheres to that ideal and too often superficially, in that it is not untrue that deviations from that ideal are more than a little common. But at least the right continues to adhere which results in far better outcomes, because what's best isn't a matter of biology, but of willful desire to know truth and to have actual truth as our guide.
So anyway, when we look at Dan's links, we find some obvious problems. The second link even acknowledges an important one. It's summary is as follows:
"Some of the first biological evidence of the incongruence transgender individuals experience, because their brain indicates they are one sex and their body another, may have been found in estrogen receptor pathways in the brain of 30 transgender individuals."
Right away we see two problems.
1. It suggest evidence is discovered in the study. This is presumptuous, especially in light of what will be presented in a moment.
2. Only 30 subjects studied, which seems a rather small sample size from which to draw conclusions of any kind. This, too, is addressed in the same way, that would be the following which appears rather quickly in the study:
"While it's too early to definitively say the gene variants in these pathways result in the brain-body incongruence called gender dysphoria, it is "interesting" that they are in pathways of hormone involvement in the brain and whether it gets exposed to estrogen or not, says Layman.
He and Theisen are co-corresponding authors of the study in the journal Scientific Reports.
"This is the first study to lay out this framework of sex-specific development as a means to better understand gender identity," Theisen says. "We are saying that looking into these pathways is the approach we are going to be taking in the years ahead to explore the genetic contribution to gender dysphoria in humans."
"Definitive" is what I've been requesting for years from those like Dan who defend that which they continue to force upon the culture as normal and equally worthy of legislative protections are are those of different races, ethnicity and ACTUAL sexes. Right here we see it is not. More importantly is that it doesn't try, but only suggests they're taking this path in hopes of finding definitive proof. Thus, they may not even be on the right road, must less have come to the destination Dan insists has been found.
What's more, the best they can say is that there are differences (if differences of significance exist), but not necessarily that all differences are the result of developmental issues in the womb as opposed to changes which occurred at some point afterward. The brain is malleable. It changes and adapts almost like muscle to stress. Thus, is one transgendered because of differences in the brain, or have changed in the brain occurred because of a "transgendered" person having drifted into that ideology. This isn't even wild speculation. We know that the brain changes to accommodate outside stimuli. Someone loses their dominant hand and the brain adapts until using the other hand becomes natural and second nature. This is a basic question with regards the transgendered and homosexual which is only considered by those not already predisposed to accept that the LGBT people are "just like us".
Worst of all, none of it justifies rejecting traditional mores and ideals to appease the desires of the LGBT person. And as I've said so many times over the years (as have many others), if one intends to use biology to that end, then one must do so for all other behaviors and urges possible within the human condition. The lefties don't buy into that logical extrapolation for anything other than their own self-serving desires. The violent must overcome their desires regardless of whatever biological factors result in their violent urges. The lazy, the gluttonous, the selfish...they all must change, even if "they're not hurting anyone".
Then there's the issue of bias. Dan wants us to believe his "experts" are noble, objective seekers of truth, and likely "straight" as well. But we can go back to Kinsey and Money and find that's a question that should be resolved before we buy into the conclusions drawn of any study. Indeed, we can look at the author of the first link and wonder if perhaps the author has any personal stake in the arguments made in the article. But again, nothing said in that link does anything to resolve the "chicken/egg" aspect of brain differences, or that those differences even mean what Dan and other enabling activists and "experts" want them to mean.
Much more coming really soon...
Where is YOUR DATA to say that these experts are mistaken?
You can't keep saying, "I don't think they know what they're talking about..." without saying "because..." and giving EXPERT opinion to support your amateur and bigoted hunches.
Oh, I'm sorry, Dan. I didn't realize I'm living on YOUR timetable. My bad.
Dickhead.
In the meantime, perhaps you can go through my comments and copy/paste(with date and time) where I said "I don't think they know what they're talking about". I don't need any experts to tell me none of what you've presented constitutes the definitive evidence and proofs I've asked those like you to provide for decades. Once again, the onus is on you and those you support to prove the claims you all insist we accept. YOU'RE the people who have posited the extreme notion which counters self-evident truths regarding human nature. You don't get to presume something is true without proving it first, and then piling on to that crap the demand that we all accept it as true without you people ever providing evidence or proofs.
Before I move on, I must again speak to the habit of Dan over-hyping those who agree with his position versus his downplaying of those who oppose it. More importantly, he will routinely play this game of how many agree versus how few disagree, as if numbers guarantees truth and accuracy. Here's an example from March 9, 2022 at 8:22 AM:
"You're suggesting/stating that ALL of these doctors and ALL these psychiatrists and ALL these psychologists and ALL these mental health experts in ALL these different areas and ALL these different groups and ALL these different organizations..."
All three of them? All four-hundred million of them? "ALL"?? "ALL" doesn't mean true. Not by a long shot. Even of all three letters of the word are capitalized. This is especially true with regard to this topic, as few have done any research, and most of the "ALL" are only doing what Dan does, which is to latch onto anything which agrees with the same speed and lack of serious scrutiny as the speed with which they reject that which opposes what they want to be true. We saw in the post about the 1619 Project how quickly Dan crapped on links of mine because he wasn't impressed with the number of historians cited who criticized HNJ's work.
But anyway, enough of that. The point is clear. Dan will not accept any evidence which contradicts the position he takes and will do so without the least effort to truly debunk it. With that in mind, I offer the following links:
https://drrichswier.com/2021/12/20/this-transgender-folly-is-going-to-collapse-just-as-eugenics-did-2/
https://eppc.org/publication/report-debunks-born-that-way-narrative-and-transgender-label-for-kids/
The 1st above is an interview with Dr. Paul R. McHugh, whose credentials in psychiatry and neurology speak for themselves. A notable part of the interview was in regards to the 143 page report he and Dr. Lawrence Mayer published, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences.” The interviewer brings up "peer review", which is something that to Dan means some finding is beyond questioning and we poor schlubs mustn't dare.
The 2nd above is an article giving a synopsis of that report.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-09-mortality-transgender-people-high-cisgender.html
This one draws it's conclusions based on five decades of data.
https://wng.org/roundups/study-effects-of-puberty-blockers-can-last-a-lifetime-1617220389
The above speaks to the effects of puberty blockers given to prepubescent children.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/30/science-says-transgender-hormones-and-surgeries-do-not-prevent-suicides/
The above contains a video on the topic as well as info within the article citing "experts" Dan would dismiss as "outliers".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2pb3FZ69Ag&t=5100s
The above contains three speakers, with the first being a young woman who is a great example of how kids are lured into believing they're trans when they're just young kids trying to understand their place in the world and trying to fit in. The next is a former professor of biology who discusses the cancel culture pressure of the pro-LGBT enablers in academia. The third is, I believe, a pediatric doctor whose name I've seen in articles related to this issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAAlFya89aw
The above is a PragerU video I threw in because I know how much Dan loves Dennis Prager.
https://www.crossdreamers.com/2021/05/debunking-female-brain-vs-male-brain.html
The above link includes support for my earlier premise above I referred to as a "chicken/egg" question regarding brain differences between normal people and the disordered we're discussing.
These are all examples of the fact that there are indeed professionals..."experts"...who totally disagree with those Dan lauds as the final word on the subject, and most of them speak to Dan's "experts" and the flaws of their studies or conclusions drawn from those studies.
March 11, 2022 at 3:59 PM
"Marshal... "It's your side making the claim that these people are not dysfunctional."
YOU have the outlier, unsupported by expert opinions."
Here's Dan's "outlier" angle. It comes after my reminder that his position is that which contradicts long held beliefs about sex/gender and thus it is up to his "experts" to provide the evidence for that which contradicts those understandings. His enablers don't get to assert up is down and then demand we prove it isn't.
The rest of this comment is just Dan believing he's making an intelligent argument. I'm just gonna make fun of how he does it.
"When someone claims that Biden is secretly a lizard alien in disguise..."
This reflects Dan's position that a man can be a woman because he thinks so. They're secretly a woman trapped in a man's body. That is an outlier position which has yet to be supported with scientific evidence.
"When someone claims the Earth is flat and 6000 literal years old..."
Something for which science hasn't proven isn't the case. Those like Dan just like to pretend they have.
"When someone claims that gasoline cars improve the quality of air..."
No one does this. It's a moronic example moronically intended to be analogous for the truth his "experts" fail to debunk.
"When someone claims that LGBTQ-affirming parents are child abusers..."
Well, they are, particularly those who "affirm" their six year old boy is really a girl trapped in a boy's body. To "affirm" that lie is child abuse.
"When ANYONE disputes common knowledge as supported by experts and peer review...
It is ALWAYS the outlier, outside-expert consensus to disprove the facts and informed opinions of the experts."
Dan continues to pretend peer review is an unassailable imprimatur of the conclusions drawn from a study. PR isn't research. It's a review and judgement of the methodologies of a study, yet often doesn't even do that honestly. What's more, until the research is duplicated and the same results are attained, the study reviewed has no real value. Thus, any chucklehead who deems such a study the last word on the issue studies is a buffoon. Dan's a buffoon in any case because he cites "peer review" to judge the truth of the conclusion and goes no farther to investigate the validity of the study.
What's more, there are a variety of studies done on this subject by a variety of researchers. They aren't all on the exact same issue. Thus, any suggestion of consensus is not drawn from anything more specific than that a variety of researchers have found that which they believe suggests a possibility and nothing more. In effect, the "common knowledge of experts" is no more than a number of "maybe's" which Dan and other low intellect lefties are all to happy to regard as "proof" of "facts" not even remotely established. With that being the truth of it, it is still the pro-LGBT "experts" who are the real outliers who have yet to prove what they assert to be true.
March 11, 2022 at 4:02 PM
"At the very least, in regards to LGBTQ positions you hold, can you acknowledge they are the outlier group societally and especially amongst the expert groups (AMA, APA, AAP, WHO, etc, etc)?"
I can acknowledge that due to activism and the threat of cancellation of one form or another, the pro-LGBT "experts" are in control of what were one time responsible, professional organizations, but are not activists themselves with regard to LGBT issues. Yet, with that pressure upon honest professionals whose livelihoods would be at stake, it is unlikely we can get an accurate picture of just how many members of any of those organizations agree with the premise. In the meantime, I would call those who actively and publicly refute their premises "outliers". Honest people refer to them as "courageous" professionals who won't knuckle under to activists while pursuing truth.
March 11, 2022 at 6:19 PM
"This point I'm making is critical for modern conservatives to fully understand."
More condescension from one who is lacking justification.
"IF it is factually true (and it is) that the vast majority - not just a simple 51%, but the vast majority - of experts and people with personal experience and GROUPS of experts..."
It can be "factually true" that a majority can believe something false. What's "factually true" is that there is no definitive science behind the assertions of activists and the beliefs of those who buy in.
"AND it is also the case that the majority of citizens believe the experts and disagree with non-expert conservative opinions and policies (and that, too, is generally true, depending on the question and poll)..."
There's no such poll which does more than affirm that way too many people either buy in without true justification or simply don't care. But worse, you lie about "non-expert conservative opinion", as my previously posted comments clearly prove.
"THEN, if conservatives want to create policy that diverges from expertise and popular vote, they will have to make some credible, data driven case for their dangerous hateful policies."
There is no "expertise" which conservatives ignore in crafting policy. That's a leftist "progressives" thing. What's more, you describe as "hateful" that which doesn't do anything more than disagree with your support of perversion and disorder. In the case discussed in the post, the policies are enacted for the protection of minors against activist propaganda and the parents stupid enough to buy into it. Those policies are based on the available science, such as that which I presented in my comments above.
"Only a group of fascists would try to force unwanted laws against the will of the People."
That's funny given the homo-fascists did just that during the time when 11 states voted against measures to legalize fake "gay" marriages before the Obergefell decision. Until that point in time, no state enacted "gay" marriage law based on any vote of the people of those states, knowing those 11 compelled them to find another way. As such, they appealed to the courts who failed in their duty to rule according to standing law and precedent. The true fascists, as regards this issue, are and have always been the LGBT activists and their enablers.
March 12, 2022 at 6:03 AM
"Another empty and unsupported claim..."
It's been established many times the leftist leanings of the organizations Glenn listed.
"For today's mainstream conservatives and white evangelicals, they repeatedly show that they think it's sufficient to make a claim and make serious allegations with no support."
First of all, true Christians of all races oppose your positions, because true Christians know there is no Scriptural support for them at all in any way and you've yet to provide any. Secondly, you repeatedly believe that you can pretend our positions haven't been supported beyond your ability to refute in previous discussions on these issues and we're not obliged to continue providing the same evidence with every new discussion. If you have new, ground-breaking, definitive science to debunk the support we've given over the years, you're not keen on letting us in on it. So the next time you feel compelled to make that tired claim, try pounding sand instead.
"But does that mean that being more liberal makes one a "hack..." (whatever you mean by that)? You have zero support for this. It's a stupidly false bit of slander and uneducated gossip mixed in with tin foil conspiratorialism."
The support has been given many times and more given in this thread. It is commonly manifested in all the "studies" lefty hacks put out which are shown to be flawed in methodology. I remind you of the review of all studies on outcomes of kids raised by homosexual/lesbian by Loren Marks. I remind you of the author of one of your links and the hint that she(?) might be just a wee bit biased. Frankly, I don't mind anyone beginning a study with the intent to find a scientific cause for whatever interests them. But what the studies you've ever provided have shown is a desperate desire to make whatever data they gather mean what they need it to mean. It's refreshing when one of them admits it doesn't, but then there are asshats like you who ignore those admissions when presenting them in discussions like this one.
"The question conservatives should be concerned with is not, is there a vast left wing conspiracy among all the smart people pull to destroy the world??"
That's about as stupid as suggesting conservatives promote "hateful" policies. It's not a matter of "conspiracy", though the use of that word is more to denigrate conservatives as paranoid, which is an intentional lie. But the fact is that leftist policy has indeed done so much to destroy our culture and continues to do so. As such, there is nothing "smart" about leftists. Leftists lack wisdom. Leftists lack character.
"1. why is it that the more educated you get, the more you tend to support rational liberal policies?"
First, your assertion that liberal policies are "rational" is absurd and unquestionably idiotic given the harm lib policies have caused and continue to cause. Second, our educational system from grade school through the university level is corrupted with liberal educators. Getting through all of that and coming out rational and wise is next to impossible without guidance from outside that system.
"2. why do more educated and liberal people tend to go into helping fields like teaching, college professors, healthcare, mental health care, social work, environmentalism, etc?"
First of all, conservatives are more likely to be in productive endeavors. That's a generalized response. But aside from "healthcare" (and that's a area which covers a lot of possibilities), all on your list are not "helping much of anybody". Certainly not the last three, and test scores proves a major problem with the libs teaching our kids.
"3. Why do more educated people support liberal policies?"
You equate "educated" with "wisdom". Stupid libs make that mistake all the time. Anyone who supports liberal policies are stupid people. You're certainly proof of that.
4. Is it possible that you all hold positions that are often simply less well-informed and less-educated? Is it possible that the more you learn about different fields, the more you understand why more liberal policies make sense?"
No. Just the opposite. Because we're wise enough to see the harm people experience and can work backward to find why they do. Lefties make excuses.
"6. And finally, Is it rational to think that becoming more educated means you've become indoctrinated into a mass left wing Conspiracy? OR is it more likely that the more you learn about these topics and better informed you are, the more liberal policies makes sense. Indeed, that they aren't even necessarily liberal policies, just rational ones?"
No to all of that crap. Particularly the last one. Again, leftist policy is never "rational". Leftists act on what they wish was true. The LGBT agenda is one of the best examples of that. Conservatives act on what actually is true.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/doctors-once-gop-stalwarts-now-more-likely-to-be-democrats-11570383523
I don't believe you have a subscription to WSJ.com, so I don't believe you read this article, but simply posted it because you think it serves your purpose. But like the other two below, I doubt it does because the two below only provide stats, not explanations for why the stats exist as they do. Another lame attempt by you to back up your false assumptions about conservatives. If only you knew anything about conservatism, you might be able to form an actual argument.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/01/14/professionals-are-trending-left-and-liberal-direction-most-issues-blue-collar
So, here we are after all your nonsense and the point remains that Abbott's proposal is child protection and lefty objection to it is child abuse by those who bought into science which isn't justification for the LGBT agenda.
What kind of moron lets a six year old kid dictate? What kind of "expert" presumes to allow 6 or 7 year old kids to take drugs for which they have no real understanding of how it will affect the kid? This is "rational" policy according to Dan. Child abuse.
Facts:
1. Homosexuality is natural.
2. So is being transgender and gender fluidity.
3. It happens not from choice but from something internal - internal to the brain, many scientists will tell you.
4. It causes no one any harm.
5. What clothes someone wears is NO ONE else's business. If you think so, to hell with you.
6. What gender someone is attracted to is NO ONE else's business. If you think so, to hell with you.
7. What pronouns or names someone uses is NO ONE else's business. If you can't call someone by their name, to hell with you.
8. It is NOT criminal to support your LGBTQ child.
9. It is NOT "child abuse" to support your LGBTQ child.
10. If certain fascist states CHOOSE to try to criminalize the natural and beautiful reality of people, such states are an abomination to human rights, goodness and decency and must be opposed.
Those are the facts, whether you are able to recognize them or not. You can't dispute them. Saying, "I REALLLY think it's unnatural" only means you're a bigot stuck in your religious human traditions that have oppressed people for millennia.
In ALL of this completely natural behavior which the experts nearly universally agree is completely normal and which is factually no one else's business, if you choose to mock, marginalize, belittle, attack, denigrate, demonize, harass, criticize or otherwise oppress such people, YOU are the pervert who is engaging in deviant, harmful behavior to someone for no rational, scientific or biblical reason. Shame on you.
Accept the science. Accept the reality. Accept the facts. And if you can't, then get the hell out of the way of the adults defending human rights and basic decency and don't be a jackass.
You all have LOST on this one. The majority of freedom-loving states recognize the beauty and contributions of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters and you all trying to legislate against the majority based only on your religious hunches and traditions is not going to end well for you. What if people decide, "You know what? BEING A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN is child abuse and we're going to criminalize THAT..." And teachers are obliged to report you for your child abuse because they can just make stuff up like that (and it's a much better case, you can be sure)? You won't like that, will you?
Then get the hell out of the way of decent citizens working for human rights.
Those who sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Don't be deceived, God will not be mocked, a man will reap whatever he sows.
Marshal... "What kind of moron lets a six year old kid dictate? What kind of "expert" presumes to allow 6 or 7 year old kids to take drugs for which they have no real understanding of how it will affect the kid?"
1. Since most 6 or 7 year old children have not entered puberty, generally speaking, we're not talking about children that young taking puberty blocking drugs.
2. WHENEVER some child might start recognizing themselves as not the gender they were "born with," it should be the parents, doctors, mental health advisors and child making such decisions, NOT Marshal or any other fascist GOP types.
Are you also thinking that a bunch of old white conservative males should decide who people should date and marry, too? Would you criminalize homosexuality if you had the chance? How much of a fascist are you?
Get your hands off our children and stay the hell out of people's bedrooms and lives, pervert.
Marshal, showing his stupid-centric elitism... "First of all, conservatives are more likely to be in productive endeavors."
Wow. Teaching is not a productive endeavor. Social work, mental health, environmental work... these are not productive endeavors.
Says who?
I get that you don't value education, that is pretty obvious the way you attack the educated and educators regularly. But one would think even a fool could see the wisdom AND productivity of having these helpers in place.
Wisdom, to the fool, is foolishness, I suppose.
Same for most of the rest of your remarks which amount to more of the same, "I don't think so so it's not so!" childishness.
The facts are the facts. Get on the right side of history and stop siding with the oppressors. You're children and grandchildren will be ashamed of you.
I'd also ask you to consider the precedent you're setting (which I just talked about but expanding on it some...):
You're saying that THE STATE can come in and tell parents how to raise their children and if THE STATE says, "what you're doing is child abuse," they can charge you with child abuse and take that child away from you.
Are you going to be glad for that precedent you're setting when it's applied against you?
Do you want to live under the precedent you're trying to set when it's not a GOP/fascist state doing the criminalizing of your parenting?
I'd be willing to bet that you'd turn violent if that happened to you, wouldn't you?
March 14, 2022 at 9:32 AM
"1. Homosexuality is natural.
2. So is being transgender and gender fluidity.
3. It happens not from choice but from something internal - internal to the brain, many scientists will tell you."
Not a fact. These things are only "natural" in the same way all other behaviors, moral or otherwise are. But these states are examples of biological dysfunction. Indeed, the "evidence" you offer as if it lends credibility to the enabling of the behaviors of choice compelled by the dysfunction proves it. They are the result of that which "didn't go as planned" in the development of these unfortunate human beings.
"4. It causes no one any harm."
This is ABSOLUTELY false, as proven by the data presented in my links. That harm is compounded by the various medical options for enabling the conditions.
"5. What clothes someone wears is NO ONE else's business."
Unless it's within my business, or a variety of other scenarios. Dress codes abound in a variety of situations and thus, obviously, one's sartorial expression is quite often the business of others.
"6. What gender someone is attracted to is NO ONE else's business."
Unfortunately, the disordered has made it everyone's business as they seek to destroy anyone who won't acknowledge their immoral choices as if those choices are normal and moral. If they would have not been so dishonest back in the Lawrence v Texas days with regard to "just wanting to be left alone", even most who recognize the obvious disorder and clear immorality of their behavior would indeed leave them to it. But that wasn't good enough for them.
"7. What pronouns or names someone uses is NO ONE else's business."
No one should be forced to take part in the lies and deception of the disordered. If you want to call Bruce "Katelyn", go ahead. I won't call him at all, unless he's about to walk in front of a moving train. I'll bet he'd respond to "BRUCE!!! WATCH OUT!!!" immediately.
"8. It is NOT criminal to support your LGBTQ child.
9. It is NOT "child abuse" to support your LGBTQ child."
No one says otherwise, but it would depend on what one means by "support". Following the advice of some pro-LGBT activist "doctor" to inject drugs into one's child which interferes with the child's normal physical development, when there's evidence it will harm the child is abuse by definition. Encouraging or enabling a child's delusion instead of being an actual parent to the child is abusive as well.
"10. If certain fascist states CHOOSE to try to criminalize the natural and beautiful reality of people, such states are an abomination to human rights, goodness and decency and must be opposed."
Thank God there are no such states within the United States of America. But only a fake Christian asshat from Kentucky would call "abomination" the effort to protect children from indulging in what God calls abomination.
Thus, those are the facts now corrected and made accurate by someone for whom truth and reality means something. Nothing I've said is mere opinion devoid of scientific basis. That's YOUR deal. Nothing I've said is based primarily on the truth of Scripture, except God's opinion on the matter...but you keep bringing up "religious superstition" like the good little "grace embracing" non-Christian you are.
"In ALL of this completely natural behavior which the experts nearly universally agree is completely normal..."
There is NO science behind this position. There's only those seeking to find it. It hasn't happened yet, but activists and enablers among the scientific world present that lie as fact nonetheless. You're more than happy to lie along with them because you're a liar and it's what you do.
"and which is factually no one else's business..."
The activists have forced it upon us, and worse, upon parents who want better for their kids than to live such lies into adulthood. The outcomes of the victims of this activism is not good and the data backs that up.
"if you choose to mock, marginalize, belittle, attack, denigrate, demonize, harass, criticize or otherwise oppress such people,..."
This is how petulant activist whiners describe legitimate and science-based criticism of their narrative...because lying is an essential element of their activism. You're more than happy to lie along with them because you're a liar and it's what you do.
"YOU are the pervert who is engaging in deviant, harmful behavior to someone for no rational, scientific or biblical reason."
Again, it's ironic you regard those who oppose true perversion as perverts. But then, you're a liar and it's what you do. But nothing I say or present is irrational, non-scientific or un-biblical. It's just what you need to tell yourself because you have nothing credible.
"Accept the science. Accept the reality. Accept the facts."
I most certainly already do. None of it supports your position in the least.
"And if you can't, then get the hell out of the way of the adults defending human rights and basic decency..."
I most certainly already do that. I follow actual adults defending the rights of the rest of us in the face of fascistic plans of the indecent. You're a jackass for making it harder for moral people of good will to live a Christian life.
"You all have LOST on this one."
The war ain't over, and the true victims are killing themselves by appeasing their unnatural, disordered urges, enabled by liars and immature people like you. You must be so proud to help them kill themselves.
"The majority of freedom-loving states recognize the beauty and contributions of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters..."
Doubtful. Only a pseudo-sanctimonious asshat describes things in this way. I'm well aware of contributions made by the disordered. Those contributions don't negate the reality of their disorder, nor can it be proven that those contributions wouldn't have been made if they weren't disordered...as if Elton John would make great music if he wasn't disordered.
"What if people decide, "You know what? BEING A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN is child abuse and we're going to criminalize THAT...""
This is already happening.
"Then get the hell out of the way of decent citizens working for human rights."
Proving once again you have no understanding of conservatism, no conservative opposes defending the rights of LGBT people. But LGBT people demand more than equal treatment. They demand their perversions be accepted by all as normal and beneficial for society and the culture. They aren't. It's absurd for the morally bankrupt like you to speak of "decent" citizens when you're referring to the indecent. But you're a liar and it's what you do.
Don't blaspheme God by pretending He approves of what he calls abomination. Indeed, you should probably stop trying to convince people you believe in God when clearly you don't.
March 14, 2022 at 10:09 AM
"1. Since most 6 or 7 year old children have not entered puberty, generally speaking, we're not talking about children that young taking puberty blocking drugs."
This is misleading at the very least, because that's what they expect to be doing as soon as possible. The very fact they encourage parents to allow the kid to play out their feelings without any hint of guidance toward their actual sex does not constitute real concern for what's best for the child.
"2. WHENEVER some child might start recognizing themselves as not the gender they were "born with," it should be the parents, doctors, mental health advisors and child making such decisions, NOT Marshal or any other fascist GOP types."
This is the point of the post, dumbass...that adults are "making such decisions" which are not beneficial to the child, but more often than not reflect the immature and false beliefs of the parents and as such, the parents feel good about themselves being so "sophisticated". The actual mature parents are vilified for caring about their kids. However, for adults to enable the child rather than guide the child is indeed abusive, and when that enabling gets to the level of drugs suppressing their natural physical development, then injecting them with hormones they don't need for that development, few will stop short of mutilation that you apparently think is just fine...you twisted sonofabitch. Government has long involved itself with the decisions of parents when those decisions are deemed detrimental to the best interests of the child. This is the same thing.
"Are you also thinking that a bunch of old white conservative males should decide who people should date and marry, too? Would you criminalize homosexuality if you had the chance? How much of a fascist are you?"
Are you so devoid of a coherent, intelligent argument in defense of your perversion that you have to go off on a tangent again? Do you honestly think only "old white conservative males" oppose this abomination? Our culture still regulates what constitutes marriage, even after bastardizing the meaning of the word in order to placate disordered people and forcing that crap on the entirety of our society. People can't help their urges. They can only help how they respond to those urges. You would codify perversion into law against the consent of the people, as has been the case thus far since Lawrence v Texas. THAT'S fascism.
Get your hands off our children and stay the hell out of people's bedrooms and lives, pervert.
"Get your hands off our children and stay the hell out of people's bedrooms and lives, pervert."
Have sex with your goat if you like, Dan. I won't suggest government should invade your bedroom. But when you encourage your kids to indulge their desire to similarly get it on, you should be denied parental rights, and locked up as well. Enabling the delusions of the LGBT agenda is child abuse.
And again, you're not gonna like it when the laws are applied against you by your measure. You're sowing the wind, fool.
The point remains, get your hands off our children. Back off. It's not your business. They're not your children.
Your arrogance is deadly.
March 14, 2022 at 10:37 AM
"Marshal, showing his stupid-centric elitism... "First of all, conservatives are more likely to be in productive endeavors."
Wow. Teaching is not a productive endeavor. Social work, mental health, environmental work... these are not productive endeavors."
I was in a hurry trying to find the right words to distinguish all those things on your list from the many and various forms of productivity to which conservatives tend to graduate. That is, they're more likely to be involved in those things which result in getting things done which benefit the nation.
Teaching is rife with leftist asshats who pass kids to higher grade levels without the kids actually having learned the materials which justify it. But aside from that, I have no problem with any of these fields, except for the failures of our education system, the reasons which result in a need for social workers, the quackery in much of the mental health system and the complete buffoonery of environmentalists.
"I get that you don't value education, that is pretty obvious the way you attack the educated and educators regularly. But one would think even a fool could see the wisdom AND productivity of having these helpers in place."
Where did I ever say I don't value education? Copy and paste it along with date and time of the comment (as well as where it was said). I value education enough to realize our educational system has been bastardized by leftists and the students suffer as a result.
"Wisdom, to the fool, is foolishness, I suppose."
And few are as foolish as you, Skippy.
"Same for most of the rest of your remarks which amount to more of the same, "I don't think so so it's not so!" childishness."
Never an argument I've made, but you keep doing that lying thing you do.
"The facts are the facts. Get on the right side of history and stop siding with the oppressors. You're children and grandchildren will be ashamed of you."
You aren't familiar with fact and truth. The "right side of history" claim is bullshit given it's far better to be on the right side of morality regardless of which path history takes. You're too into immorality and lack the wisdom to know it. Being on the right side of truth is not contingent on the support of anyone, including children or grandchildren. If they're ashamed because I abide truth and the will of God to the best of my ability, that's not at all a problem for me. I don't live to glorify them.
March 14, 2022 at 1:46 PM
"You're saying that THE STATE can come in and tell parents how to raise their children and if THE STATE says, "what you're doing is child abuse," they can charge you with child abuse and take that child away from you."
They do it already, dumbass. It's not "how to raise" but how the manner in which a parent chooses to raise the child results in harm to the kid which results in child services coming in and removing the child.
"Are you going to be glad for that precedent you're setting when it's applied against you?"
So long as the left doesn't acquire more control, that's likely to never happen to me (pretending my kids aren't all adults now), because there's nothing about the manner in which I raise my kids which is harmful...and certainly not as harmful as enabling their disordered urges and desires.
"Do you want to live under the precedent you're trying to set when it's not a GOP/fascist state doing the criminalizing of your parenting?"
The GOP aren't the fascists, as it wasn't them to have Christians and conservatives fired, cancelled, fined and put out of business to appease the disordered people you enable in clear violation of the will of God and in the name of junk science. As such, there's nothing about the way I've raised my kids which would result in government intervention due to perceived abuse of my kids. But my, to you love to fantasize!
"I'd be willing to bet that you'd turn violent if that happened to you, wouldn't you?"
I'd turn violent if the government tried to force me to allow my kid to openly indulge their harmful disordered urges against my parental authority. They've been doing this to rational, loving parents in the name of disorder, immorality and junk science. The left are and have always been the true fascists and this issue is the perfect example of that long understood and recognized fact.
You're not getting it. The preceded YOU'RE advocating says that, regardless of what YOUR opinions about whether it's harmful or not, if the government decides it's harmful they can arrest you. That's YOUR precedent. Are you going to be glad to accept that when it's applied against you?
As we can see from your response, your answer is no. You're NOT fine with that measure being applied to you. You want to oppress others you're not wanting to have it applied to you. But if that's the precedent you're setting, you can count on it at least possibly being applied to you.
Fools who don't understand what goes around comes around live to be very unhappy.
March 14, 2022 at 8:33 PM
"And again, you're not gonna like it when the laws are applied against you by your measure. You're sowing the wind, fool.
The point remains, get your hands off our children. Back off. It's not your business. They're not your children.
Your arrogance is deadly."
Enough with the drama queen crap. I support government prohibiting abusive procedures which do little more than pushing kids toward perversion and immorality, which the LGBT activists intend to keep doing.
But it's such hypocrisy, because if a child complains to his parents about his wish to be rid of these perverse thoughts, you would prevent the child from receiving what you intentionally mischaracterize as "conversion therapy"...implicating any counseling helping such children as if they're going to receive a freakin' lobotomy. THEN you're all about putting your hands on children. YOU should never again be allowed near children. There's a millstone with your name on it.
Marshal... "I support government prohibiting abusive procedures which do little more than pushing kids toward perversion and immorality,"
And who gets to decide? Not the parents. Not the experts. Marshal? A bunch of GOP old men..? (and I said that because that because most of the elected GOP leadership are old white men.)
That's the point. You have no grounding. It's entirely whimsical. It's entirely what you, Marshal, want. Not the parents. Not the majority of the nation. Not the child. Not the experts. It's just up to Marshal and his Cadre of creepy old white men.
Your ignorance and undeserved arrogance is making you nuts.
To WHOM will you appeal to start this new fascist order? A bunch of extremist fundamentalist preachers?
Do you think that will go any better than if your rules were applied to you?
Do you think we give a damn what you and your creepy preacher squad want to do to our children? Do you think we will bow down to your false idols?
Don't count on it.
March 14, 2022 at 8:59 PM
"You're not getting it. The preceded YOU'RE advocating says that, regardless of what YOUR opinions about whether it's harmful or not, if the government decides it's harmful they can arrest you. That's YOUR precedent. Are you going to be glad to accept that when it's applied against you?"
Oh, I'm "getting it" just fine. You're looking to equate what I believe with what you and your like-minded deviants believe. Then, you're imagining a scenario in which my proper and fact-based understandings become outlawed in the same way your harmful to children desires ought to be. But what you ignore is that it's already happening. Lefties have succeeded in demonizing good people because good people don't abide their moral corruption, and in way too many cases, they managed to get the law and courts to do so as well. So no, given what's going on, I'm not glad at all, but there's no moral equivalency here. Your side is morally bankrupt. My side cares for what's best for kids.
"As we can see from your response, your answer is no. You're NOT fine with that measure being applied to you. You want to oppress others you're not wanting to have it applied to you. But if that's the precedent you're setting, you can count on it at least possibly being applied to you."
Leave it to a fake-Christian to assert doing the right thing is "oppression". It's as I said earlier. It's what you liars do when the truth is too solid to overcome. You lie.
"Fools who don't understand what goes around comes around live to be very unhappy."
Fools like you don't recognize that, as the GOP inevitably uses Dem tactics to thwart harmful Dem policies. No one will be as unhappy as fools like you when you meet the just reward for your rebellion against God and the harm that rebellion always causes.
March 14, 2022 at 9:33 PM
"Marshal... "I support government prohibiting abusive procedures which do little more than pushing kids toward perversion and immorality,"
And who gets to decide?"
Certainly not those like you! You're the people causing all the harm America now suffers, and more to the point, the harm suffered by those enabled in their delusions. But even more importantly, what those like Abbott are doing is clearly and provably with the best interests of minors in mind, as supported by the scientific data.
"That's the point. You have no grounding. It's entirely whimsical. It's entirely what you, Marshal, want. Not the parents. Not the majority of the nation. Not the child. Not the experts. It's just up to Marshal and his Cadre of creepy old white men."
Again, asshole...race here is more irrelevant that your usual attempts to insert it. So stop doing that if you want your comments to be published. As to the rest of your asshole comment, none of that is true, either. There is indeed science behind what we do, and thus it's not at all whimsical. When assholes like you routinely fail to provide scientific evidence which justifies your delusion enabling crap, you've no ground to disparage those who expose the flaws of your distortions of research data.
"Your ignorance and undeserved arrogance is making you nuts."
Step out of your fantasy world, Sally. You've demonstrated no ability to prove ignorance nor arrogance on my part. Maybe it's because you have no nuts.
"To WHOM will you appeal to start this new fascist order? A bunch of extremist fundamentalist preachers?"
The fascism, again, is all from your side of the divide, Chuckles. You petulant foot stomping won't change that.
"Do you think that will go any better than if your rules were applied to you?"
The rules I would see implemented are not of a type any law-abiding, compassionate, Christian of any race would opposed. Only lying lefties and the disordered and morally corrupt they enable would. Laws are for the benefit of good people, not those like yourself.
"Do you think we give a damn what you and your creepy preacher squad want to do to our children? Do you think we will bow down to your false idols?"
That's funny. You lost this particular debate about fifty comments ago, if not more, and now you're reduced to this? Hilarious!
Marshal... "Certainly not those like you! You're the people causing all the harm America now suffers, and more to the point, the harm suffered by those enabled in their delusions..."
THEN WHO?
Answer the question or just go ahead and admit your inability to do so.
This is the point. You're ultimately appealing to an "authority" that would only include that small group of people who agree with your religious bigotry. But on what basis would you place that small group of fascist theocrats in charge and by whose authority?
You don't answer the question - everyone can see that - because you CAN'T answer the question. To answer it would admit your own theo-fascist hopes... and yet you also know, somewhere deep inside, that, "No, that can't be right. We can't just let those who agree with me decide based on our own authority and say-so..." You recognize that evil/corruption, don't you?
But at the same time, you don't like it when experts and individuals decide for themselves... so you're left with an impotence to answer the question directly.
This is the problem with theo-fascism. You want to appeal to some authority to keep YOUR personal preferences... but if you can't appeal to the majority of the people and you can't appeal to the experts... you're left with forcing people (or trying to) to bow to your will and you almost certainly recognize that's not right either.
I'll let your refusal to answer serve as your own indictment against yourself.
Marshal... "The rules I would see implemented are not of a type any law-abiding, compassionate, Christian of any race would opposed. Only lying lefties and the disordered and morally corrupt they enable would..."
Do you see it? CAN you see it? If people are in agreement with you and your pharisee squad... THOSE are the people you'd write laws for. Everyone else is a monster who can't/won't accept it and must be controlled by "the true believers..."
Don't you see the unhinged theo-fascism in that?
Save yourself, man. It's not too late.
March 14, 2022 at 11:42 PM
"THEN WHO?"
Who decides our policies now, Dan? Our elected representatives if we're lucky. But we hope our reps act on sound science, not the pseudo-science you promote as justification for altering our way of life on behalf of a tiny minority of people whose urges and desires are the result of dysfunction...as your own links attest.
"This is the point. You're ultimately appealing to an "authority" that would only include that small group of people who agree with your religious bigotry."
Bullshit. You insist on this "religious bigotry" trope when I'm talking about evidence from science...which you and your kind fail to produce to justify your positions. What you bring forth is roundly debunked by scientists and professionals in medicine and psychology who you dismiss as "outliers", as if being among a minority equates to being wrong. What bullshit!! What typical leftist, fake-Christian crap!
"But on what basis would you place that small group of fascist theocrats in charge and by whose authority?"
Who are these "fascist theocrats" you need to believe exist in order for you to posture as a champion of whomever it is you think is in need of you defending them in so poorly a fashion? Once again, and there is no debating this, it is your kind who exhibits fascistic streaks, not those for whom I vote or support. I support people who use sound reasoning and base their opinions on facts and evidence.
"You don't answer the question - everyone can see that - because you CAN'T answer the question."
Clearly I just did as I have all along.
" and yet you also know, somewhere deep inside, that, "No, that can't be right. We can't just let those who agree with me decide based on our own authority and say-so...""
I so enjoy your little fantasies, but this isn't about your fantasies. It's about the reality you refuse to acknowledge in order to enable disorder and immorality. No one votes or supports for those who disagree with them, so I don't know where you're going with this "just let those who agree with me decide" shit. As I said, those I support are the intelligent and reasoned people who understand the Constitution and concepts of morality. They certainly understand one doesn't allow kids drugs with uncertain affects which may harm them, just to appease the activism of immoral adults like you. My side doesn't exploit children. That's what you people do. You're disgusting.
"But at the same time, you don't like it when experts and individuals decide for themselves..."
No, Putz. I don't like it when leftist assholes decide for themselves to abuse their children. I'm amazed an alleged advocate of "do no harm" can't grasp this easy to understand position.
"This is the problem with theo-fascism."
Frankly, if I had to choose between what you need to describe as "theo-fascism" versus you atheist-fascism, I'll take the former every time. But there isn't anything of the kind at play here just because intelligent people don't abide the LGBT enabling assholes who exploit their kids for the cause. That's just a term you use in lieu of an actual argument and definitive evidence in support of it.
"but if you can't appeal to the majority of the people and you can't appeal to the experts... you're left with forcing people (or trying to) to bow to your will and you almost certainly recognize that's not right either."
I don't think one needs to be a Christian to force people not to murder and exploit their own children, Dan. But it helps, as those like you haven't the moral basis for your child abuse.
March 14, 2022 at 11:46 PM
"Marshal... "The rules I would see implemented are not of a type any law-abiding, compassionate, Christian of any race would opposed. Only lying lefties and the disordered and morally corrupt they enable would..."
Do you see it? CAN you see it? If people are in agreement with you and your pharisee squad... THOSE are the people you'd write laws for. Everyone else is a monster who can't/won't accept it and must be controlled by "the true believers..."
Don't you see the unhinged theo-fascism in that?"
Was it "unhinged theo-fascism which led to the Emancipation of the slaves in 19th century America, Dan? YOU'RE the one who insists most white people supported slavery. So if the mood shifts to accepting the concept, you'd be cool with enacting laws permitting the enslavement of human beings. The fact is that the things I believe are in accordance with both Scripture and the Constitution. Those who disagree with either/both are indeed evil monsters. You disagree with the right to life. You're evil.
"Save yourself, man. It's not too late."
You're funny. I'm already saved.
Post a Comment