Bones: AMA

• Children with gender dysphoria should not be allowed to transition. 
  

There are two genders - I do not accept Two-Spirit or Boi.

Taxing X person a higher percentage Y person means you are taking a larger portion of money from X person. X person's money was acquired through work. Work requires time, therefore, if you do not have X's permission yet you take more of X's money, you are taking their work which is taking their time which is slavery. 

Systemic racism, defined as "a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organisation" does not exist because there is no explicit law which targets minorities. However, this definition is quiet counter productive - (most) BLM adherents are not arguing that laws are racist they are arguing that there is large scale racism.

• Children with gender dysphoria should not be allowed to transition. 
  

But why would anyone without dysphoria transition? Does this mean that people can only transition after reaching a certain age? 

Why bother with beliefs on LGBT at all? The rest are pretty much fine, all a bit of a wank, but what of it. But your ideas on LGBT are antagonistic with nothing really coming back at you or provoking it. Why invest in such ideas at all?

Same goes for abortion. I mean, it doesn't really matter. It's an issue you're going out of your way to have an opinion about. It's not god, you don't believe in god. So, what?

I think on a debate site people can forget that a lot of this shit doesn't really matter at all. Or needn't matter much to them at least. Thoughts on that?

There are two genders - I do not accept Two-Spirit or Boi.

Isn't this largely a social construct, or matter of definition though? To say that there "are" two genders, or more than two, isn't it just a matter of opinion? I don't see how this can be decided objectively. It's a matter of how socially we decide to refer to people.

Taxing X person a higher percentage Y person means you are taking a larger portion of money from X person. X person's money was acquired through work. Work requires time, therefore, if you do not have X's permission yet you take more of X's money, you are taking their work which is taking their time which is slavery. 

The problem with this equation is the assumption that people who have money acquired it by work, and that there is a direct association between time worked and profit. In fact, it works almost the opposite way, since those who own capital no longer need to earn money directly though labour. Capitalists gain money through their investments and by their knowledge, not by working for a wage.

Systemic racism, defined as "a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organisation" does not exist because there is no explicit law which targets minorities. However, this definition is quiet counter productive - (most) BLM adherents are not arguing that laws are racist they are arguing that there is large scale racism.

I think it is more complicated than this, and that the laws can be implicitly biased without referring explicitly to race. I would agree that "racism" is a confusing term here, but we could say that the laws have implicit ethnic connotations. For example, imagine a law that banned jazz music and rap music, and only allowed classical and rock. This law does not target any minority, since anyone of any race can make whatever style of music they wish to. However, it is clear that this law would have implicit ethnic content, and that its effect would be to deepen racial divides.

• Creationism should be taught in history or like witchcraft. 
  

The whole gender construct thing isn't congruent with reality. A distinction between "labels which describe features of a person" and "adjectives" ought to be recognised. Terms such as "man" and "women" should refer to "men" and "women" and it just so happens that science, as oppose to thought, is a more capable indicator of these traits.  

It is a simplistic analogy but it's underlying message is valid. Investments are big risks - if this weren't the case, there would be no homeless - which is why there are big rewards. If you want to look at tangible impact towards a company, it's fair to say that investors liquify companies money. 

But this can be applied to literally every rule that is established. By nature of truism, any law which is enforced on a population of diverse culture will result in it effecting one culture more than another, even if it isn't statistically relevant. Out there, some race is most hindered by traffic laws, whether it be white, asian or black yet no one really makes a fuss about it. 

• Creationism should be taught in history or like witchcraft. 
  

Witchcraft and creationism are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Also, what do you mean by "in history". It's a relatively new phenomenon.

• Taxing X person a higher percentage Y person means you are taking a larger portion of money from X person. X person's money was acquired through work. Work requires time, therefore, if you do not have X's permission yet you take more of X's money, you are taking their work which is taking their time which is slavery. 
  

• It applies to a flat tax as well. 10% of someone with an income of $100,000 is $10,000. 10% of someone with an income of $20,000 is $2,000. If both worked to get their money, taking a larger amount of the first person’s money, by your logic, would be unjust. There’s no reason your principle only applies to proportions and not to amounts. 
  
• It maybe even applies to all taxation, regardless of the amount. If the government is forcibly taking money from you that was acquired through work, without your consent, then you’re taking their work, and that’s equivalent to theft.
  

Creationists believe things which are contrary to evidence. Witchcraft does the same. What is relatively a new phenomenon? Creationism? 

Do you believe that abortion clinics should be publicly run or privately run?

Creationists believe things which are contrary to evidence. Witchcraft does the same. What is relatively a new phenomenon? Creationism? 

That is a very broad and weird definition. Everybody can say that a groups acts against evidence

Witchcraft and Creationism are absolutely not the same

If I had it my way, this is what I would do. 99 percent of abortion which occur are a result of careless sex - only 1 percent are rape/incest. Make abortion legal only for the one percent and dedicate the entirety of the current funding for reintegrating and repairing the damages of the 1 percent. Think about all the money that is being given to irresponsible party goers who get banged on a pile of bean bags in front of 50 people with no care for contraceptives or safe sex - is money better spent on these people or for victims of actual crime? 

What about intersex? That would be a third gender

• Taxing X person a higher percentage Y person means you are taking a larger portion of money from X person. X person's money was acquired through work. Work requires time, therefore, if you do not have X's permission yet you take more of X's money, you are taking their work which is taking their time which is slavery. 
  

Doesn’t this argument prove too much? It seems like:

• It applies to a flat tax as well. 10% of someone with an income of $100,000 is $10,000. 10% of someone with an income of $20,000 is $2,000. If both worked to get their money, taking a larger amount of the first person’s money, by your logic, would be unjust. There’s no reason your principle only applies to proportions and not to amounts. 
  

• It maybe even applies to all taxation, regardless of the amount. If the government is forcibly taking money from you that was acquired through work, without your consent, then you’re taking their work, and that’s equivalent to theft.
  

If I had it my way, this is what I would do. 99 percent of abortion which occur are a result of careless sex - only 1 percent are rape/incest. Make abortion legal only for the one percent and dedicate the entirety of the current funding for reintegrating and repairing the damages of the 1 percent. Think about all the money that is being given to irresponsible party goers who get banged on a pile of bean bags in front of 50 people with no care for contraceptives or safe sex - is money better spent on these people or for victims of actual crime? 

The ones who benefit from illegal abortion are back-alley abortion clinics and the rich that have more desperate souls born to exploit.

The victims of outlawing abortion are the babies born unwanted and impoverished to parents incapable of properly raising them.

The ones who benefit from illegal murder are hitmen and the rich who have more enemies to kill. Time to make murder legal? 

The whole gender construct thing isn't congruent with reality. A distinction between "labels which describe features of a person" and "adjectives" ought to be recognised. Terms such as "man" and "women" should refer to "men" and "women" and it just so happens that science, as oppose to thought, is a more capable indicator of these traits.  

Even if someone asks to be referred to using totally arbitrary pronouns, and I agree to this convention, we do not necessarily imply anything about the scientific facts about chromosomes etc.

It is a simplistic analogy but it's underlying message is valid. Investments are big risks - if this weren't the case, there would be no homeless - which is why there are big rewards. If you want to look at tangible impact towards a company, it's fair to say that investors liquify companies money. 

I don't disagree that investment in capital plays a valid role in the economy, but I do disagree that this justifies the flat tax.

But this can be applied to literally every rule that is established. By nature of truism, any law which is enforced on a population of diverse culture will result in it effecting one culture more than another, even if it isn't statistically relevant. Out there, some race is most hindered by traffic laws, whether it be white, asian or black yet no one really makes a fuss about it. 

The point is that this dynamic is often entirely ignored by the liberal paradigm of law, and that in relevant cases - such as immigration, prison reform, policing, etc. - these do result in statistically relevant outcomes.

The ones who benefit from illegal murder are hitmen and the rich who have more enemies to kill. Time to make murder legal? 

So do all the people protected by would-be murderers that fear the repercussions, whereas outlawing abortion is both practically inefficient due to back-alley abortions and also cruel on the born generally speaking.

I don't know your life but imagine being born to parents who didn't want you but who kept you out of a sense of pride because giving you up for abortion felt like a 'failure'.

I've got zero issues with adoption but it's generally not the way things go at all and there's then the other issue of forcing the mother to go through it.

I will tell you the reality that you're ignoring, in the US there's zero publicly provided contraception

I was quoting from Michael J. Scandal and admittedly,  I didn't do a very good job. Here's the exact statement 

Seizing the results of someones labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. If people force you to do certain work, or unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purposes your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This makes them a part owner of you; it gives them a property right in you. 

You must admit that this complicates the entire issues. Assume that I create a term "aje", which is the societal constructuction of age. What if a group of aje-activists wanted the term aje to be the one in legal documentations and for everyone to achknodelgers them based on their aje, as opposed to age. Such is my problem with the gender-spectrum activists - creating a definition to make your argument is circular. 

I don't disagree that investment in capital plays a valid role in the economy, but I do disagree that this justifies the flat tax.

I fail to see the connection. 

But it's not the lawmakers fault that a certain race commits crimes, or are more prone to illegally immigrating. Sure, you can assert that the Trump Mexican wall discriminates against Mexicans but it just so happens that it is Mexicans who attempt to illegally enter - if they didn't enter then there would be no discrimination.