-->
@Best.Korea
Pedophile groomer speaks again. 🤦♂️
How Young Does Someone Have to be to Choose Their Sexuality?
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@TWS1405
And it is somewhat stupid to suggest that a 9-year-old will have no idea of sexuality.
Maybe in some retro thinking isolationist religious community.
Where young men spend their days wanking behind haystacks and then spend their evenings praying to the Lord for forgiveness.
And the young women.
Well, you can dream about what the young women get up to the next time you visit the metaphorical haystack.
-->
@zedvictor4
You’ve just joined the ranked of the queer theory crowd groomer pedophiles. Loser.
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, it's not just because of religious reasons.
Science has proved this way of thinking flawed in every way.
Take Gender Dysphoria for example:
It is when someone, thought born one gender, feels like another.
Woke idiots will take this as a sign of someone being transgender, and push that person to get life altering surgeries, that could potentially ruin their life. It would ruin their life and their body, just so that they can feel like the opposite gender.
But there has been evidence in patients with gender dysphoria, that has proven that it does not last forever, and people can come to terms with the gender they were born with.
Cat Cattinson wanted to detransition, because it was physically affecting her.
And the reason no one can find evidence of masses of people detransitioning is because it has happened in our generation, and we haven't seen the full effects of the people who have started that process. But trust me in about 10-15 years, we will see masses of people either dead from transitioning, masses of people detransitioning, or both.
And a question I always ask a person with gender dysphoria, is can you be transgender without transitioning, and if you can, then what's the point.
How about instead of choosing an age, we use a responsibility level instead. When you move out of your mommy and daddies house, pay all your own bills and rent you can choose your sexuality. That includes paying for everything related to your sexuality choice.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do you think that you can take away the choice from someone because you assume their choice is "harmful, incorrect, regretful"...
And why cant government use these same excuses to take away all of your choices?
-->
@Best.Korea
"And why cant government use these same excuses to take away all of your choices?" Uh govt does do that all the time, they are called laws and regulations disguised in the mantras of public safety, the environment, national security etc.
-->
@sadolite
Your exactly right, take global warming for example.
The Government is pushing electric energy, to "stop" global warming, but little does the public know that electric energy won't stop the effects of global warming.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So you disagree with government taking away your choice?
But you agree that choices should be taken away from young people by using the same justification as the government does when taking choice away from you?
-->
@Best.Korea
Young people under the age of 18 by law don't have a choice when it comes to things like this. They are too immature. This is proven with science.
There is a reason that world leaders and important figure heads are all older adults, because if they were all under 18, then the world would have probably ended by now.
But I do disagree with the government taking away choices from adults who have lived a law-abiding life and want to create a life for themselves in whatever way they choose.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"They are too immature."
Government thinks that you are too immature and uses that thinking to take away your choices from you.
So government uses your thinking.
Also, some young people of today will be members of the government in the future when they are older.
Since you taught them that its okay to take away choices from others if you find them immature, it is really just a wonderful cycle closing in on your people.
-->
@Best.Korea
You are willfully ignoring obvious logic with children and their inability to comprehend adult intellect and situations
Also, some young people of today will be members of the government in the future when they are older.
You just proved my point.
Government thinks that you are too immature and uses that thinking to take away your choices from you.
You're comparing the right to vote with adults to parenting with children.
-->
@sadolite
"their inability to comprehend adult intellect and situations"
Can government use the same logic and think that you have no ability to comprehend important decisions and situations?
You want to take away choice from young people because you think you know better, so do you agree that government should be able to take away your choice if government thinks that it knows better than you?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"You're comparing the right to vote with adults to parenting with children."
Is the comparison wrong, and why?
Both government and parenting are based upon choices being taken away because someone thinks he knows better than others.
You want to take away choice from young people because you think you know better, so do you agree that government should be able to take away your choice if government thinks that it knows better than you?
Ok listen, I am saying that there is a difference between a parent telling a kid they can't do something because they know better, and the government telling the people they can't do something because they know better.
One is basic parenting, and the other is adults telling adults what they can and can't do.
The fact that you are trying to connect basic parenting with the government taking over, proves that you are trying to connect the dots, where there is nowhere to connect.
Is the comparison wrong, and why?
Just proved why it's wrong.
-->
@Best.Korea
I reaffirm my last comment to you.
-->
@TWS1405
No idea what that means.
Sort of a loser's response.
All mouth and no trousers as we say over here.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Read my posts on this subject and you will find, that in the main I agree with you.
I was just responding to TW's naive comment about 9 year-olds.
Perhaps TW did have a sheltered, austerely religious upbringing.
-->
@zedvictor4
You know exactly what it means.
My comment in reply to your sycophant nonsense about 9yo wasn’t naive. It was on point.
And I didn’t live any measure of a sheltered or religious life. I’m anti-religion as much as I am anti-groomer of innocent children.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"I am saying that there is a difference"
No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.
The argument that was made is that the justification for taking away choices is the same, which you failed to refute since you didnt find a difference in justification of each case.
What justification can you use to take away choices from young people, but that the government cant use to take away choices from you?
"One is basic parenting"
So taking away choices from young people is basic parenting?
This is a definition, a very unclear definition.
Arguments were about justification of the two, not the definitions of the two.
You cant use definition of something as justification for it, since that is circular logic.
"and the other is adults telling adults what they can and can't do."
So government telling adults what to do is wrong because adults are adults?
More circular logic?
So taking away choices from young people is basic parenting?
Yes, this is exactly my point.
No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.
That is not my argument. My argument is that parenting kids and governing people are very different things.
So, government telling adults what to do is wrong because adults are adults?
If you actually thought about this statement, you would know that this is not circular logic.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"My argument is that parenting kids and governing people are very different things."
Read again:
"No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.
The argument that was made is that the justification for taking away choices is the same, which you failed to refute since you didnt find a difference in justification of each case."
"Yes, this is exactly my point."
So your point is that a definition is a justification? In that case, I use the definition of a government to justify whatever the government does.
"If you actually thought about this statement, you would know that this is not circular logic."
Using the definition of something as its justification is circular logic, since conclusion is not derived from a premise, but rather the conclusion is the same as premise.
-->
@TWS1405
Well, perhaps I should report the post then.
And how might I be a sycophant?
And what is sycophant nonsense?
You say a lot of stupid stuff.
And children are fed knowledge from the moment they are born.
And what once wasn't available to them, is now available at the tap of a button.
Innocent 9-year-olds is a naive assumption.
Sycophants are the ones wearing red caps and stupid grins on their faces, standing behind Donald Trump.
-->
@sadolite
You reaffirm the comment in which you didnt explain why you oppose to the government taking away your choices when the government's justification is being your inability to comprehend important decisions?
You also reaffirm the comment in which you didnt explain why you dont oppose to that same justification when it is used in case of young people?
-->
@Athias
Then the parent(s) can do everything within their capacity to persuade the child so long as it does not involve coercion or violence.
So we should let kids cut off their arm if they want? Is this the hill you really want to die on?
-->
@Lemming
don't see how societies power is an illusion,Though I would agree it is made of smaller groups,Perhaps country the largest group, then smaller factions within, smaller faction withing those factions, and so on.
Because the allusion to "society" is no more than a placeholder for whomever believes they have priority in dictating how others should behave with one's self and resources.
I would agree there is some inconsistency in the terminology of consent, even for adults,But would argue this is why additional clarifiers are often made in arguments, such as informed consent, in medical for example.
Informed consent attempts to prevent undue influence a physician or medical professional may have as a result of asymmetric information (not to mention, preventing the prospect of lawsuits and issues with liability.) This does not translate well when it simply refers to consent, hard as one may try. Because one cannot justify how one is misinformed or under-informed when it comes to one's own intentions and desires as it concerns oneself.
I'd agree I see great value in one's right to themself,A society that uses people for the good of the many,Or some utilitarian goal,I find a bit dislikable,And admit such is even in American society, the military draft for example.
Measures to conscript others into one's own agenda under the pretext of the "common good."
For younger individuals,They've yet to acquire the ability to make living wills,As opposed to older individuals,If an older individual failed to make preparations, then lost their mind, it can be difficult to know what they would have wanted.
How old one must be to act best in service to oneself? Is this even possible if others are coercing one to follow their prescriptions?
-->
@sadolite
How about instead of choosing an age, we use a responsibility level instead. When you move out of your mommy and daddies house, pay all your own bills and rent you can choose your sexuality. That includes paying for everything related to your sexuality choice.
And this is the leverage parents can use to persuade their children. I personally take no issue with parents refusing to enable their child's sexual behavior under the auspices of the provisions and resources they provide.