The Glade 4.0

Translation: You're going to declare yourself right instead of actually discussing specific points. Anyone who disagrees with you is evil.

Could you cite the positions that support your argument that have not already been shown to invalid? I can't find any.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Not at all. You outlined your position and presented the salient evidence you felt supported your position.

I did the same for my position.

But you're correct, it's pretty clear that the facts are obviously in my favor. I don't rely on any bullshit definitions, I stick to the basics and refuse to let you frame the issue as some complex biological conundrum, because it's not. It's a binary conclusion of life or death, whether a human is allowed to mature as irrefutable evidence of it's humanity or is declared to be some type of lesser member of humanity and destroyed.

You really can't argue with the basic logic from a scientific view, the only personal opinion I interjected in the outline of my position that can be disputed in the least is the assertion that humans have an inalienable right to be alive. Otherwise, I just presented facts - if dear ol' mom doesn't have it ripped to pieces, in the same bit of time and effort that you yourself had to have to come to your conclusions and present them, the statistical majority of fetus would be capable of doing the same. We're all equal, our species is just a collection of human life forms on an appointed spot on a timeline, except you've decided that you're just a little more equal... so much more equal as to be judge, jury and in cahoots with the executioner.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Which arguments are you talking about? I've countered or rejected as non-factual nearly every statement opposed to my own position. Those that I have not, I've established as a judgement call that depends on your starting definitions which we fundamentally disagree on.

You've presented nothing other than to strut around saying "NO ITS A BABY!" and then throw out some ad hominims. In fact all your 'settled science' (which no one but me has actually tried to provide here) makes no statements about what is a human being at all simply because those questions are not what science does. Science can determine if something happens, how something happens, and make predictions about it, but questions of morality are generally outside the scope. Such questions are better in the hands of philosophers, ethicists, and religious scholars.

All your strutting around demanding that its abortion is wrong and trying to pretend only some small, morally deficient minority of the population agrees with me is just a smokescreen. The fact of the matter is that the MAJORITY of the population of the US agrees with my position.

(http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/publ ... -abortion/)



Yeah. I didn't say anything of the kind. You have not cited any facts. You've cited opinions. That's okay. You're in good company.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/39287 ... om-opinion



Your inability to see shades of gray, nuance or subtlety in logic is not, in any way, my failing.



What science? You have NFC what you're talking about. You've made a bald assertion with no support and claim there's some science behind it.



You really just can't even begin to tell the difference between a fact and an opinion, can you?

I mean not even a little.

Here's a hint: just because something is "true" in your head, doesnt make it a fact.

You, I, and every human that ever lived, started our life journey the moment our unique DNA presented itself shortly after fertilization and our biological markers can be backtracked exactly to that moment when that new, totally unique human genome formed.

That's a fact.

The only way to prevent that human life from maturing to the point where it can declare "I think, therefor I am" is to kill it, plus or minus the statistical viability of humans at that stage of life.

That too is a fact.

Your "personhood" criteria for determining the worthiness of the privilege of life is crap.

That is an opinion based on the totally crap piece of criteria it is.

Life is life, and you try to justify the killing of a member of the same species as yourself by deprecating it's humanity through bullshit made up criteria that refuses to address the basic fact that, no matter what crap you spout, you're supporting the killing a member of your same species. Not that I care, you can support whatever you want. You just lose any ability to claim moral superiority over any other baby killer, much less those that truly care about human life.

There's only one real question - do you believe that all human's are equal, and they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Well, obviously you don't if you're willing to kill innocents. Hell, if you can rationalize that, you can talk yourself into believing anything.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

It's deeply ironic that you accuse Taskiss of just 'declaring himself right', then turn around and admit its not a factual question. This is the exact same thing you do when calling people "racists" then citing so-called "experts on racism" (hint: there is no such thing).

Taskiss may not be making the most sophisticated argument ever, but he's definitely holding up a mirror not only to you but to the way the left feels it's entitled to behave towards people on the right pretty much everywhere. Don't like what you see, do you?

The next time you want to sling terms like "racist" around, remember that. You're complaining about your own behavior.

As for the garbage study about not telling fact from opinion, based on the statements they used the survey authors weren't 100% sure themselves, and didn't think it was important to explain that they were asking whether a statement was fact or opinion rather than asking if a factual statement was correct or not. An incorrect factual statement is still not an opinion.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not designed to be sophisticated. It's designed mainly as a counterpoint to the liberal embrace and politicalization of "the children of gun violence" as a marketable commodity to further their goal of the erosion of the 2nd. as well as using "children taken from their parents" to advance open border agendas - I'm just trying to emulate their argumentative technique and expose that blatant hypocrisy. They've got a glass house, I throw rocks. It's a nuanced kinda thing, I don't like playing that game but I'm not the one that dragged kids into it. Liberals don't care about kids, they care about agendas, and their attitude towards abortion is proof. So...

accuse accuse accuse. never stop. they're bad, it's obvious. any right thinking person would agree with me. think of the children and if you REALLY think of the children, then you wouldn't ...

yeah, I can do that all day. it's easier when you finally know you're in a war for the future, not a reasonable discussion

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

/checks in on women's reproductive health topic with no women in the discussion

/runs far away

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

Huh, and here I thought it was HUMAN reproduction...

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You get to limit the discussion to women once child support and alimony are banned, and not before. Until then, since men have to support the kids, we get to have opinions and they count just as much as women's. It has nothing to do with health unless actual health is affected in a particular case (not the imaginary mental health risks of carrying out a completely normal biological function; if you want to talk about mental health in rape/incest cases fine, but they are edge cases). "I'd rather not have a baby" is not a "reproductive health issue", it's a preference and that decision could have been made with a condom.

No one is stopping any women from participating in this discussion, so the only person at fault for that situation, so far, is you.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sorry - was in the final stretch of studying for boards and couldn't get back to respond during the final push.

- So as mentioned above, neonates.
- The comatose (due to complications of trauma or anesthesia) are exposed to stimuli but are (often) not processing any of it. Often there is a reasonable expectation they will arouse and recover once a particular insult is given time/intervention to resolve. Your argument suggests it would be legal to kill on day 1.
- The senile from advanced stages of dementia diseases (Alzheimer's, Frontotemporal Dementia, Lewy Body Dementia, Huntington's) may respond to stimuli but are no longer capable of processing any of it. They lack executive function and are completely incapable of acting on any basic urges. Sentience is effectively gone at this point, but they are still alive.

_________________
The Dude abides.

The Belgians have quite the fascination with euthanizing such people already.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The last couple of weeks has been interesting.

The left weaponized "think of the children" to try to further their agenda, and they now have weaponized "me too". They don't care about anything other than "resisting", sending out press releases that literally say "The Women's March opposes XX", because it doesn't matter who it could be, it matters that they resist. It's a war and their agenda looks pretty much to be foiled... one more conservative seat after Kavanaugh's at the SCOTUS and blocking the socialist nirvana will be another promise that Trump delivered - MAGA.

They can't have that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The court hasn't been this ideologically conservative since the 50s. Kennedy was basically a liberal and Scalia had some liberal impulses. I'd basically bet money on gay marriage being overturned soon and I'm pretty sure Lawrence stands a good chance of being killed as well, letting states make homosexuality itself illegal again.

Roberts and Alito won't sign onto that, and I suspect Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be reluctant as well. Whether or not they agree with the original decision, it would create utter chaos given that the effects of those decisions have been so broadly relied upon now. Stare decisis is a conservative legal principle for that very reason. Personally, I think even Roe is safe from being literally overturned at this point. What we will see, however, is a halt to the further expansion of LGBT rights by rejecting Constitutional arguments for them and by requiring religious/conscience exceptions to anti-discrimination statutes. And on abortion, we'll see a gradual chipping away at the practical reach of Roe by upholding laws that impose more restrictions on abortion and a walk-back on some of the reasoning.

What I'd expect to see is greater recognition of the bill of rights, specifically but not limited to the 10th amendment, something that the court has virtually ignored for the last several decades.



And just as a timely observation for those that believe accusations should always be believed sans evidence, the poster child for SCOTUS rape accusations is Jane Roe, who later claimed that "she lied, her lawyers lied, and legalized slaughter of innocent lives is the result". Some folks can lie and feel morally justified in doing so if they really really believe in their own philosophy. I'm surprised that wasn't pointed out. Fool me once...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Now that Trump is proposing to define gender at birth, do you still think this is the case? Even some extremely conservative countries that prohibit gay marriage like South Korea allow people to gender transition.

Relatively speaking, Trump's voter base is substantially more conservative on social issues than even Bush's. Bush made a coalition out of evangelicals plus pro-business voters. The latter don't care much about social issues. Trump's core is evangelicals and populists, which on social issues are both hard right. He's trying to garner additional support from blacks and union members, both of which are also social conservatives. Trump's voter base is nearly 100% extreme social conservatives that tend to respond violently to even centrist social stances. Just today, David French (A National Review writer, and definitely not a leftist) tweeted that a minority of Trump supporters are racist and now his kids are getting death threats. Daniel Frum and Jake Tapper have had similar harassment campaigns. I don't really see the Supreme Court ignoring this on precedent alone.

Honestly, I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around the doctrine the left wants to espouse with respect to transgender people. There's supposed to be a separation between sex and gender. Yet in defining terms they end up conflating the two again.

That aside, I don't understand how we can make laws to protect a class of individuals when constituents of said class can change their status by a simple mental decision alone. Using the same arguments I'm seeing putting forth, I don't understand what would preclude me from claiming a residency program is racist for not hiring me because I choose to identify as an ethnic minority now.

Transgender people are now causing enormous headaches in hospital systems by insisting they are a sex/gender of which their chromosomes say otherwise and demanding they be medically designated as one even without a sex/gender reassignment surgery. I had a 17 y/o patient on the inpatient child psychiatry unit who got physically violent over use of the wrong pronoun and parents defended their kid's response. I keep hearing there's scientific consensus on the "sex/gender spectrum" but I'm just not seeing it in the psychiatric community (yet) or even the medical community at large. The only science I've seen so far has come out of recent psychology journals or references to older brain imaging studies that don't assert the point the transgender apologist says it does.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I do understand there is more to the story than XY and XX, but as best as I can tell, humans can either carry eggs or fertilize them, and none has ever been found to have the capability to do both.

Till then, I’ll just wonder at those that abandon reality because it conflicts with their opinion.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I agree there should be some kind of process one should be required to go through so one can't just change gender daily on a whim, but the guidelines define it as totally immutable and must be specified at or before birth. Even if you're going to shut transgender people out, people who are physically intersex do exist. Do they just get one picked for them and then have to live with whatever their doctor/parents picked?

I know the intent here is to clear up Title IX ambiguity. Currently, a transwoman forced into male facilities can sue, but a woman forced into facilities with transwomen can also sue. That's not tenable but instead of creating some kind of process and verification to prevent abuse they just said **** off and nuked the whole thing.

The federal government, an entity that has to make decisions on behalf of roughly 330,000,000 (330 million) (3.3x10^8) people {written multiple ways because it's a large number and humans generally have trouble with quantities in excess of 3} cannot be in the business of verifying the vanishingly small population of tri/tetra/multi-somy people for accuracy, nor the slightly larger but still vanishingly small population of real multisomy people plus the deluded nutballs who want to be somewhere in that population.

_________________

We do the same for religion... I can decide tomorrow I'm Catholic, Muslim, or Pastafarian. Businesses can claim they don't want to provide health insurance for whatever procedures because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Hospitals can deny certain procedures for the same reasons.

Well, because of the inconsistent way that the reports refer to sex and gender - sometimes using them interchangeably, sometimes drawing a distinction between them - it's unclear what exactly the Trump Administration is considering. As you note in your subsequent post, though, this is being driven by the Title VII and Title IX issues that arose when the Obama Administration issued guidance that the references to "sex" in those statutes would be interpreted to include subjective and changeable gender identity. Trump seems to be proposing a reversal of that guidance - i.e., to provide that statutory references to "sex" will be interpreted to mean exclusively male or female based on objective and immutable biological traits. Whether or not that's scientifically or morally correct, it is legally correct. The concept of changeable gender identity was simply not part of the mainstream public debate when the relevant statutes were enacted, and there's no doubt that Congress intended "sex" to mean biologically male/female and nothing more. The Executive and Judiciary are obligated to interpret and apply those laws accordingly. If we want to incorporate gender identity into those laws - either by adding it as a separate category or by explicitly including it in the definition of "sex" - the appropriate vehicle for doing so is Congress.


Sure, but SC Justices aren't Trump's voter base; they're SC Justices. As such, I expect they'll continue to take the principles of legal regime stability and adherence to precedent seriously and refrain from overturning major precedents when doing so would cause significant disruption unless such precedents (in their view) were clearly wrongly decided and result in a grave injustice.

I thought about that too after I posted it. The same can also be said for sexual orientation. I have the beginnings of a rebuttal but am getting ready for a trip to my next rotation in a new city, so need a while before I can post.

_________________
The Dude abides.