Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialThat's like asking how to justify seatbelts without mentioning deaths from accidents related to not wearing seat belts. You can't just ignore a major reason for something because you do not like it or it hurts your position
The raging liberals here can only keep a lid on their goofiness for so long till it get just out of control.I'd like one person to explain how this is justified. Without the "oh well dur it's for suicides."
Originally posted by Newjak
That's like asking how to justify seatbelts without mentioning deaths from accidents related to not wearing seat belts. You can't just ignore a major reason for something because you do not like it or it hurts your position
Yes because seat belts and minor sex changes without parents consent on your dime is the same as seat belts. Aweful example.
Originally posted by Newjak
That's like asking how to justify seatbelts without mentioning deaths from accidents related to not wearing seat belts. You can't just ignore a major reason for something because you do not like it or it hurts your position
Dude, you can talk about major reasons, that is fine. As long as you do not ignore all the major reasons this is a clusterf*ck. Don't act like one side has major reasons for wanting this, but the other side doesn't have any for thinking it is silly.
Also I realize some people here have varying opinions on politics, but I guess I was naive to expect that most people here would find this silly. Here we have folks defending the right for a 15 yr. old to get a free sex change paid for by the state, and then comparing it to asking people to justify a seat belt. Without a seat belt, you could die in an accident. You won't accidentally die without a sex change. But I'm sure there will still be a reason you feel that was a valid comparison.
Originally posted by SurturMy point comparing it to seat belts is without acknowledging the suicide rates and just dismissing them as a none point you are trying to take away a key component of the argument.
Dude, you can talk about major reasons, that is fine. As long as you do not ignore all the major reasons this is a clusterf*ck. Don't act like one side has major reasons for wanting this, but the other side doesn't have any for thinking it is silly.Also I realize some people here have varying opinions on politics, but I guess I was naive to expect that most people here would find this silly. Here we have folks defending the right for a 15 yr. old to get a free sex change paid for by the state, and then comparing it to asking people to justify a seat belt. Without a seat belt, you could die in an accident. You won't accidentally die without a sex change. But I'm sure there will still be a reason you feel that was a valid comparison.
Also I would like to be clear. This is a complex issue. I am extremely hesitant to say any 15 year should be allowed to make such a large life changing decision. I wouldn't my kid get a tattoo because of how young and easily influenced they are.
Still even a quick Google search shows the high rate of suicide attempts among Trans people so it is an issue. Do if there is data to support that this helps that problem then what is the problem I would be concerned if it was somwthing could do on a whim but the people instituting this law seem to be making it a long process to help test if this is the best thing for the child. So I don't see the problem right now for doing this.
He wasn't saying they were proportionately equivalent. That wasn't his argument at all. It would equally irrelevant to his point if suicides by transgendered individuals exceeded deaths caused by not wearing seatbelts in auto accidents.
He was saying that to ignore the actual problem of suicides caused by trans people feeling like they're in the wrong body simply because the phenomenon is inconvenient for those who believe sex changes are frivolous would be the same as a seatbelt hater ignoring the deaths caused by driving without one. For the logic of this argument, the numbers involved in either case are all but irrelevant. He could have chosen a more propinquitous analogy, but you're attacking the analogy rather than the logic behind it.