ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
See, it's posts like this that prove, indisputably, that you do not debate in good faith.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Parents Rights On Transgender Policy
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
esmith
Veteran Member
I agree that fighting and other forms of physical abuse can lead to legal problems, that is why parents must be informed of their childs actions
As far as the trans issue I also agree it isn't a behavioral problem; however parents need to be informed of this. If this leads to abuse of the child by the parents then CPS through the local police need to be informed.
Parents have a fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I know these threads can be like juggling acts, responding to many posters at the same time, I get it.
But no, you have not responded to the article I just posted.
And I also will bow out of our discussion at this point.
And your logic here would be...?
Let me clarify, in good faith:
Sometimes a request for a citation is made in good faith, and over the years I've provided thousands of citations.
But too often a request for a citation is made to derail or obfuscate, and / or the answer can easily be discovered by the requestor.
I'm a volunteer here, as are you. I will make judgment calls concerning when I will and when I will provide a citation. I will say that it's far less likely that I'll give a poster a citation if they've initiated slurs. Because that act indicates bad faith. Put another way, I don't believe that "turn the other cheek" is a healthy idea.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There is though, and it's the one we've been talking about from the organization I mentioned. Just because those guidelines have seen changes and alterations along the way, doesn't make them "incoherent."Wow, you read that long and complex article very quickly!
As the article says, yet another European country (in this case Denmark), has sharply altered it's approach to treating young people suffering from gender dysphoria. At this point, the US's position is inconsistent (i.e. incoherent) with a growing number of European country's positions. So there is no "medical consensus" for you to rely on for your argument. If you want to limit yourself to the US, you're on slightly better footing, but not rock solid. And remember that the US's healthcare industry is second rate at best compared to Europe.
It's a normal part of any process such as this, for the guidelines to be re-assessed and tweaked as we go along and newer information becomes incorporated into them. I mean, that's literally the history of how the DSM has been produced. It doesn't make it "incoherent." What it does make it is dynamic and open to change in whichever direction the data points.
We're agreed.
But the point I'm making is that some posters imply that things like the SOC are monolithic, universally accepted, and cast in stone.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
The fact that you think a request for evidence is equal to an admission of ignorance.
Nope. It's just standard good debate. Don't make a factual claim if you're unable to support it. The rest of your post is just excusing that inability to engage in good faith.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Do you know what a strawman is?
A New Jersy judge ruled that three schoold districts do not have to inform parents if their child changes their gender identity.
I for one believe that parents have the right to know what their child is doing or what they want to do in any situation. What rights do you think parents have in this manner??
New Jersey judge temporarily blocks school districts from notifying parents of child's gender identity change
A New Jersey judge temporarily blocked three school districts from enforcing new policies requiring staff to inform parents if their child changes their gender identity.www.foxnews.com
There is no perfect answer here. Whichever side you come down on there will be abuses.
However, I'll come down of the side of parents rights because in my experience, parents generally have a greater self interest in the well being of the child than the state.
Again, not 100% of the time but more true than not in my personal experience.
You've just pegged the irony-meter. I'm backing out of this discussion with you, have a fine day!
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Please quote an example of anybody arguing, or "implying", that "things like the SOC are monolithic, universally accepted, and cast in stone".
If not, strawman.
esmith
Veteran Member
the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Which is why I want the state (in this case Florida) to keep it's nose out of what should be a matter between child and parents. The interest of DeSantis and his GOP cronies is to harm children and ostracise them.
Fine, I'll agree with you.
Even though I myself am against transgender medical proceedures for children under 18, I still concede to parental rights over my personal objections.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I don't think I've actually seen anyone actually make those claims.
I've seen that over and over and over again on this forum, fwiw.
But zooming out and generalizing a bit, I have a sincere question for you. This is a general question that can apply to any debate topic:
When a poster says words to the effect: "well I've never seen X", why is that a meaningful utterance?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Why is it a meaningful utterance? Well, because you're saying people are saying this particular thing all over the board, and I'm saying I don't think I've seen anyone making those very specific claims. Because I haven't.
We could also ask, when a poster says words to the effect: "People are saying such-and-such," Is that a meaningful utterance if no quotations or references to such words are provided?
I mean, if that's what we're doing.
Why is it a meaningful utterance? Well, because you're saying people are saying this particular thing all over the board, and I'm saying I don't think I've seen anyone making those very specific claims. Because I haven't.
We could also ask, when a poster says words to the effect: "People are saying such-and-such," Is that a meaningful utterance if no quotations or references to such words are provided?
I mean, if that's what we're doing.
Zooming way, way out, I'm seeing that a lot of the debate here that seems NOT to be in good faith. There is a spectrum from good faith to bad faith, I would say it's not binary or yes/no. So my assessment would be that most debates here are probably not in bad faith, but they're not in good faith either.
So as a thought experiment, let's imagine we all knew we were all debating in good faith. How would that change the debates here?
Well first, we'd assume that claims were well founded. And if not, the claimer would say something like "I have an intuition".
==
So back to this instance: when a poster says "I haven't seen it", that sort of implies perfect, universal knowledge no? And it also implies mistrust.
p.s. I acknowledge that my debating skills are far from impeccable, but I'm publicly acknowledging that I'm working on improving them. E.g., I'm trying to steelman more, and so on.
It is one thing to assume someone is arguing in good faith. It is a different thing to assume someone has a sufficient understanding of the subject to the extent that their opinions are beyond questioning. I will question a persons understanding, I will question the quality of their source, I will question their understanding of that source. Mistrust, is a good thing.
I think is valid to ask someone for their source so that you can see where they get their information from.