South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.

[Laniakea]

What is this white culture? I'm pale white and dying to know.

Read the copy/paste explanation in post #812. Someone seems to think it explains everything.

 

[icehorse]

Whatever, dude. Everyone here has seen your machine gun throwing out of strawman.

I see you're still not brave enough to dig into your accusations one at a time, I find that telling.

As for me claiming strawman arguments, you bet I do. Whenever you or anyone else puts words in my mouth, I will call that out. And I'd say the fact that your cohort can't help but try to put words in my mouth says a lot about the lack of quality and logic in your stance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see you're still not brave enough to dig into your accusations one at a time, I find that telling.

As for me claiming strawman arguments, you bet I do. Whenever you or anyone else puts words in my mouth, I will call that out. And I'd say the fact that your cohort can't help but try to put words in my mouth says a lot about the lack of quality and logic in your stance.

It's not putting words in your mouth. It is how you dismiss criticisms against you. It doesn't change. Everything is a strawman against you. Which means, of course, that's not the case at all. You knowledge is very limited, your vocabulary is very stunted, the time spent researching little and it shows.
And here is a small sample you in action:

 

[icehorse]

And here is a small sample you in action:

Dude! I think this is a good demonstration of YOUR lack of understanding. Yes, yes, yes! I just agreed that I claim strawman often.

I claim strawman when I'm misquoted. So showing me claiming strawman is a total waste of time. It means nothing unless you can demonstrate that I was not misquoted.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When I say we should defend enlightenment values

You're masking your actual intent, and the consequence of your advocacy, behind euphemism in exactly the same way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, now let's talk.
My original "phrase" about defending white culture was in response to you saying "Suuuure, and "defending white culture isn't racist". That was post #769. I took that as sarcasm indicating that defending white culture IS racist, in your opinion.

Nope. Re-read what I was responding to. I was responding to someone making the argument "defending biological sex isn't anti trans" and compared it to the statement "defending white culture isn't racist". Note where the quotation marks are. I am drawing a direct comparison between the two statements, suggesting that both are often excuses used by transphobes/racists (respectively) to pass off their arguments as defensive rather than reactionary.

See, it really defeats the point of being on a debate forum if you don't understand how arguments are formed. I know understanding context may be difficult, since you are determined to misrepresent people. Thankfully, I'm here to educate you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, your questions are not points. If you have a point to make, then let's hear it.
While I wait, I'll give you a question to mull over: When companies such as Coca Cola tell their employees to be "less white", what do you believe they mean by that?

Why do you think that happened?

Edit: I just realized that this question is ambiguous. I meant "what's your reason to think this occurred?" and not "what do you think was the motivation behind this?"

 

[wellwisher]

From APnews: South Carolina House OKs ban on gender-affirming care for minors, Missouri panel sees similar bills
This bill blocks puberty blockers and hormones from minors, however as previously predicted, it was never just about minors.

"People under 26 could not use Medicaid to cover the costs for such care, and school employees could not withhold knowledge of a student’s transgender identity from their legal guardians."

Additionally, forcing schools to out LGBT youth to their parents is truly evil.

Cosmetic surgery is not covered under Medicare or any social program nor can children get this without parental consent.

There are no specific laws in the United States that prevent teenagers from getting cosmetic surgery; however, parental consent is required for patients under the age of 18.

What is called gender affirming care; sugar coated with word games, is no different from other forms of cosmetic surgery. If you were born with a big nose or small breasts, some people get very self conscious. They sincerely believe that can become happier if these natural appendages were altered to look more like their inner body image. How does this differ from using strong drugs and surgery to alter other secondary sexual characteristics? If anything transgender cosmetic surgery is the extreme.

The Left is trying to loophole, to skirt the cosmetic surgery law and guidelines, by bypassing parental involvement and the traditional age limit. Their cheat is causing the push back, not the goal. If they had approached this as cosmetic surgery, with18 year old the age limitation, it may have been accepted, easier, due to the parallel. But they used an underhanded cheat approach of small child abuse, that raised red flags. It was never about the needs of naive children or teens, but their own money and power.

In all cases of cosmetic surgery, beyond reconstructive due to cancer or accidents, it is not covered by the tax payer. It requires the person who wants it, to work hard, save or else have parents who will help foot the bill. It is about adult choices, earned over time, to make sure this is not a fad that will backfire. Someone with genuine need will keep working toward the desired resolution even onto adulthood after 18. Anything that is too easy; free, is more likely to loose its glitter over time and create secondary problems.

 

[metis]

The Left is trying to loophole, to skirt the cosmetic surgery law and guidelines, by bypassing parental involvement and the traditional age limit. Their cheat is causing the push back, not the goal. If they had approached this as cosmetic surgery, with18 year old the age limitation, it may have been accepted, easier, due to the parallel. But they used an underhanded cheat approach of small child abuse, that raised red flags. It was never about the needs of naive children or teens, but their own money and power.

OK, then take the decisions away from the teens, his/her parents, and their doctors and give it to a governmental body.

Got it.

 

[icehorse]

You're masking your actual intent, and the consequence of your advocacy, behind euphemism in exactly the same way.

nope

 

[icehorse]

OK, then take the decisions away from the teens, his/her parents, and their doctors and give it to a governmental body.

Got it.

The first job is to determine whether GAC improves mental health, that hasn't happened yet.

The reality is that the mental health of kids with GD usually improves on its own.

 

[Laniakea]

Nope. Re-read what I was responding to. I was responding to someone making the argument "defending biological sex isn't anti trans" and compared it to the statement "defending white culture isn't racist". Note where the quotation marks are. I am drawing a direct comparison between the two statements, suggesting that both are often excuses used by transphobes/racists (respectively) to pass off their arguments as defensive rather than reactionary.

See, it really defeats the point of being on a debate forum if you don't understand how arguments are formed. I know understanding context may be difficult, since you are determined to misrepresent people. Thankfully, I'm here to educate you.

I'm not interested in who you claim to have been responding to in a different discussion. I was having a discussion with you about your views of "White culture". That's what you talked about, and it's what I responded to.

 

[Callisto]

What is this white culture? I'm pale white and dying to know.

I'm guessing either yeast, yogurt, or cheese.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not interested in who you claim to have been responding to in a different discussion. I was having a discussion with you about your views of "White culture". That's what you talked about, and it's what I responded to.

Then you admit you took my quote out of context and misrepresented it, because you don't understand how many statements in response to different statements and in different contexts can indicate a specific meaning. You just invented your own meaning (your imagined idea that I was saying I "don't like white culture") in absence of understanding the point I was making.

So, you really don't know how debates work and you misstated my position because you either didn't understand why I made that statement (because I was responding to a specific argument that you admit here you weren't aware of or care about - which is a surprisingly big admission considering that you wanted to accuse me of all sorts of positions I don't hold), or because you wanted to deliberately misrepresent me.

Which was it? Ignorance or dishonesty?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Read the copy/paste explanation in post #812. Someone seems to think it explains everything.

I asked you what is white culture.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Dude! I think this is a good demonstration of YOUR lack of understanding. Yes, yes, yes! I just agreed that I claim strawman often.

I claim strawman when I'm misquoted. So showing me claiming strawman is a total waste of time. It means nothing unless you can demonstrate that I was not misquoted.

It's very easy to dismiss. "It's never me, it's everybody else." This is how your grand defense of calling everything a strawman. You haven't been misquoted. You just try to shield yourself from criticism by waving it around like someone waving a cross around in an old vampire movie.

 

[icehorse]

It's very easy to dismiss. "It's never me, it's everybody else." This is how your grand defense of calling everything a strawman. You haven't been misquoted. You just try to shield yourself from criticism by waving it around like someone waving a cross around in an old vampire movie.

more hand waving and unsubstantiated accusations.

my offer stands, and it appears that you keep dodging it

 

[Laniakea]

I asked you what is white culture.

I directed you to the definition. Be satisfied.

 

[Laniakea]

Then you admit you took my quote out of context and misrepresented it, because you don't understand how many statements in response to different statements and in different contexts can indicate a specific meaning. You just invented your own meaning (your imagined idea that I was saying I "don't like white culture") in absence of understanding the point I was making.

So, you really don't know how debates work and you misstated my position because you either didn't understand why I made that statement (because I was responding to a specific argument that you admit here you weren't aware of or care about - which is a surprisingly big admission considering that you wanted to accuse me of all sorts of positions I don't hold), or because you wanted to deliberately misrepresent me.

Which was it? Ignorance or dishonesty?

Your obfuscating is getting tiresome.

Your own post (#769): South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.
"Suuuure, and "defending white culture isn't racist".

Again, what makes defending white culture racist?

 

[icehorse]

You're masking your actual intent, and the consequence of your advocacy, behind euphemism in exactly the same way.

Don't quit you day job, your mind reading skills suck.