[One Degree]

No. That's a great big fucking lie, and you know it. I'm not a Trump cultist, so I don't buy lies, like you do.

You have never explained what special rights or privileges that Transgenders are going to have, or will be given. You purposefully ignore the question because you HAVE no argument.

Accusing me of poor comprehension or poor memory is just insults to deflect from your lies, even more.

You reread the thread in 30 seconds? Amazing. It appears you called me a liar. Apologize or I will report it. I am tired of being Mr. Nice Guy.

[Godstud]

I don't have to read 30 pages to know you have never answered the question posed to you.

Report away. I will not apologize to someone who makes false claims on a constant basis and can't answer a simple questions related to the topic, which you are often completely off of. Try some honesty in your posting, for a change.

Don't worry, You'll never be accused of being Mr. Nice Guy. You'd have to be nice, for that to happen.

[One Degree]

Done

[Godstud]

Would you like a tissue to wipe away your crocodile tears?

[Hindsite]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[Verv]

(1) If I were to surgically remove someone's hand as a penalty for thievery, or to surgically destroy a man's eyes for a penalty for throwing acid, would that not be describable as barbaric and as a sort of 'mutilation,' @Godstud ?

Merriam-Websters provides two definitions for mutilate.

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
the child mutilated the book with his scissors
a painting mutilated by vandals
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE
His arm was mutilated in the accident.

It fits number two perfectly.

I can see how enough wriggling could make it so it escapes the first definition, but generally speaking, it still fits the first definition.

What are your thoughts on these definitions, Godstud?

(2) @Pants-of-dog , I do not think that anyone deserves the right to be able to prohibit or alter what a free person does with their own property. Of course, there are potential exceptions to this.

But I am curious... what's your argument that everyone deserves a right to never be discriminated against in terms of business?

Does this apply to the Proud Boys?

[Godstud]

Oh. I'm sorry if I am not going to take some childish non-medical opinion on it seriously...

If it's done intentionally via surgery, it's not mutilation.

Is a nose-job or a boob-job mutilation?

[Pants-of-dog]

(2) @Pants-of-dog , I do not think that anyone deserves the right to be able to prohibit or alter what a free person does with their own property. Of course, there are potential exceptions to this.

But I am curious... what's your argument that everyone deserves a right to never be discriminated against in terms of business?

Does this apply to the Proud Boys?

So, is it your argument that Trump should be allowed to remove discrimination protections from trans people just because businesses are property?

Well, the current US law contradicts that.

I explained this to you before on this thread.

Now, I asked you if you think Trump should be allowed to remove these protections just because you think gender reassignment surgery is mutilation. Is that your claim?

[Verv]

That's a good point, @Godstud : another great argument against cosmetic surgery is that it is mutilating a healthy body part. I had never thought of that, but that is basically the case.

If something is not unhealthy or damaged, it should not be operated on, and to operate on it for purely cosmetic reasons is vain and wrong.

@Pants-of-dog , I stated before... I support Pres. Trump rolling back these protections because everyone has a right to do what they want with their business or property.

And if a private individual wishes to discriminate, they also have that right.

It is almost as if you didn't read my post at all. I hate to be rude, but my rationale was clear, and it was even quoted by you. How is this even a question?

[Godstud]

That's a good point, @Godstud : another great argument against cosmetic surgery is that it is mutilating a healthy body part. I had never thought of that, but that is basically the case.

Altering or improving, is not mutilation, either. Since surgery is not mutilation, your argument becomes even dumber.

If something is not unhealthy or damaged, it should not be operated on, and to operate on it for purely cosmetic reasons is vain and wrong.

A personal opinion you hold, and nothing more. A stupid one, at that. People often have cosmetic surgery when things are not unhealthy or damaged because it improves their quality of life. You are not in a position to judge for them what is right or wrong. Sanctimony.

[Verv]

If someone has a distractingly large nose and it dramatically impacts their ability to date or see others... sure, I get it. I do not approve of it, personally, but I understand people's decisions to do that. Still, on some level, it is the mutilation of a healthy part of your body for vain reasons. This is what makes the "double eyelid" surgery in Korea and the nose jobs here so disgusting, as well, because to some degree they are even rebuking common characteristics among their people and Westernizing themselves. That's a whole different topic, and a good one, but it has been something that many people here are against, and it was really the first time that I sat down and became appreciative of the topic.

But this is ultimately like a circumcision debate, right, where I just am not that super invested in it.

What is relevant, though, is mutilating healthy bodies to fit unhealthy minds. This is far more egregious.

It's destroying a healthy organ as opposed to enhancing it, and matching it to an unhealthy mind.

Would you like to go back and wrestle with the Merriam-Webster definitins, Godstud?

Also, please note: I have no insults for you, because I am not mad or angry about this, and I do not think that coarse outbursts are persuasive. You might want to change your tone.

[Godstud]

Coarse outburts?

Your personal opinion is not relevant to this discussion, and I have no problem with definitions. Doctors do not "mutilate", and so you are incorrect. You opine that they do, but that's just an emotional argument. It's back to feelings, is it?

If so, then I think the feelings of the people having the surgeries outweigh your feelings of oppression/intolerance/revulsion, etc.. If it makes them happier people, then so be it. They are under the care of physicians who specialize this, and not small-minded people who simply like to meddle in the affairs of others. I do not care if this does not make intolerant purists happy. It's not up to them.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog , I stated before... I support Pres. Trump rolling back these protections because everyone has a right to do what they want with their business or property.

And if a private individual wishes to discriminate, they also have that right.

It is almost as if you didn't read my post at all. I hate to be rude, but my rationale was clear, and it was even quoted by you. How is this even a question?

And I pointed out that right now, in actual fact, people do not have a right to do what they want with their business or property.

You wanting something does not make it so.

Private individuals do not have the right to discriminate against you in temrs of your race, religion, and aeveral other ways. This is a fact about how law works in the USA. If you think that “a private individual wishes to discriminate, they also have that right”, then you are verifiably incorrect.

If you like, I can repeat this a thrid or fourth time. It is almost as if you didn't read my post at all. I hate to be rude, but even though your rationale was clear, it does not actually describe reality and therefore does not work as an argument.

[Verv]

Coarse outburts?

Your personal opinion is not relevant to this discussion, and I have no problem with definitions. Doctors do not "mutilate", and so you are incorrect. You opine that they do, but that's just an emotional argument. It's back to feelings, is it?

If so, then I think the feelings of the people having the surgeries outweigh your feelings of oppression/intolerance/revulsion, etc.. If it makes them happier people, then so be it. They are under the care of physicians who specialize this, and not small-minded people who simply like to meddle in the affairs of others. I do not care if this does not make intolerant purists happy. It's not up to them.

Right, you are being rude and vulgar in the way that you address the issue, so I referred to it as coarse.

Anyhow...

(1) I provided you the Merriam-Webster definitions of Mutilation earlier.

to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

This is mutilation because it destroys a healthy, functioning essential part of a body. It is literally mutilation.

A surgery is not a mutilation, you say, but it does not depend on how clean and well performed the cut is. It is dependent upon what is being done.

If an expert surgeon is hired to cut off a hand or destroy an eye (as has occurred), it is still mutilation.

(2) Anything that is thrust into the public sphere and a political issue is my business as a voter and as a member of the public, isn't it?

If you did not want it to be my business, why is it now being taught and normalized in public schools? Why isn't it just quietly happening behind closed doors?

This is a deflection from the actual topic.

[Godstud]

Yes, it's a deflection, by you. It is not relevant to the actual discussion, since your feelings of "mutilation", are of no significance.

Again, more about your feelings than anything else. I prefer to deal with facts, and not your feelings. If you don't like it Transgenderism, that's simply too bad. Don't do it, then.

[Verv]

And I pointed out that right now, in actual fact, people do not have a right to do what they want with their business or property.

You wanting something does not make it so.

Private individuals do not have the right to discriminate against you in temrs of your race, religion, and aeveral other ways. This is a fact about how law works in the USA. If you think that “a private individual wishes to discriminate, they also have that right”, then you are verifiably incorrect.

If you like, I can repeat this a thrid or fourth time. It is almost as if you didn't read my post at all. I hate to be rude, but even though your rationale was clear, it does not actually describe reality and therefore does not work as an argument.

I already told you what I thought about this, right? Indeed, in the thread I even discussed it briefly with some other conservatives, mentioning that I do not agree with the law as it stands.

Can you think of a law that you disagree with that is currently in place?

Are you obligated to make arguments within the scope of that law?

Of course not, so why would I be forced to make arguments in the scope of a law that I disagree with?

Oddly enough, you are the one that defines rights as coming from a community consensus, yet you are slow to recognize that there might be a consensus that discrimination is fine. Indeed, in the past this was the absolute norm. Were gay rights being violated in 1924?

[Verv]

Yes, it's a deflection, by you. It is not relevant to the actual discussion, since your feelings of "mutilation", are of no significance.

Again, more about your feelings than anything else. I prefer to deal with facts, and not your feelings. If you don't like it Transgenderism, that's simply too bad. Don't do it, then.

And if you don't like guns, don't own one.

If you don't like discrimination against gay people, then do not discriminate against them in your cake shop.

If you don't like racism, then don't be racist yourself or run a racist business...

Right?

This is a full endorsement of like some classic limited government position, right?

Or is the government and the sphere of opinion only supposed to be limited when you want it to be limited?

[Pants-of-dog]

I already told you what I thought about this, right? Indeed, in the thread I even discussed it briefly with some other conservatives, mentioning that I do not agree with the law as it stands.

Can you think of a law that you disagree with that is currently in place?

Are you obligated to make arguments within the scope of that law?

Of course not, so why would I be forced to make arguments in the scope of a law that I disagree with?

So we agree that you wish Trump had the right to do this, but the law as it currently stands does not allow this.

Oddly enough, you are the one that defines rights as coming from a community consensus, yet you are slow to recognize that there might be a consensus that discrimination is fine. Indeed, in the past this was the absolute norm. Were gay rights being violated in 1924?

It is obviously true that discrimination is fine among certain communities, like among Trump supporters. In fact, that is the whole reason why Trump did this: to energise transphobes into voting for his party in the midterms.

In 1924, gay people had no rights and were routinely targeted for discrimination.

Now it seems like Trump and his supporters want to rewind the clock and allow state supported discrimination against LGBT people again.

[One Degree]

Typical liberal deception. ‘Gay’ in one sentence becomes LGBT in the next. They argue every cause the same. One justifies any ‘letter’ they dream up to add. Very dishonest people.

[Drlee]

Yes One Degree. Again you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It is getting a bit absurd.

LGBT

Pay attention now. There could be a test:

L stands for Lesbian. That was illegal in 1924. Actually for well into my adulthood in many places.

G stands for Gay. That was illegal in 1924. Actually for well into my adulthood in many places.

B stands for Bisexual. Since that includes homosexual sex it was illegal in 1924.

T stands for Transsexual. That was illegal in 1924 because "impersonating" someone of the opposite sex was illegal in many places.

So what, exactly was done wrong other than giving you the opportunity to make yourself look stupid again?