Children and teens cannot understand the consequences of transitioning

Angilion said:
Any that's a fashionable target, of course. Which is probably why you've now added the word 'marginalised', a word that wasn't in your post that I replied to. That's part of the "justification". Define group identities (which is the belief that "they're all the same" with an extremely superficial rebranding for publicity purposes) and impose them on everyone, then define which group identities it's good to target and which ones it's bad to target by using simple labels such as 'privileged' and 'marginalised'.
Click to expand...

You need reading glasses, check the post again, it very much is in the post you have quoted. If you are going to argue with me, at least have the decency to read what it is you are arguing with before you do so, it makes it seem like you are arguing in good faith much more believable.
 
hurfdurf said:
You need reading glasses, check the post again, it very much is in the post you have quoted. If you are going to argue with me, at least have the decency to read what it is you are arguing with before you do so, it makes it seem like you are arguing in good faith much more believable.
Click to expand...

Thank you for so promptly providing yet another example of your default behaviour and thus proving me right.

Yes, you added the word "marginalised" at the end in a seperate and unrelated section because you're devoutly irrationally prejudiced and thus need to fabricate an excuse for your double standards. Like all deeply irrationally prejudiced people, you require a reason why the same thing is bad when done to the group identities you consider superior and good when done to the group identities you consider inferior. So you label them to blame the victims. Same old, same old.

hurfdurf said:
Because for some people, including a lot of people who post on here, their sense of power and self worth comes from putting down others rather than anything they themselves have achieved. If you take away someone that they can’t abuse and bully, under the guise of moral concern or not, you take away their ability to think highly of themselves on something other than their own merit, for which they have nothing to think highly of themselves for, and they realise they are just a bunch of losers.

It wasn’t ok to be racist, that’s one form of power, wasn’t ok to be sexist, wasn’t ok to be homophobic.... soon there will be no more marginalised groups left for these sad people to laud over.
Click to expand...

Nice job of trying to draw attention away from your relentless demand for double standards, though.
 
Angilion said:
Thank you for so promptly providing yet another example of your default behaviour and thus proving me right.

Yes, you added the word "marginalised" at the end in a seperate and unrelated section because you're devoutly irrationally prejudiced and thus need to fabricate an excuse for your double standards. Like all deeply irrationally prejudiced people, you require a reason why the same thing is bad when done to the group identities you consider superior and good when done to the group identities you consider inferior. So you label them to blame the victims. Same old, same old.



Nice job of trying to draw attention away from your relentless demand for double standards, though.
Click to expand...

I didn’t add anything, it’s in my post, my post you quoted claiming I hadn’t used that word....

And if you have an issue with the expression marginalised, you might want to have a word with some small organisations like the UN and the British Government, because it’s common usage in policy making.
 
My favorite is that you can allow a 15yo to cut off her breasts and that'll be seen as 'brave' and 'inspiring'.

The same 15yo falls in love with a 55yo man down the street. That's childish nonsense she'll grow out of and she needs protection from herself :D
 
regulus said:
My favorite is that you can allow a 15yo to cut off her breasts and that'll be seen as 'brave' and 'inspiring'.

The same 15yo falls in love with a 55yo man down the street. That's childish nonsense she'll grow out of and she needs protection from herself :D
Click to expand...

Are you 55?
 
regulus said:
My favorite is that you can allow a 15yo to cut off her breasts and that'll be seen as 'brave' and 'inspiring'.

The same 15yo falls in love with a 55yo man down the street. That's childish nonsense she'll grow out of and she needs protection from herself :D
Click to expand...

Ok cool now we’ve got forum members claiming 15 year olds cut off their breasts (not really a thing) and complaining that children can’t be raped by 55 year olds. Cool.
 
hurfdurf said:
Ok cool now we’ve got forum members claiming 15 year olds cut off their breasts (not really a thing) and complaining that children can’t be raped by 55 year olds. Cool.
Click to expand...

Of course they can be raped, but some make a decision to do so. I know someone who was barely 16 when she slept with a 47 year old. Fully consented to it, it was totally her decision. Was she raped?
 
Lysander said:
Of course they can be raped, but some make a decision to do so. I know someone who was barely 16 when she slept with a 47 year old. Fully consented to it, it was totally her decision. Was she raped?
Click to expand...

She was at the age of consent and consented so I'll go out and say no.
 
hurfdurf said:
Scratch a squeaky libertarian right winger on a right wing internet forum and uncover someone arguing that children make a decision to be raped and want to justify people having sex with children.
Click to expand...

Weird.

EDIT: Ah, I think I see the problem here. My wording was bad. What I meant was "some make a decision to have sex with them", not "some make a decision to be raped".

And by the way can you please stop referring to me as a "right winger", I am more centrist :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom