@Celestial-body-NOS's banner p

Celestial-body-NOS

Galatians 4:16

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

				

User ID: 290

Celestial-body-NOS

Galatians 4:16

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 290

This is just flat wrong, and brings your supposed expertise about "gender-affirming care" into question.

I said that it was to the best of my knowledge. I am not an expert compared to professional chirurgeons, but compared to those who think a vagina is a lack of penis, and imagine the male-to-female operation to be something akin to the work of Lorena Bobbit, I think I'm doing fairly well, much in the same way as, while I do not claim be able to run the U. S. Defense Department better than James Mattis, I am fairly certain I could do a better job than Pete Hegseth.

You may have noticed that female people have no flesh in between their legs

This is a common misconception held by many men, leading to an epidemic of bed-time headaches among their wives.

which can be used to fashion a crude imitation of a penis. To accomplish this, surgeons (or "chirurgeons" as you insist on calling them,

'Chirurgeon' is from the Greek 'χείρ' (hand) + '-ουργός' (worker); 'surgeon' is an eroded form of the same.

apparently for no better reason than obfuscation and misdirection)

I am getting just a wee bit tired of the snide insults.

must carve out a chunk of tissue from elsewhere on the patient's body, typically the forearm or thigh. It's similar to a skin graft, except that much more flesh is required, meaning the tiny minority of trans-identified females who undergo phalloplasties have telltale scars on their thighs or forearms for months or years afterwards.

The same applies for cis-men, who were born biologically male in all respects, identify as men, and suffer injuries between their legs. Does this make such a man less male, or is this merely an appeal to disgust?

Even if 100% of people who get breast implants don't regret doing so, that wouldn't tell us anything about how realistic breast implants are.

Well, are we talking a woman whom you never suspected had implants because she went to a chirurgeon who made them look natural, or a woman who chose a doctor whose work was obvious at first sight so that everyone would know that she could afford them?

I've heard so many trans activists independently recite this canard, and they never provide a source.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/transgender-debate-gender-affirming-surgeries-have-a-regret-rate-of-one-per-cent-or-less-for-knee-replacements-its-17-per-cent-vic-valentine-4258947

I'm taking this about as seriously as "trans panic laws have enabled people to literally get away with murder!!!1!"

D. F. McLaughlin?

Paris Lee?

If those issues are so unimportant, then why don’t you just… give them up?

For two reasons:

First, because our reasons are important. If A supports P for reason X, and B opposes P for reason Y, it is entirely reasonable for A to accuse B of exploiting trivialities while refusing to concede on the matter, if X is more important than Y.

In the specific case of transgender and immigration, X = alleviating the actual suffering of actual human beings, who have suffered more than enough already. This leads into the second reason:

Because We Do Not Do That. It is a central tenet among many on the left, that throwing a few people, especially marginalised people, under the bus, for some nebulous notion of The Greater Good, is a thing that is simply Not Done.

It is the philosophy of Ana Thurmond from UNSONG:

I’m not God, I’m American. Universal salvation or bust.

It is the philosophy of House Pelekai from Lilo & Stitch (or if you were watching Netflix some years ago, Igor from Young Frankenstein):

ʻOhana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind.

It is the philosophy from the Talmud:

Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.

I assume they will not give it to you if you are a visibly disturbed drug user.

...resulting in the rest of us having to step around bio-hazardous land-mines on the pavement.

They want it so bad they'll chop off their dicks

That is not the first time that bottom chirurgery has been characterised in such a way on this forum, and I would like to correct the record:

To the best of my knowledge, vaginoplasty (male-to-female) does not involve 'chopping off' anything. The male genitals in their entirety are rearranged into female genitals, with the penis becoming the clitoris and the scrotum becoming the labia; phalloplasty (female-to-male) is the same but in the other direction.

Also, the methods used are very similar to those used in within-sex reconstructive chirurgery in cisgender patients who have suffered genital injuries.

and pump their bodies full of chemicals

My brother in Christ, what do you think the endocrine system does?

to make a poor imitation of this.

It may have been a 'poor imitation' a century ago, but much progress has been made; the regret rate for transgender operations is less than that for knee replacements.

I don’t believe that MTFs (i.e. men [by chromosomes and natal biology, women by identity]) should be given access to women’s spaces

I'm not sure that there ought to be separate men's and women's spaces, if their existence leads to things like a trans woman dying of cancer because she isn't allowed in the women's ward, and also isn't allowed in the men's ward.

You can have monotonic, but strictly monotonic is strictly moronic for the aforementioned reasons.

I disagree with those reasons.

Assume f(x) = p, where x is the terribleness of a given crime and p the severity of the applied punishment.

If in your framework f(absolutely maximally terrible crime) is to be = capital punishment, because that's the biggest bullet we have, then f(anything less than maximally terrible crime) = already not capital punishment anymore.

Yes, that is my position.

In other words, the framework doesn't exist to select appropriate, effective, just or socially useful punishments for a given crime

I disagree with your assertion that 'anything less than death' cannot qualify as such.

but simply as a sort of isolated demand for rigor aiming to abolish capital punishment altogether.

No, my Views on this are orthogonal to the question of whether capital punishment ought exist at all.

In a society without the death penalty, substitute 'life without possibility of parole'. (If I'd been the Governor of Utah, upon Mr and Mrs Turpin being sentenced to 'life, eligible for parole after 25 years', I would have commuted all sentences not involving child abuse or similar to 'life, eligible for parole after 20 years'.)

to apply less severe punishments for sufficiently terrible crimes is obvious injustice

It is a more obvious injustice to let someone who keeps children chained to beds, surrounded by filth, and so isolated that some of them do not know that the police departments exist, for years on end, escape with only the same punishment as someone whose crimes took place in one day, and whose victims knew that what was happening to them was not supposed to be happening.

If I were the Almighty, the personified Idea Of The Good, perhaps I would be able to square this circle, and avoid either injustice. As human beings, the best we can do is to avoid the more unjust outcome.

It doesn't have to be linear, so much as strictly monotonic.

The Rules Based Order was always a mirage.

So how do we get from here to a point where it isn't?

Because if we descend into open kraterocracy, we're never going to reach the stars.

Both sides socialize differently when segregated and it has real benefits.

It also has the very sizeable drawback of people regarding the opposite gender as other, as categorically beyond one's ingroup; I think that might be what Dr Roth is getting at.

I am 100% in favor of executing these drug dealers. Also 100% in favor of executing anyone selling fentanyl as it’s really bad stuff.

I'm not sure I approve, but I can see where you're coming from; you'd certainly have a plausible argument that 'giving someone fentanyl while claiming it is cocaine' constitutes Depraved Indifference.

I am also in favor of deporting and denaturalizing basically everyone of these kids background.

Aaaaand that's where you lost me.

[Edited for clarification] My opinion of the use of ethnic/racial heuristics in such matters is best described by that picture where Batman breaks a rifle in half:

This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.

And right next to the default password:

To guarantee the best experience when connecting to your AK-SC, ensure you [sic] PC has the latest version of Adobe® Flash®

Just a continuation of the trend of "you own nothing" and you need to rent everything and pay service contracts to the vendor. We got hp printers where you don't own the ink cartridge in your hand, but just a subscription contract to allow you to print a certain number of pages. We got subscriptions for heated seats and enabling the maxiumum power of the car.

Companies that pull this sort of Stierscheiße ought to be charged a 99.5% tax rate on subscription revenues, and have to write the government a thank-you note for the C-suites not spending the rest of their lives at donkey-work in inhospitable climates.

rather than minimize horrifying crime.

The crimes committed by Mr and Mrs Turpin are so much more horrifying than that committed by Mr Hasan that to give them the same sentence, whatever that sentence may be, is an insult to every child who has been comparably victimised.

The correct thing to do is kill them all.

Which leaves no societal acknowledgement of the greater enormity of the Turpin case. Mr and Mrs Turpin betrayed a far more sacred trust than Mr Hasan.

...thus, if we have the death penalty, it ought to be applied to David and Louise Turpin, and not to Nidal Hasan.

That's not all three; it's missing No. 2, i. e. the only one that gives us a chance of getting to the stars.

I do not condone what Mr Hasan did. The only reason I don't support his execution is that it leaves society with no further measures to apply to even worse crimes. Be that as it may, however, the murders at Fort Hood were a crime committed by one individual against forty-five other individuals. They were not committed by 'the Arab race' against 'the white race'. (Two of the slain, Maj. Libardo Eduardo Caraveo and Pfc. Kham See Xiong, were born in Mexico and Thailand.)

Technically, it most likely uses diesel-fuel, which has gone up even more.

Oh, when you said 'American', you meant 'UnitedStates-ian'.

I'm not sure I've made my point clear. As far as I am aware, there is no coherent ideological framework that justifies giving those of English extraction a special claim to the territories of both the United Kingdom and the United States.

One can either:

  1. claim that particular areas of land belong immutably to certain ancestral groups, which would endorse the Daily-Mail reading gammons' calls for remigration of the London-born children and grandchildren of South Asians from England, but also demand the remigration of white people form North America (and possibly the English from Scotland and Wales);

  2. reject ancestral blood-and-soil claims, and judge individuals not by their ethnicity or the etymology of their names but by their personal actions, drawing no distinction between Mr Hasan and a hypothetical alternate-timeline perpetrator born James Anglesax, whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower or the Susan Constant and who converted to an extremist form of Islam and committed a similar massacre; or

  3. recognise land as belonging to whichever group is capable of seizing it by force, which would dissolve any ethical high ground between 'a descendant of Englishmen killing a descendant of Arabs to maintain the status quo' and 'a descendant of Arabs killing a descendant of Englishmen to overturn the status quo', and incentivise a metric arse-load of bloodshed until partisans of option 2 manage to establish a claim on behalf of All the descendants of the last common ancestor of all humans to the third planet from a ~two octillion tonne yellow dwarf star in the Orion-Cygnus arm, for now.

All three are logically coherent, but as someone who would greatly prefer that violence be kept to a minimum, I favour the second option.

And clearly he is Middle Eastern (which is why his parents called him Nidal instead of James).

Excellent point. Real Americans have names like 'Running Bear' or 'Flying Eagle'.

What I would prefer us to do is use MKUltra propaganda to turn Nidal into an atheist, possibly transgender, and habitual pork and alcohol enjoyer.

I think that might be making a few assumptions regarding the effectiveness of MK-ULTRA....

[apocalyptic AI risk] rank less important to them than [continuing a certain set of sexual practices]

That risks running into the Heckler's Veto: "I will ignore your warnings of potential catastrophe unless you forswear any lifestyle choices of which I disapprove; therefore, if you do not change your lifestyle to fit my demands, you rank prevention of catastrophe as less important than your lifestyle choices." Giving in to such a demand will then invite every wowser within 20,000 kilometres to make similar demands regarding whatever bee they happen to have in their bonnets, and once you've paid the Dane-Geld, you'll never be rid of the Dane.

Also depending on the exact nature of those sexual practices, it can be a pretty good argument for keeping them as far away from the levers of power as humanly possible.

It would be, if they were engaging in the sort of things described in the more lurid claims circulating among the Blue Tribe regarding Epstein's clients. When the practises in question entirely involve mutually consenting adults, whose standards for consent are probably a fair bit less flexible than the median, the argument starts to look a lot flimsier.

In this case, a literal sex cult.

And what's that got to do with the price of fish and chips?

Even if we concede arguendo your Views on sexual morality, "_______'s thoughts on AI risk are invalid because _______ engages in immoral sexual practises" is literally an ad hominem argument.

I do not believe that it is impossible to maintain a functioning economy under conditions of (open_borders+welfare_state). I will concede that it is harder to do so than it would be under either (open_borders+social_darwinism) or (welfare_state+sakoku), but that's why there's a Stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell.

Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right.

  • -10

...the overwhelming and replacement of me, my family, and my people in our homeland.

You are not being 'replaced' just because people exist near you while being of more distant blood-relation than you are used to.

The only alternatives on offer are:

  1. We move away from defined-by-birth absolutely-no-exceptions-closed-to-new-entrants societies, and towards a more universalist ethics, or
  2. We condemn our posterity to endless who's-in-who's-out conflict and a grim dark future in which there is only war.

There is no third option.

This was the case sixty-two years and one month ago, and it remains true today.

Was it terrible in Portugal? Chile?

Yes. It was terrible there. It was terrible in France. It was terrible in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was terrible in the Soviet Union. It was terrible in Red China. It was terrible enough in Cambodia to push the Nazis down to second place, which is not an easy feat.

Why go straight to Hitler?

Because that's the best-known example in the English-speaking world, and where someone realised how badly that kind of paranoia-spiral always ends up and wrote a memorable poem about it; the poem can be applied to many nations and ages.

For those who have negative associations with that poem from its usage by hypocritical Blue-Tribers ignoring that it can also apply in the other direction (First they came for the anti-vaxers, but I Trusted The Science, so I stayed silent), I can point to a different quote applicable to the same danger:

Do not call up that which you can not put down.

I've seen it; it's not pretty.

First they came for the ________, and I spoke up even though I was not a ________, because I read the rest of the poem!