Celestial-body-NOS
Galatians 4:16
No bio...
User ID: 290
It is absolutely trivial to demonstrate ways in which "many on the left" are hostile to the idea of universal salvation, how they are absolutely willing to leave people behind (or to square the circle by simply denying humanity to those they disfavor), how their Universal Love comes with its own majority-dark-matter of caveats and carve-outs. A supermajority of leftists are absolutely willing to write people off, and frequently do so with bloodthirsty relish.
Yes thank you Mr fromSSC that thought has occurred to me several times over the past twelve years.
That is one of my two biggest beefs with the left coalition, that it has allowed itself to be hijacked by an ideology indistinguishable from right-wing racism except for a few find-and-replace operations!
You are the lynch mob, the men in masks armed with clubs beating peaceful protestors while the cops and the judges look the other way or even prosecute the victims. You are the murderers of civil rights activists, and you are the bigoted public who mutter to each other that the victims had it coming. You are the redliners, the restrictive covenanters, the discriminators, the ones who build their identity around hatred of the Other. And if we should be generous, you are also the cowardly, the ones who simply go along, following the crowd, perhaps with a slightly worried expression and a few whispered objections, but never more than a half-step out of sync. That is my view of "Many on the Left", based on what they have done in the real world, and what those I have interacted with here have stood for in their arguments.
No, I am one of those telling them not to do that, lest they horseshoe around to become the very thing they swore to destroy!
Because, sometimes, one side has more to lose from the other side's favoured policies than vice versa.
It's complicated. My religious beliefs probably wouldn't fit on a census form, but there is a lot of Christianity in them.
Haaa haaaa haaaaa; you're veeeeery clever.
I am in favour of helping them in ways that don't give people an opportunity to indulge their sadistic instincts while telling their neighbours and whatever is left of their own consciences that their actions are for the victims' own good.
I am in favour of rehab programmes that attempt to minimise the suffering of their patients, keeping conditions more comfortable than many conservatives think (lower-class) addicts deserve; I am also in favour of these programmes being free-at-the-point-of-use. This helps to make the addicted more likely to seek and/or accept help without the need to use force.
Addicts who engage in conduct from which they could reasonably be expected to refrain (e. g., stealing their family members' heirlooms to sell for money to buy drugs, assaulting people at random, defecating on the pavement when there are half a dozen toilets that are available for their use) can reasonably be compelled to enroll in the above rehab programmes.
Labour camps should not be on the table for drug users, even of the more criminal sort. If we have them at all, they ought to be reserved for people who beat their children eleven times in a single day.
I am interested in languages and word origins; not entirely laser-focused on any particular tongue, although a lot of our medical vocabulary comes from Greek.
I also believe that, while the modern era (at least up to c. 2014) has made many improvements in terms of social and political positions, it has fallen short aesthetically.
But the meme you're referencing is 'Alice doesn't believe Bob's religion, but uses passages from the scriptures of Bob's religion as proof-texts.'. I was not doing that.
Huh, I got the impression from the discourse here that 'the hassle of stepping in shit' was one of the most pressing issues of urban life!
No, I'm sorry, you're doing worse than Pete Hegseth. You don't need to know the fine details of the surgery to know what you're proposing could never work. It's basic anatomy.
That's the 'couldn't do a better job than Gen Mattis' part. The 'could do a better job than Mr Hegseth' part is the part where I don't characterise vaginoplasty as 'cutting the dick off', which in terms of military operations, is analogous to understanding that 'supplying your troops properly' has more of an effect on winning a war than 'making sure that your troops live up to 80s-action-movie standards of masculinity'.
If you really actually believe it can be fashioned into a penis, how do you explain doctors carving out huge chunks of forearms during phalloplasties?
One, I was not as aware of the details of phalloplasty; two, I was responding to the claim that, antiquote: "You may have noticed that female people have no flesh in between their legs which can be used to fashion a ... penis." The esteamed commenter would have been more accurate had he said "...do not have enough flesh in between their legs with which to...".
Is he wrong though? What's the point of using a form of a word that no one uses when writing in English?
I was referring more to the general pattern of insults I seem to get from his direction whenever I express disagreement with his Views on gender.
You claimed a vaginoplasty does not involve chopping anything off, and that a phalloplasty is the same process in reverse.
I stated that, to the best of my knowledge, a vaginoplasty does not involve chopping anything off (which has not been refuted), and that a phalloplasty is the same process in reverse, about which the best of my knowledge was lacking.
He's pointing out how you're completely wrong on the facts,
Not completely wrong. I do not know as much about the matter as those who have medical degrees, but I know more than someone who characterises the MtF operation as, anti-quote: "[T]hey want to be a woman...so bad they'll chop off their dicks...."
why are you trying to change the subject now?
I'm not the one changing the subject. I was responding to what the previous commenter posted.
The only link around these statistics is the word "London", it leads to the "London" tag of the newspaper you just linked to, not a study done in a London clinic.
You'd have to take that up with the newspaper then; that does seem to be a habit on their websites, in articles on a wide variety of subjects.
And once we have a category of 'people who can be summarily disposed of', how long will it take for that category to expand? Once you have sown the wind, how long until you reap the whirlwind?
Sometimes I wonder what kind of civilisation existed in the last days before the Deluge, if a civilisation it can indeed be called; did they let that camel's nose into their tents? Did, as sure as sermon follows text, the long and scraggly neck come next? And then, as falls the threat'ning storm, leapt in the whole ungainly form?
I do not, contra the late Rev Falwell, fear G-d's petulant rage at sins of hedonism or neck stiffness; I fear His righteous wrath at sins of callousness and cruelty.
Yes, I'm sure you can pattern-match it to the 'Naïve Idealistic Youth versus the Hard-Nosed Adult Laying Down Reality' trope; could this be what the Son Of Man meant by "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.", with right-wing paganism being the latter, and a compassionate Christianity being the former?
If that had been the only example of that philosophy I had given, you might have had something within a few hundred light-years of a point. However, I gave three examples of that concept being expressed, because I was not making an argument from authority; I was attempting to point to a cluster in idea-space.
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
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.
I'm taking this about as seriously as "trans panic laws have enabled people to literally get away with murder!!!1!"
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. apparently a more complicated procedure.
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.
- Prev
- Next

Other than the innocent Black men and Muslims....
More options
Context Copy link