domain:parrhesia.co
It ought to be. It's the only outlet for mythmaking that we're still allowed and the United States was explicitly founded on the free and liberal exercise of the natural right to make up ridiculous tall tales.
I say this without a hint of irony: Alex Jones is here being unjustly persecuted for his religious beliefs.
I suppose it will be updated, it was sections for Jan 6 and Covid. 2024 tomfoolery as seen by the right focused on down ballot.
Ballot counting stopped in Fulton County on election night 2020 because of claims of a burst pipe that later turned out to be false. But after poll watchers went home ballot counting continued and the next morning the largest pro-Biden ballot drop of the entire election was delivered.
Ballot counting stopped in Fulton County on election night 2020 because of claims of a burst pipe that later turned out to be false. But after poll watchers went home ballot counting continued and the next morning the largest pro-Biden ballot drop of the entire election was delivered.
They do a good piece every now and then, but all the best content that people still talk about seems to come from a 10-year period that ended somewhere in Obama's first term.
That is a preposterous and insane analogy to make so it's no wonder that's what your conclusion is.
Frankly I find it more preposterious and insane that you don't see removing parental authority as a salient category.
What's your position on castrati? Willing undertaking of medical procedure or abduction of minors for sinister purposes?
As a side note, I remember the onion being much more relevant sometime in the past. I wonder if its decline is related to it becoming just another mouthpiece for the democrat agenda, or if I'm totally off track.
Yeah, that tracks.
They are the dog that caught the car. Cultural victory is very bad for a humor publication. Pro-regime propaganda is never funny. And neither is the Onion, not for a long time now.
Probably the pendulum will swing again at some point.
I will repeat: do you think children can consent to surgery for appendicitis? treatment via antidepressants? Antibiotics?
I think putting 'mothers breastfeeding their children' in the same category as cholera, dysentery and smallpox is a bridge too far.
Technical interventions that remove lethal diseases aren't the same as qualitative shifts in the operation.
You are correct, I perceive no difference between children "consenting" to sex or "consenting" to sterilization.
Do you actually not understand the difference or did you just want to get a cheap dig in?
Do you see all medical interventions in under-18's as 'grooming'? No? Just the one you already have a prior about not liking?
If I'm wrong please tell me how. There's a huge host of reasons why they are different, but I'm only going to bother explaining them if you're not going to respond with another sarcastic one liner that is indistinguishable from an inflamed partisan spouting nonsense about 'the transgenders grooming my kids to want to be raped'.
Your right, i forgot to include the priest telling some wild yarn about how the kids actually want it. Despite everything we know about kids not being able to consent to that. Good call. Now its perfect.
Dems must really be counting on Trump crashing the economy to go with Newsom
He is also Gay
That loses too much of the crucial black and Latino vote.
I would bet more on Whitmer. They really want a female president, it’s pretty clear. They’re itching for it.
Wouldn’t Obama count as coastal due to his Hawaiian roots?
Yes, I agree. I am just saying that looking dangerous is also usually necessary to get good deals.
I didn't follow this closely, but didn't he order withdrawl from Afghanistan and Syria, but the generals slow-played it?
That's the glory of these judgements. They aren't punitive damages. They're compensatory damages. You can't put a dollar value on emotional distress, so who are you to say that "eleventy gazillion dollars" isn't appropriate compensation for mean phone calls?
I would not be surprised if someone on the federal circuit asserted that punitive damages aren't punishments.
#Procrastination thoughts:
(As always with Wellness Wednesdays, if you have never suffered from this problem, please don’t proclaim How Easy This Has Always Been For Me, You Just Need To Buckle Down And Do It.)
On ADHD-style time-blindness: Some moments are a destination, others a path to other moments. Learn to differentiate these, not mistaking a path-moment for a destination-moment… or vice versa. Playing with your sister’s kids is a destination moment, not something just to get through. Playing games on your phone with as little depth as Cookie Clicker out of boredom is a path-moment; don’t build a life around it.
On the states of mind of procrastination: I find my personality shifts depending on the state of my distractions, not the state of my work:
- I don’t want this Now to end, because I’m harvesting Fun, even of the worst and most boring sort. Or maybe the best sort, because I’ve got a schedule but yeah, I’ve got time. I am “Not Done” playing. I am in Freud’s id mode, and my name is Not Done.
- I don’t want people to stop me from completing my procrastination activity, because it cost me too much hassle to get to this point and I’ll be damned if I give up the progress, but time is summoning me out of Now-mode, and I know I have responsibilities to get to, and I am “Almost Done” with my distractions. I’m in Freud’s ego mode, and my name is Almost Done.
- I am doing the needful and my distractions are outside the warp bubble of flow mode. Time and I are partners here, I am digesting time as fuel. Whatever I was distracted with, it’s in the past and “I’m Done” with it whether I finished it or not. I’m in Freud’s superego mode, and my name is I’m Done.
Pumping only didn't work out in my ime, but we had a bunch of things that complicated the entire process. I remember reading some paper saying that mothers who try exclusive pumping fail to establish sufficient production more than mothers who breastfeed.
Neither of those is an example of "mutilation"
To be fair, the parent poster only talked about a "path towards mutilation". I assume that the "mutilation" in question is gender reassignment surgery, which typically involves cutting off external sexual characteristics. Is it not fair to say that this is a typical or at least commonly desired endpoint of transitioning, so actions that make it more likely that someone will reach this endpoint in the future could be fairly described as putting them on a "path towards mutilation"?
Can you provide a source for the claim that schools are forcing uninterested, non-consenting children into transition?
I figure the assumption of the anti-trans side is that children can't meaningfully consent, nor be held accountable for their interest or lack thereof in the context of a managed social environment like school that may encourage or discourage said interest. Either way, the poster you are responding to didn't claim anything about interest or consent, did they? They are only talking about secrecy, presumably from the parents.
Mind you, it also seems strange to first claim that the driving concern is parents disowning the kid, but then to also defend a forced disowning if they refuse to let the kid access transition-affirming medical interventions. In a scenario where the parents find out anyway and are not willing to "own"/support a transitioning kid, your preference is evidently for the kid to be separated from the parents anyway. If you are willing to use deception to make the parents make a sacrifice (of money? time? support?) that they would not make willingly, why can't you instead support a policy that at least respects them as adult citizens and simply says that they will lose visitation/influence rights if they interfere with the transition but will still be compelled to provide financial support for the kid?
Which would be more compelling if people weren't still getting fired because "this was obviously written in bad faith by a man."
Oh well.
Are murderers sued in civil court for damages?
I actually don't! I think without a parent involved in the decisions, malicious actors could convince a child to get any surgery or take any drugs. And sometimes even then!
So no, I do not believe a child can consent to any of those things, which is why parents make those decisions for them.
More options
Context Copy link