ChiGoose

Sen. Mike Moon reiterates support for 12-year-old's right to marry in Missouri “A southwest Missouri Republican from Ash Grove, Moon's support of child marriage in some instances has been long documented. In 2018 Missouri passed a law raising the marriage age in the state from 15 to 16 and requiring parental permission for older teenagers to marry. Moon opposed the bill at the time — citing the same anecdote of a couple he met in college who had married one another at age 12.”

This is why the accepted standard of care involves parental consent and generally starts with therapy before moving to puberty blockers then hormones before any surgery is done. The whole point is to start as non-invasively as possible to allow the child to explore who they are before moving on to treatment that might have side effects or more permanent outcomes like surgery. It’s also why the guidelines say that genital surgery is only to be done once they hit 18 and after they’ve been receiving care for a long time.

When you are dealing with a patient who is a minor, the parents have to give informed consent. How is this that hard to understand? If doctors are not following the approved medical practices and guidelines, they should have to face consequences like malpractice suits. If the doctors are following approved medical practices (which includes informed consent of adult patients and informed parental consent of minor patients) then they shouldn’t be charged with a crime just because some people on the internet don’t know how to read and are big mad at things they don’t understand.

I never said that I support people dying. I never said there were no side effects or negative consequences of treatment. I said that doctors should be able to provide the medically approved care with informed consent of the patient without government interference. I’m really beginning to wonder if you have a reading comprehension problem.

…When did I say I want doctors to have no oversight? There is a serious problem on this board with people just assuming posters said something they never said. I have been advocating for allowing doctors to follow the accepted medical guidance without being worried of getting charged with a crime. Your example is of someone decidedly *not* doing that. They should be held accountable for that. Seems pretty clear cut to me. I don’t understand what’s so hard about this.

Tucker Carlson is a coastal elitist who inherited his wealth and hangs out with the rich and famous while being concerned about his stock options and hating on Donald Trump. Any view he expresses that doesn't fit the above description is him trying to entertain his supporters (who he disdains).

The first step to ever hoping to attain this goal is getting rid of First Past the Post (FPTP) voting. It always creates a two party system that devolves into "us vs. them" where anyone on the other side is your enemy. Government is supposed to be about compromise, but FPTP brings the zero-sum nature of elections into governance itself. Over a decade ago, I saw this video about FPTP electoral systems and it really opened my eyes to the cause of problems that have only gotten worse since. Until we have an electoral system that ensures the winner gets a majority of votes (instead of a plurality), more than two candidates can run without the spoiler effect, there is no need for strategic voting, elected officials can be held accountable by the voters, and there are incentives for cooperation, we are not going to get past our current polarization. Bernie Sanders and AOC should not be in the same party as Joe Manchin and Joe Biden, just as Mitt Romney should not be in the same party as MTG. They only are because there is no other option for them thanks to how our elections work. Replacing FPTP with something better like IRV or Approval voting or something else can create incentives for cooperation while better aligning politicians to the will of the people instead of corporate or self-serving interests. There is a playlist of relevant videos you can watch here.

Popular handgun fires without anyone pulling the trigger, victims say:  More than 80 people, including police officers, allege they were shot by their SIG Sauer P320 pistols. Some have lost work, live in pain after serious injuries. Looks like a defective gun is harming law-abiding citizens but the government is barred from doing anything about it thanks to the gun lobby: ”Firearms are one of the few products that are exempt from federal consumer product safety regulations. No regulatory body has the power to investigate alleged defects or impose a mandatory recall of guns. As thousands of P320s circulate in the civilian market, waiting for buyers, SIG Sauer faces lawsuits from at least 70 people who allege the company is selling a defective product.”

Just in case anyone hasn't been following the details of the mifepristone case here are some fun facts about it: Forum Shopping: A group of doctors incorporated an organization in Amarillo, Texas. They had no connection to the area, but there is only one district court judge that covers Amarillo and he's been an anti-abortion activist. Lack of standing: The doctors have never performed abortions, nor proscribed mifepristone for abortion purposes. Yet they sued under the legal theory that some day they may be forced to do so somehow, for some reason. Time Travel: One of the reasons the judge used to support his argument is that when the FDA approved mifepristone in 2000, they did not consider the contents of a random blog from 2021. Yep. This case is totally on the up-and-up, fellas.

You seem to see me in everything. Pathetic.

The problem with these laws, aside from the idea of the government criminalizing books (which is a huge deal that conservatives should oppose), is that they are often vague to the point that it is not readily apparent how to comply with it. There was a photo going around a while ago with empty bookshelves. Liberals decried it as DeSantis goal for schools while Conservatives said it was a hoax. The reality is that when you have these types of laws, it's not always apparent how to be in compliance. To avoid criminal charges, the school removed all books temporarily until they could be reviewed by the government censors. These laws are going to result in people being overly cautious and self-censoring if they're not 100% sure about a specific book. If you choice is keeping one more book off the shelf or potentially being charged with a crime, you're not likely to stock that book. Also, what are you going to do if you have a precocious child who is reading above their grade level? A very smart 12 year old can probably handle The Handmaid's Tale, but no librarian is going to make it available to them if they could be charged with a crime for doing so. And maybe people support this idea because it's their side writing the laws about which books are crimes. But would you still support government criminalization of books if it was being done by the most lefty pinko commies around? Would you support a ban on any books that mention the founding fathers but doesn't include that they were slaveholders? How about a ban on books whose characters are not sufficiently diverse? Should a librarian be charged with a crime if they stock a book that doesn't have enough minority characters? It still blows my mind that conservatives are arguing for government book censors.

The problem is making it a crime. In a sane world, you could have Handmaiden’s Tale in a school library where a teen could check it out. If a librarian let a 6 year old take it, then the librarian could be disciplined. But at no point has anyone committed a crime. If someone provides actual pornography to kids, then that person can already be charged with a crime under existing law.

I’ve never said there aren’t books that are inappropriate for certain ages. My argument has always been that the government shouldn’t be in the position of criminalizing books.

Beloved is pornography? The Handmaid’s Tale is pornography? Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West is pornography? Those books have been banned in compliance with Florida’s new censorship law. There are laws against distributing pornography to minors. If that’s actually what is happening, arrest the perpetrators. We don’t need a new law for it, they can be charged under existing law. My point is that we shouldn’t criminalize books. That’s it. If you think someone is giving porn to kids, then report them to the police. These laws aren’t about protecting kids. We already have laws in place to do that. These laws exist solely to gain political support and dupe people.

Wayyyy too much for his current output

I mean, only if you can’t read. The levels of Strawman on this thread are astronomical. Saying the government shouldn’t be telling us what we can read or overriding medical professionals is suddenly a radical position to take.

Yeah, we have child endangerment laws and decency laws. If the things the right is complaining about are as bad as they are saying, they should charge people under those laws.

People should have the freedom to read what they want. School libraries should be curated by librarians with input from the administration and parents. The government shouldn’t be able to criminalize books. Nobody should risk being indicted for a crime over a difference on opinion on the appropriateness of a book. Good faith discussions with community input will still have contention and disagreement, but that’s fine and to be expected. It’s the role people are asking the government to play that is a problem.

How very big government of you. Laws telling us what books we can’t read. Surely you wouldn’t be opposed to California outlawing books that don’t conform to the most pinko commie worldview then?

Claiming that people are being fired for opposing drag and citing an article that does not show people being fired for opposing drag and then claiming victory is the level of intellectual rigor I’ve come to expect from this place.

Most of the stories I’ve found have been schools employees being suspended or fired for allowing drag shows, not opposing them

If you don’t want a drag show in your kid’s school, get involved and talk to the administrator. The problem here is with the government criminalizing it instead.

Imagine 10 years ago if someone asked should the government censor books under penalty of being charged with a crime. 10 years ago, that’s the biggest softball question of all time. Of course no, next question. Today, if you asked that question, the moderator would be attacked as a pedo by the right (which ironically used to oppose such kinds of government interference). Why have children’s entertainers? Simple fix. No more child entertainers. And the idea that the issue is only with them in schools is laughable in face of the actions being taken agains drag performers in places that aren’t schools.

This is the kind of brains worms stupidity that right wing activists and GOP leaders take advantage of. This post is obviously the insane drooling of a truly broken person. GOP leaders have nothing but contempt for their voters and push this nonsense because they think the rubes will buy it and come to the polls. If children were really being sexualized, the perpetrators would already be charged under existing law. If drag shows for kids were actually sexual, the performers would be charged under existing child endangerment laws. But it’s all lies. Drag shows for kids are as sexual as Chuck E Cheese. If a performer does cross the line, they can be charged under existing law. It basically never happens because, once again, these shows aren’t sexual (unless seeing a man in a dress gives you a tingly feeling down there. But that’s really on you). You’re all being played for fools and you seem so willing to lap it up. Bunch of “conservatives” asking for big daddy government to come in and tell them what to do.