You were not taught that any particular number of drinks would always render any specific individual impaired every single time. That wasn’t the point of the lesson.
Anyway, few people are good judges of their own impairment.
No the “lesson” was that if you have anything to drink you are an evil person who is trying to kill people.
No, I don’t think that was the lesson. I think the lesson was more along the lines of “don’t take unnecessary chances because a lot of people are being harmed by a completely preventable phenomenon.” And also, “don’t think too highly of your ability to judge your own impairment.”
Wait, are people actually resentful of the success of the anti- drinking-and-driving campaign since the 1980s? Some people actually want to go back to how it was before?
Aji, I sure hope you don’t have any children.
Potentially force-feeding a child with an eating disorder can make sense. Thinking you can punish a child into being something they are not, doesn’t.
You’d be wrong. Impairment starts with the first drink.
[QUOTE]
You were not taught that any particular number of drinks would always render any specific individual impaired every single time.QUOTE]
:dubious:
You know, an enormous number of scientists and physicians have tried to “cure” transgender persons, and found over a century plus of research that the only “cure” is to support and foster transition.
But you, you somehow know better, as a parent. This is very similar to the anti-vax argument, except there’s even less support for your opinion. Because parents always know best, everywhere. Yup. :rolleyes:
Now that I’m here, here’s a minor but apparently dissenting opinion from me:
I don’t think parents should be allowed to pierce the ears of infants. It’s completely unnecessary, to start, and carries some (admittedly small, but still present) risk of infection. Small children and small earnings would seem to be a choking hazard waiting to happen. Infants don’t care about fashion, so this means it is done for the parents. The infants/toddlers won’t be engaging in proper care of the piercings, the parents will. This is done for the parents, but causes pain to the child. It’s stupid and should cease.
Admittedly, there are far more important outrages to fix first.
[quote=“Isamu, post:286, topic:787007”]
what’s the harm you speak of? The term seems vaguely used. Can you expand more please?
[quote=“drewder, post:289, topic:787007”]
What part of “unpopular opinions” don’t you get? They have their opinion, I have mine. Their “fact sheet” is scientifically-based I grant you that. But if you live long enough you will discover that often science is wrong, and, even when it is right, it does not speak to the conditions of every individual on earth, just to a sample base. So it is all about generalities. You get that, right? (don’t bother answering - I’m out)
See, that’s the really tragic part of this - there IS something that can be done to help but the parents are refusing to do it.
Exactly.
In your case, sure. Glad that you can recognise it.
I do, three.
Force-feeding is an option, albeit a really difficult to make, but I’d do it to save my kid’s life.
I don’t think punishing can cure a mental disorder, that’s stupid.
It’s an interesting “cure” the one you espouse, which leaves the patient still at almost the same astronomically high rate of suicide.
I can accept that the present medical toolbox has no cure for transgenderism, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a mental condition way outside the norm, a three-sigma thing.
We used to treat mental disorders with ice baths, the fact that they didn’t work doesn’t mean those people were not mentally ill.
Better than you about MY kids? Of course. If you or anyone wants to harm my kids with treatments that indulge their delusions I’ll have none of that.
Is it a contentious argument that parents should try their best to save their kids’ lives?
Is it a contentious argument that parents should try their best to treat their kids’ mental disorders?
Parents don’t always know best, but, at least in my case, I’d take my chances rather than letting ym kids die or suffer because someone shouts “anti-vax!!!” as their slogan.
If my daughter has a healthy weight for her age/height/body-type of 55kg and she says “I’m a 35kg person trapped into the body of a 55kg person and I’ll cut myself if you don’t let me strave myself into that weight” then, what should I do?
Let her stave herself?
Find doctors that will teach me why she’ll be happier at 35kg and will help her get to that weight?
Use science, and love, to treat that mental condition?
Yeah, those stoopid parents, they don’t want to give in to her delusions and alter her normal body permanently at 12; those bastards!!!eleven!!
Also, the scientists that work at “Transgender Rulz!” are as suspect of bias as those who work at “Transgender teh Suxx0r”.
Or, in the cases I’m familiar with, work with your own GP and trained psychiatrists and case workers to determine the best path forward.
In my daughter’s case it was a year or so of hormone blockers and recurring appointments to ensure this is what she really wanted. These decisions are not taken lightly: I was going to say as you can imagine, but apparently you can’t imagine.
Nah, me ‘n’ Dave are cool; he understands, even if he doesn’t indulge. But when I told him your crack about the ninjas, he went “LOL” because he doesn’t use ninjas to get back at his enemies. He wreaks revenge by scrambling syntax your.
Remember, grammar is glamour!
You’re right. Maybe we should just make a few hundred paper cuts across their skin so the dogs can smell blood.
PUBERTY BLOCKERS ARE NOT A PERMANENT ALTERATION!
They are, in fact, the opposite of a permanent alteration.
They prevent puberty so the child does not have to deal with the physical and hormonal upheaval of puberty while receiving counseling. THAT’S ALL.
That’s one of the really frustrating things I see about the whole transgender children discussion - the insistence by opponents that anything permanent is done prior to the child reaching adulthood. Reputable medical care does not do that. The most “invasive” thing done is a reversible delay of puberty. That’s it. No surgeries. No sex hormones. The child’s clothes are changed to those of the appropriate gender, as are hairstyles and other such social cues - and all of THAT is reversible.
Hell, I don’t even have kids, I don’t (to my knowledge) know any transgender kids, and even I know all the above. And then you get an expert like Una telling you, with cites, the facts and you STILL don’t listen!
Yeah, I get it - changing genders is big, scary stuff. I used to be afraid of transgender people, too, because that’s what society raised me to be, afraid, but I got over it. Now they’re just people - which they’ve been all along.
And yeah, I know, post-transition a lot of them still have problems. Maybe having a lot of people insist on calling you delusional plays into that. Maybe whatever causes a person to be transgender often makes a person susceptible to other problems, like diabetes makes you susceptible to heart and kidney disease. Regardless, I know a LOT of what causes problems for the transgender are SOCIAL issues - certain people regarding them as fair targets for a beating, rampant job discrimination, and so forth. All of which can cause a lot of mental anguish and contribute to suicide, as we see with the suicide rate among cisgender victims of bullying.
Maybe we should just stop treating severe clinical depression because so many of THOSE people wind up killing themselves!
The bottom line question is whether or not someone transgender functions better after transition than before - not whether they’re “normal” (however you define that) but are they better? Improved quality of life, even if there’s still quite a bit wrong with it. Yeah, a given transgender person might still wind up a suicide, but if transition gives them several years where they’re NOT self-harming that could still be considered an improvement.
It’s a difficult question and one I’m not qualified to answer. For darn sure trying to change their minds resulted in a lot of carnage. We should maybe try changing bodies for a generation or two and see if that’s any better.
I think that a thread where people are expressing their unpopular opinions could easily get derailed if other people respond in opposition and debates begin. So if people feel the overwhelming need to discuss the issues mentioned here, perhaps they could start new threads.
Wait. Is this meant to be an unpopular opinion you hold? Seems pretty reasonable to me.