What do you think society as a whole's true stance is on trans people?

submitted by jacques1102 from self.TumblrInAction

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It's not the fault of the "if you're not hurting anyone, it's nobody's business" crowd when someone decides to start hurting people.

Much in the same way it's not the NRA's fault when some isolated little weirdo decides to grab a gun and do something horrible.

Maybe try blaming bad actions on the bad actors, rather than blaming those uninvolved? Or is the idea of personal responsibility maybe a difficult thing to grasp?

As for the infamous "where do we draw the line" argument, well, that part's pretty obvious: When something occurs between consenting adults, there's not a problem. Once it involves children, people who don't consent, or people who can't consent, it's a problem.

[–]YJaewedwqewq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Maybe try blaming bad actions on the bad actors

You say that like it's not already happening. This Boomer lolbert NAP bullshit is, again, the reason we're here, and no amount of cope and deflection escapes that.

Your "just let people enjoy things" attitude is essentially an endorsement of trannies, faggots, and every other social ill that has befallen humanity. Do you not realize that these people are not just "random crazies" as you say, they're an infection. You can't "tolerate" a disease, you can't let a malignant tumor "do it's own thing", because it's VERY EXISTENCE HARMS THE HOST.

Once it involves children, people who don't consent, or people who can't consent, it's a problem.

It has ALWAYS involved children. It has ALWAYS involved people who don't and can't consent. Your fail to realize that these people are evil, either that, or you do and simply don't care.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So the solution is what, here?

[–]YJaewedwqewq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The solution is to ban this faggotry and ban any promotion or normalization of it. If it's okay to force people to get dubious injections and enforce a draconian dress code for a virus with a <1% mortality rate, then it's VERY okay to punish people for promoting corrupting, harmful moral syphilis that invariably results in pedophilia, mass suicide, AIDS, etc.

Unfortunately however, this kind of justice will never happen until spineless cuckolds like you grow a pair and stop being a human doormat for the most worthless subhumans the human race has to offer.

[–][deleted] 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ban faggotry? So how do you ban sexual activity between consenting adults?

Seriously, the entire Muslim world is still working on how to do that, and even they can't figure it out, despite "public execution" being an option.

It's not being a "human doormat" to say "leave people alone who aren't hurting anyone else," it's pretty much one of the foundational ideals of America

[–]YJaewedwqewq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Seriously, the entire Muslim world is still working on how to do that, and even they can't figure it out

They seem to be pretty good at it actually. The shortfalls are probably due to the fact that most of their governments are shitty and nonfunctional.

It's not being a "human doormat" to say "leave people alone who aren't hurting anyone else,"

Except it literally is. And as I have said before, yet you refuse to acknowledge, these people ARE hurting other people, in fact, they're hurting EVERYONE else to some extent.

it's pretty much one of the foundational ideals of America

Which is how you can tell it's probably a bad idea. A nation founded almost entirely by atheist, Enlightenment freemasons should generally serve as an example of what NOT to trust or imitate.

[–][deleted] 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So straight-up "freedom bad, religious theocracy good" then?

And somehow you view me as a doormat for rejecting the idea that rights or freedom are "an example of what not to trust or imitate," while you support literal tyranny

[–]YJaewedwqewq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Again you avoid the argument and misrepresent both my position and your own.

You claim to be for "rights and freedom" but fail to codify what those freedoms and rights are, what they mean, and why they even matter.

You're not very different from TRAs or their ilk, really, you throw out insults and buzzwords and claim that your harmful agenda is actually just "basic rights and freedoms like The Founders™ intended!"

[–][deleted] 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm avoiding nothing. My stance is clear: If you're not hurting others, you should be left to do as you please, which includes (among other things, such as the infamous "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the right to speak freely, to be free of undue government interference or intrusion into your life, etc.) the right to bugger or be buggered by any consenting adult that will engage with you, if indeed you desire buggery.

You seem to be taking the stance that certain activities are inherently harmful, even if they harm no one, because they somehow lead to other nebulous harms down the road, that any of these activities that you class as part of this slippery slope should be banned by nebulous means, and stopped by means of nebulous methods, which you seem to imply that anyone who disagrees with you deserves these same nebulous punishments that you just don't want to say, but are willing to suggest might include methods practiced by certain Middle Eastern theocracies.

You refuse to pin down your ideas, preferring your opponents be left guessing as to your meaning, while accusing those you disagree with of refusing to say what they mean and engaging in euphemism (what the Right calls "buzzwords" and the Left terms as "dogwhistles") while engaging in a sort of Motte and Bailey strategy straight out of the Leftist playbook where you say little of any meaning, then deny that you said what little you actually did say when called out on it.

You demand a complete, itemized list of what others believe, accusing them of being vague if they dare summarize for the sake of brevity, while intentionally being vague and accusing others of misrepresenting you when they infer any meaning whatsoever from your words.

You say my "agenda" is harmful, but you don't care to say how, and if I had to guess, that's because you don't intend to sway me to your way of thinking, preferring a strategy of gathering others who already agree with you, seeming to prefer the Leftist idea of classifying people into groups, then pitting those groups against each other.