Oklahoma ‘Millstone Act’ seeks to ban gender-affirming care under age of 26

submitted by VulptexVoluntaryist from thehill.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Come on guys, really? You're going to become big brother and persecute masses of innocent people just to spite a political opponent? That's literally no different from how that opponent acts.

[–][deleted]  (11 children)

[deleted]

    [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    A 25 year old is not a kid

    [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The brain fully matures at 25. One of the last things to mature is the prefrontal cortex which is for better risk management and capabilities for long-term planning, aka decision making,

    [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You're just going to make the age of majority higher and higher until it's back to everyone being under the elites' authority.

    [–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Disagree

    [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Are we just going to go back to "people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, so the nobles should control everyone"? Why does everyone want this now? What the fuck is happening to people? Have you lost all common sense and dignity? Are you so brainwashed by the school system and media? Everyone is acting like an NPC.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Ehhhhhh 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Who decides that they are mentally ill. The govt or the Dr's who pushed experimental killing jabs??

      No thanks.

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Obviously. The problem is we need a working treatment and preferrably a cure. Whether that's by altering the brain or the body I don't think matters.

      The current treatments don't work well enough but they might still help someone feel a little bit better. But telling them it's a magic pill is just giving them false hope.

      You shouldn't be banning something simply because you disagree with it. Everyone now thinks no one should be allowed to think differently or have a different opinion or even preference than them, and that the state should enforce it. I don't know where all of this is coming from but it can't be good.

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

      the trans movement is grooming children that are in the first grade they are sitting there grooming children that are 6 years old about their gender identity which ends up with them taking puberty blocker medication that alters their puberty cycles basically legislators have said f*** that and they've set the limit at 25 good

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

      Just fyi, one of the more active trans activists:

      http://twitter.com/erininthemorn

      [–]package 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      How exactly is it persecution to protect mentally ill people from permanently damaging themselves in ways that would prevent them from ever participating in two of the most basic and universal components of the human experience?

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      That's a nanny state. Not to mention you're basing it all on an oversexualized ideal of life.

      [–]package 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      ok tranny

      [–]JohnRaymond 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

      I'm not in politics. I look for Catholic principles. That is why I have no friends

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

      Well if you're Catholic you should listen to Jesus...who doesn't like any of these phony religious institutions.

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

      Jesus founded Catholic church. He who hears you, hears me

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      The Catholic Church did not exist until decades after his time. In fact no one from the apostolic age ever saw it. It was created in the late first century or early second century when religious infiltrators took over, and even then it would be centuries until it resembled today's Catholic church.

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

      Jesus founded a church that would last til end of time, with Peter the first head on earth. Why don't you give me name and city of this Church.

      Readers: he can't. This claim is commonly made, and is absolutely bizarre. Even secular historians recognize papacy, going straight back to Peter.

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Secular historians don't think the papacy goes back to Peter. Most Christians don't believe that. I question whether he was even a real person, because I noticed pretty much all the disciples have names that mean something that disciple seems to represent. For example, Judas is clearly playing the role of the kingdom of Judah. Note that "Judas" is a mistranslation based on the Greek translation of the real name, which is Judah. The only disciples who I think were definitely real people are John the Baptist and Paul. Also James the Just, and the Talmud actually records his title being James the GNOSTIC. All references to Peter in Galatians 1-2 seem to have been added by later scribes (and for the record I figured this out before thinking Peter may not have been a literal person).

      There's also the problem that the event you mention doesn't clearly establish Peter as a pope. It could just as easily be a message to Peter that he should evangelize. "You are a rock, and on this rock I build my assembly". Note that the word "church" is also an intentional mistranslation. The original Hebrew also specifies that binding and loosing refers to oaths, but that's questionable considering that the Jews who copied it over the centuries didn't regard it as holy and made "improvements" wherever they pleased. However the main reason scribes make minor edits is to clarify something confusing, and being Jews they likely understood something we don't about that culture.

      Peter's assembly doesn't have a name or city. It's everywhere.

      [–]JohnRaymond 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      You're utterly wrong on secular sources. Here's one https://www.ranker.com/list/complete-list-of-popes/coffee-junkie

      Jesus and apostles spoke Aramaic. You dismiss the church Fathers without a mention. Jesus said His Church would not be overcome by gates of hell which mean heresy.

      So you can't name the church, its doctrines, where it is, any characteristics except vague its everywhere. Convenient.

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      The Catholic church itself is everywhere. And that website may be secular but that specific post is definitely Catholic, or at the very least about Catholic theology. The author doesn't sound like a historian either.

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

      Catholic Church is everywhere, but tiny remnant. 200k, not 1.2 billion.

      If you don't think great majority of secular historians don't trace papacy back to Peter, you need to immerse yourself in history. People who immerse themselves in history often become Catholic.

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

      If they don't like us making laws on how they MUST act, then maybe they should consider the golden rule: treating us how they themselves want to be treated.

      Leftists have made it clear that they want to be treated by an authoritarian system, because that's how they're treating us. It's only fair. Eye for an eye.

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

      You really think revenge is more important than saving us from absolute tyranny? You'd seriously rather harm innocent people just to spite an enemy?

      You're not following the golden rule yourself. And by your breaking it you're giving them the same excuse to keep doing what they're doing.

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

      I am treating others how I want to be treated. They and you can't complain about leftists being treated exactly how they are treating others. Why would you complain about that? By breaking the golden rule, they're giving up their ability to complain.

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      I can't believe you'd destroy everything just to see an enemy crushed. This isn't about them.

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

      I'm not destroying anything. You are protecting them, yet they treat others exactly like they're being treated. I wish and hope that they'll repent and see the error of their ways, and learn to live by the golden rule, like Christians do.

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I'm not protecting them. You're just angry and looking for excuses to burn it all down so you can take them down with you. That's not what the golden rule says to do, and certainly not the Christian understanding of it.

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

      They suffer the consequences of their own actions

      [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      This logic literally flies in the face of Christian ethics. Especially since you're willing to destroy everything just to have your revenge.