Random Politics & Religion #05

I did not go to an extreme. I suggested the problem with your blanket statement which -- in and of itself -- is extreme by quashing all things cosmetic without consideration of context.

When it's thrown around incorrectly *** yes it should!

In the grand scheme of things, what we say is hypothetical in nature anyway.

Sure, we have opinions on how to run this country, but in reality, all we can do is watch the world burn what happens in Congress, White House, and Supreme Court.

If Obama signs an executive order on what schools should do with the kid's bathrooms, then we can debate on the legality of it. Also, debate as to why in the hell did he wait until this became a hot-topic issue instead of doing it at the start of his terms.

When it's used at all at this point, as it's become, well.

Strawman²

I figured it would be common knowledge that cosmetic and reconstructive are considered different? My bad?

From where I sit you was just trying to be difficult and could care less about anything else.

Not going to happen. Those cards get played way too often.

Now, if you were to include actually making strawman arguments to become a banable offence, then I might side with you on that one.

I'm not trying to "help." It took one contrary post for altima to start complaining. It happens on every topic, including this one.

I'm actually complaining in 99% of my posts. It's part of talking Politics.

Anyways. Why are you even here? Not like you say anything, and you admit to "not helping"..

My text-replacer does still work; maybe I should turn it back on. Suggestions for what to replace them with?

No actually, resorting to complaining in every post about the state of the conversation is not and has never been part of "talking politics."

I think if you wanted to label gender reassignment surgery as 'cosmetic' you'd have to further define cosmetic which, iirc, is "just for looks with no function"

I get the argument for it being labelled as cosmetic, but it actually has function. No, it can't cause a genetic male to give birth or a genetic female to impregnate but it does allow sexual function, more so in male-to-female operations than in female-to-male operations which is why many transmen opt for use of prosthesis or other procedures than full GRS.

Let's clear one thing up, a transgender person is not like me or, most if not all of you. A transwoman isn't a man who wakes up one day and thinks "I want to be a woman so I'm going to have this lopped off." or "I bet if I get a sex change I can go into the women's bathroom and..." ...do whatever you people think they are doing. Usually, by most accounts I've read, it's not something you just hear about and think "that might be fun!" It's something that is kinda in the back of your head since early childhood.

These thoughts of transpeople being pervs just because they become a different gender is flabbergasting. We went through this with gays, saying "well, what if two men are having sex in the park while your kids are playing?" then we finally realize that gay people are just like everyone else and straight people are just as likely to do that ***as gays are. Trans are the same. Being gay or trans is not the same as being a pervert.

/endrant #IforgotwhatIwasonabout

Something reflexive and deliciously depraved, the more offense the better.

So in other news Venezuela a country I am banned from declared a state of emergency over the weekend. Sounds like a weird hijacking of the state is going on based on the reasons why it was declares.

But zerowone why were you banned? Chavez wasn't a fan of Mercenaries' 2.

Is there anything going right in South America?

That's fine.. Get a Job and pay for it. Nobody should be paying for it for you.

Not me. I self identify as a treekin and have a total lower branch for Groot.

You can't kill me ***, I'm a goddamn tree!

"victim card" should be replaced with "Thanks Obama"

"strawman" should be replaced with "Happy Happy Fun Time"

The ACA is not socialized healthcare. You are not paying for anyone's surgeries. The insurance company is, and another person's healthcare is not your business no matter how much you want to pretend like it affects you.

Like I said before, there is already a tax law in place that determines what is considered reconstruction and what is considered cosmetic.

And yes, reconstruction includes surgeries for transgender people.

My Furnace says otherwise. xD

Talk about semantics.

Besides Altima, who doesn't know the difference, who else is saying that it is?

This isn't Canada™.

Can't do BBCode in the replacer, sadly. BBCode is interpreted at post time, replacement happens at render time (which is how I can turn it on/off).

victim card -> Thanks Obama is decent, but it'd make things read funny. Ideally we just replace nouns with nouns, so people backreading without the context are like "what in the HELL?"

Uh, that's not semantics. That's a pretty big difference.

One of them, you'd be paying for it via taxes, and the other, you aren't.

That's not a minor nitpick.

How is me paying a tax to subsidize insurance companies, so they can give cheaper or free healthcare to people, not paying for someone else surgeries?

See above post please.

You should ban this! Probably where most of the problems arise.

Why do you think I said both of those things?

April Fools Day™ all over again!

But here are some other suggestions:

"victim card" ~> "crybaby card"

"strawman" ~> "Trumping it up"

"personal attacks" ~> "Internet fights"