Was making a comparison to TiVO and old cable/satellite programming 😂

Yeah, it’s more a commentary on the whole current ‘country’ lifestyle. Texan? Buy all the things with a single star on it or you aren’t Texas enough. Southern? Get that truck. Gotta lift it. Biggest tires you can find. It’s all just the most degenerate capitalism with a dixie wrapper on it.

I look forward to when someone releases a box to record the screen or shows you want to watch on Netflix just in case the rights gets pulled before you get the chance to watch it. Added benefit is they can make it skip ads too. Gotta have a catchy name… like… NeVO for Netflix Video On(demand)

The majority of the southern states identity (not that part) has long since been reduced to a caricature of itself.

All being a southerner requires now is access to your divine guide: whatever the most recent pop country album is. It’s just advertisement set to country tunes.

If anything I’d say the least free group in America is your typical ‘country boy.’

…until morale improves? Dually noted lol.

I said as much multiple times.

The point of that statement was to highlight that it is possible to construct something that does not allow for consolidation and corruption of power… which it did. Your view simply was looking at present day examples which, as you correctly identified, do not work. That doesn’t mean nothing can work however … which is why I disagreed.

It’s a fun mental exercise to what if and try to construct something that could work. Can’t tear something down without considering what rebuilding it would look like.

I disagree. It’s about execution - creating an environment that is resistant to corrosion. A standing force can absolutely be viewed in that manner - which is why it cannot be a single static standing force.

The UN is the right idea but it needs teeth. And it needs the teeth to be double sided. If boots are on the ground peacekeeping they should be without bias and secondary interest. An attack on a peacekeeper has no guarantee of the creed nor country of origin of that keeper.

Peacekeeping should be like a draft. Every country that participates must provide and maintain a set number of rolling participants. These people will serve and train initially in humanitarian deployments with others… half way through their ‘term’ they should be moved to peacekeeping duties. This is idealized but would be good for both building trust amongst peacekeepers and goodwill towards them. This solves the military portion (roughly) - I have a lot of thoughts on this and believe it to be solvable… it just won’t be. No country gets to benefit therefore it has no merit.

That covered the military side… when talking about the economic side: the peacekeepers (let’s say un for simplicity) carry the ability to (by vote) censure a country and cut it off from direct trade / support. At that time any trade is then routed through the UN and it becomes the middleman. This allows economic pressures to be precisely controlled on an area. Once that country falls in line, by majority vote, operations are restored. Once again this is idealized and has no obviously advantaged party … so it has no merit and will never occur.

Basically everyone is equally held accountable and equally invested. Of course this means everyone gets a seat at the table and everyone gets one vote. I’m certain we can already see why this has 0 chance of ever happening. Those in power seek to keep it - very few will willingly give some away.

Oh, I’m fully aware. Tribalism is the lizard brain going deeeep in the paint. The problem is this: peaceful culture doesn’t fight back - aggressive culture exploits this: which one thrives? We have systematically bred for and codified our warlike nature. This is the result. Is it fixable? Many have tried. Our history books are littered with both failed attempts and their distorted remains. All I can say for certain is that the way the majority of countries are structured… isn’t it. This is fundamentally why achieving a fix is nearly impossible at scale: tribalism. Even if we are wrong it’s our wrong and we don’t want to lose it. This is rooted in fear of change which from a survival aspect makes sense… but becomes detrimental at scale.

This may not be a popular response but when did the nazi regime stop? When did China stop with it’s cleansing? America and manifest destiny? I could go on… Humanity needs to realize that we are pretty shitty in general and can’t be trusted when it comes to hatred, entitlement, and tribalism.

The solution is a neutral third party with sufficient power to stop any country’s bullshit through economic and military (actual) peacekeeping… which doesn’t exist nor will it ever.

So the short answer is they will stop when the cleansing is complete.

After the deed is done we as ‘civilized’ nations will lament the tragedy and promise change… until the media cycle washes all those sins down the drain and it will be forgotten until next time.

It really is a shame a lot of that got deleted as we all were referencing off it. The reason given didn’t fit as the discussions, while heated, were mostly civil.

I forget my exact choice of words (which is frustrating) but in essence I said that a pause doesn’t exist. It is a chemical process being blocked. It doesn’t run it back for the missed time after the blockers go away- it simply runs its remaining time out. I recall acknowledging that while yes blockers have been in use for some time the dosage and effect desired were different: think reducing a flow rather than outright turning it off. The result and long term effects are different and there are far fewer studies on the latter. I made an off the cuff comment about not wanting to use children as test subjects I believe.

All of that more or less to explain my position that outright blocking so early can have lasting effects that may threaten the health of the person later in life. This is why I think the use of pause and the downplaying of potential side effects is in poor taste or disingenuous.

let’s not be pedantic to try to weasel out a point. Let me clarify: people [in this thread] have stated it is a method to prevent the results of puberty… which unless I am mistaken can start quite early (12 and earlier.) My statements echoed how ridiculous that is… so thank you for the concern but my facts were straight.

It’s a distasteful and disingenuous tone but I’ll break it down:

Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that hormones produced during puberty are essential to the cognitive development of these children you seem to care so much about.

You are combining two statements I made and inferring something incorrectly from it.

First in reference to the hormones and puberty: it’s known that these hormones don’t exclusively develop our sexual attributes. They do, certainly, but that’s not all they do. Many of the drawbacks of taking inhibitors are result of inhibiting this (other) development in our bodies. I believe I referenced the mayo clinics site as an example.

Cognitive development is important. Absolutely. I firmly believe that prior to the age of consent we shouldn’t be in a hurry to medicate away this “problem.” The adolescent should be supported and given access to counseling so they, given sufficient time and information, can make an informed decision.

But now we should make those same children wait nearly a decade – delaying this vital development – until they’re legally adults?

That is roughly what I’m implying- but your math is off unless we are starting this discussion around the age of 6 to 8. Let’s dial down the dramatics here.

I’m omitting your catch 22 as it is circular nonsense.

Out of curiosity, what medical treatments do you consider allowable for minors? … [truncated] …

This is more or less all the same. In short most of the things you have listed can be tested for and quantified. And yes while we can use drugs for treatment - very frequently we employ counseling and other less drastic methods before resorting to drugs. A state of being or sense of self is difficult to test for or quantity. There has been some headway on it but it’s in it’s infancy… so yes my stance on exercising a more methodical and cautious approach remains a reasonable decision.

16+ is the age of consent depending on where you live. My stance is focused on prior to that age. I have indicated as much in other responses. People are saying it should be started to counteract puberty which for many starts as early as 12. Within that scope in mind… I imagine my stance is a bit more logical.

There was a time when it was almost trendy to have a child who was gay. It was a disgusting period and it highlighted how people would project their ideals and ideas onto their kids. I had a friend I cared for deeply struggle with some fallout related to that. There is a reason I stress informed consent opposed to what I’d describe as guided consent: It’s their decision and they should make it when they have been given sufficient time and counseling to be certain. This isn’t a binary discussion - there’s a lot of nuance.

As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):

I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected… universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and ‘virtue’ of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren’t a real (or complete) solution. It’s social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.

Yeah, I saw that. Apparently rule 3… despite most of the interactions being civil. I petitioned its return as I think it adds context and is worth the discussion:

I made a spoiler text analog to a statement that we should allow underaged (implied age which we have been discussing) adolescents to have complete sexual freedom. Some people clearly stopped reading and took that to some impressive extremes. I had prefaced and followed the statement with an indication that we wouldn’t allow such a thing (and rightly so.) The statement’s intent was to illustrate that we cannot expect someone so young to make informed decisions about certain things.

I believe in a follow-up statement I expanded saying it was equally incorrect for someone else to make that decision for the child/adolescent. It’s too important.

I selected it for its fairly universal acceptance and (as I’ve mentioned) some similar gravity in allowing them to make those decisions so early.

More generic hand waving and resorting to mudslinging. If I were actually here to troll rather than have a discussion I wouldn’t be engaging with others in earnest.

I’m acquainted with your type and identified it early on. You simply mimic the masses rhetoric and have nothing of substance to bring to the table. When pressed you only can get angry and use that to mask this shortcoming. Honestly though, most people can identify this behavior… children do it frequently. Most grow out of it.

I provided you a rope to come back and have civil discourse - you opted to hang yourself with it. Predictable, but a shame.

I have to admit I didn’t think that jab would regress you any further. Color me impressed. Most people would stop before behaving that embarrassingly. That got an audible laugh out of me.

Making a generic statement to further a conversation is commonplace. It was not to be taken literally. If you are planning on analyzing my figures of speech for fallacies, by all means, be my guest: but it only reinforces my observation from earlier.

None of the known risks or side effects include cognitive impairment, you are attributing to puberty blockers changes to cognitive development without research demonstrating the causal link between limiting puberty hormones and decreased or slowed cognitive development like the known negative effects. I also wouldn’t accept increased cognitive development as a positive effect under puberty blockers without justification either. Until there is sufficient justification for either position we are not justified reaching either conclusion…

This is a fair point and I will admit I did not have any research in mind when I brought it up… however I believe it’s fair to say that of the research that has been done very little focuses on this specific application and it’s long term effects.

I am concerned there is and will be increased public resistance to what the medical consensus supports because of the political scapegoating trans people are under, and wonder if we were talking about transhumanism in general instead focused specifically on transgenderism would the resistance be the same.

I loathe politcs involving sexuality period. It’s one more way to splinter a community. We absolutely agree here.

The discussions you’ve mentioned would likely start with a child experiencing distress reported to an adult or their parents noticing their distress and working with a medical doctor to identify the causes and treatment plans to consider. In the cases where the distress is related to a lasting pattern of gender dysphoria or gender nonconformity that is one of the criteria for prescribing puberty blockers.

While this is the case care should be given to how that information is interpreted. Toys, clothing choices, even colors can simply be a very neutral and innocent interest and may (from the child’s perspective) simply be something they enjoy. We as adults can overly assign meaning and weight to these choices which may impact the child’s perspective. Psychology in general can bandwagon quite a bit in this regard. I will say it has improved quite a bit but we’re all human. I digress. To your point I still believe that counseling is and should be the first step and medication should be (if used) used sparingly and ideally after some time has passed. I still firmly dislike the “it’s just a pause button” mentality people have. It’s far more complex than that- it needs to be respected as a weighty decision.

Devolving the discussion into whatever that bile you spit out seems to suggest you have nothing further add. Skimming over it only confirms you lack a functional capacity to understand examples and exercise some basic reasoning. Continuing, while certainly amusing, would do nothing for the conversation. Find some peace friend.