S_Roman @ S_Roman @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

22

Joined

2 yr. ago

you gotta back up your claims.

I did, see above.

I’ve read every single word you’ve wrote and gone to each of your sources.

Reading something doesn't mean anything if you don't understand it.

Show me how money has altered any of the sitting current justices opinions.

See above and actually read in good faith.

I can't explain something to somebody who doesn't want to listen to the explanation.

You really couldn’t

You can lead a horse to water...

I know, hard to make an argument when you just make wild claims.

No, it's just hard to talk with people who do not do so in good faith.

I’m encouraging you to show me.

I think I'm alright. I'm not going to waste my time any further.

You: The systems broken, I can’t get what I want!

Me: It’s up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office

You: They call me a communist :(

Why say anything if you're just gonna misrepresent what I've said?

You’re showing some conflict of interest, but come on.

Yup, that's generally what "in the pocket of the rich" means. It means you have a conflict of interest to rule in favor of the rich because they have given you shit. I sincerely do not understand what part of that you're hung up on.

He just ruled on roe v wade, show me how he’s in the pockets of the rich for that ruling

Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn't mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.

If you're looking for rulings that blatantly side with the rich, the citizens united ruling is the place to start.

Here is another good place to start: https://time.com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/

Or anything, come on, you said it, make your point.

See the above links.

You said the system is broken and it’s because you get called a communist by someone online.

No I did not. If you're going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.

So you’re sad because vote isn’t overriding every one elses?

Nope. Never said that either.

I don’t know what you want me to say, to you not getting your way every election

I want you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a simple solution for these problems. You keep saying "oh, just do X if Y doesn't work", but that's not the reality of the situation, these problems require significant and complicated change.

Maybe. Are you able to prove this at all?

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-documents-conflicts-9fa2847e60e11601c872c3ba3eea12a3

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-investigation-reveals-potential-conflicts-of-interest-for-supreme-court-justices (Same root source but a 2nd take on it)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/more-clarence-thomas-undisclosed-freebies-rich-1234785233/

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168649656/justice-thomas-trips

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/08/high-court-has-been-siding-with-rich-against-poor-since-nixon/

Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean the system is wrong.

I never said the system is wrong because people disagree with me.

I'm just pointing out that these solutions you are giving aren't anywhere near as effective as you seem to think they are.

doesn’t mean that we should actively go against our foundation of the nation. Sorry weed isn’t legalized, doesn’t mean that we should remove the judicial branch from the government.

Already covered that part:

"I don’t mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch"

You can thank the Chevron Deference case for that. Hopefully this SC court rules on that next year.

The supreme court is also in the pockets of the rich though.

Get involved. Vote for better candidates.

I do, and then those candidates typically don't get very far because they get called communists for daring to say that maybe healthcare shouldn't be for profit.

If the people want legislation, they should go through the legislative branch.

How is that a reasonable expectation? I don't mean to be glib, this is a legitimate question. The chances that any given policy gets passed through congress and becomes a law is 30% regardless of public support:

So even when 99% of the population agrees on a bill, it still only has a 30% chance of passing. Bills that share the interests of the rich do not have this effect. They instead have this effect:

I don't mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch, but to me, treating the issue as simple as "go through the legislative branch" seems to miss the context that our legislation branch isn't good for anything other than giving money to the rich. So if the people want legislation, how should they reasonably be expected to make it happen?

The oil lobby has paid copious amounts of money to propagandize the population, and to bribe republican politicians to continue their policy of laissez-faire.

Trans people are not new, and there is plenty of data. And the conclusion to that data among medical professionals is that gender affirming care is the best way to help people.

Conservatives would just complain about it if he did.

I wouldn’t trust any child to make an adequately informed decision

There are children who spend years of their childhood socially transitioned in some way or another. If they've done so, (which is more or less what the medical requirements are), and still after years are ok with their choice to have socially transitioned, and couple that with medical professionals being responsible, I don't see how there is an issue.

I also suspect the top surgery is more meant for people who are born inter sex, because I know if I was born inter sex, and identified as a man, I would not want to keep having man titties.

who talk about being the opposite sex or about being some other form of LGBTQIA+ when they haven’t even developed sexual attraction yet.

Gender and sexual attraction are two different things. You don't need to have any sexual attraction to have a gender identity. For instance, an ex of mine was ace, but she was still a woman. And gender identity starts forming as early as age 2:

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx

Here is a good starting resource that can help break down the differences in these definitions:

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq

Only after the following, reasonable requirements:

A letter from a medical doctor or nurse practitioner stating that you have “persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria” and specifying either the length of hormone therapy or why you are not taking hormone therapy.

A letter from a mental health provider stating that you have the capacity to consent and that any significant mental health issues are being addressed

Informed consent is the very basis for modern medical decisions. This is a reasonable standard to avoid harm. And this isn't an overnight thing that you can just get approval for, it takes years to get to this point.

Gender affirming care for children involves making irreversible decisions that can have long-term physical, psychological, and social consequences.

That's very misleading:

https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program/eligibility-surgery

The only such permanent physical change available is top surgery, only for 15 year olds and up, and only after the following qualifications:

A letter from a medical doctor or nurse practitioner stating that you have "persistent, well documented, gender dysphoria" and specifying either the length of hormone therapy or why you are not taking hormone therapy.

A letter from a mental health provider stating that you have the capacity to consent and that any significant mental health issues are being addressed

Informed consent is a reasonable qualification for medical treatment for a something that is clearly a persistent health issue. And none of this is genital surgery.

As for "permanent psychological and social" change, that's a weird thing to take issue with given that any decision in your life could have such an effect. Go to the wrong school, choose the wrong job, wrong career, live in the wrong neighborhood, choose the wrong treatment/doctor for your cancer, thyroid issues, broken leg, cronic illness, etc, it all caries that risk. Life sucks and it has risk, it's unreasonable to expect no risk for anything, especially when it comes to medical stuff.

Lack of long-term research: The field of gender affirming care for children is relatively new, and there is a lack of comprehensive long-term research on the outcomes of these interventions.

That's a moot point because the research we do have already shows that GAC is the best option for the health of patients. Why is it the best? Because the alternative is suicide. People with gender dysphoria end up killing themselves when they don't get treatment.

Ethical considerations of irreversible interventions: Gender affirming care for children often involves irreversible medical interventions such as hormone therapy or surgeries

You are exaggerating the permanency of the hormone stuff, it takes a constant source of medication for that stuff. These things aren't overnight changes either. It takes a long while before anything like puberty blockers or HRT is even allowed, there has to be a long medical history of dysphoria prior to that. And I've already covered the misinformation about surgeries above.

Do you know what's even more permanent than all these things combined? Suicide. If I had a Trans kid I would rather have them alive. That's a bigger ethical consideration.

Parental rights and autonomy: Decisions regarding a child’s gender affirming care should be primarily left to the parents, as they are responsible for the well-being of their children.

This I can agree with, however:

By allowing a diversity of perspectives and not imposing a single medical consensus

This isn't right. I would hope you wouldn't say this about other things.

"Gravity? We shouldn't impose a single physicist consensus, we should allow a diversity of perspectives"

Science is the best tool we have for learning objectively about things, including medical. It's a bad move to value it at zero.

If a child is under any psychological distress, permanent physical modifications shouldn’t be an option

https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program/eligibility-surgery

It isn't

America should follow the advice/medical consensus of medical professionals to reduce harm to children. And that advice/consensus includes gender affirming care.

Right now there is some consensus that minors can consent to sex change

That is not what the consensus is.

Don't do the crime, don't do the time. Whatever happened to the right wing being the party of law and order?