First we were discussing puberty blockers for kids. At first none of you were understanding my point of view, reacting as if I was proposing to make it mandatory.  Some of you came back with incorrect information about it having permanent physical effects.  Certainly a kid should not be allowed to use a drug with permanent harmful physical effects, however, puberty blockers are not in that category.  Some of you came back with arguments against the emotional harm, which is real of course, but besides the point if the kid, the doctor, and the parents are choosing it. By this point it should have been clear to most of you that I was actually making a limited government argument, not a pro-promiscuity or pro-gender-fluidity argument. 
I think the only person who actually digested enough of the argument to understand it was L2L, who unfortunately is of the belief that small government would be nice but big government is needed to fight the big bad cultural Marxists. Then the big guns came out and he said that puberty blockers were just part of a big conspiracy to undermine everything about culture today and make the US ripe for a Marxist revolution.  A lot of things are in this category for L2L, not just puberty blockers of course.  Every time he invokes this, we have to realize (1) it's not about puberty blockers or whatever anymore.  He genuinely does not care that lives may be saved by accepting an idea, if that idea is in this category for him.  (2) it's a slippery slope argument.  Slippery slope arguments ignore human agency when they assume that if A is permitted to happen, B is inevitable.  The argument is sometimes valid. For instance, it is true that if you make marijuana more available, it is inevitable that more teens will have access to it and use it, even if it's only legal for ages 21 and up.  The argument is valid because ultimately each teen gets to decide if they will seek out marijuana, and if they will use it.  It's not inevitable that all of them will use it, but it's probably inevitable that more of them will. But slippery slope arguments are almost always invalid for things that we vote on or Congress votes on.  When the Florida Constitution was amended to guarantee minimum crate space for pregnant pigs, it didn't suddenly become inevitable that the Constitution would also mandate hens be kept cage free.  Obviously we would have to do another signature gathering and vote on the hen issue.  If there are people who support pig rights but not hen rights, they could break the supposed slippery slope right there.  And that it why I ignore most of L2L's slippery slope arguments.  Most of them require a vote to be taken at each step along the slope.  We can get off the train at any time.

---

Moderators aren't supposed to take sides in a conversation or debate unless one side is violating the code of conduct. And even if they feel they must, they certainly shouldn't reply with personal attacks. 
I am not pretending to be anything.  I have been a registered Republican for as long as I've been a user here.  I've been a Burkean conservative in favor of restoring the original constitutional order by increasing the power of Congress and decreasing the power of the Executive.  This was never a problem for anyone here until Trump came along.
Anyhow I was here before you.

I honestly don't know how you ended up at any of those conclusions. I never made a slippery slope argument. There's no evidence your [BLEEP] plan would save lives. And I never said puberty blockers were some giant conspiracy. The rest of your post is, wait for it.... irrelevant.

There's never evidence for things that haven't been tried yet.  We know prozac saves lives now, but we only had a hunch it would, before people actually started taking it.

And all your blabbering about the Overton window being pushed left, that is a slippery slope argument.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Overton Window is not a slippery slope, argument, you simpleton, and your suggestion as such only confirms that you don't understand what it is. It's a legitimate and widely used political strategy used to get policy passed. This is a mainstream concept that was discussed ad nauseum in my poli-sci classes. It's the whole reason I brought it up with regards to the trans movement. The political left uses radicals to push extreme ideas (ones outside of the mainstream discussion), not to pass that radical policy, but to make the policy they want seem acceptable to the public. The problem is that their progressive base, who is loud and naive, buy completely into the extreme positions and push that so much that moderates actually start entertaining it. This is where you come in.

The right can't utilize it the same way because, up until recently, their arguments have largely been part of the public narrative. The only reason that has changed is due to the effectiveness of the left's use of this strategy and their ability to control the narrative. It's simple. Sorry you can't see it, and annoyed your think it's a slippery slope argument.

You can't say puberty blockers save lives on a whim. That's asinine, and your prozac argument doesn't follow. Sorry pal.

---

The Overton Window is not a slippery slope, argument, you simpleton, and your suggestion as such only confirms that you don't understand what it is. It's a legitimate and widely used political strategy used to get policy passed. This is a mainstream concept that was discussed ad nauseum in my poli-sci classes. It's the whole reason I brought it up with regards to the trans movement. The political left uses radicals to push extreme ideas (ones outside of the mainstream discussion), not to pass that radical policy, but to make the policy they want seem acceptable to the public. The problem is that their progressive base, who is loud and naive, buy completely into the extreme positions and push that so much that moderates actually start entertaining it. This is where you come in.

The right can't utilize it the same way because, up until recently, their arguments have largely been part of the public narrative. The only reason that has changed is due to the effectiveness of the left's use of this strategy and their ability to control the narrative. It's simple. Sorry you can't see it, and annoyed your think it's a slippery slope argument.

You can't say puberty blockers save lives on a whim. That's asinine, and your prozac argument doesn't follow. Sorry pal.

Just because you majored in political science, and have all this historical and esoteric knowledge of the Overton window that I don't have, does not mean that you understand logic, or logical fallacies.

Your argument takes the form of "I don't want to discuss the merits or demerits of A. I believe A leads inevitably to B, and I don't want B, so we can't let A happen."   You haven't really said what B is but that's OK.  You are sure that your enemies are only using A to make B happen, and you think there is a good chance that A actually will make B happen, and that's enough info for you.  Your mentions of the Overton window are only there to flesh out why you and your enemies both believe there is an inevitable connection between A and B.  Anyhow, all of that to say, definitely a slippery slope argument.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No. My argument is that people who want to alter their bodies need medical help, and if you weren't such a lemming, you'd realize this makes the most sense. The only proof I need is that you wouldn't have been suggesting this 5 years ago. You drink the Kool-Aid. The left implements a strategy to further the LGBTQ+ agenda, and, instead of having a principled line, you entertain the policy intentionally meant to push the Overton Window left.

---

No. My argument is that people who want to alter their bodies need medical help, and if you weren't such a lemming, you'd realize this makes the most sense. The only proof I need is that you wouldn't have been suggesting this 5 years ago. You drink the Kool-Aid. The left implements a strategy to further the LGBTQ+ agenda, and, instead of having a principled line, you entertain the policy intentionally meant to push the Overton Window left.

That's precisely my argument!
We just disagree about which forms of medical help are in bounds or out of bounds.

And you still haven't explained what you think the Left is actually trying to achieve with all of this.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Then address that difference, stupid.

Puberty blockers are entirely speculative; there are plenty of studies that show potential harm. Two just came out recently. Also, there isn't even proof reassignment surgery helps. The suicide rate doesn't drop after surgery. Leftists say the stigmatization is the problem, but that's also speculative. Furthermore, many trans people end up transitioning back. Until then, we are glorifying bodily mutilation in the HOPE it might help some kids, when the reality is nothing shows that to be the case.

It is not unrealistic to expect that less than 1% of the population are going to have psychiatric problems that need to be addressed. The answer is CLEARLY not to indulge these disorders. You don't let pyromaniacs burn buildings, or cleptos steal, or agorophobes hide in their houses for the rest of their lives. You gently force them to confront the problem with experts who are medically equipped to deal with it. You don't alter their reality and force everyone else to participate. Trans is not drag. We, as a society, need to draw the line at bodily mutilation and collective compliance. This isn't even a complicated issue, and the proof I offer is FIVE YEARS AGO. The only thing that has changed is the narrative. You should be smart enough to see it. Not only is this not solving the problem, it's actually making it WORSE. Trans cases are skyrocketing, especially in young women.

So, you tell me. With that information, why WOULD the left be pushing this utter nonsense. Why would American medical institutions be pressured into accepting this. Why would businesses and people get blacklisted for not embracing trans issues?

I think this is another case of the Overton Window run amok. The progressive base is too stupid to see how they are being used, and Democrats can't control the fire they stoke. It doesn't matter in the end, because they can use this as a critical cause to help destabilize entrenched power and pass it on to themselves. This stuff is political first. You just don't see it.

---

Then address that difference, stupid.

Puberty blockers are entirely speculative; there are plenty of studies that show potential harm. Two just came out recently. Also, there isn't even proof reassignment surgery helps. The suicide rate doesn't drop after surgery. Leftists say the stigmatization is the problem, but that's also speculative. Furthermore, many trans people end up transitioning back. Until then, we are glorifying bodily mutilation in the HOPE it might help some kids, when the reality is nothing shows that to be the case.

It is not unrealistic to expect that less than 1% of the population are going to have psychiatric problems that need to be addressed. The answer is CLEARLY not to indulge these disorders. You don't let pyromaniacs burn buildings, or cleptos steal, or agorophobes hide in their houses for the rest of their lives. You gently force them to confront the problem with experts who are medically equipped to deal with it. You don't alter their reality and force everyone else to participate. Trans is not drag. We, as a society, need to draw the line at bodily mutilation and collective compliance. This isn't even a complicated issue, and the proof I offer is FIVE YEARS AGO. The only thing that has changed is the narrative. You should be smart enough to see it. Not only is this not solving the problem, it's actually making it WORSE. Trans cases are skyrocketing, especially in young women.

So, you tell me. With that information, why WOULD the left be pushing this utter nonsense. Why would American medical institutions be pressured into accepting this. Why would businesses and people get blacklisted for not embracing trans issues?

I think this is another case of the Overton Window run amok. The progressive base is too stupid to see how they are being used, and Democrats can't control the fire they stoke. It doesn't matter in the end, because they can use this as a critical cause to help destabilize entrenched power and pass it on to themselves. This stuff is political first. You just don't see it.

Again, like a few other folks earlier in the thread, you're arguing against surgery and mutilation, which I am not arguing for.  
We agree that the government should not stop a consenting adults from modifying their bodies as they see fit.
We agree that the government should prevent kids from having these types of surgeries.
We only disagree regarding puberty blockers. Going on puberty blockers does not necessarily mean you transition.  It means you are making transitioning easier later, if that is still desired.
You are making a surprisingly big deal out of the one minor aspect of this issue we disagree about, considering how we agree about the other aspects.

And I still have no idea what you are getting at. "Destabilize entrenched power and pass it on to themselves." That's vague enough to be meaningless, like a horoscope. But even if I accept what you're saying on your terms, you and I are both smart enough, and have enough knowledge of history, to know that those who deliberately destabilize a society rarely win the revolution that they cause.  And guess what.  The left knows that too.  Which is how we can know they aren't doing what you say they're doing.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Then address that difference, stupid.

Puberty blockers are entirely speculative; there are plenty of studies that show potential harm. Two just came out recently. Also, there isn't even proof reassignment surgery helps. The suicide rate doesn't drop after surgery. Leftists say the stigmatization is the problem, but that's also speculative. Furthermore, many trans people end up transitioning back. Until then, we are glorifying bodily mutilation in the HOPE it might help some kids, when the reality is nothing shows that to be the case.

It is not unrealistic to expect that less than 1% of the population are going to have psychiatric problems that need to be addressed. The answer is CLEARLY not to indulge these disorders. You don't let pyromaniacs burn buildings, or cleptos steal, or agorophobes hide in their houses for the rest of their lives. You gently force them to confront the problem with experts who are medically equipped to deal with it. You don't alter their reality and force everyone else to participate. Trans is not drag. We, as a society, need to draw the line at bodily mutilation and collective compliance. This isn't even a complicated issue, and the proof I offer is FIVE YEARS AGO. The only thing that has changed is the narrative. You should be smart enough to see it. Not only is this not solving the problem, it's actually making it WORSE. Trans cases are skyrocketing, especially in young women.

So, you tell me. With that information, why WOULD the left be pushing this utter nonsense. Why would American medical institutions be pressured into accepting this. Why would businesses and people get blacklisted for not embracing trans issues?

I think this is another case of the Overton Window run amok. The progressive base is too stupid to see how they are being used, and Democrats can't control the fire they stoke. It doesn't matter in the end, because they can use this as a critical cause to help destabilize entrenched power and pass it on to themselves. This stuff is political first. You just don't see it.

Again, like a few other folks earlier in the thread, you're arguing against surgery and mutilation, which I am not arguing for.  
We agree that the government should not stop a consenting adults from modifying their bodies as they see fit.
We agree that the government should prevent kids from having these types of surgeries.
We only disagree regarding puberty blockers. Going on puberty blockers does not necessarily mean you transition.  It means you are making transitioning easier later, if that is still desired.
You are making a surprisingly big deal out of the one minor aspect of this issue we disagree about, considering how we agree about the other aspects.

And I still have no idea what you are getting at. "Destabilize entrenched power and pass it on to themselves." That's vague enough to be meaningless, like a horoscope. But even if I accept what you're saying on your terms, you and I are both smart enough, and have enough knowledge of history, to know that those who deliberately destabilize a society rarely win the revolution that they cause.  And guess what.  The left knows that too.  Which is how we can know they aren't doing what you say they're doing.

Yes, you are. Just not in children. Putting them on puberty blockers so they can make that choice when they're adults is reckless and unnecessary. The government doesn't need to outlaw transgender surgeries, but it definitely shouldn't be advocating it, nor making policies that do.

And of course, you have no idea what I'm getting at. That's a given. You're wrong about the historical utilization of these techniques, which is why you draw the wrong conclusion.

---

Moderators aren't supposed to take sides in a conversation or debate unless one side is violating the code of conduct. And even if they feel they must, they certainly shouldn't reply with personal attacks. 
I am not pretending to be anything.  I have been a registered Republican for as long as I've been a user here.  I've been a Burkean conservative in favor of restoring the original constitutional order by increasing the power of Congress and decreasing the power of the Executive.  This was never a problem for anyone here until Trump came along.
Anyhow I was here before you.

Wrong, as usual. We aren’t here to moderate a debate for you, we’re here to keep the board running smoothly. All of us were posters before we became staff and we are free to post in any conversation on the board, the same as every other poster can.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Moderators aren't supposed to take sides in a conversation or debate unless one side is violating the code of conduct. And even if they feel they must, they certainly shouldn't reply with personal attacks. 
I am not pretending to be anything.  I have been a registered Republican for as long as I've been a user here.  I've been a Burkean conservative in favor of restoring the original constitutional order by increasing the power of Congress and decreasing the power of the Executive.  This was never a problem for anyone here until Trump came along.
Anyhow I was here before you.

Wrong, as usual. We aren’t here to moderate a debate for you, we’re here to keep the board running smoothly. All of us were posters before we became staff and we are free to post in any conversation on the board, the same as every other poster can.

How dare you contradict the all knowing.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Moderators aren't supposed to take sides in a conversation or debate unless one side is violating the code of conduct. And even if they feel they must, they certainly shouldn't reply with personal attacks. 
I am not pretending to be anything.  I have been a registered Republican for as long as I've been a user here.  I've been a Burkean conservative in favor of restoring the original constitutional order by increasing the power of Congress and decreasing the power of the Executive.  This was never a problem for anyone here until Trump came along.
Anyhow I was here before you.

Wrong, as usual. We aren’t here to moderate a debate for you, we’re here to keep the board running smoothly. All of us were posters before we became staff and we are free to post in any conversation on the board, the same as every other poster can.

I didn't say you weren't free to post whatever you want. I said you *shouldn't* post certain things.  The board would be better if you moderated under an alt, at least. Because what you're doing now comes across as bullying, and it takes away from the experience.
So, you're wrong, as usual.
Oh did you not like me saying that?
Aww.  I didn't like you saying that either.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Wrong, as usual. We aren’t here to moderate a debate for you, we’re here to keep the board running smoothly. All of us were posters before we became staff and we are free to post in any conversation on the board, the same as every other poster can.

I didn't say you weren't free to post whatever you want. I said you *shouldn't* post certain things.  The board would be better if you moderated under an alt, at least. Because what you're doing now comes across as bullying, and it takes away from the experience.
So, you're wrong, as usual.
Oh did you not like me saying that?
Aww.  I didn't like you saying that either.

Poor baby, so sad you are.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I didn't say you weren't free to post whatever you want. I said you *shouldn't* post certain things.  The board would be better if you moderated under an alt, at least. Because what you're doing now comes across as bullying, and it takes away from the experience.
So, you're wrong, as usual.
Oh did you not like me saying that?
Aww.  I didn't like you saying that either.

Poor baby, so sad you are.

Well, SC1's mom finally stopped returning my calls.  I knew it couldn't last.  At least I still have you!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Wrong, as usual. We aren’t here to moderate a debate for you, we’re here to keep the board running smoothly. All of us were posters before we became staff and we are free to post in any conversation on the board, the same as every other poster can.

I didn't say you weren't free to post whatever you want. I said you *shouldn't* post certain things.  The board would be better if you moderated under an alt, at least. Because what you're doing now comes across as bullying, and it takes away from the experience.
So, you're wrong, as usual.
Oh did you not like me saying that?
Aww.  I didn't like you saying that either.

I guess it’s just too bad for you that no one cares how you think the board should be run. 

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I didn't say you weren't free to post whatever you want. I said you *shouldn't* post certain things.  The board would be better if you moderated under an alt, at least. Because what you're doing now comes across as bullying, and it takes away from the experience.
So, you're wrong, as usual.
Oh did you not like me saying that?
Aww.  I didn't like you saying that either.

I guess it’s just too bad for you that no one cares how you think the board should be run. 

You may not have noticed, but no one cares in general around this part of the board.  Not a lot of people left.  People tend to leave when the experience is bad.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I guess it’s just too bad for you that no one cares how you think the board should be run. 

You may not have noticed, but no one cares in general around this part of the board.  Not a lot of people left.  People tend to leave when the experience is bad.

Yeah, we've let you stay far too long.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You may not have noticed, but no one cares in general around this part of the board.  Not a lot of people left.  People tend to leave when the experience is bad.

Yeah, we've let you stay far too long.

Do it.  Who cares about the CoC? It doesn't matter that I've never broken it.  Think about how good it would feel to exercise that power they gave you.
You could even delete the thread.  And tell people I got verbally abusive.  No one would know!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Don't give into your feelings, Luke!! You strike him down now, he'll become more powerful of a...


Nevermind... Go Lightning Fingers!!!

---

Another thread about Mikey.

---

Another thread about Mikey.

First post about me is #92, yours.
Which I was going to ignore, then you re-upped it, begging for a reaction.
So you must like it when threads become about me?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.