Author Topic: Republicans Who Can’t Oppose Child Mutilation Should Get Out Of Office  (Read 1499 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sled Dog

  • The Ultimate Weapon: Freedom - I Won't
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,138
No it is not. Show me anywhere that I defended abuse -


Chemical castration is harmful to the body.

Children have bodies.

Therefore chemical castration is harmful to children.

Abuse is the deliberate infliction of harm to people, animals or objects.

Therefore chemical castration of children is harmful to children and thus is abuse of children.   Abuse of children is also called child abuse.

People do not oppose the chemical castration of children are people willing to tolerate chemical castration of children.

Since chemical castration of children is child abuse, people willing to tolerate chemical castration of children are people willing to tolerate child abuse.

Asa Hutchinson is a person tolerating child abuse and hiding behind some totally bogus claim of libertarianism to defend the indefensible.

So are other people, apparently.

That's not subject to debate.

The big questions are why Hutchinson is doing this, why others are doing this, and what the heck is wrong with those creatures?

The GOP is not the party leadership.  The GOP is the party MEMBERSHIP.   The members need to kick the leaders out if they leaders are going the wrong way.  No coddling allowed.

Offline Sled Dog

  • The Ultimate Weapon: Freedom - I Won't
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,138
It isn't a difference in procedures. If you go back and watch the vid, he said that if it was a matter of banning procedures he would have signed it in an instant. The banning of procedures was not his problem.

He signed a bill banning female circumcision.
He said he had no problem banning the procedures in this case.

That seems to be consistent to me.

He failed to act to protect children.

He supported the position that children are capable of a) changing their sex (they cannot, nobody can, not ever), b) identifying their sex to be something different than what it really is (when they do this, they need psychological treatment to accept what their chromosomes are, not surgery to promote lies), and c) they children don't make mistakes (which is stupid, some of them are going to become Democrats, some of them are going to discover Principles and other such garbage).

Normal people also try to protect children from setting their hair on fire.   Hutchinson and the PC crowd clearly don't have a problem with this.
The GOP is not the party leadership.  The GOP is the party MEMBERSHIP.   The members need to kick the leaders out if they leaders are going the wrong way.  No coddling allowed.

Offline Sled Dog

  • The Ultimate Weapon: Freedom - I Won't
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,138
No, I most certainly DO NOT.

You are supporting chemical castration of children.

It's no different than someone coming at their balls with a blunt axe.   But you're not objecting to the chemical harm to chldren.

What should we call it, besides what it so obviously is?
The GOP is not the party leadership.  The GOP is the party MEMBERSHIP.   The members need to kick the leaders out if they leaders are going the wrong way.  No coddling allowed.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Chemical castration is harmful to the body.

Children have bodies.

Therefore chemical castration is harmful to children.

Abuse is the deliberate infliction of harm to people, animals or objects.

Therefore chemical castration of children is harmful to children and thus is abuse of children.   Abuse of children is also called child abuse.

People do not oppose the chemical castration of children are people willing to tolerate chemical castration of children.

Since chemical castration of children is child abuse, people willing to tolerate chemical castration of children are people willing to tolerate child abuse.

Asa Hutchinson is a person tolerating child abuse and hiding behind some totally bogus claim of libertarianism to defend the indefensible.

So are other people, apparently.

That's not subject to debate.

The big questions are why Hutchinson is doing this, why others are doing this, and what the heck is wrong with those creatures?

To the contrary, Hutchinson said he would ban the procedures.
His problem was with making the state the sole arbiter and authority.

The state is NOT the sole arbiter and authority. To make it so offends the right of the parent and removes the requirement that the state proves its case (against the parent which IS the sole arbiter and authority over the child).

It is not even the right of these addle-headed parents that I am concerned with - It is my own and yours, which hangs in the balance.


Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
He failed to act to protect children.

The question there is WHY. If he did so to prevent the state from intruding on liberty (which it sure sounds like to me) then that is a good reason. The children can be protected without eroding liberty and in fact, if that is what happened I will agree with him.

The object of the exercise then becomes whether 'it's for the chidren' is a sufficient reason to allow the state to offend liberty - And that has been the liberal big-government way all the way along. If that is the case, then no wonder he vetoed it.

Quote
He supported the position that children are capable of a) changing their sex (they cannot, nobody can, not ever), b) identifying their sex to be something different than what it really is (when they do this, they need psychological treatment to accept what their chromosomes are, not surgery to promote lies), and c) they children don't make mistakes (which is stupid, some of them are going to become Democrats, some of them are going to discover Principles and other such garbage).


PROVE that to me. Because that is not what he said.

Quote
Normal people also try to protect children from setting their hair on fire.   Hutchinson and the PC crowd clearly don't have a problem with this.

And if the price of that protection is at the cost of liberty, that's alright with you? A state that is the sole arbiter and authority can then demand you put your children into public school for indoctrination, insist you maintain dietary practices ala Moose Obummer to protect the child's health, will make sure there are no nasty guns laying around for children to get a hold of... The list of things the state can come up with is literally endless once it has appointed itself the authority over that child.

Unintended consequences.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
You are supporting chemical castration of children.

It's no different than someone coming at their balls with a blunt axe.   But you're not objecting to the chemical harm to chldren.

What should we call it, besides what it so obviously is?

No, I am NOT. And I certainly DO object. But not at the cost of liberty and allowing the state sole authority. Protections can be affected without cost to liberty.

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,375
Child Mutilation is a moral evil, so Natural Law decides, not religion, not economics
and emphatally not sanctimonious political horse manure, beloved by the brainless.
Consider this Rule and its contrary:
"Man is forbidden from killing his fellow Man and Man is permitted to kill his fellow Man."
Which advances the survival/development of our Species and which ensures the
destruction/extinction of our Species?????
The wise Ancients grasped this thru logic and reason while we who assert
"We  are the greatest" continue to prove that our head is so far up our rectums
that we are intimately familiar with darkness.
This matter is not remotely debatable even as an academic exercise!!!
« Last Edit: April 11, 2021, 07:12:54 pm by Absalom »

Offline LegalAmerican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,124
  • Gender: Female
You are supporting chemical castration of children.

It's no different than someone coming at their balls with a blunt axe.   But you're not objecting to the chemical harm to chldren.

What should we call it, besides what it so obviously is?

Right on.   :thumbsup:

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,320
To the contrary, Hutchinson said he would ban the procedures. His problem was with making the state the sole arbiter and authority.

I do not understand your ferocious defense of Asa Hutchinson.  He is not upholding any principle with his decision.  He took this action with his ban on female genital mutilation -- by making the state the sole authority. 

The law in question is not making the state the sole authority forever.  Arkansas is simply saying not yet.  Arkansas is standing up for the child, giving the child a voice when the age of consent is reached.

I fail to find logic or humanity in your convoluted POV; or reason for your devotion to Asa Hutchinson.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
I do not understand your ferocious defense of Asa Hutchinson. 

Neither do I understand your mindless rage.

Quote
He is not upholding any principle with his decision. 

According to him he is.

Quote
He took this action with his ban on female genital mutilation -- by making the state the sole authority. 

He banned a procedure. That is within the state's bailliwick, and not asserting sole authority.
He also said he would be happy to have signed this to ban procedure too.

He also protected women's bathrooms from trannies.
He also protected women's sports from trannies.
So he is not protecting gender delusion elsewhere, so what made this different?

I don't know what is in his head, but he has enough of a record on the subject (and a Conservative record a mile long) to want me to understand what his trouble was, rather than going off half-cocked and out for blood.

Quote
The law in question is not making the state the sole authority forever.  Arkansas is simply saying not yet.  Arkansas is standing up for the child, giving the child a voice when the age of consent is reached.

The child is not the question. The child is a dependent. It is the authority of the parents that is being usurped, and standing against doctors orders too I would suppose... That may be the meaning of 'too broad' and 'sole authority'... I don't know... but there must be another dimension to this one considering his record surrounding this subject.

And since the child is dependent, YES it is flatly removing the right of the parent *forever*, as once the child is 18, the child is beyond parental jurisdiction. That is REMOVING the natural parental right for the duration.

And I will assert AGAIN, I don't care about these parents in particular - Their culpability in damaging their children is apparent. But if that is so, ban the procedures, and write law to enforce, and charge the parent properly and bring em to trial like you ought. A summary decree without recourse is not how it s done.

And if that is allowed to stand, which decree will come next, imposed against the natural parental right?

Quote
I fail to find logic

The logic is found in what this will turn loose. The matter at hand is not the issue near as much as what it sets as precedent. When the state asserts blanket authority over the natural right of the parent, and that is allowed to stand, then the state can assert that same authority over anything concerning any child within its jurisdiction... Because it has proven itself to be over the parent without any trial or proceeding, with no charges filed... This is no longer regulatory - Rather, it is imposition of power under the color of law.

Such is the same power that denies a father parental rights with no charge or trial, and no means of recourse. This seems to be the same sort of thing.

Quote
or humanity

Humanity my ass. Sobbing 'It's for the chidren' is liberal bullcrap. Law is no time for emoting. If it prevents these scurrilous acts against these children at the cost of liberty to countless other (innocent) parents, removing the natural right of the parent by any old thing decreed by the state, then the humanity of the act is rather subjective, ain't it?

If you want to take that right, then make it illegal, and arrest them. At least they'll see their day in court to be judged by their peers. And the natural right is preserved.

Quote
in your convoluted

Nothing convoluted about it at all.

Natural right belongs to the parent.
The state cannot take that right (any right) away without charge and trial.
Allowing that to happen is power exercised under the color of law
and creates a precedent that can be used in the future to do it sommore.

That's the thing, and it's a straight line of thought. If that is the cost to 'save the chidren', that cost is way too high, I assure you. There are other ways to do it, that provide charge and trial, that preserve the parental right for the rest of us.

Quote
or reason for your devotion to Asa Hutchinson.

Beyond recognizing his great efforts for Conservatism, and defending that record, and because of that, being willing to hear him out and try to understand why this was different, I have no devotion to Hutch at all. Nor to Noems who was recently savaged in a similar fashion.

But neither am I willing to join you in your mindless bloodlust trying to tear the man down. Or Noems for that matter. Neither are RINOs and I will wait to hear them out.


Rather, what I am viciously defending is the natural right of the parent.

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,320
Neither do I understand your mindless rage.

According to him he is.

He banned a procedure. That is within the state's bailliwick, and not asserting sole authority.
He also said he would be happy to have signed this to ban procedure too.

He also protected women's bathrooms from trannies.
He also protected women's sports from trannies.
So he is not protecting gender delusion elsewhere, so what made this different?

I don't know what is in his head, but he has enough of a record on the subject (and a Conservative record a mile long) to want me to understand what his trouble was, rather than going off half-cocked and out for blood.

The child is not the question. The child is a dependent. It is the authority of the parents that is being usurped, and standing against doctors orders too I would suppose... That may be the meaning of 'too broad' and 'sole authority'... I don't know... but there must be another dimension to this one considering his record surrounding this subject.

And since the child is dependent, YES it is flatly removing the right of the parent *forever*, as once the child is 18, the child is beyond parental jurisdiction. That is REMOVING the natural parental right for the duration.

And I will assert AGAIN, I don't care about these parents in particular - Their culpability in damaging their children is apparent. But if that is so, ban the procedures, and write law to enforce, and charge the parent properly and bring em to trial like you ought. A summary decree without recourse is not how it s done.

And if that is allowed to stand, which decree will come next, imposed against the natural parental right?

The logic is found in what this will turn loose. The matter at hand is not the issue near as much as what it sets as precedent. When the state asserts blanket authority over the natural right of the parent, and that is allowed to stand, then the state can assert that same authority over anything concerning any child within its jurisdiction... Because it has proven itself to be over the parent without any trial or proceeding, with no charges filed... This is no longer regulatory - Rather, it is imposition of power under the color of law.

Such is the same power that denies a father parental rights with no charge or trial, and no means of recourse. This seems to be the same sort of thing.

Humanity my ass. Sobbing 'It's for the chidren' is liberal bullcrap. Law is no time for emoting. If it prevents these scurrilous acts against these children at the cost of liberty to countless other (innocent) parents, removing the natural right of the parent by any old thing decreed by the state, then the humanity of the act is rather subjective, ain't it?

If you want to take that right, then make it illegal, and arrest them. At least they'll see their day in court to be judged by their peers. And the natural right is preserved.

Nothing convoluted about it at all.

Natural right belongs to the parent.
The state cannot take that right (any right) away without charge and trial.
Allowing that to happen is power exercised under the color of law
and creates a precedent that can be used in the future to do it sommore.

That's the thing, and it's a straight line of thought. If that is the cost to 'save the chidren', that cost is way too high, I assure you. There are other ways to do it, that provide charge and trial, that preserve the parental right for the rest of us.

Beyond recognizing his great efforts for Conservatism, and defending that record, and because of that, being willing to hear him out and try to understand why this was different, I have no devotion to Hutch at all. Nor to Noems who was recently savaged in a similar fashion.

But neither am I willing to join you in your mindless bloodlust trying to tear the man down. Or Noems for that matter. Neither are RINOs and I will wait to hear them out.


Rather, what I am viciously defending is the natural right of the parent.

This was a chance for a "conservative" to follow his own precedent and protect our children.  Asa failed.

This was a chance for you, @roamer_1 to take action; to support drawing a red line in the proverbial sand against the advancing rot decaying our society.  You give the world a word salad.  You not only fail, you paint conservatives as unserious and ineffective. 

Double fail.




« Last Edit: April 11, 2021, 06:29:59 pm by Right_in_Virginia »

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,320
The Hill
@thehill


Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson: "Are we going to be a narrow party that expresses ourselves in intolerant ways, or are we going to be a broad-based party that shows conservative principles but also compassion..." http://hill.cm/tYNfQlG

Video:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1381313850755141632

2:31 PM · Apr 11, 2021·Twitter Media Studio


Steve Deace
@SteveDeaceShow


Castrating children isn’t “broad-based” it’s debased. Castrating children isn’t “compassion” it is pure evil. Castrating children isn’t “conservative principles” it’s depraved and insane.

This man’s pastor should call him to public repentance. And he should be impeached.


4:12 PM · Apr 11, 2021·Twitter for iPad

https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1381339379453595654

Offline LegalAmerican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,124
  • Gender: Female

Steve Deace
@SteveDeaceShow


Castrating children isn’t “broad-based” it’s debased. Castrating children isn’t “compassion” it is pure evil. Castrating children isn’t “conservative principles” it’s depraved and insane.

This man’s pastor should call him to public repentance. And he should be impeached.


4:12 PM · Apr 11, 2021·Twitter for iPad

https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1381339379453595654

Agree  888high58888  :patriot: :patriot:

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
This was a chance for a "conservative" to follow his own precedent and protect our children.  Asa failed.

This was a chance for you, @roamer_1 to take action; to support drawing a red line in the proverbial sand against the advancing rot decaying our society.  You give the world a word salad.  You not only fail, you paint conservatives as unserious and ineffective. 

Double fail.

You've got one thing right @Right_in_Virginia  - I sure as hell don't fit in your twitterpated world. And I never will.

The red line matters of course, but how you draw it matters too. And using the plight of what 100? / 150 ? people - I doubt there are many in Arkansas - Using that plight to attack a basic natural right is just as hideous and immoral as those who molest these children - But with far more impact.