Utopia Talk / Politics / Obaminated, what the fuck

Rugian Member	Sun Jun 11 08:53:09 Don't take this the wrong way but I pray for Kim Jong Un to nuke your entire state. "A California state bill was recently amended so that parents in custody battles may be liable for child abuse if they do not affirm the gender identity of their children. AB 957, which passed in the State Assembly on May 3, originally proposed that courts deciding custody cases must consider whether each parent were gender-affirming of the child in question. The amendment has added to the state’s standard of what constitutes parental responsibility for child welfare, requiring that parents must be affirming of a child’s gender identity if they are to be judged fit for providing for "the health, safety, and welfare of the child," in a court of law. If the newly-amended bill were to go into law parents who do not affirm this new standard of health and safety for their children may be found liable for child abuse and have their young one removed from their home. Critics of this amended bill claim that it could open the door to legally declare non-affirmation of a child's gender identity child abuse across the board. http://www...-affirm-childs-gender-identity
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 11 09:13:17 Quote from Lori Wilson, the bill's sponsor: "If you have a seven year old, who's talking about having a potential to say...being able to articulate that they believe that they are *not* the same gender as they are biologically, then it *should* be affirmed, and through care it should be determined. And that's what we did with our own child. And that would give the ability for a parent, who wasn't sure, to affirm and get their child the care that they need so they can begin to articulate that determination. But by saying and rejecting it wholesale, you are essentially rejecting your child, and that is not I'm the best interest of a child. We should be affirming our children in every possible way, and getting them whatever appropriste care they need, whether it's based on their gender , whether it's based on how their studies are in school, it doesn't matter. Our children should be affirmed, and this is saying that you have to include gender affirmation as a part of that." http://www...-care-kids-best-interests.html Seven year olds, dude.
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 09:18:50 Classic rugian, seeing the worst in people. In no way will women use their children as pawns in divorce proceedings to ensure full custody and maximum child support.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 18:19:12 "parents in custody battles may be liable for child abuse" false "parents who do not affirm this new standard of health and safety for their children may be found liable for child abuse and have their young one removed from their home." still false this is the bill text (afaik): http://leg...02320240AB957&showamends=false absolutely nothing in the bill creates child abuse allegations from it but yeah it adds when considering "the health, safety, and welfare of the child" for custody that it includes considering parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity meh, i have no strong opinion on that (but don't like the lying...)
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 18:32:12 "I have no strong opinion on that" spoken like someone who has no children.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 18:40:58 yeah... & someone w/ virtually no experience in how trans children feel (or ones who think they are trans but aren't) plus, it's only one consideration by the judge, not the determining factor
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 11 18:49:50 "parents in custody battles may be liable for child abuse" false "parents who do not affirm this new standard of health and safety for their children may be found liable for child abuse and have their young one removed from their home." still false this is the bill text (afaik): http://leg...02320240AB957&showamends=false absolutely nothing in the bill creates child abuse allegations from it but yeah it adds when considering "the health, safety, and welfare of the child" for custody that it includes considering parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity" ---- You literally contradicted yourself in the course of this post. Well done bro. "Parents aren't being punished for not affirming their child's preferred gender...well yeah we're setting a legal precedent that not doing so constitutes to look after their child's health, safety, and welfare, and can result in a loss of custody during divorce proceeding...but they're not being punished!" What the fuck tumbleweed.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 11 18:51:17 tumbleweed the wanderer Sun Jun 11 18:40:58 "yeah... & someone w/ virtually no experience in how trans children feel" You. Cannot. Be. Trans. At. Seven. It's amazing how warped your logic is. Young children can't make decisions about jack shit, yet all of a sudden we're trusting them to make a determination about something as fundamentally important as their own gender? Are you joking?
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 11 19:01:20 Things a young child is considered legally incompetent to do on their own, because their brain is not fully developed and they lack sufficient real world experience: - Decide where to live - Decide where to go to school - Enter into contracts - Be tried as an adult - Seek employment - Acquire property - Acquire firearms - Drive motor vehicles - Fly on a plane unaccompanied - Ride on a train unaccompanied - Drink - Smoke - Gamble - Marry - Consent to sex - Vote in elections - Join the military - Be tried as an adult - Make household decisions Things that a young child is considered legally competent to do on their own, with or without the consent of their parents (according to Democrats): - Choose their gender - Have an abortion
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 19:26:14 "liable for child abuse" means you are being found guilty of it & should be expecting financial punishment or prison nothing in this bill creates any child abuse liability ---------- "Young children can't make decisions about jack shit" not terribly relevant to the bill, as it's just about all factors that should be considered in determining which parent would be best for the kid... if talking just about my comment... i have no idea when or how it happens for these people, so no i can't say they don't feel it at 7 & (also not related to bill) the 'gender-affirming care' in school stuff doesn't mean lopping dicks off, it means allowing them to use names & dress how they want i'm not exactly taking a side because i don't have knowledge about the condition... i just know a fuck TON of lying goes on by the Right
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 19:45:06 actually, from the text of the bill, I don’t see why a judge couldn’t use the parents affirmation as a strike -against- them for custody
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 19:48:24 Haha holy shit tw, thank God your bloodline ends with you.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 21:25:04 bill: “the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity” compare to “the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes a parent’s belief in cannibalism” so sorta could go either way... a judge finds the affirmation harmful and uses it as such in any case “child abuse” doesn’t belong in that Fox article, nothing in this bill labels it child abuse (and certainly doesn’t make anyone liable for child abuse), it just mentions history of child abuse as another factor to consider for who gets custody
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 21:55:08 http://www...utillo-isd-committee-vote/amp/ Tw sees no problem with a comic book being available in a school library that shows one kid giving another kid head.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 22:42:33 as opposed to the computer that can show anything fucking any other thing & it's a -high school- library, not just a 'school' library googling for the offending images, shows the same 2 over & over, so i'm guessing not loaded w/ porno & isn't the purpose of the book
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 22:46:50 actually i don't think he's even sucking cock... i think he's sucking a strapon dildo (the commentary kinda makes it worse though... :p) but i'm doubting any modern day high schooler is going to this book to jerk off to two weak cartoon images
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 23:13:36 "Kids can Google porn so they should be able to access it on the taxpayers dime, parents monitoring their kids internet use isn't a thing because I am a Man child who isn't responsible for anyone and can't comprehend such a thing existing."
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 23:21:19 i didn't even know gays would want to suck a strapon... so it's educational :p a panel of adults reviewed the book & made a decision are we assuming they must all be pedophiles or something? (actually you might... CC probably does) why do you think they would want porn in the library? i'm guessing that's a very small part of the book (seemingly 2 pages)
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 23:50:59 "I literally don't care that there is literally porn in a public school book." "8 adults approved it, it it's obviously acceptable."
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jun 12 01:10:34 yeah... it's 2 images of sucking plastic Sipowicz worked so hard to get his ass on TV & you're trying to move us backward
obaminated Member	Mon Jun 12 08:01:31 "Yeah it's a cartoon of a sexual activity, I don't see a problem with it being accessed by kids." We get it tw. The reason you have devoted your life to the orange man is because you have literally nothing else going on in your life. The rest of us have to deal with things that directly effect our lives, people we care for.
Rugian Member	Mon Jun 12 09:11:37 "yeah... it's 2 images of sucking plastic" This right here is one of the many reasons why it's fruitless to try and reason with you. The issue here is that it's a depiction of a simulated sex act, yet you blithely write off the offensive imagery as a picture of "sucking plastic," as if the material in question is at all relevant. You tend to dismiss a lot of things on frivolous technicalities. Take the OP...the bill you posted proves that the original article was substantively correct, but you got hung up on one word ("liable") and because of that you dismissed the entire story as meritless. And then there's your feigned ignorance on subjects you should be damn well aware of. Forget the fact that the conservative media you supposedly watch* has been covering trans extremism for years now. All you have to have is a basic understanding of the level of mental development of young children to realize that, no, they're not competent to make significant life-altering decisions about their gender. This bill is being advanced by a lunatic fringe on the left. It would have cost you nothing to denounce this. You could have said that this bill is going too far and your anti-Republican bona fides would have been entirely unaffected. But no, you couldn't do that, because the media you watch has conditioned you to warp your sense of reality with regards to LGBT issues. You're a fucking mess bro. ---- * As we're all aware, you don't actually read or watch any conservative news, you just consume isolated filtered clips that have been cut by partisan hacks like Aaron Rupar and Acyn. It's no wonder you think of conservative media as irredeemable and discreditbale, since those guys never show them in a positive light.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jun 12 11:30:15 "The issue here is that it's a depiction of a simulated sex act" a panel reviewed the book in total... i've seen 2 pages... yes, i'm willing to believe the panel isn't a bunch of creeps who want to give porn to kids (believe it or not, a reasonable assumption) also, i'm very doubtful parental controls on computers/phones is effective & that any high schooler can't find real porn very easily --------------------- "hung up on one word ("liable") " no... hung up on "liable" & for "child abuse"... it was a deliberate attempt to hike up the outrage, there was no reason at all to phrase it that way... i corrected their bullshit & provided what the bill actually says ----------------- "conservative media you supposedly watch* has been covering trans extremism for years now... young children... not competent to make significant life-altering decisions about their gender" the "covering" includes massive lying (just like on "CRT")... young children are NOT having -surgeries- at huge rates, it would be extremely rare... your lying media acts like the majority of young trans kids are doing life-altering things when it's overwhelmingly just names/clothing when young, nothing permanent at all i would say the main issue would be just the puberty blockers & what long term effects they have (& not an issue i care about enough to delve into research that i know isn't well settled) just stop the lying
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jun 12 11:30:44 & also the weird 'grooming' shit... rainbow flag in a school!?!?!?! grooming!
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 12 11:33:43 "We should be affirming our children in every possible way" This person should be jailed and sterilized.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: