Conquer Club

Funkyterrance wrote:
So you would prefer the guy was treated with solely psychiatric help instead? That may end up costing more in the long run.

Sure... he can participate in group therapy in prison. I got no problem with that.
I certainly don't think we should provide specialized individual psychiatric care to murderers.

Funkyterrance wrote:You don't think it is a real condition? I don't think the guy would fake a thing like this, considering the cure...

A) No I don't. Not at least in the same sense that cancer is a medical condition or a burst appendix is a medical condition.

B) I never said he was "faking" it. I believe that he believes he's a "woman in a man's body". Of course the facts of life state that he's a man [edit]. Just because someone believes that they are something doesn't make it so.

I bet there are thousands of people who think that they are Jesus reincarnated. Does their honest intense believe make it true? Does their honest intense believe require that I bend knee to worship these deluded people?

Funkyterrance wrote:He may be in imminent danger if he truly believes he is a woman trapped in a man's body.

How so? From himself??? That's a false argument. From other inmates??? A red herring.

Funkyterrance wrote:How would you feel if you woke up tomorrow and were trapped in a woman's body?
No way you would think of offing yourself if you thought there was no way to reverse it?

False argument. Assuming he would want to kill himself if he couldn't get this "treatment"... that still does not make it reasonable to expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. What if I decide I want to kill myself because I can't provide for my family the lifestyle they "deserve". Let's say I am providing a nice middle-class life... but I see all my friends doing better, and I decide to kill myself cause I can't "keep up". Does this mean that the Gov't should provide me with the fund to allow me to "keep up" with the Joneses? No!

Funkyterrance wrote:According to the information given, there is a law saying the guy deserves treatment, otherwise the case would never have come to trial or more importantly he wouldn't have won. I think it's funny how some people think that the legal system should magically change once something happens that they don't agree with.

Ever hear the phrase "The Law is an Ass"?

Just because the doctors in this case and the legal system in Massachusetts made this ruling... this does NOT MAKE IT THE RIGHT ruling. In fact... as a citizen of this country (and state) it is at least my right (and possibly my obligation) to complain and argue against things the Gov't does that I don't like.

Funkyterrance wrote:You live in the USA so you implicitly agree to any rulings, like it or not.

THIS HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS ANYONE HAS EVER 'SAID' ON HERE.

Please explain your logic here... LOL!

This has got t

JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of whom are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred, but can't go along with your phobias.

Don't be silly.

Sym

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

Sym

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

Sym

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

You consider transgender issues to be a fetish? What do you mean?

Why didn't people raise money to pay for his surgery?

Wouldn't that have been a better option?

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

Actually, those two sentences together really are, in my opinion, a view of hatred. Perhaps you didn't mean to call it a fetish?

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

Sym

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

You consider transgender issues to be a fetish? What do you mean?

... a standard definition of the word fetish... the first one I found on an online definition search

fet·ish   [fet-ish, fee-tish]
noun
1. an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.
2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.
3. Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

I think that believing oneself to be a woman (when nature has created you as a man) seems to be an idea that elicits unquestioning reverence" from the person with this "condition".

Woodruff wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

Actually, those two sentences together really are, in my opinion, a view of hatred. Perhaps you didn't mean to call it a fetish?

Perhaps I am expanding the "definition" of the term fetish a bit.

I'm not expanding it as much as the judge in the case expanded the idea of what is or isn't "crual and unusual".

jimboston wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:You live in the USA so you implicitly agree to any rulings, like it or not.

THIS HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS ANYONE HAS EVER 'SAID' ON HERE.

Please explain your logic here... LOL!

I'm not sure you deserve an explanation since you are so loudmouthed that all you hear is yourself. You tell me what I said is one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said on the site and follow up with "please explain"? You're acting like a petulant kid.
I'm guessing you are the type of person who when an elected official does something that comes under public scrutiny you respond with: "Well I didn't vote for him".

jimboston, keep any more transphobia out of this thread. It will not be tolerated.

--rdsrds2120

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

Actually, those two sentences together really are, in my opinion, a view of hatred. Perhaps you didn't mean to call it a fetish?

Perhaps I am expanding the "definition" of the term fetish a bit.

I'm not expanding it as much as the judge in the case expanded the idea of what is or isn't "crual and unusual".

See what you did there? Instead of discussing whether it was appropriate for the government to pay for the surgery, your opinions are now invalidated because you used the word "fetish" (and I suppose other words, since I saw a big, red, bold edit up in one of those posts). Now the attention is on something other than what we were discussing before. Awesome.

Too bad, you were holding your own for a little while there. Got to control that temper, m8, now we've seen your cards.
I would like to come back to my "stupidest statement ever on cc". Would you not agree that that judge was appointed by a system that you inherently agree to by living in the USA/Mass. You can do your part to try and get something like this to not happen again but to argue that it was the "wrong" decision is incorrect, assuming you are willingly an American/Massachusetts citizen.

thegreekdog wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

Actually, those two sentences together really are, in my opinion, a view of hatred. Perhaps you didn't mean to call it a fetish?

Perhaps I am expanding the "definition" of the term fetish a bit.

I'm not expanding it as much as the judge in the case expanded the idea of what is or isn't "crual and unusual".

See what you did there? Instead of discussing whether it was appropriate for the government to pay for the surgery, your opinions are now invalidated because you used the word "fetish" (and I suppose other words, since I saw a big, red, bold edit up in one of those posts). Now the attention is on something other than what we were discussing before. Awesome.

Too bad JB, you were holding your own for a little while there. Got to control that temper, m8, now we've seen your cards.
I would like to come back to my "stupidest statement ever on cc". Would you not agree that that judge was appointed by a system that you inherently agree to by living in the USA/Mass. You can do your part to try and get something like this to not happen again but to argue that it was the "wrong" decision is incorrect, assuming you are willingly an American/Massachusetts citizen.

thegreekdog wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

Actually, those two sentences together really are, in my opinion, a view of hatred. Perhaps you didn't mean to call it a fetish?

Perhaps I am expanding the "definition" of the term fetish a bit.

I'm not expanding it as much as the judge in the case expanded the idea of what is or isn't "crual and unusual".

See what you did there? Instead of discussing whether it was appropriate for the government to pay for the surgery, your opinions are now invalidated because you used the word "fetish" (and I suppose other words, since I saw a big, red, bold edit up in one of those posts). Now the attention is on something other than what we were discussing before. Awesome.

I don't know that his opinions are invalidated, but it does perhaps make me question the rationale being them a bit more than I might otherwise have (even though his end-conclusion isn't dissimilar to mine).

Funkyterrance wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:You live in the USA so you implicitly agree to any rulings, like it or not.

THIS HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS ANYONE HAS EVER 'SAID' ON HERE.

Please explain your logic here... LOL!

I'm not sure you deserve an explanation since you are so loudmouthed that all you hear is yourself. You tell me what I said is one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said on the site and follow up with "please explain"? You're acting like a petulant kid.
I'm guessing you are the type of person who when an elected official does something that comes under public scrutiny you respond with: "Well I didn't vote for him".

Because your comment is stupid.

rdsrds2120 wrote:jimboston, keep any more transphobia out of this thread. It will not be tolerated.

--rdsrds2120

F**K O*F

Ban me!

thegreekdog wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:JB, your bile at transgendered people in this thread has kind of burned out. Don't keep bumping this thread anymore. Folks have explained why you're wrong, many of which are sympathetic in various ways to your weird hatred.

Don't be silly.

I don't hate transgendered. I just don't want to pay for their fetish.

Actually, those two sentences together really are, in my opinion, a view of hatred. Perhaps you didn't mean to call it a fetish?

Perhaps I am expanding the "definition" of the term fetish a bit.

I'm not expanding it as much as the judge in the case expanded the idea of what is or isn't "crual and unusual".

See what you did there? Instead of discussing whether it was appropriate for the government to pay for the surgery, your opinions are now invalidated because you used the word "fetish" (and I suppose other words, since I saw a big, red, bold edit up in one of those posts). Now the attention is on something other than what we were discussing before. Awesome.

Sorry.

It's just so stupid on the face of it... I can't both to argue the logic, since there is none.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:See what you did there? Instead of discussing whether it was appropriate for the government to pay for the surgery, your opinions are now invalidated because you used the word "fetish" (and I suppose other words, since I saw a big, red, bold edit up in one of those posts). Now the attention is on something other than what we were discussing before. Awesome.

I don't know that his opinions are invalidated, but it does perhaps make me question the rationale being them a bit more than I might otherwise have (even though his end-conclusion isn't dissimilar to mine).

See the thing is that the "you're a bigot" argument is just another example of the "race card".

These ulta-Libs are trying (apparently successfully) to distract from the main point.

I don't go out looking for Tranpeople to beat-up. I don't go out looking for Tranpeople to insult. I don't look at Tranpeople funny when I see them walking down the street. I'm not a hateful person.

However I also should not be forced to pay for their decisions.

That pisses me off. So f*ck them!

If super-mod RDRS bans me... well so be it.

BYE.

You won't be seeing me again.

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:See what you did there? Instead of discussing whether it was appropriate for the government to pay for the surgery, your opinions are now invalidated because you used the word "fetish" (and I suppose other words, since I saw a big, red, bold edit up in one of those posts). Now the attention is on something other than what we were discussing before. Awesome.

I don't know that his opinions are invalidated, but it does perhaps make me question the rationale being them a bit more than I might otherwise have (even though his end-conclusion isn't dissimilar to mine).

See the thing is that the "you're a bigot" argument is just another example of the "race card".
These ulta-Libs are trying (apparently successfully) to distract from the main point.
I don't go out looking for Tranpeople to beat-up. I don't go out looking for Tranpeople to insult. I don't look at Tranpeople funny when I see them walking down the street. I'm not a hateful person.
However I also should not be forced to pay for their decisions.
That pisses me off. So f*ck them!

Uh...I didn't call you a bigot. I don't think you're a bigot. But the statements of yours that I did point out would seem to call your motivations into question a bit, in my view.

Woodruff wrote:

jimboston wrote:
See the thing is that the "you're a bigot" argument is just another example of the "race card".
These ulta-Libs are trying (apparently successfully) to distract from the main point.
I don't go out looking for Tranpeople to beat-up. I don't go out looking for Tranpeople to insult. I don't look at Tranpeople funny when I see them walking down the street. I'm not a hateful person.
However I also should not be forced to pay for their decisions.
That pisses me off. So f*ck them!

Uh...I didn't call you a bigot. I don't think you're a bigot. But the statements of yours that I did point out would seem to call your motivations into question a bit, in my view.

I was quoting you and Greek... but primarily addressing the comments of others.

I was posting fast... as I expect a ban any moment.
Once that comes I am gone for good.

I have no problem with Transpeople.

However, we as a society have taken things too far.
(I was going to say we've taken "acceptance" too far, but people will jump on me and call me a bigot for that.)

What I mean (when I say society has taken things "too far") is that the idea that we should even consider this guy's request... and give the idea of the State paying for his surgery consideration, thus validating the argument... is in my mind already taking things too far.

Once we (society) accepts the premise that this is a "legitimate medical need"... on par with broken bones, heart disease, and infections.... we have already lost the argument. Of course if you out this condition on par with valid medical needs then you essentially HAVE to provide treatment.

(Though of course we could argue about what the treatment should be... but then we're making the wrong argument. You've already lost.)

I am NOT saying that transpeople are bad. I am NOT saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want to do to/with their own bodies. I am NOT saying I hate or dislike transpeople. (Though I DO reserve the RIGHT to associate with and socialize with people I want, who share similar lifestyles, values, etc.) Of course I think transpeople should be free to do whatever they want...SO LONG AS THEY DON'T INFRINGE ON MY LIFE OR RIGHTS. I am moderately Libertarian. So f**cking do whatever you want... just don't bug me.

Once this guy asks me to PAY FOR THIS "TREATMENT" then he is infringing on my life and my rights... and so YES, I am going to tell him to **** Off!

I don't think that a decision to modify one's body is a medical necessity.... and I DO NOT CARE if some doctors call this a "condition" and consider body modification a "treatment". It's absolutely NOT A MEDICAL NECESSITY.

I shouldn't pay for it.

The thing is with all your huffing and puffing JB you seem to be in the minory, not only on these forums but in the political mode of your home state as well(liberal). Maybe you should consider moving to Albania where you might be more happy?

Funkyterrance wrote:The thing is with all your huffing and puffing JB you seem to be in the minory, not only on these forums but in the political mode of your home state as well(liberal). Maybe you should consider moving to Albania where you might be more happy?

Apparently not only do you type a lot of stupid nonsense... but you also don't know how to read polls.

I'm not in the minority.

jimboston wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:The thing is with all your huffing and puffing JB you seem to be in the minory, not only on these forums but in the political mode of your home state as well(liberal). Maybe you should consider moving to Albania where you might be more happy?

Apparently not only do you type a lot of stupid nonsense... but you also don't know how to read polls.

I'm not in the minority.

Let me get this straight...
You are arguing that Mass. is not a liberal state? You're kidding right?
If you are talking about polls regarding this specific case they don't mean squat lol. What matters is the infrastructure currently in place.

jim, we get it, ok? You think you know better than medical professionals what is and is not a legitimate condition. You've made your point. Being a know-it-all even if you have no fucking clue is normal behaviour on the internet.

I'm still going to trust the medical opinion of a physician who's studied medicine over your medical opinion.