[johnwk]

Largo official preparing for sex change(LINK) but the real question is: who is to pay for the operation for Steve to become Suzy……..the taxpayers?

I suspect the city employees’ benefit package could very well pay for the Steve to Suzy thing.

You really think its outlandish ? Truth is, the homo crowd has been pushing for taxpayer funded sex changes for quite some time. For example, the State of Washington has already funded a number of sex-change operations (LINK).

And in Wisconsin the ACLU sues over sex-change ban (LINK) in which the state discontinued funding a sex change operation for an inmate in jail!

I could care less if Steve wants to be Suzy and pays for it, but when the public gets taxed for the Steve to Suzy thing, that my friend is a very, very different matter!

What say you?


Regards,

JWK

[Mithras]

Well, I don't think "wants" is quite the appropriate verb here. He has a condition such that the gender of his brain and that of the rest of his body don't match. It's not like he woke up and said, "hey, might be neat to be a woman."

Anyhow, what's relevant here is what the city as an employer wants to do.

Here's an article on employer coverage for sex change surgery. Looks like it's still pretty rare for employers to pay for it, but those that do have had their policy work for them:
SAN FRANCISCO / More U.S. employers cover sex transition surgery / Large corporations follow city's lead in offering benefit

When San Francisco became the first major American employer known to offer comprehensive coverage for gender transitions in 2001, some city officials feared that people who wanted to transition would flock here for work and bankrupt the city's insurance fund. But it turned out that covering transition surgeries and other treatment -- which can cost more than $50,000 -- cost the city relatively little, because there was no flood of claims.
General Motors, IBM, Eastman Kodak and Hallmark Cards, as well as the universities of Michigan and California, now include transition-related coverage in their standard employee benefits.
"We took a look at it, the cost was negligible and we said it was the right thing to do," said David Kaffnoff, a spokesman for Eastman Kodak in Rochester, N.Y. "We don't sit here in any judgment on how a person chooses to self-identify."

[OldManMac]

The "homo crowd?" What "crowd" do you belong to; the "pure white righteous you're okay as long as you're with me" crowd? Me senses a little unconscious anger there, towards maybe 1/10 of 1% of the population (and that's being generous). Why dost thou feel so threatened?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Why does sex change have to be on the public tab?

You desire it? Save up and pay for it yourself, like just about every other operation that was designed because you feel like your body was not the one you deserved (Tummy tuck, Liposuction, Boob job, hair restoration, ect...)

I'm sorry you don't feel like you were supposed to have a penis, why must I pay for it?

[OldManMac]

Let's throw caution to the wind and say there are 1,000 people who have this surgery done every year (and that's no doubt way high), and it costs $100,000 to do the operation. That would equal about $100 million dollars. The United States population broke the 300 million mark not to long ago. Send me your address, and I'll send you a check for the $00.33. You no doubt piss that away on a regular basis, but it's much easier, and probably more satisfying to your ego, to pick on "the homo crowd," as they're a much easier target than having to do some introspection and wondering what you could do to make yourself a better person.

[stupendousman]

My brain tells despite having an overhanging gut, that I can't seem to get rid of with diet and excercise, I was meant to have a flat stomach. My condition makes it intolerable for me to live with my body in it's current state. Therefore, the state or my employer should be required to fund surgery to fix my problem.

Fair is fair.

There's also the fact that I was born with the notion that despite the fact that I'm short, I was meant (and I feel it deep down inside) to be an NBA B-ball player. I feel it in my soul. Making that belief come true should be tacked onto the tab as well.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Let's throw caution to the wind and say there are 1,000 people who have this surgery done every year (and that's no doubt way high), and it costs $100,000 to do the operation. That would equal about $100 million dollars. The United States population broke the 300 million mark not to long ago. Send me your address, and I'll send you a check for the $00.33. You no doubt piss that away on a regular basis, but it's much easier, and probably more satisfying to your ego, to pick on "the homo crowd," as they're a much easier target than having to do some introspection and wondering what you could do to make yourself a better person.

Right so anytime I want to blow a hundred mil to make myself feel better you'll send me the money?

Give me a break.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The "homo crowd?" What "crowd" do you belong to; the "pure white righteous you're okay as long as you're with me" crowd? Me senses a little unconscious anger there, towards maybe 1/10 of 1% of the population (and that's being generous). Why dost thou feel so threatened?

A little pretentious there aren’t you? I belong to the crowd that is sick and tire of paying for other people’s economic needs. And, I bet the taxpayers, Mary and Joe Sixpack living in Largo and paying taxes there, who can barely pay for their own catastrophic health care premiums, will be forced to pay for the frivolous sex change for Steve, because Steve is part of the government folk crowd in Largo and government folk think the people they tax are their personal cash cow.

I do know Largo's City Manager [Steve who wants to be Suzy] has a taxpayer paid health care plan. I'm trying to find out if the sex change is covered and I imagine it is knowing the City Council is homosexual and transgender friendly.


JWK


The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Let's throw caution to the wind and say there are 1,000 people who have this surgery done every year (and that's no doubt way high), and it costs $100,000 to do the operation. That would equal about $100 million dollars. The United States population broke the 300 million mark not to long ago. Send me your address, and I'll send you a check for the $00.33. You no doubt piss that away on a regular basis, but it's much easier, and probably more satisfying to your ego, to pick on "the homo crowd," as they're a much easier target than having to do some introspection and wondering what you could do to make yourself a better person.

So, because they're different, they should get special treatment, is that what you're saying? Equality is equality. If they get $100k for their treatment, everyone should be allowed to get $100k for their life improving procedure.

[Chuckit]

Would they be equally willing to just fork the money over to me because my brain tells me I was meant to be rich?

[Mithras]

KarlG's thought experiment is well borne out by the fact that when San Francisco first started its policy of covering such operations, it charged each city employee an extra $1.33 a year to build up a reserve pool. After a few years, the insurance companies themselves saw that there were very few surgeries, so they decided to absorb the cost. San Francisco cancelled the fee.

[johnwk]

QUESTION:

Can Steve’s wife and little boy sue him for mental trauma? He already admitted he wanted to be Suzy when he was a little boy and yet married and had a child!
This dude is on piece of work, thinking about himself and not his wife and 13 year old son.

JWK

[The Godfather]

Steve's work paid for the health insurance, not the taxpayers. And the health insurance company is paying for the operation (minus the deductible), not the taxpayers.

Any whiners should direct their anger to ensuring that only health insurance who sex-discriminate sell their packages to gov employees. They have no business getting in between a worthy worker and his promised pay+benefits.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My brain tells despite having an overhanging gut, that I can't seem to get rid of with diet and excercise, I was meant to have a flat stomach. My condition makes it intolerable for me to live with my body in it's current state. Therefore, the state or my employer should be required to fund surgery to fix my problem.

Fair is fair.

Gastric bypass surgery is covered by a some health plans, so its not too late.

It's up to the employer to decide what benefits they will offer in a free market economy--not public opinion. It doesn't matter what those benefits are and its up to the prospective employee to decide if those benefits are sufficient to take the job. Do you think a bonus offered to you for a job well done should be voted on or approved by the public? There are many executives out there getting hundred million dollar pay packages and you're worried about this?

I think those that are opposed to this are disturbed by sex change operations and "the homo crowd" in general and are just looking for a way to express their bigotry. (By the way, heterosexual people get sex change operations also -- so I'm sorry, its not just the "homos")

[lpkmckenna]

Godfather introduces some rationality into the discussion. ++

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Gastric bypass surgery is covered by a some health plans, so its not too late.

It's up to the employer to decide what benefits they will offer in a free market economy--not public opinion. It doesn't matter what those benefits are and its up to the prospective employee to decide if those benefits are sufficient to take the job. Do you think a bonus offered to you for a job well done should be voted on or approved by the public? There are many executives out there getting hundred million dollar pay packages and you're worried about this?

I think those that are opposed to this are disturbed by sex change operations and "the homo crowd" in general and are just looking for a way to express their bigotry. (By the way, heterosexual people get sex change operations also -- so I'm sorry, its not just the "homos")

Thank you. They have to something to worry about besides making themselves better. As I've often said, the "homo crowd" (no prejudice there, no sirreee) is just such an easy target as you can always find another bigot to agree with you. It never ceases to amaze how such a large fraction of the population allows their thoughts and actions to be controlled by such a tiny fraction.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

Steve's work paid for the health insurance, not the taxpayers. And the health insurance company is paying for the operation (minus the deductible), not the taxpayers.

This is what the OP completely misses. The taxpayers aren't paying for the operation. Instead he just brushes aside this point and uses it for bashing purposes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Would they be equally willing to just fork the money over to me because my brain tells me I was meant to be rich?

Maybe if being rich involved having your dick torn off and spending the rest of your life being judged as an unattractive woman.

P.S. I'm guessing with the unattractive part.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Gastric bypass surgery is covered by a some health plans, so its not too late.

True, but my problem isn't that I'm not overweight, which would solve the health issue involved with a GB. I just have some extra fat around my stomach that I can't get rid of (even with excercise) that looks like flab. Some 3rd party funded liposuction and maybe a tummy tuck is what I need to get my mind right.

It's up to the employer to decide what benefits they will offer in a free market economy--not public opinion.

True, but if the employer is the government, then it's taxpayers footing the bill for this sort of stuff.

I think those that are opposed to this are disturbed by sex change operations and "the homo crowd" in general and are just looking for a way to express their bigotry. (By the way, heterosexual people get sex change operations also -- so I'm sorry, its not just the "homos")

True about heterosexual and sex changes, but I'm opposed on the grounds that people who are mentally disturbed shouldn't be going under the knife and especially that taxpayers should ever have to pay for it. I don't think that's the "healing" that Doctor's take an oath to provide really takes place in this situations. It's like putting a band aid on a wound that requires a tourniquet.

The latest I've been hearing about are the people who believe that their limbs are ugly so they require amputation. Sick people need to be get full-time mental help - not enabled and told that their sickness is justified by damaging their body, and taxpayers surely shouldn't have to pay for this sort of non-help.

[OldManMac]

Let me get this straight; you're saying that people who decide they want to change genders are mentally disturbed?

[Pierre Capretz II]

Glad to see Karl G, the bitter geriatric is back. i feel sorry for any subjected to the consequence of your vicinity. your rocking chair, depends and ensure await you

[OldManMac]

Aw, you're so clever. I'll bet you stayed up all night, thinking that up, and creaming your jeans in glee, over how you were going to put me down. Sad little child, whoever you are.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Let me get this straight; you're saying that people who decide they want to change genders are mentally disturbed?

Are people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, suffering from some kind of mental condition?

Undoubtedly.

There is no other rational explanation. Of course, like a lot of mental illness, it could be caused by physical factors such as a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality. Then of course we should be looking at ways to treat/cure that and not act as enablers for people who wish to do themselves harm.

[Snow-i]

Actually, stupendousman....i don't think its any of our business to keep them from changing themselves.

I do believe though, that it should not be our burden to pay for it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Are people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, suffering from some kind of mental condition?

Undoubtedly.

There is no other rational explanation. Of course, like a lot of mental illness, it could be caused by physical factors such as a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality. Then of course we should be looking at ways to treat/cure that and not act as enablers for people who wish to do themselves harm.

You've never heard of hermaphrodites, have you? What "harm" does it do to a person who believes they are one sex, and want to change to another, when they actually do it?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You've never heard of hermaphrodites, have you?

You mean people who suffer from birth defects which cause their genitals to be misformed? Sure. I don't have a problem with someone being born with birth defects forcing them to have dual sex organs to pick a single gender in order for them to be able to better fit in with society. The problem is that they have an actual physical abnormality which they chose to try to better fit the norm. Not that they IMAGINE a physical abnormality and alter their normal body via mutilation to fit the picture their mental disorder causes. Apples and oranges.

What "harm" does it do to a person who believes they are one sex, and want to change to another, when they actually do it?

Well first, it's a LIE that you can change from one sex to another and I think that actually living a lie isn't any better FEELING as though you are living a lie. A lie is a lie. You can sort of APPEAR to be another sex, but you aren't really that opposite sex. You can put a Ferrari body on a Volkswagen, and externally it might appear to be a Ferrari, but if you really get under the hood, it's clear that it's not really a Ferrari but simply a fraud. You do no one a service by pretending that fraud is valid.

Second, it does no harm to me or other third parties, so I don't think there should be laws against it or regulations to stop it. Does it harm their bodies? Sure. Ripping organs off of your body due to mental disorders can't rationally be seen any other way. But can they still lead productive lives with their mental disorders, have their body mutilations done and not adversely effect others? Sure. As long as taxpayers don't have to pay for the fraud.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Actually, stupendousman....i don't think its any of our business to keep them from changing themselves.

I do believe though, that it should not be our burden to pay for it.

Oh..don't get me wrong. I AGREE WITH YOU. People should be allowed to do with their bodies what they choose (as long as it doesn't directly effect others - like drinking then driving).

My main point was the funding. But I also think that we as a society should be honest with people and not act as enablers by inferring that someone with a penis at any point will ever actually become a women via a scalpel (or vice versa). I don't think it does anyone any good by pretending, officially or unofficially. Pretending to be a women doesn't stop being pretending just because a doctor cuts off your man parts.

Sorry.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

But I also think that we as a society should be honest with people and not act as enablers by inferring that someone with a penis at any point will ever actually become a women via a scalpel (or vice versa). I don't think it does anyone any good by pretending, officially or unofficially.

But I also think that we as a society should mind our own business. I don't think it does anyone any good to interfere.

[Snow-i]

"interfering" is not an appropriate word when its our dime footing the bill.

Then it becomes our business.....read my previous post...here i'll quote it for you.

Actually, stupendousman....i don't think its any of our business to keep them from changing themselves.

I do believe though, that it should not be our burden to pay for it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

But I also think that we as a society should mind our own business. I don't think it does anyone any good to interfere.

..and I already stated that there should be nothing to stop people from doing whatever they want with their bodies.

Whether or not someone wants to alter their bodies is there business, but myself as an individual or even the state as an entity should not be required to acknowledge an illogical claim (that altering someone's body makes them the opposite sex) as logical and accept it as "official" in the eyes of the law. My wife for instance, should not have to have her privacy violated by having surgically altered men using the same restroom as they do and have this protected by law. It violates her right to privacy, does nothing to help the man with a clear mental disorder become cured, and puts into law the acceptance of fraud as something that rationally equality.

[OldManMac]

Well, it looks like his decision cost him his job, even though he's been highly regarded in it for quite some time. It's amazing what some people get threatened by.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/28/cit....ap/index.html

[Snow-i]

He should certainly not be fired over this.

Thats sad...

[Mithras]

Well, now we're certainly seeing the flip side of things. Ugly.

[The Godfather]

With Cobra, he'll be able to remain in the group insurance (by paying the formerly state-paid premium) and go through with the operation. Now Largo is down a good City Officer, just to save a few insurance bucks.

[OldManMac]

He isn't being fired to save insurance money. He's being fired because, all of a sudden he doesn't have the character, integrity, the trust, the character, and the confidence to do the job. It's funny, but he had it a couple of weeks ago. Talk about narrow minded bigots! Then again, he's undoubtedly mentally ill.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

He isn't being fired to save insurance money. He's being fired because, all of a sudden he doesn't have the character, integrity, the trust, the character, and the confidence to do the job. It's funny, but he had it a couple of weeks ago. Talk about narrow minded bigots! Then again, he's undoubtedly mentally ill.

So, you don't support the argument that taxpayers should not be economically burdened by Steve's insurance premiums, that the only reason to fire him is integrity? Are you also stating that all transexuals are mentally ill?
I'd like to know how this City Manager was un-satisfactory in his job performance.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

So, you don't support the argument that taxpayers should not be economically burdened by Steve's insurance premiums, that the only reason to fire him is integrity?

Did it say anywhere that his insurance was to pay for this? I couldn't find that anyhwere skimming the news articles.

I'm torn about the firing though. If someone does a good job, it shouldn't matter if they have a penis growing out of their head - they should be allowed to do their job. On the other hand if you've got a person in a high profile position leading others, who clearly suffers from some kind of mental imbalance to the point where they are going to engage in some major body multilation, I think it would be hard to maintain a normal work environment for everyone else. I'd normally be right on the side of his firing being totally wrong if he was just a guy doing a job at a desk, and not the manager of an entire city. There are laws against firing people who suffer some kind of disability, and this very well might fall under this category, though I'm sure there are loopholes for when the disability causes unreasonable demands to make for a normal work environment for everyone else.

Are you also stating that all transexuals are mentally ill?

I think that was sarcasm pointed my way, due to the fact that he apparently disagrees with my claim that people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, are clearly suffering from some kind of mental disorder.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Did it say anywhere that his insurance was to pay for this? I couldn't find that anyhwere skimming the news articles.

I'm torn about the firing though. If someone does a good job, it shouldn't matter if they have a penis growing out of their head - they should be allowed to do their job. On the other hand if you've got a person in a high profile position leading others, who clearly suffers from some kind of mental imbalance to the point where they are going to engage in some major body multilation, I think it would be hard to maintain a normal work environment for everyone else. I'd normally be right on the side of his firing being totally wrong if he was just a guy doing a job at a desk, and not the manager of an entire city. There are laws against firing people who suffer some kind of disability, and this very well might fall under this category, though I'm sure there are loopholes for when the disability causes unreasonable demands to make for a normal work environment for everyone else.



I think that was sarcasm pointed my way, due to the fact that he apparently disagrees with my claim that people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, are clearly suffering from some kind of mental disorder.

More often than not, employers give you a group insurance benefit, paying your premium, but you have to pay for your family. The employer sees absolutely no added expense whether you choose to use your insurance. Employees pay the deductibles, which Mr Stanton would have no trouble with, since he makes over 100k per annum.

If anyone could have the power to overturn this surgery, that'd be United Healthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield, or whatever insurance they are using.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think that was sarcasm pointed my way, due to the fact that he apparently disagrees with my claim that people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, are clearly suffering from some kind of mental disorder.

Bingo! Please tell me you're an expert in genetics and psychology and psychiatry, and what makes people decide do do what they do and believe why they believe. It wasn't that far back in history when people burned their neighbors at the stake for being witches. I'd like to think we've learned something since then, but I suppose, just like then, there are people who have the definitive answers on everything.

[BRussell]

So let me get this straight.

1. A guy wants a sex change, that the taxpayers WOULD NOT pay for.
2. Conservatives complain that a guy is getting a sex change that taxpayers would pay for, despite the fact that that's false. They claim he's free to do what he wants, as long as the taxpayers don't pay for it.
3. In the mean time, conservatives do complain that they actually want the guy fired, taxpayers or no.
4. Guy is fired.

Why does it seem like this is the pattern so many things take when they involve whiny, mean-spirited conservatives? "We're not assholes like it seems, we're just advocating conservative principles," they claim. And then it turns out that, no, they're just assholes like we suspected all along.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Please tell me you're an expert in genetics and psychology and psychiatry, and what makes people decide do do what they do and believe why they believe.

Okay..I'm an expert. What's next?

It wasn't that far back in history when people burned their neighbors at the stake for being witches. I'd like to think we've learned something since then, but I suppose, just like then, there are people who have the definitive answers on everything.

We still have people figuratively being "burned at the stake". Look at what's happening to the "global warming deniers". The problems lies with people who wish to use science or reason for their own political or personal gains. Often times "definitive answers" are simply what's the most politically expedient. Common sense though should allow us (just as it should have back in Salem) to be able to see nonsense and call others on it. That's all I've done here

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So let me get this straight.

1. A guy wants a sex change, that the taxpayers WOULD NOT pay for.
2. Conservatives complain that a guy is getting a sex change that taxpayers would pay for, despite the fact that that's false. They claim he's free to do what he wants, as long as the taxpayers don't pay for it.
3. In the mean time, conservatives do complain that they actually want the guy fired, taxpayers or no.
4. Guy is fired.

Why does it seem like this is the pattern so many things take when they involve whiny, mean-spirited conservatives? "We're not assholes like it seems, we're just advocating conservative principles," they claim. And then it turns out that, no, they're just assholes like we suspected all along.

1. Initially it was reported that it would be on the taxpayers dime.
2. We've argued that he can do whatever he wants as long as the government isn't paying for it.
3. Where does it say that conservatives want him fired? Infact, the first post in response to the news he could be fired from a conservative says "thats sad..."
4. He hasn't been fired yet, according to the linked article...there are still another two steps to go through before he gets the boot.

Why don't you get your facts right before you stereotype people's beliefs? Or are you on too high a horse to do that? Why do you ignore conservative's views that support him in office?

-1 Credibility point for you.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Okay..I'm an expert. What's next?



We still have people figuratively being "burned at the stake". Look at what's happening to the "global warming deniers". The problems lies with people who wish to use science or reason for their own political or personal gains. Often times "definitive answers" are simply what's the most politically expedient. Common sense though should allow us (just as it should have back in Salem) to be able to see nonsense and call others on it. That's all I've done here

What you've done is define common sense according what you believe it is, based on your belief that everyone should see things that way. There is no such thing as "common sense." That's a construct that is useful for one thing, and one thing only, and that is backing up arguments that you want to win, based on how you see the world. You were raised and socialized in a certain way, and that's how you came to your definition of common sense. Others were raised/socialized differently, and have different perceptions, and have their own views as to what "common sense" is. The people who burned witches were no doubt adamant that they had the common sense to recognize when their neighbor was a witch, and unfortunately for the neighbor, they were wrong. It was "common sense" at one time for some medical doctors to practice bloodletting, whereby they believed they could cure illnesses by letting bad blood out of the body. These doctors were looked upon as learned men, yet their "common sense" killed people unnecessarily. It was common sense that once had people believing that the world was flat. It was common sense that once had people believing that black people were inferior in intelligence. It was once common sense that people would never be able to fly in a contraption like an airplane. It is not "common sense" that transgendered people are mentally ill or disturbed. Unless you know something that the vast majority of us don't, you can't make that statement. You can believe it if you want to, and there's probably no one going to change your mind, just like the Salem witch burners, but that doesn't make it fact. Life isn't as black and white as you'd like to believe it is.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

1. Initially it was reported that it would be on the taxpayers dime.
2. We've argued that he can do whatever he wants as long as the government isn't paying for it.
3. Where does it say that conservatives want him fired? Infact, the first post in response to the news he could be fired from a conservative says "thats sad..."
4. He hasn't been fired yet, according to the linked article...there are still another two steps to go through before he gets the boot.

Why don't you get your facts right before you stereotype people's beliefs? Or are you on too high a horse to do that? Why do you ignore conservative's views that support him in office?

-1 Credibility point for you.

1. No it wasn't. That was invented by the original poster.
2. Yes, that's what you've argued. That was my point.
3. Read the article about him getting fired. The city had received hundreds of emails calling for him to be fired. Are you telling me those weren't conservatives? Please.
4. That's quite an argument - they haven't yet finished firing him.

I acknowledge that you said that he shouldn't have been fired, and my hat's off to you for saying that. Hopefully you and other conservatives will change my mind about you, but it hasn't happened yet.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

1. No it wasn't. That was invented by the original poster.
2. Yes, that's what you've argued. That was my point.
3. Read the article about him getting fired. The city had received hundreds of emails calling for him to be fired. Are you telling me those weren't conservatives? Please.
4. That's quite an argument - they haven't yet finished firing him.

I acknowledge that you said that he shouldn't have been fired, and my hat's off to you for saying that. Hopefully you and other conservatives will change my mind about you, but it hasn't happened yet.

One thing i will never do is change my mind about you. You are just as bad as the people you talk down on. You hate people that belong to a group with different beliefs than you. And instead of rational arguments all you can come up with is that some conservatives don't like the idea of a tranny in office therefore all conservatives must be evil. You don't see me attacking you for the dumb things liberals do (and there are just as many as on my side of the table).

I feel for the guy. I don't agree with what he wants to do but its his life to do with what he wants and its not my place, my right, or any of my business to try and stop him. If he can perform his job adequetly then i see absolutely no reason for him to be fired.

You can bicker conservative this and conservative that but as far as I'm concerned at the end of the day the only ones who win are the politicians who are taking the country to the shitter right under our noses. And as long as people like you BRussell continue the "us vs them" (dems vs repubs) then you won't care who's in office just as long as their from your side.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

One thing i will never do is change my mind about you. You are just as bad as the people you talk down on. You hate people that belong to a group with different beliefs than you. And instead of rational arguments all you can come up with is that some conservatives don't like the idea of a tranny in office therefore all conservatives must be evil. You don't see me attacking you for the dumb things liberals do (and there are just as many as on my side of the table).

I feel for the guy. I don't agree with what he wants to do but its his life to do with what he wants and its not my place, my right, or any of my business to try and stop him. If he can perform his job adequetly then i see absolutely no reason for him to be fired.

You can bicker conservative this and conservative that but as far as I'm concerned at the end of the day the only ones who win are the politicians who are taking the country to the shitter right under our noses. And as long as people like you BRussell continue the "us vs them" (dems vs repubs) then you won't care who's in office just as long as their from your side.

You can whine all you want, but I'll continue to criticize the conservatism that freaks out about guys like this. If that changes, and conservatives get different principles, I'll be the first to call myself one. But in the meantime, tell me you don't see it. Honestly. Tell me you don't see conservatives going after issue upon issue, on gays, on immigration, on poverty and crime, that appeal to our baser and meaner instincts, all the while claiming they're just being principled. Tell me that you don't see that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

What you've done is define common sense according what you believe it is, based on your belief that everyone should see things that way. There is no such thing as "common sense."

Accepting basic principles of logic is "common sense". Throwing out logic in order to achieve some sort of political or moral means is an example of not using common sense. Logic has rules and laws. Logic isn't based on opinion. When you can find someone who can make a logical argument that people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, are not suffering from some kind of disorder let me know.

It is not "common sense" that transgendered people are mentally ill or disturbed.

You've still failed to explain how these people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, are not suffering from some kind of disorder. Given the fact that their mental condition is:

a. abnormal (effects only a tiny percentage of the population)
b. causes the person in question mental anquish.
c. causes the person in question to want to mutilate their bodies,

it would logically follow that it was an illness, disorder or disturbance in the normal human mental condition.

Unless you can explain how that is not a logical conclusion, you're exhibiting a lack of basic common sense. It has nothing to do with how you or I were conditioned, but rather whether you or I accept sloppy thinking and/or intellectual dishonesty.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Accepting basic principles of logic is "common sense". Throwing out logic in order to achieve some sort of political or moral means is an example of not using common sense. Logic has rules and laws. Logic isn't based on opinion. When you can find someone who can make a logical argument that people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, are not suffering from some kind of disorder let me know.



You've still failed to explain how these people who decide to mutilate their bodies, due to the fact that they believe in their mind that they are something other than what they are, are not suffering from some kind of disorder. Given the fact that their mental condition is:

a. abnormal (effects only a tiny percentage of the population)
b. causes the person in question mental anquish.
c. causes the person in question to want to mutilate their bodies,

it would logically follow that it was an illness, disorder or disturbance in the normal human mental condition.

Unless you can explain how that is not a logical conclusion, you're exhibiting a lack of basic common sense. It has nothing to do with how you or I were conditioned, but rather whether you or I accept sloppy thinking and/or intellectual dishonesty.

Apparently, you've decided to play with semantics. Logic is indeed based on opinion; the opinion of the person putting forth their argument. Logic is based on rules and laws only insofar as the person presenting their argument believes those laws are immutable, and they are not. Logic changes as new circumstances are introduced, to bring new points of view into a discussion, that hadn't been considered before; it always has and it always will. It was once logical to many to conclude that black people were of inferior intelligence and could be owned as property. It was once logical to many people that races shouldn't intermix. It was once purely logical to many that man would never walk on the moon. It was once logical to many that their neighbors were witches and should be burned.

These people aren't "mutliating" their bodies; they are changing them, and I can see why you think they are mutliating them. It's because that's the way the human body has always been, according to your beliefs. Therefore, any change must be a "mutilation" against some sort of design that has always been that way and should always remain that way. This leads me to question whether you believe in the theory of evolution or the the theory of creationism. If you believe in creationism, then there's probably no point in going any further, as it is then quite easy to see why you believe there are rules and laws which govern everything. Of course, the only flaw with believing that logic is based on rules is that, even if we didn't evolve from apes, or whatever else, we'd still be living in caves, grunting, as we'd have no language skills, and wondering, with our limited reasoning skills, where we were going to get our next meal from, as we'd just sit there and logically conclude that life was always this way, and it always would be. After all, that's common sense.

As to your assertion that these people are mentally ill, there is no given fact to prove that. There is a given consensus that these people are different. There is a given consensus that these people are a minority of the population. There is a given consensus that these people want to change their bodies, as they believe they are different than what their physical differences indicate. That doesn't make them mentally ill; it just makes them different. Until it can be specifically proven, without any certainty of doubt, that there isn't some genetic trigger or other event or series of events, which does indeed include socialization, that influences their decision to be different, you can't simply make a blanket statement that they are mentally ill. That kind of thinking was prevalent during Hitler's time, when he wanted to create a master race, because Jews were "different," and therefore "inferior" to the pure Aryan race. Because the largest group of people exterminated in the Holocaust were Jews, it isn't widely discussed that others were included in Germany's madness to create a superior race, but known homosexuals, Gypsies, vagrants, and others who were deemed to be inferior were also sent to the gas chambers, because they were no doubt deemed to be "mentally ill," in the race to eliminate "bad blood" from the Aryan race. When I was a child in Germany, not too long after the war, I was repeadetly smacked on my wrist with a ruler by my kindergaden teacher, because I was left handed. That was verboten, as it was deemed unusual, and different, and it defied logic, and common sense. Consequently, I learned to write with my right hand, but I still do everything else with my left. To my teacher, and to many Germans, it was logical that people should write with their right hand. That, of course, doesn't make any common sense, but that's irrelevant to those people's point of view, as to them it is common sense, and when they see someone who is different, they feel threatened, and that is really what's at the heart of this issue.

I could go on, but I doubt that you're going to change your views; you see everything as concrete and immutable, without even realizing that if it were so, we'd still be living in caves, because that's the way it's always been, and therefore that's the way it should always be. You're just using different words to say the same thing, and that gives no credence whatever to your argument.

There's an old saying that really is true: A mind is like a parachute in that it works best when opened.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Logic is indeed based on opinion; the opinion of the person putting forth their argument.

100% wrong. Logic is based on rules and laws which can be tested and demonstrated the same as any other science. Now, a person can believe (their opinion) that logic is on the side of their argument when it's not. That's the case with any other kind of science (and logic is a science) or math as well. The thing is, an argument can be tested for logic and if the argument can be documented to be based on any testable "logical fallacies", then it's not an "opinion" that the claim is based on a logical fallacy. It simply is. Opinions don't count.

It was once logical to many to conclude that black people were of inferior intelligence and could be owned as property.

Based on what argument NOT containing a logical fallacy? Good luck! I think you're confusing logic with public opinion. They are two separate entities.

These people aren't "mutliating" their bodies; they are changing them, and I can see why you think they are mutliating them. It's because that's the way the human body has always been, according to your beliefs.

Not "according to (my) beliefs", but according to science. It's an easily observed condition. And you can use whatever euphemisms you want for an instance of someone cutting off their normally function organs you want, but irreparably damaging parts of your body which work as they where designed to do is mutilation by any rational sense. Again, you've got to jump into illogical rationalizations in order to justify it any other way.

As to your assertion that these people are mentally ill, there is no given fact to prove that.

I clearly stated my argument, based on ready observations which you don't seem to dispute. Instead, you want to engage in euphemistic semantics in order to gloss over the excesses these people are willing to go toward in order to satisfy their delusions.

Until it can be specifically proven, without any certainty of doubt, that there isn't some genetic trigger or other event or series of events, which does indeed include socialization, that influences their decision to be different, you can't simply make a blanket statement that they are mentally ill.

Either mentally ill, or suffering from a genetic abnormality which causes them delusions to the point where they'd want to mutilate their bodies. I'd guess either would be sufficient to question someone's ability to think rationally. And the invocation of "Godwin's Law" in the parts I've snipped shows how desperate you are to even convince yourself.

I could go on, but I doubt that you're going to change your views; you see everything as concrete and immutable, without even realizing that if it were so, we'd still be living in caves, because that's the way it's always been, and therefore that's the way it should always be. You're just using different words to say the same thing, and that gives no credence whatever to your argument.

I'm using logic. You're apparently going on emotion. I don't have to offer "apples to oranges" comparisons in order to justify my argument and all you have to do to show that my argument is flawed is point out any logical fallacies that are contained in it. If you would like, I'd be glad to document the numerous ones you've offered already.

There's an old saying that really is true: A mind is like a parachute in that it works best when opened.

You would do well to follow your own advice. It's clear that you've made up your mind, and it looks as though it was made up due to your emotional feelings on the subject, and not an unbiased look at the situation at hand.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You can whine all you want, but I'll continue to criticize the conservatism that freaks out about guys like this. If that changes, and conservatives get different principles, I'll be the first to call myself one. But in the meantime, tell me you don't see it. Honestly. Tell me you don't see conservatives going after issue upon issue, on gays, on immigration, on poverty and crime, that appeal to our baser and meaner instincts, all the while claiming they're just being principled. Tell me that you don't see that.

Until you can understand that there are mean-spirited people on both sides of the equation, and that its a human condition not a conservative one, you will continue to fuel the very "mean-spiritedness" you condemn. Have you ever looked for conservatives that you don't neccesarily agree with but respect nonetheless? I can name about 20 people who I utterly disagree with on many issues but still respect because of the way they present their arguments and the way they treat their opposition. These are the people pushing for progress, not just trying to win a petty "we're better than you" argument.

Don't you realize how silly you look when the best argument you can come up with is based on someone's political affiliation?