Stopped_lurking said:

Don't you discuss civics and history in school?

Click to expand...

Yes. That’s part of education.

LGBT+ is not.

Stopped_lurking said:

Absolutely nothing, that would be the first step by counselling/medical team especially if they also express signs of gender dysphoria.

Do they have a positive track record?

Click to expand...

I don’t know. Maybe they have dysphoria because of abuse, or an absent father, or overbearing mother? Or other trauma? Again, I’m not sure. That’s up to unbiased professionals.

essentialsaltes said:

Thousands of immigrants could be eligible for bond hearings, striking down DHS policy: Judge​

A federal judge has struck down a Department of Homeland Security policy implemented in July that forced most immigrants who entered the United States without inspection to remain in detention throughout their removal proceedings.

The decision could potentially allow thousands of immigrants who have been subject to mandatory detention to be released.

On Tuesday, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes in California certified a class granting relief to migrants who “have entered or will enter the United States without inspection” and those who were not initially detained when they came into the country.

[Class actions can still trigger nationwide effects.]

Click to expand...

Another judge over reaching.

A2SG said:

You say it is happening, I say it isn't. I wonder if there's any possible way to resolve this discrepancy?


She seems fine.

-- A2SG, as to those others, maybe you should ask THEM how THEY feel.....

Click to expand...

HE really doesn’t, but we are getting off topic.

If adults decide to be trans, fine.

Just leave minors out of it.

Vambram said:

If judges are allowed to pick and choose federal DA's, then judges are overstepping their roles as judges. The DA must be selected by the Presidents and then approved by the Senate.

Click to expand...

If you are trying to insinuate that the law is unconstitutional, this doesn't actually help you in your claims that the judge was wrong. Because if the law that they tried to use to install Halligan is unconstitutional, then... obviously, they couldn't install Halligan that way (a reasonably straightforward reading of the law also says they can't install Halligan, but the point is if the law is unconstitutional, then they definitely can't install her under it, because it's unconstitutional).

Even if your assertion is that not the whole law is unconstitutional, merely the specific part of the law that allows for the district court to choose the interim attorney after the 120-day period has expired, that still doesn't help Halligan because the result of that would simply mean that once we're past that 120-day period, which we are, the position stays empty until the Senate confirms someone. Since Halligan has not been confirmed by the Senate (has she even been nominated?), she's therefore not appointed to the position.

Thus under the interpretation you appear to be advancing, Halligan's appointment is still invalid.

ViaCrucis said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146?fbclid=IwY2xjawNb7yVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHpiuAgGef-xx5qyN-d1eFzGG5htMwUgWGcxSRZ_z0x0j0NyBaTOim2xKgME7_aem_sJU63VqLDrytz8LRHme4lA

Click to expand...

Yeah, which one of those people are Nazis? You dont even know who they are. Too many on the left see a Nazi under every bush.

RileyG said:

There is. It’s happening. I cannot post the link, but it’s very common.

Click to expand...

You say it is happening, I say it isn't. I wonder if there's any possible way to resolve this discrepancy?

RileyG said:

Especially among many girls who now transition because they had a friend that did (peer pressure) or a controlling mother.

I only wish Jennings the best. No young boy deserves to go through what he did. It’s sickening.

Click to expand...

She seems fine.

-- A2SG, as to those others, maybe you should ask THEM how THEY feel.....

A2SG said:

So a biased source. Got it.

See, I went right to the person herself, and she tells a different story. Gee, I wonder which one knows Jazz better?


Then maybe you should listen to her, let her speak for herself.


Hey, you have the right to be as rude and dismissive of other people as you like.

-- A2SG, and as we move into December, this subject may come up again when some strident religious types complain about stores wishing them a Happy Holiday....

Click to expand...

I’m not being rude. It’s simple biology. Men are not women or vice versa. The truth isn’t rude.

Actions speak louder than words.

CoreyD said:

Let me show you.
I'll highlight the faulty reasoning.

First, there is no noun 'free will', being mentioned in this thread... except by the user @childeye 2.

Click to expand...

CoreyD said:

The Bible says Adam was not deceived.
Thus Adam acted on his own free will.

The word “will” in “acted on his own free will” is grammatically a noun. It is the head of the noun phrase “his own free will”, which serves as the object of the preposition “on”.

By syntactic rule, verbs cannot function as prepositional objects, adjectives cannot serve as heads of noun phrases, and adverbs cannot be modified by adjectives like free. The structure --> determiner (his) + adjectives (own, free) + noun (will) — is a standard noun phrase. Therefore, “will” here is unambiguously a noun meaning volition or choice, not a verb, adjective, or adverb.

CoreyD said:

This is at least the sixth or seventh time I told you this, but rather than respond to what I said, and showed you... namely...

The Greek word hekousios - meaning free will, is the neuter of a derivative from hekon; voluntariness -- willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) – properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will" (J. Thayer).​

You keep responding to yourself, by putting up this strawman, and then attacking it.
Is that not ridiculously faulty?

Click to expand...

You’ve been thinking I'm “ridiculously faulty,” but the fault lies in conflating Greek morphology with English syntax. Hekousios is an adjective in Greek, meaning “voluntary.” In English, “free will” is a noun phrase: determiner (his) + adjectives (own, free) + noun (will).

Prepositions like 'on' require a noun phrase as their object, so will here --> "Adam acted on his own free WILL", must be a noun. Translators often shift adjectives into nouns when the target language requires it (e.g., dikaios → righteousness). So the Greek root explains the meaning, but it doesn’t change the English grammar. That’s why your accusation doesn’t hold — the categories are being mixed.

CoreyD said:

If someone were talking to you about chalk, and referring to white chalk, would you keep talking about charcoal, and claim the person is talking about charcoal?
Seriously, would that not be faulty... to an extreme?

Click to expand...

Your chalk vs. charcoal analogy doesn’t work. Chalk and charcoal are two different substances.

But 'WILL' in English is one word with multiple grammatical functions. The question isn’t about confusing two unrelated things — it’s about identifying which function 'WILL' takes in a given sentence.

In “acted on his own free will”, the preposition 'on' requires a noun phrase, and free+will forms exactly that. Adjectives can’t head prepositional objects, and verbs can’t be modified by adjectives like free. So unlike chalk vs. charcoal, where you’d be misidentifying the material, here the grammar itself dictates that will is a noun. The fault lies in conflating Greek adjective roots with English noun usage, NOT in my analysis.

CoreyD said:

Secondly, God is love, and everything God does is governed by love,, yet God chose to love his people freely - voluntarily.
So, the statement "it's my contention that Love fulfills the law and it is love that causes us to act responsibly and care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer" is extremely faulty because... well... I mean... look at it C.
I cannot even make sense of that.
Can you make sense of it, and break it down for us?

Click to expand...

First allow me to point out an error --> You said this: ... everything God does is governed by love,, yet God chose to love his people freely - voluntarily.

If God’s love were merely a voluntary choice, then His essence would be contingent. But Scripture says “God IS love.” Love is not something He sometimes chooses, it's His eternal nature. Hosea’s “I will love them freely” means His love is sovereign and unmanipulated, not optional. To reduce God’s love to voluntariness is to deny His essence. And if that were true, God would not be God.
--------------------------------------------------
Childeye 2 says --> "it's my contention that Love fulfills the law and it is love that causes us to act responsibly and care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer"

CoreyD: I cannot even make sense of that. Can you make sense of it, and break it down for us?

Answer: Love precedes any action of love. Without Love, an action cannot truly be moral, because morality requires caring how our actions affect others. Voluntariness may describe the manner of action, but love is the foundation. Without love, there is no morality — only indifference. Moreover, wanting to volunteer requires a want. Voluntariness doesn’t stand alone, it’s always driven by some desire. If that desire is love, the act is moral. If it’s carnal selfishness, the act may be immoral. That shows voluntariness itself is morally empty; love or lack of love is what determines morality/immorality.

CoreyD said:

The fact that a person is moved from a heart filled with love, to voluntarily, or willingly take a particular course, does not mean they have not acted willingly, and voluntarily.

Click to expand...

But that’s exactly my point: voluntariness is redundant. God/Love makes people willing to do what is good.
Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

The moral foundation is love, not voluntariness. Free will adds nothing to the explanation that it’s love that precedes and determines whether the action is moral or immoral. Voluntariness only describes the act after love has already moved the person to volunteer.

I don’t accept the false premise that free will simply means voluntariness. Voluntariness describes the manner of an act, but free will is about autonomy, the supposed ability to do otherwise. My point is that morality doesn’t depend on either. Love precedes and determines whether an action is moral. Without love, voluntariness and free will are both redundant.

CoreyD said:

They have done so, because it was their choice to... just as a person is moved from a heart that is lacking love, to rebel against God... like Adam did, as well as the angel that became Satan, and mankind today, who want to go their own way, and fulfill their sinful desires.
In both cases, they acted willingly... deliberately... voluntarily - of their own free will.

Click to expand...

Children of God are led by the Spirit of Truth. Children of the devil are led by lies. That distinction itself denies voluntariness as the foundation of morality, because truth is knowledge, not an option.

We need terms like Truth and faith to cleanse the mind.

Why “Truth and faith” matter​

• Truth: knowledge revealed by God, not an option or decision. It denies voluntariness as the foundation of morality.
• Faith: trust in God’s Spirit of Truth. It is the posture of dependence, not autonomous choice.
• Together, they cleanse the mind — they reframe the discussion away from voluntariness and toward divine reality.

See here: The children of God are led by The Spirit of Truth according to faith:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.​

​

John 3:21 — “He that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” → Works are wrought in God, not chosen voluntarily.​

​

John 8:32 — “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” → Freedom comes from knowing truth, not from voluntariness.​

​

Romans 8:4 — “…that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” → Fulfillment of the law comes only by being led by the Spirit of Truth, not by voluntariness.​

​

John 16:13 — “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” → The Spirit of Truth guides, not voluntariness.​

​

CoreyD said:

It's not an "ability to volunteer".
Something done voluntarily, willingly, unforced, of one's own accord, or of free will, is a deliberate action - an "exercise of will (verb), done freely", which is part of a decision making process, or choice. The root (hek-) of hekousios emphasizes intentional, deliberate action

Click to expand...

I don't know why you're bringing this up. I have never denied the meaning of hekousios. “Yes, hekousios means deliberate, voluntary action. But Scripture shows that even deliberate acts can be sinful if they reject truth (Hebrews 10:26). The decisive issue is not voluntariness but truth. Truth is knowledge, not an option and only those led by the Spirit of Truth fulfill the law (Romans 8:4, John 16:13). Voluntariness adds nothing once truth and love and faith are admitted as the cause.”

CoreyD said:

We are not talking about being able to volunteer, as if we need an able-bodied person to do some work. Or offer up a ram.
The Hebrew expression nedabah (נְדָבָה) is rendered freewill offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary, offering, willingly, offering. (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)
This Hebrew word comes from the Hebrew word nadab, of which Topical Lexicon says...
The verb נָדַב consistently underlines a movement of the heart that is neither coerced nor merely dutiful.

Voluntary offerings were made by "every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD’S offering... Exodus 35:21
Exodus 35:26 And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun goats’ hair.
Exodus 35:29 The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for all manner of work, which the LORD had commanded to be made by the hand of Moses.

So, it's no mistake I am making. Your reasoning is faulty.... to such an extreme, it doesn't even make sense when read... and I had to read it a number of times before I could decide on a response.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you think my reasoning is faulty. Do You understand that voluntariness is morally neutral?

You cite nedabah/nadab, which literally refers to voluntary offerings --> rams, goats’ hair, and other work in Exodus 35. Yet you say we’re not talking about volunteering or offering up a ram. The offerings in Exodus were for building the Tabernacle and its furnishings, consecrated to God’s dwelling among Israel. They were voluntary in manner but mandatory in purpose, showing that voluntariness is descriptive, while truth, love, and faith are the foundation of righteousness.

In Exodus 35:21, the offerings are called “willing” because the heart and spirit were stirred -->The people in Exodus 35 acted out of faith, not because people sat down to freely deliberate whether to be stirred or not.
In Hebrews 10:26, “willful sin” shows voluntariness can describe rebellion too. That proves voluntariness is morally neutral.
Scripture consistently grounds righteousness in truth, love, and faith through the Spirit of Truth (Romans 8:4; John 16:13), not in voluntariness.

RileyG said:

I only mentioned him based on a website I seen from an ex-trans person. This website is very critical of gender ideology based on her own research and lived experience.

Click to expand...

So a biased source. Got it.

See, I went right to the person herself, and she tells a different story. Gee, I wonder which one knows Jazz better?

RileyG said:

If anything, with regards to Jennings, his mother is the one calling the shots. I don’t want to derail this thread, but I very much see him as a victim of narcissistic abuse.

Click to expand...

Then maybe you should listen to her, let her speak for herself.

RileyG said:

From everything I’ve seen, it’s beyond disturbing.

And no, I will never call a male a “she,” no matter how much he screams and demands.

Click to expand...

Hey, you have the right to be as rude and dismissive of other people as you like.

-- A2SG, and as we move into December, this subject may come up again when some strident religious types complain about stores wishing them a Happy Holiday....

Stopped_lurking said:

Yeah, but until we live utopia, we have politics and legislation.

Click to expand...

Regardless, it has nothing to do with education so it doesn’t need to be discussed in schools.

Stopped_lurking said:

If you don't agree with using affirmative care as their therapeutic solution, what therapy should they be offered?

Click to expand...

What’s wrong with talk therapy and SSRI’s? Or even DBT/radical acceptance?

A2SG said:

As I've said, I've never heard of any such cases. Ever. And I am extremely dubious of that claim. So feel free to provide documentation if you can, and I'll consider it.

-- A2SG, but if your information comes from the same source as your information on Jazz Jennings, well, let's just say it doesn't look promising....

Click to expand...

There is. It’s happening. I cannot post the link, but it’s very common. Especially among many girls who now transition because they had a friend that did (peer pressure) or a controlling mother.

I only wish Jennings the best. No young boy deserves to go through what he did. It’s sickening.

A2SG said:

Seems she disagrees with your assessment.

From her Facebook page:​

​

My story is valid. My identity is real. And my family has been by my side every step of the way

It’s heartbreaking to see people try to rewrite my journey, turning my truth into a false narrative of abuse and confusion. But let me be clear: gender is not binary, and all identities are valid.The constant attempts to erase trans people while simultaneously trying to define our experiences for us are beyond exhausting. Our existence should never be questioned, yet here we are facing a world that continues to debate our right to simply be.No matter what policies or opinions say, I know who I am. And I will always stand proud with my community and family by my side.

I know times are tough for so many right now, but we must stick together and stay true to our authentic selves. If you call yourself an ally, now is the time to show up—loudly, proudly, and unwaveringly. We need you. Much love, and stay strong

#transgender #iamjazz​

I have no idea where you got your information, but perhaps getting that from other people isn't the best strategy. Just sayin'.

I'm sure she has other issues (who doesn't?), but being trans doesn't seem to be the root of them, according to her.

-- A2SG, and who would know better?

Click to expand...

I only mentioned him based on a website I seen from an ex-trans person. This website is very critical of gender ideology based on her own research and lived experience.

If anything, with regards to Jennings, his mother is the one calling the shots. I don’t want to derail this thread, but I very much see him as a victim of narcissistic abuse.

From everything I’ve seen, it’s beyond disturbing.

And no, I will never call a male a “she,” no matter how much he screams and demands.

iluvatar5150 said:

If he didn't bring inflation down, then he didn't reduce costs. If he did bring inflation down from what it otherwise would've been, I think it's fair to say that he reduced costs.

Click to expand...

We'll see what happens if he brings it below Bidens last rates if you are genuine or not. Democrats sure didn't seem thar way before. Remember egg prices? Now that inflation is lower I don't see people saying he brought the cost of eggs down. In March Democrats were still complaining how he hasn't brought prices down when the rate was 2.5%. So pardon me it'll I'm skeptical.

iluvatar5150 said:

I can't get the idea?

Click to expand...

No you can't.

RileyG said:

Literally. There’s plenty of cases. Search at your own discretion. It’s beyond depressing.

Click to expand...

As I've said, I've never heard of any such cases. Ever. And I am extremely dubious of that claim. So feel free to provide documentation if you can, and I'll consider it.

-- A2SG, but if your information comes from the same source as your information on Jazz Jennings, well, let's just say it doesn't look promising....

RileyG said:

Actually, it has happened in minors.

Jazz Jennings (real name Jaron Bloshinsky) received sex change surgery at age 17.

Now he is experiencing a binge eating disorder, multiple meltdowns, has no sexual function or arousal, and will never experience a normal sexual relationship because he was his parents “experiment.” His fertility, puberty, and health was exchanged for fame and fortune.

Shame on his parents!

Click to expand...

Seems she disagrees with your assessment.


I have no idea where you got your information, but perhaps getting that from other people isn't the best strategy. Just sayin'.

I'm sure she has other issues (who doesn't?), but being trans doesn't seem to be the root of them, according to her.

-- A2SG, and who would know better?

Vambram said:

I see Comey’s lie right there in that article and I heard his lie while testifying to the Senate.

Click to expand...

Despite the fact you claim to "see" it, you seem unable to actually identify it, for if you did surely you would explain it. Instead you simply respond with nothing more than the message I just quoted in which you avoid actually answering the question.

Once again, as the article notes:

Here the specific text of the question Comey answered in his testimony matters a lot—for a number of reasons. Grassley asked Comey: “have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation” (emphasis added).

It is thus not adequate for proof that Comey made a false statement for the government to show that Richman interfaced with reporters on Comey’s behalf. That fact has never been a secret (Richman did much of this work in the open and on a named basis), and Comey has never denied it. In fact, it was Comey who dramatically announced Richman’s role in Senate testimony that the brief later quotes (see pages 10-11).

Rather, to prove that Comey lied, the government has to show (a) that Richman was “at the FBI” at the time; (b) that Comey “authorized” the press contact; (c) that he authorized Richman to do the contact anonymously; and (d) that the contact concerned the Trump or Clinton investigation.

The government's brief had a lot of words, but ultimately, as the article notes after going through all of it, none of it appeared able to point to any example of when Comey authorized Richman to anonymously contact the press about the Trump or Clinton investigation while Richman was at the FBI.

So, for example:

The next paragraph (page 8) is where things really go off the rails. “Mr. Richman also corresponded with Reporter 1 via text message shortly after the defendant’s termination as FBI Director. Over a period of days beginning on May 11, 2017, the pair texted,” the government alleges and follows with a string of texts between Schmidt and Richman in which Richman does, in fact, appear to be waiting for authorization to speak to Schmidt as an unnamed source.

But there’s a problem with using this exchange to prove Comey a liar for his May 3, 2017, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It took place a week after that testimony, when Comey was no longer FBI director and when Richman was thus no longer in any conceivable sense “at the FBI” (having resigned) as an adviser to the director (who had been fired). By this time, Richman was part of Comey’s legal team. And what’s more, none of the communications between Richman and Schmidt even plausibly regard stories about the Clinton investigation. Instead, their exchanges concern Schmidt’s reporting about a variety of other topics, including Comey’s forthcoming public testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the investigation of Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser.

And the same sort of thing applies to it looks like everything else that supposedly shows he lied. So, once again, as it concludes:

And that is all there is. You can pore over this brief all day long, and you won’t find anything else suggesting that Comey’s Senate testimony on May 3, 2017, was false—or that his standing by that testimony five years less three days before his indictment was false.

All of which raises the question: Where’s the lie?

It appears neither you nor the government is capable of answering the question.

Though I should point out once again that even if the government's case against Comey was actually strong, it still would have nothing to do with whether Halligan was properly appointed or not.

rjs330 said:

No, they should receive intensive therapy until they are 18. Not affirmative care.

Click to expand...

Yup! Reduce harm. Doing irreversible surgery to minors who may be going through a phase is just unforgivable! Let them live their lives in peace!

Also, the closest thing we got to a real Christian presidential ticket was Ye24.

Stopped_lurking said:

Are schools are forcing gender affirming care on any minors? Trans persons exists in society, as such schools have talk about them. Many societies have laws and regulations that forbid discrimination based on gender identity, that includes schools in many cases. What do you mean when you say leave minors out of it?

Does that mean that a gender diverse kid shouldn't get care?

Click to expand...

No, they should receive intensive therapy until they are 18. Not affirmative care.

rjs330 said:

Stop putting out unreliable information. No one really knows the regret rate. Putting out garbage information only reinforces false belief systems.

Click to expand...

This. Only time will tell.

Stopped_lurking said:

I guess we differ there, to me at least the school has an obligation to the students to explain phenomena in society. LGBTQ people exists, they are discussed in the news, there are laws governing society's view regarding them, they have rights that protect them from discrimination in many states and countries. They were a persecuted group in history (in some places even today). So if discussions of other civil rights and their histories have a place in schools then the discussions about the rights of LGBTQ people should also have a place in school.

If you add to that, depending on legislation, the school might have an obligation to protect LGBTQ students and staff. They have to make clear that being LGBTQ is not a valid ground for discrimination. How would the school get around to explain that without talking about them. There is also a good thing that the schools are an example that many views exists in society that might or might not be at odds with the views of the parents. The parents view is not Truth™.

Click to expand...

Yes, we should protect them without approving of a specific agenda. Treat everyone right, doesn’t mean any school should endorse or approve of an alternate lifestyle, especially one filled with so much risk.

Or people can just treat people right without caring what people choose to do with their lives.

rambot said:

Your use of the phrase "suicide stats" is really vague as it's split into ideation, attempt and successful attempt. Generally, these all follow the same pattern from what I've seen but not always.
That said, a lot of the studies I've skimmed are comparing post op suicide attempts with the GENERAL population and I gotta say right off the bat, that is NOT an apprpriate comparision.
All of the stats you are quoting above is PRE-op. The link you provided didn't actually refer to "Gender affirming care" just "Gender minorities getting treatment and gender minorities with disabilities [nonspecified]. It cannot be deduced that the article was referring to "post op" individuals but seems to be referring to 'preop" phrase of their transition. Maybe I missed it?


The suicide ideation rate pre-op is 40% in trans kiddos (has has been consistent with the 4 trans people I've worked with (not really...they all had suicidal ideation).

So ....unbelievably shocking, that is somehow an improvement.


What is so utterly and completely baffling is that the regret rate for these surgeries is just, unbelievably low compared to so many other kinds of surgeries.

If this regret rate is low (and it's undeniably low), then one has to wonder if the surgery remains the problem 10 years later or if, perhaps their own belief or treatment and lack of acceptance in their society would continue to make them feel ostracized, alone and suicidal (paraphrasing a study that noted this as the likely reason).

Click to expand...

Stop putting out unreliable information. No one really knows the regret rate. Putting out garbage information only reinforces false belief systems.