3 ms·
> A child who insists that he is no longer a male (or never was) is definitely confused. Circular, self-reinforcing, argument. Invalid. > If that same child i
by justinjlynn 5y ago
> A child who insists that he is no longer a male (or never was) is definitely confused.
Circular, self-reinforcing, argument. Invalid.
> If that same child insists that he's black, even though both of his biological parents are white, would you take him at his word or save him from getting Dolezal'ed by an unforgiving woke mob?
Non-sequitur. Dismissed. Child still in need of psychological treatment.
> Children don't make good decisions. Their brains are literally missing the hardware until about age 25. [1] We don't allow them to make permanent changes that they might regret.
Sure we do. All the time. We allow them to grow up - that's rather permanent. You're not upset about that. Of course, it just so happens to be something you don't personally disagree with, unlike the topic of discussion.
- sepin4 5y agoYou allow them to grow up, how magnonimous of you.
- slumdev 5y agoAllowing a child to grow up is like allowing a flower to bloom. There isn't a moral equivalence between interfering in the process and allowing nature to run its course.
- justinjlynn 5y ago> There isn't a moral equivalence between interfering in the process and allowing nature to run its course. Argument from naturality. The moral equivalence arises from the context and circumstance - not on whether one chooses to interfere or not.
- slumdev 5y agoThat isn't an objection. Inaction doesn't require justification unless action is obligatory. The decision to help a child mutilate himself is never obligatory (or even justifiable).