Tell an opinion you have that is in the strong minority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children should be denied SN help if their mothers were over 35 when they were born. A rare occurrence is one thing, but playing Russian roulette with other people's money? should NOT be supported

I would not deny the child help, but maybe charge the parents a fee or something. SN education should not be completely on the tax payers.

You people are sick and stupid. Y
Because you know automatically that the kid has issues due to the mother's age.
You are a total idiot.

Nice red herring. Now please provide your answer for the issue PP was getting at.

Not a red herring . Prove mom's eggs were the cause of kid's problems.

Ask your pediatrician if you don't understand why a woman should not procreate over 25. But I suspect you are the poster that keeps insisting that the fathers age is as important as the mothers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's offensive to all women when a man can claim that he is a woman, even though he clearly is not

Really? It's not offensive to this woman. I do not feel my womanhood is threatened at all by someone else feeling more feminine than masculine. To me, it's not a zero sum game. I actually think respecting people regardless of their gender identity will help women achieve more equality in society because we will not be so caught up in stereotyping people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children should be denied SN help if their mothers were over 35 when they were born. A rare occurrence is one thing, but playing Russian roulette with other people's money? should NOT be supported

+1

What's the age cut off for husbans? Or is every genetic issue tha fault of the monther?

Why not mandate genetic testing for every couple and if they are over a certain percentage risk then they have to sign a special needs waiver to support based on that risk? And, if they don't take the test they pay significantly more?

What exactly do you propose then smartass. SN parents are eyeing every dollar school district has to provide gold plated services while normal children are wanting for good math and science teachers and god knows what else in any sd that is not lucky to be UMC. Decide quickly because SN is getting more and more common while the parents get nastier and more entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's offensive to all women when a man can claim that he is a woman, even though he clearly is not

Really? It's not offensive to this woman. I do not feel my womanhood is threatened at all by someone else feeling more feminine than masculine. To me, it's not a zero sum game. I actually think respecting people regardless of their gender identity will help women achieve more equality in society because we will not be so caught up in stereotyping people.

Then why have women's only places. Or feminism at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children should be denied SN help if their mothers were over 35 when they were born. A rare occurrence is one thing, but playing Russian roulette with other people's money? should NOT be supported

+1

What's the age cut off for husbans? Or is every genetic issue tha fault of the monther?

Why not mandate genetic testing for every couple and if they are over a certain percentage risk then they have to sign a special needs waiver to support based on that risk? And, if they don't take the test they pay significantly more?

What exactly do you propose then smartass. SN parents are eyeing every dollar school district has to provide gold plated services while normal children are wanting for good math and science teachers and god knows what else in any sd that is not lucky to be UMC. Decide quickly because SN is getting more and more common while the parents get nastier and more entitled.

I do not believe the actions of parents should be held against the innocent child. Period.

I don't think my difference of opinion from you makes me a "smartass". But it probably makes me more compassionate given the opinions expressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think abortion is worse than slavery.

Really?i will never understand this idea that unborn kids who don't know life are more valued than humans that have been born, have memories, and have a life.

Even under horrible circumstances slaves wanted to live. They didn't commit suicide. Killing a helpless soul and beating heart for convenience is worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's offensive to all women when a man can claim that he is a woman, even though he clearly is not

It's not my intention to attack you at all, because I can honestly see why you'd say that, I do see your point, but your post reminded me of my own majorly minority opinion...

In contrast, I personally think it's offensive when someone has an opinion about anyone else's gender identity. Only the person living in the brain and body knows their own experiences so I would never be able to say someone else is "clearly" anything other than what they say they are. The gender identity spectrum is too complicated for that and about more than just what parts someone has.

I don't intend to attack you either.

Why are people allowed to have 'opinions' on their gender identity. It's pretty binary (not talking about hermaphrodites). I live in my own body and know my own experiences. I say I am Rasputin. Do you accept this? If not why do you accept Bruce being Belinda?

I welcome this sort of civil discussion on what I consider an interesting and important topic.

Well, because I don't believe that gender identity is at all binary. I don't actually believe in two genders; I think evidence from societies other than our own suggests that that's an incomplete and overly limiting standard that we have because it's been ingrained in our culture. Men and women obviously exist, but as far as I'm concerned and aware so does basically an entire 'color wheel' of sorts of shades of other gender identities that are equally as legitimate.

Regarding Rasputin, first of all regardless of what I believe and mentally accept, in almost all cases I will at a minimum address people as they wish me to so if this is a genuine part of your identity not hyperbole to make a point I would absolutely call you by that name.

In terms of what I would accept of your identity... my understanding of time is such that I don't believe you can be THAT Rasputin exactly; he lived and died long ago in a different society. He was a specific individual and that specific identity has already been claimed. No two people are completely identical, as I know he never made a clone. That said, you could definitely be A Rasputin or even a reincarnation or regeneration OF Rasputin...but existing in your time and place instead of the one he originally lived in has made you fundamentally different from the original. You know your experiences. If you're Rasputin, than I'll refer to you as such and hope to develop a better understanding of what that means for you so that I can relate to you as you are and not as you only physically appear.

I accept that anyone is who they identify as unless it's done for fraudulent purposes. The interview clip I saw said Jenner still wanted to be called Bruce for now at this point in the transition, so if that's accurate I'll use that name until another one is accurate and preferred.

But where would you draw the line and why would you draw it there?

Good question. I don't think I have or anyone has the right to draw "the line" for what is acceptable AS LONG AS no one is being harmed or having their rights violated without their consent. This is because I believe every human has the right to make their own choices and that no one else's judgement of those choices is legitimate or means a darn thing unless the person's opinion was specifically requested. The only thing I think is objectively bad and immoral is non-consensual harm to others...everything else is fine and in my mind perfectly acceptable. The reason I think harming others is unacceptable is because everyone is equally human with inherently equal dignity and worth and an equal right to their own consent and choices and safety.

Where is my personal line? I will respect people enough to go along with and treat them as whoever they identify as in any way, up to the point where they are asking me to condone/support behavior harmful to others. That, I will not do. Otherwise, it's all good with me. Someone's gender identity is nonbinary leaning towards masculine but not completely, except they were born in a dfab body? Fine, cool, tell me your preferred name and pronouns and that'll be that, you're just you to me. Someone is binary trans and I initially knew them as a man but now they're a woman? Wonderful, glad the transition went well. It's good to see you again, how's life been treating you? Someone identifies as non-human otherkin...interesting, please teach me what if anything I may need to know to interact with you in a way that appropriately respects how you view your identity, since this isn't something I'm familiar with and I may make mistakes out of ignorance. Someone identifies with a chosen name and mental identity, rather than their legal name? Wonderful, introduce us, hello Rasputin, good to meet you.

Where is my line for "accepting" things in the definition of truly understanding and believing them? You're right, that's a little harder. We all have cognitive and cultural biases, and I'm working on getting rid of mine. I admit I can't quite wrap my mind around everything and sometimes I find who people are really to be confusing and think "can/how can they really honestly be this thing?" but that's my own personal struggle and at a minimum I understand, acknowledge, accept, and act on the fact that other people are the authority on their lives and their experiences are legitimate even if they're different from mine or outside my understanding.

My only line is do no harm and do not act with malicious intent. I explained above why I draw that line.

[Anonymous]

I think abortion is good - it takes away the risk of having to live a crappy life with lots of sadness.

[Anonymous]

I also think that god - if existent - has as much evil as good. And when they teach you that man is a reflection of god - well, we truly are - the good and the bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think abortion is good - it takes away the risk of having to live a crappy life with lots of sadness.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think abortion is good - it takes away the risk of having to live a crappy life with lots of sadness.

+10000

-10000

Are you in favor of suicide? Why are you so sure the child's life will be crappy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children should be denied SN help if their mothers were over 35 when they were born. A rare occurrence is one thing, but playing Russian roulette with other people's money? should NOT be supported

+1

What's the age cut off for husbans? Or is every genetic issue tha fault of the monther?

Why not mandate genetic testing for every couple and if they are over a certain percentage risk then they have to sign a special needs waiver to support based on that risk? And, if they don't take the test they pay significantly more?

What exactly do you propose then smartass. SN parents are eyeing every dollar school district has to provide gold plated services while normal children are wanting for good math and science teachers and god knows what else in any sd that is not lucky to be UMC. Decide quickly because SN is getting more and more common while the parents get nastier and more entitled.

I do not believe the actions of parents should be held against the innocent child. Period.

I don't think my difference of opinion from you makes me a "smartass". But it probably makes me more compassionate given the opinions expressed.

You are a smartass. Budgets are getting smaller and smaller while SN rates are rising dramatically. I ask you again what do you propose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children should be denied SN help if their mothers were over 35 when they were born. A rare occurrence is one thing, but playing Russian roulette with other people's money? should NOT be supported

+1

What's the age cut off for husbans? Or is every genetic issue tha fault of the monther?

Why not mandate genetic testing for every couple and if they are over a certain percentage risk then they have to sign a special needs waiver to support based on that risk? And, if they don't take the test they pay significantly more?

What exactly do you propose then smartass. SN parents are eyeing every dollar school district has to provide gold plated services while normal children are wanting for good math and science teachers and god knows what else in any sd that is not lucky to be UMC. Decide quickly because SN is getting more and more common while the parents get nastier and more entitled.

I do not believe the actions of parents should be held against the innocent child. Period.

I don't think my difference of opinion from you makes me a "smartass". But it probably makes me more compassionate given the opinions expressed.

You are a smartass. Budgets are getting smaller and smaller while SN rates are rising dramatically. I ask you again what do you propose.

Proving you wrong doesn't make me a smartass it make me right.

I'm not continuing the conversation with someone who calls names to people with whom they disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children should be denied SN help if their mothers were over 35 when they were born. A rare occurrence is one thing, but playing Russian roulette with other people's money? should NOT be supported

+1

What's the age cut off for husbans? Or is every genetic issue tha fault of the monther?

Why not mandate genetic testing for every couple and if they are over a certain percentage risk then they have to sign a special needs waiver to support based on that risk? And, if they don't take the test they pay significantly more?

What exactly do you propose then smartass. SN parents are eyeing every dollar school district has to provide gold plated services while normal children are wanting for good math and science teachers and god knows what else in any sd that is not lucky to be UMC. Decide quickly because SN is getting more and more common while the parents get nastier and more entitled.

I do not believe the actions of parents should be held against the innocent child. Period.

I don't think my difference of opinion from you makes me a "smartass". But it probably makes me more compassionate given the opinions expressed.

You are a smartass. Budgets are getting smaller and smaller while SN rates are rising dramatically. I ask you again what do you propose.

Proving you wrong doesn't make me a smartass it make me right.

I'm not continuing the conversation with someone who calls names to people with whom they disagree.

How did you prove anyone wrong. All you provided was some vague 'compassion' without realizing it was a zero sum game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's offensive to all women when a man can claim that he is a woman, even though he clearly is not

It's not my intention to attack you at all, because I can honestly see why you'd say that, I do see your point, but your post reminded me of my own majorly minority opinion...

In contrast, I personally think it's offensive when someone has an opinion about anyone else's gender identity. Only the person living in the brain and body knows their own experiences so I would never be able to say someone else is "clearly" anything other than what they say they are. The gender identity spectrum is too complicated for that and about more than just what parts someone has.

I don't intend to attack you either.

Why are people allowed to have 'opinions' on their gender identity. It's pretty binary (not talking about hermaphrodites). I live in my own body and know my own experiences. I say I am Rasputin. Do you accept this? If not why do you accept Bruce being Belinda?

I welcome this sort of civil discussion on what I consider an interesting and important topic.

Well, because I don't believe that gender identity is at all binary. I don't actually believe in two genders; I think evidence from societies other than our own suggests that that's an incomplete and overly limiting standard that we have because it's been ingrained in our culture. Men and women obviously exist, but as far as I'm concerned and aware so does basically an entire 'color wheel' of sorts of shades of other gender identities that are equally as legitimate.

Regarding Rasputin, first of all regardless of what I believe and mentally accept, in almost all cases I will at a minimum address people as they wish me to so if this is a genuine part of your identity not hyperbole to make a point I would absolutely call you by that name.

In terms of what I would accept of your identity... my understanding of time is such that I don't believe you can be THAT Rasputin exactly; he lived and died long ago in a different society. He was a specific individual and that specific identity has already been claimed. No two people are completely identical, as I know he never made a clone. That said, you could definitely be A Rasputin or even a reincarnation or regeneration OF Rasputin...but existing in your time and place instead of the one he originally lived in has made you fundamentally different from the original. You know your experiences. If you're Rasputin, than I'll refer to you as such and hope to develop a better understanding of what that means for you so that I can relate to you as you are and not as you only physically appear.

I accept that anyone is who they identify as unless it's done for fraudulent purposes. The interview clip I saw said Jenner still wanted to be called Bruce for now at this point in the transition, so if that's accurate I'll use that name until another one is accurate and preferred.

But where would you draw the line and why would you draw it there?

Good question. I don't think I have or anyone has the right to draw "the line" for what is acceptable AS LONG AS no one is being harmed or having their rights violated without their consent. This is because I believe every human has the right to make their own choices and that no one else's judgement of those choices is legitimate or means a darn thing unless the person's opinion was specifically requested. The only thing I think is objectively bad and immoral is non-consensual harm to others...everything else is fine and in my mind perfectly acceptable. The reason I think harming others is unacceptable is because everyone is equally human with inherently equal dignity and worth and an equal right to their own consent and choices and safety.

Where is my personal line? I will respect people enough to go along with and treat them as whoever they identify as in any way, up to the point where they are asking me to condone/support behavior harmful to others. That, I will not do. Otherwise, it's all good with me. Someone's gender identity is nonbinary leaning towards masculine but not completely, except they were born in a dfab body? Fine, cool, tell me your preferred name and pronouns and that'll be that, you're just you to me. Someone is binary trans and I initially knew them as a man but now they're a woman? Wonderful, glad the transition went well. It's good to see you again, how's life been treating you? Someone identifies as non-human otherkin...interesting, please teach me what if anything I may need to know to interact with you in a way that appropriately respects how you view your identity, since this isn't something I'm familiar with and I may make mistakes out of ignorance. Someone identifies with a chosen name and mental identity, rather than their legal name? Wonderful, introduce us, hello Rasputin, good to meet you.

Where is my line for "accepting" things in the definition of truly understanding and believing them? You're right, that's a little harder. We all have cognitive and cultural biases, and I'm working on getting rid of mine. I admit I can't quite wrap my mind around everything and sometimes I find who people are really to be confusing and think "can/how can they really honestly be this thing?" but that's my own personal struggle and at a minimum I understand, acknowledge, accept, and act on the fact that other people are the authority on their lives and their experiences are legitimate even if they're different from mine or outside my understanding.

My only line is do no harm and do not act with malicious intent. I explained above why I draw that line.

In public you would do this, but privately would you honestly believe they were as they said they were? Would you immediately accept their claims or would you require further convincing?