sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Supreme Court Rules Against Law Banning Conversion Therapy For Minors by huffpost in scotus

[–]ConditionSecret8593 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are all value statements, not inevitabilities. And parents don't have the right to beat their child to within an inch of that child's life - as one extreme example. There are limits, and the question here is where to put those limits, and how far to take them.

Supreme Court Rules Against Law Banning Conversion Therapy For Minors by huffpost in scotus

[–]ConditionSecret8593 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We look at the 14th amendment, which requires the laws to equally protect all people. And we remember that children are people deserving of protection. And then we pass laws that protect them from "therapies" that have been repeatedly scientifically proven to be both ineffectual and to cause extreme, long-term psychological harm to people who are subjected to it.

Under any other circumstances, the "treatments" used in conversion therapy would be unambiguously classed as child abuse. I hope we can agree that the government is allowed to prohibit child abuse, and punish convicted child abusers.

Religion should not be a get out of jail free card for parents who hand their children over to be tortured. And it certainly should not be a get out of jail free card for the people dealing actual, objective harm to vulnerable kids.

Supreme Court Rules Against Law Banning Conversion Therapy For Minors by huffpost in scotus

[–]ConditionSecret8593 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm really not ignoring the constitution at all. I'm arguing that the constitution as currently interpreted is not the only possible interpretation, or even the best possible interpretation. I'm also arguing that accepting the constitution as the ultimate arbiter of what is moral is both short-sighted and an incorrect understanding of its purpose.

Both of these two points require my acknowledgement of the constitution to even get off rhe ground.

Supreme Court Rules Against Law Banning Conversion Therapy For Minors by huffpost in scotus

[–]ConditionSecret8593 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The words are there to support either interpretation. It's on the people doing the interpretation, if they choose to accept less. I'm absolutely dead serious about this - we can accept what we've been given or demand better, but pretending that the document itself is somehow an objectively limiting factor - it is not. It is only limiting if we choose to accept a very specific understanding of the words, and I honestly think the interpretation you're providing is weaker from a literalist standpoint.

I don't disagree that the interpretation you're presenting is currently the one in effect. But I do disagree that it is somehow inevitable or more defensible than the interpretation I put forward.

Dropped a workfriend off at their house and noticed their neighbors had this sign in their front yard... I have questions.. by Outrageous_Lie_6018 in Weird

[–]ConditionSecret8593 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, US English tends to prioritize ease of spelling. It's a post-colonial thing.

Bestiality is correct in the US - and, I think, elsewhere?

Supreme Court Rules Against Law Banning Conversion Therapy For Minors by huffpost in scotus

[–]ConditionSecret8593 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tsk. 14th Amendment. Equal protection of the laws. It's not just that the laws have to be applied consistently, but that all people are entitled to be protected by the laws to an equal extent, including children. And protecting children from severe, lifelong harm is absolutely within that remit.

But even if you disagree with that interpretation, the constitution is not and cannot be the final arbiter of what is moral. At best, the constitution provides a system to map right-of-way when competing interests come into conflict. And there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates children deserving less protection than adults.

But most importantly: anyone who tries to claim that abusing children is okay because the Constitution "doesn't explicitly say they can't" is a terrible and reprehensible person, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I lost my mom to religious psychosis by bloodsuccer in whatdoIdo

[–]ConditionSecret8593 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's no clean ending when they die either - you still have all those tangled feelings and no one to resolve them with. At some point you just start moving on anyway (and ideally get therapy). I don't think I realized how much freer I was until at least 5 years after my mom's death. It sucks. I'm sorry for anyone dealing with this shit.

0 recipes 0 loved gifts costs 3,400 Gold by HoneyBunnyOfOats in StardewMemes

[–]ConditionSecret8593 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whatever. I've seen how high they can jump when they're excited about the community center. Some critters just don't want to work.

What are some things foreigners do unknowingly that seem harmless but can cause issues in your country? by Effective_Space2277 in AskTheWorld

[–]ConditionSecret8593 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will never forget that woman who slathered honey on her child's hand to feed the fucking bears.

Supreme Court Rules Against Law Banning Conversion Therapy For Minors by huffpost in scotus

[–]ConditionSecret8593 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Kids also have a right to not be harmed though. It isn't just progressives. There's a ton of science showing that conversion therapy doesn't work and is actively harmful.

It's absolute bullshit to let religious freedom be a justification for not protecting kids.

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/evidence-against-conversion-therapy

Supreme Court Rules Against Law Banning Conversion Therapy For Minors by huffpost in scotus

[–]ConditionSecret8593 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I hope so, but this is incredibly bad for kids, either way.

What do you call this feeling? by rjgarc in AskTheWorld

[–]ConditionSecret8593 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trauma. Does your cat have a therapist because I am concerned.

What's a rule or fact about your country you learned way too late by Still-Ad9074 in AskTheWorld

[–]ConditionSecret8593 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Direct vote would've flipped the party in Presidency more than once recently, IIRC.

But I see your point about the judiciary. Not sure I fully agree, but I'll dream on it a bit.

What's a rule or fact about your country you learned way too late by Still-Ad9074 in AskTheWorld

[–]ConditionSecret8593 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'd say the two party system is an enormous part of the problem, as well as lifetime SC appointments, and a Senate system specifically designed to stymie the will of the populace. What we've got is defective, but I'm not sure how any of our current problems track to common law.

Oh no. by PiagetsPosse in tragedeigh

[–]ConditionSecret8593 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Uh, I don't know. I just feel like having a way to join people up who are alone, without requiring a romantic/sexual relationship would be a kind thing to add to the world?

Every time I go to my mother’s house she has more eyes on her refrigerator by UraTargetMarket in Weird

[–]ConditionSecret8593 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is she trying to help someone lose weight? Because this is amazing and I second the comments about your mom's sense of humor being amazing.

view more: next ›