Minneapolis Annunciation School Mass Shooting

[mtrycrafts]

That's because there was less to do WRT law enforcement.

If the local residents can't be bothered to pick up their own trash, why was that a bad thing?

But weren't they sent there for the lawlessness there? Get the killers before they kill?

Oh, wait, the monument grounds are part of the Park Service, federal employees. perhaps they were fired and the Guards called in?

 

[mtrycrafts]

.

Are you under the troops sent to DC are regular Army?

...

They are national guard soldiers. Yes, they are sent overseas and combat operations. So, they are regular army just not full time employment. Oh, they also fly combat missions.

 

[ski2xblack]

ski2xblack said:
Lying to kids that they may be "born in the wrong body" may play a role, you think?

When your starting position is that anyone saying that is automatically lying, there's no point in responding

A response may have been illuminating.

If you think that "born in the wrong body" is factual, what do you base such a claim on? What exactly is it that is inhabiting the body incorrectly? Some ineffable gender specter? That's sounding a lot like Cartesian dualism.

As a materialist, I would posit we ARE our bodies, and thus being born in the wrong body is quite literally impossible. No child is born in the wrong body. There is no physical diagnostic test to confirm or deny a trans identity. It's just metaphysics.

 

[GO-NAD!]

According to the largest studies on this from the NHS/GIDS in the UK, most of them are autistic or end up being gay when they get older.

I couldn't find anything supporting that claim. From what I've read, the rate of autism amongst transgender persons is higher than the general populace, but it's still a minority. Same would go for homosexuality. If you have any links to support your claim, by all means, post them.

 

[GO-NAD!]

A response may have been illuminating.

If you think that "born in the wrong body" is factual, what do you base such a claim on? What exactly is it that is inhabiting the body incorrectly? Some ineffable gender specter? That's sounding a lot like Cartesian dualism.

As a materialist, I would posit we ARE our bodies, and thus being born in the wrong body is quite literally impossible. No child is born in the wrong body. There is no physical diagnostic test to confirm or deny a trans identity. It's just metaphysics.

I didn't make any claim at all, so have nothing to back up. I don't live in a trans person's body, so I can't describe it. But, my inability to describe it doesn't mean I can tell them - or countless thousands of medical professionals - that trans people are full of baloney.

 

[ski2xblack]

I don't live in a trans person's body, so I can't describe it. But, my inability to describe it doesn't mean I can tell them - or countless thousands of medical professionals - that trans people are full of baloney.

Just watch as the so called GAC for minors debacle proceeds. It is the worst medical scandal in our lifetimes. It's medical malpractice on a grand scale, based on self diagnosis and the questionable ethics of consumerism, ignoring the bedrock guideline of "First, do no harm.". The docs selling false hope to confused kids deserve an avalanche of lawsuits and to lose their licenses. I too am a healthcare professional, fwiw. We are not a monolith, and this issue is highly contentious in the healthcare community.

About the NIH/GIDS study, I'll try to get it for you, but it's Friday and I have plans to attend to. It was included in the Cass systematic review, that I know.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Just watch as the so called GAC for minors debacle proceeds. It is the worst medical scandal in our lifetimes. It's medical malpractice on a grand scale, based on self diagnosis and the questionable ethics of consumerism, ignoring the bedrock guideline of "First, do no harm.". The docs selling false hope to confused kids deserve an avalanche of lawsuits and to lose their licenses. I too am a healthcare professional, fwiw. We are not a monolith, and this issue is highly contentious in the healthcare community.

About the NIH/GIDS study, I'll try to get it for you, but it's Friday and I have plans to attend to. It was included in the Cass systematic review, that I know.

I have no doubt that malpractice has been and will be found, just like pretty much every branch of health care. If it's as bad as you say, the harm caused will still probably pale in comparison with that caused by RFK Jr. It'll take years to unfcuk your health care system after he is done with it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Trans been around for a few years, I would think. Where are the lawsuits? I cannot remember hearing nor reading about them. I would think FOX would have them running 24/7.

 

[ski2xblack]

Where are the lawsuits?

Breen v Johanna Olsen-Kennedy is one of the biggies. J-O-K is a titan in the provision and promotion of GAC, prominent L.A. surgeon, WPATH president. Brutal case, If she loses, the dam will break, expect an onslaught to follow.

Others include Chloe Cole v. Kaiser Permanente, which has been punted for a while, but has not ended. Ayala v. AAP and several doctors. Someone anonymous is suing Planned Parenthood...there are several more, but similar themes in all: rushed diagnoses and interventions, inadequate mental health assessments, and claims of coercion or misrepresentation of risks (e.g., fertility loss, irreversible physical changes).

Several states have extended the statute of limitations for malpractice claims by people who received GAC as children.

There was also that lawsuit brought by trans advocates challenging Alabama's GAC for kids ban, which blew up in their faces in discovery when the whole WPATH house of cards was exposed. ACLU attorney and trans super hero Chase Strangio himself, excuse me, herself, admitted under oath to the Supreme Court that the whole suicide narrative is not true. That's the "Would you rather have a dead daughter than a trans son" coercion used on desperate but inadequately informed parents in an effort to sell them an induced endocrine disorder and a radical mastectomy that will guaranteed harm their kid.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Way to miss the point. The person wearing the shirt is the Mn Lieutenant Governor. The message itself is nuts, but who is doing the messaging was the point.

No, it's not. Reread my post that explains that GI is not neutral. This message assumes trans kids are a thing. What is a trans kid anyway? Care to give a crack at defining what a trans kid is? You seem so well versed in the dogma it should be easy for you.

Because that one murderer is relevant in the thread specifically about his heinous actions.

Um, what? I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist, and haven't suggested any banning of language. Pointing out falsehoods is criticism, not censorship. I think you're projecting.

Nope, not morally against the LGB. I unequivically support both LGB and women's hard fought for rights, and do not support the blatant misogyny and homophobia of gender identitarianism or it's authoritarian methods. (Hint: LGB has nothing to do with the TQ+. Being same sex attracted is quite different from demands of "Accept me for what I am not or you're a bigot.")

There is nothing particularly terrible about the shirt regardless of if trans kids is a real thing. It might have been to protect kids from violent reactionaries over the trans shooter. I dunno.

Because the shooter is trans , which equals, according to the caption above, 4 out of 4197 shooters since 2018. That's like .000953% of shooters. Therefore this thread should be about as a Twin Cities resident how this hits home. Or maybe because it was a religious school etc. And .....shooter who just happened to be trans. Since the discussion of trans itself does not carry any significant weight amongst shooters.. There's nothing about this shooting that makes it any more heinous than any other shooting.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Eek. Need a better hiding place.

I like to hang out with Michael Myers in our hidden cave. We're good friends now (though he doesn't speak). I mean that is till that little alarm bell rings inside of his head come ever Halloween.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Breen v Johanna Olsen-Kennedy is one of the biggies. J-O-K is a titan in the provision and promotion of GAC, prominent L.A. surgeon, WPATH president. Brutal case, If she loses, the dam will break, expect an onslaught to follow.

Others include Chloe Cole v. Kaiser Permanente, which has been punted for a while, but has not ended. Ayala v. AAP and several doctors. Someone anonymous is suing Planned Parenthood...there are several more, but similar themes in all: rushed diagnoses and interventions, inadequate mental health assessments, and claims of coercion or misrepresentation of risks (e.g., fertility loss, irreversible physical changes).

Several states have extended the statute of limitations for malpractice claims by people who received GAC as children.

There was also that lawsuit brought by trans advocates challenging Alabama's GAC for kids ban, which blew up in their faces in discovery when the whole WPATH house of cards was exposed. ACLU attorney and trans super hero Chase Strangio himself, excuse me, herself, admitted under oath to the Supreme Court that the whole suicide narrative is not true. That's the "Would you rather have a dead daughter than a trans son" coercion used on desperate but inadequately informed parents in an effort to sell them an induced endocrine disorder and a radical mastectomy that will guaranteed harm their kid.

From what I've read, part of the problem in the US, is that you took an already permissive model from Europe, then made even more permissive. It's no wonder that there are/will be lawsuits.

I get the sense that many gender care clinicians aren't taking a neutral approach with patients. There should be many months (years?) of talk therapy before ever considering PB, hormones and/or surgery. And, they need to be completely open and forthcoming with the negatives associated with transitioning such as sterility, sexual dysfunction and other health problems.

 

[GO-NAD!]

A response may have been illuminating.

If you think that "born in the wrong body" is factual, what do you base such a claim on? What exactly is it that is inhabiting the body incorrectly? Some ineffable gender specter? That's sounding a lot like Cartesian dualism.

As a materialist, I would posit we ARE our bodies, and thus being born in the wrong body is quite literally impossible. No child is born in the wrong body. There is no physical diagnostic test to confirm or deny a trans identity. It's just metaphysics.

To expand on my prior response, just as there are no reliable physical indicators of homosexuality(just correlations and theories) the same may be true for gender identity. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

[TLS Guy]

From what I've read, part of the problem in the US, is that you took an already permissive model from Europe, then made even more permissive. It's no wonder that there are/will be lawsuits.

I get the sense that many gender care clinicians aren't taking a neutral approach with patients. There should be many months (years?) of talk therapy before ever considering PB, hormones and/or surgery. And, they need to be completely open and forthcoming with the negatives associated with transitioning such as sterility, sexual dysfunction and other health problems.

They need to stop it, totally. These people who think they are in the wrong body are just delusional, in other words JPN.

 

[ski2xblack]

From what I've read, part of the problem in the US, is that you took an already permissive model from Europe, then made even more permissive. It's no wonder that there are/will be lawsuits.

You are correct. We took the Dutch protocol, which itself is already flawed, and advocacy org WPATH loosened it up further for our for-profit health system, and cultivated a false consensus with professional orgs like the AMA, AAP, APA, etc. via a bunch of circular references between them and WPATH's evolving standards of care that were driven by advocacy rather than evidence. That's what was exposed in the Alabama case, and in more granular detail in Cass. It punches a big hole in the argument "Who am I to question thousands of doctors?"

There should be many months (years?) of talk therapy before ever considering PB, hormones and/or surgery. And, they need to be completely open and forthcoming with the negatives associated with transitioning

The risks associated with PB and hormones are far greater than you give credit for. They are unjustified and extremely heavy handed medical interventions that are wildly inappropriate to treat psych problems.

To expand on my prior response, just as there are no reliable physical indicators of homosexuality(just correlations and theories) the same may be true for gender identity. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Same sex attraction does not require extreme body modification, nor does it compel everyone to participate in any delusional metaphysical belief system lest they face a puritanical authoritarian backlash for heresy from those convinced it is they who are on the right side of history. ("Transphobe! Bigot"="Sinner! Heretic!") Same sex attraction is about who you want to wake up next to, which requires no diagnostic tests whatsoever. Gender identitarianism is about requiring everyone else to affirm your delusion, and access to medical interventions based on such beliefs rather than evidence. Not the same, not by a country mile.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Agree but not many listens. All scared of being primaried out of office. Bunch of cowards.
Constitution has nothing in there about regulating guns, just owning a gun. Of course, originalists distort the intent. Since it was written in the 1770 or so, musket is what should be allowed, period, nothing more. That is originalist.

@Mikado463, it is fine to disagree otherwise we would be zombies and boring, but which part, total banning? Perhaps much more restrictions in order especially with today's firearms that spit out bullets like crazy unlike a musket of the 1770s era.
After all, the constitution is not absolute even though NRA think it is as does the current Justices. Wonder how machineguns are banned but not bump stocks, not yet anyway. Courts do change over time, but can we wait for that.

 

[Dude#1279435]

@Mikado463, it is fine to disagree otherwise we would be zombies and boring, but which part, total banning? Perhaps much more restrictions in order especially with today's firearms that spit out bullets like crazy unlike a musket of the 1770s era.
After all, the constitution is not absolute even though NRA think it is as does the current Justices. Wonder how machineguns are banned but not bump stocks, not yet anyway. Courts do change over time, but can we wait for that.

At least the very brief reading I did, bump stocks are not terribly efficient and can jam. So that's a positive IMO. People who want to own machine guns for use have some type of mental health issue, and I think it needs to be put in those terms to uphold post-86. Otherwise it will be normalized as acceptable. And the more of something there is in circulation, the more likely they will get into the wrong hands. I believe in the right to defend etc, and shotguns, rifles, and hand guns is already in the middle ground. Plus handguns with clips, bump stocks, glocks etc their already trying to make heavier artillery out of that. Honestly though I don't believe people who want MG's really care about all that.

 

[GO-NAD!]

You are correct. We took the Dutch protocol, which itself is already flawed, and advocacy org WPATH loosened it up further for our for-profit health system, and cultivated a false consensus with professional orgs like the AMA, AAP, APA, etc. via a bunch of circular references between them and WPATH's evolving standards of care that were driven by advocacy rather than evidence. That's what was exposed in the Alabama case, and in more granular detail in Cass. It punches a big hole in the argument "Who am I to question thousands of doctors?"

The risks associated with PB and hormones are far greater than you give credit for. They are unjustified and extremely heavy handed medical interventions that are wildly inappropriate to treat psych problems.

Same sex attraction does not require extreme body modification, nor does it compel everyone to participate in any delusional metaphysical belief system lest they face a puritanical authoritarian backlash for heresy from those convinced it is they who are on the right side of history. ("Transphobe! Bigot"="Sinner! Heretic!") Same sex attraction is about who you want to wake up next to, which requires no diagnostic tests whatsoever. Gender identitarianism is about requiring everyone else to affirm your delusion, and access to medical interventions based on such beliefs rather than evidence. Not the same, not by a country mile.

Okie-dokie. Look, until/unless the science surrounding the issue becomes settled, I can't bring myself to take an absolutist stance on it, pro or con. Any further debate on it will just become repetition of previous statements. So, WRT that particular question, I'm done here.

 

[GO-NAD!]

At least the very brief reading I did, bump stocks are not terribly efficient and can jam. So that's a positive IMO. People who want to own machine guns for use have some type of mental health issue, and I think it needs to be put in those terms to uphold post-86. Otherwise it will be normalized as acceptable. And the more of something there is in circulation, the more likely they will get into the wrong hands. I believe in the right to defend etc, and shotguns, rifles, and hand guns is already in the middle ground. Plus handguns with clips, bump stocks, glocks etc their already trying to make heavier artillery out of that. Honestly though I don't believe people who want MG's really care about all that.

While bump stocks might not be very efficient, they worked well enough for this loon. They should never have been permitted in the first place.

2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[mtrycrafts]

...They should never have been permitted in the first place.

2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You know who approved it, right.