The Fallacy of Centrism

[Necroghastia]

You say that as though policing gender and sexuality is at all a reasonable limit.

It is. If the majority of the population disagrees with such, is it not therefore their right to disagree with such?

Dumb, circular logic. For one, why is it reasonable? And, as you yourself said, there are limits to everything. If a majority of a population are antisemites, is it reasonable for them to break out the red armbands and Hugo Boss suits?

Why shouldn’t doctors be able to refuse treatment on trans patients. They have opinions, private jurisdictions, and beliefs. Is forcing them to do something they do not want to do an optimal decision?

Doctors are supposed to help people. "Do no harm" and all. If they have an objection to treating someone for such a paltry reason then frankly they should not be doctors.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

And no fucking 5 year old is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

At eight my teacher read to us Where the Red Fern Grows, a tale that involves at least one death of a child and no small amount of child endangerment. I think you're coddling children as to what topics they can handle.

And the book is labeled as a ‘fun and adventurous tale of a young boy… ((dogs go here and stuff)).
If people cannot separate reality from television ((we have self harm warnings, extreme violence warnings, warnings for warnings on TV, the list goes on.)), what about books? ((This is not my views, I am just arguing both sides.))

[EuroStralia]

Why shouldn’t doctors be able to refuse treatment on trans patients. They have opinions, private jurisdictions, and beliefs. Is forcing them to do something they do not want to do an optimal decision?

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.

Docters should not be allowed to turn down patients for those reasons, but should be allowed to not prescribe medications or perform a surgery that they view as immoral.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Why shouldn’t doctors be able to refuse treatment on trans patients. They have opinions, private jurisdictions, and beliefs. Is forcing them to do something they do not want to do an optimal decision?

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.

Do we have laws justifying otherwise? Yes. And that doctor can in fact do such. It’s just called he gets fired and they find a new doctor.

[Ors Might]

At eight my teacher read to us Where the Red Fern Grows, a tale that involves at least one death of a child and no small amount of child endangerment. I think you're coddling children as to what topics they can handle.

And the book is labeled as a ‘fun and adventurous tale of a young boy… ((dogs go here and stuff)).
If people cannot separate reality from television ((we have self harm warnings, extreme violence warnings, warnings for warnings on TV, the list goes on.)), what about books? ((This is not my views, I am just arguing both sides.))

Alright but I'm not sure what this has to do with your argument for what books we can permit kids and teens to read and when?

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Please tell me one thing in which there is not limits. Ignoring such limits that you state can be justly ignored results in, typically, you not having the grandest of times with life in general.

Please justify the limitations you wish to impose upon me and others.

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3. Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves. ((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself)) identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

[Necroghastia]

At eight my teacher read to us Where the Red Fern Grows, a tale that involves at least one death of a child and no small amount of child endangerment. I think you're coddling children as to what topics they can handle.

And the book is labeled as a ‘fun and adventurous tale of a young boy… ((dogs go here and stuff)).
If people cannot separate reality from television ((we have self harm warnings, extreme violence warnings, warnings for warnings on TV, the list goes on.)), what about books? ((This is not my views, I am just arguing both sides.))

...Is this comprehensible to anyone else or nah

[Ors Might]

Please justify the limitations you wish to impose upon me and others.

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3. Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves. ((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself)) identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

No.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

And the book is labeled as a ‘fun and adventurous tale of a young boy… ((dogs go here and stuff)).
If people cannot separate reality from television ((we have self harm warnings, extreme violence warnings, warnings for warnings on TV, the list goes on.)), what about books? ((This is not my views, I am just arguing both sides.))

Alright but I'm not sure what this has to do with your argument for what books we can permit kids and teens to read and when?

If they cannot separate fictional events from life, they are more apt to commit acts of say, violence and self-harm. Much in a way that people used to argue that video games caused acts of violence.

[Ors Might]

Alright but I'm not sure what this has to do with your argument for what books we can permit kids and teens to read and when?

If they cannot separate fictional events from life, they are more apt to commit acts of say, violence and self-harm. Much in a way that people used to argue that video games caused acts of violence.

..Okay but that's a problem for parents and medical professionals to handle, not libraries?

[Necroghastia]

Please justify the limitations you wish to impose upon me and others.

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3.

Why? What's the actual need for a limit?

Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves.

Well this is just an outright lie. I'd wager that every conscious individual on Earth labels themself in some way.

((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself))

what?

identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

So? Nothing you have said necessitates any need at all to give a damn about policing other peoples' identities.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

It is. If the majority of the population disagrees with such, is it not therefore their right to disagree with such?

Dumb, circular logic. For one, why is it reasonable? And, as you yourself said, there are limits to everything. If a majority of a population are antisemites, is it reasonable for them to break out the red armbands and Hugo Boss suits?

They have a right to do so. Right to freedom of free association , speech, expression.

Why shouldn’t doctors be able to refuse treatment on trans patients. They have opinions, private jurisdictions, and beliefs. Is forcing them to do something they do not want to do an optimal decision?

Doctors are supposed to help people. "Do no harm" and all. If they have an objection to treating someone for such a paltry reason then frankly they should not be doctors.[/quote]

Yet those very people are doctors. Make do with what we have.
As a side note, do you label everything as you disagree with dumb?

[Vivida Vis Animi]

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.

Do we have laws justifying otherwise? Yes. And that doctor can in fact do such. It’s just called he gets fired and they find a new doctor.

Yet in your ideal world these laws would not exist now would they? If sex discrimination is entirely moral to you, so should racial and religious discrimination.

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.

Docters should not be allowed to turn down patients for those reasons, but should be allowed to not prescribe medications or perform a surgery that they view as immoral.

Does that not go against the Hippocratic oath? A patient is prescribed a medication because it is needed, not because the patient or prescribing doctor was bored and needed something to do. Additionally, imagine a scenario where a doctor refuses to preform lifesaving surgery because of perceived immorality. In your eyes, the death of that patient is entirely justified?

[Wizlandia]

Why shouldn’t doctors be able to refuse treatment on trans patients. They have opinions, private jurisdictions, and beliefs. Is forcing them to do something they do not want to do an optimal decision?

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.

I mean there's nuance here. There's a difference between refusing to treat someone because he/she is trans, and refusing to prescribe a certain treatment (e.g. sex reassignment surgery) because of some personal beliefs.

The former is discriminatory, the latter isn't.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3.

Why? What's the actual need for a limit?

Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves.

Well this is just an outright lie. I'd wager that every conscious individual on Earth labels themself in some way.

((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself))

what?

identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

So? Nothing you have said necessitates any need at all to give a damn about policing other peoples' identities.

*Based upon sexuality.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

If they cannot separate fictional events from life, they are more apt to commit acts of say, violence and self-harm. Much in a way that people used to argue that video games caused acts of violence.

..Okay but that's a problem for parents and medical professionals to handle, not libraries?

So, leave it with the parents to handle the issues that you can’t figure out? Wonderful. We have a whole generation already dependent on their parents, do we need to add more of a burden?

[Vivida Vis Animi]

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.

I mean there's nuance here. There's a difference between refusing to treat someone because he/she is trans, and refusing to prescribe a certain treatment (e.g. sex reassignment surgery) because of some personal beliefs.

The former is discriminatory, the latter isn't.

I don't think those morally opposed to sex reassignment surgery are going to specialize in said surgical procedures, only to then refuse to perform them. I am by no means an expert in health or transitioning, but I don't think this is a topic covered in medical school as a routine procedure

[Ors Might]

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.

I mean there's nuance here. There's a difference between refusing to treat someone because he/she is trans, and refusing to prescribe a certain treatment (e.g. sex reassignment surgery) because of some personal beliefs.

The former is discriminatory, the latter isn't.

It doesn't matter. Unless their basis is rooted in actual medical data for why they refuse to prescribe a patient a certain treatment, they have no business doing so.

[Wizlandia]

I mean there's nuance here. There's a difference between refusing to treat someone because he/she is trans, and refusing to prescribe a certain treatment (e.g. sex reassignment surgery) because of some personal beliefs.

The former is discriminatory, the latter isn't.

I don't think those morally opposed to sex reassignment surgery are going to specialize in said surgical procedures, only to then refuse to perform them. I am by no means an expert in health or transitioning, but I don't think this is a topic covered in medical school as a routine procedure

Yeah you're probably right here. Just speaking in terms of abstract principle.

[El Lazaro]

Please justify the limitations you wish to impose upon me and others.

Limit the amount of sexuality to at least 3. Only 1 percent of the world labels themselves. ((It’s funny, you folks hate labels, but need to make 14 percent of your life about labeling yourself)) identify as anything outside of the major 2, which is Straight and Homosexual. 0.73 percent of that 1 percent identify as queer.

I’m not strongly against somehow banning the concept of pansexuality until someone makes the flag colors look less ugly, but asexuality is still a thing that is meaningfully different from the other ones. Why crack down on it? It would just make language for describing sexuality less useful.

[Ors Might]

..Okay but that's a problem for parents and medical professionals to handle, not libraries?

So, leave it with the parents to handle the issues that you can’t figure out? Wonderful. We have a whole generation already dependent on their parents, do we need to add more of a burden?

Parents are usually the first people to notice that their children need some sort of psychiatric help. This isn't a new burden for them, this is just part of the job of being a parent.

[Necroghastia]

Dumb, circular logic. For one, why is it reasonable? And, as you yourself said, there are limits to everything. If a majority of a population are antisemites, is it reasonable for them to break out the red armbands and Hugo Boss suits?

They have a right to do so. Right to freedom of free association , speech, expression.

Did I ask if they had a right to do so? No? Then how about you respond to what I actually asked, which was if it was reasonable.

Doctors are supposed to help people. "Do no harm" and all. If they have an objection to treating someone for such a paltry reason then frankly they should not be doctors.

Yet those very people are doctors. Make do with what we have.

Again, not a response. They should not be doctors if that's all it takes for them to whine.

As a side note, do you label everything as you disagree with dumb?

Only the things that are dumb. The sort of stuff that takes two seconds to realize sucks shit if you actually take time (again, even so much as two seconds) to think about it.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Do we have laws justifying otherwise? Yes. And that doctor can in fact do such. It’s just called he gets fired and they find a new doctor.

Yet in your ideal world these laws would not exist now would they? If sex discrimination is entirely moral to you, so should racial and religious discrimination.

Docters should not be allowed to turn down patients for those reasons, but should be allowed to not prescribe medications or perform a surgery that they view as immoral.

Does that not go against the Hippocratic oath? A patient is prescribed a medication because it is needed, not because the patient or prescribing doctor was bored and needed something to do. Additionally, imagine a scenario where a doctor refuses to preform lifesaving surgery because of perceived immorality. In your eyes, the death of that patient is entirely justified?

The Hippocratic Oath is ‘do no harm’. Within your provided circumstance, no, it is not. Due to the Fourteenth Amendment ((and other laws.)) But, within the most part, he is required to perform life-saving treatment ((including in the State of Florida)).

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.

I mean there's nuance here. There's a difference between refusing to treat someone because he/she is trans, and refusing to prescribe a certain treatment (e.g. sex reassignment surgery) because of some personal beliefs.

The former is discriminatory, the latter isn't.

Agreeable. I’m attempting to argue both sides.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

They have a right to do so. Right to freedom of free association , speech, expression.

Did I ask if they had a right to do so? No? Then how about you respond to what I actually asked, which was if it was reasonable.

Yet those very people are doctors. Make do with what we have.

Again, not a response. They should not be doctors if that's all it takes for them to whine.

As a side note, do you label everything as you disagree with dumb?

Only the things that are dumb. The sort of stuff that takes two seconds to realize sucks shit if you actually take time (again, even so much as two seconds) to think about it.

Damn, going into insults now?
Yes, it is reasonable. They are expressing their viewpoints.