[Mike5055]

Why the hell is any medical doctor willing to perform this? The kid isn't possibly capable of making this decision. If this goes through, I'd be curious what the odds are of suicide by age 18.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-24-2014 05:58 AM)Troll King Wrote:  

This is some really sick shit.

I have fairly liberal and usually have a "live and let live" reactions to lesbians, even hardcore feminist lesbian separatists (again I have met a handful of this type who are friends with my feminist mother and served on NOW boards with her), but this shit turns my stomach.

Statistics are a bitch when looking who has the least chance of getting sexually abused - hint - it is not within the biological traditional mother-father families:

   

And even that statistic is faulty, since we don't account for the huge growing group of gay and lesbian parents who adopt. Without a doubt in my mind I believe that their numbers are likely even worse than with the single mothers. Will you find some good homosexual parents in the world? Yes - sure, just as many will turn out fine being raised by a single mom and the assortment of boyfriends over the years, but clearly the stats favor traditional male-female-biological (very important!) couples. What a difference those stats are to the portrayal of the deviant married couple in the mainstream media. One would think that a child risks only abuse from his biological father or his biological uncle. The reality is that those guys are usually the best defenders against any abuse.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Zel, maybe I've suddenly become daltonistic but I can't tell apart the categories in the legend of this graph. Which box corresponds to which?

[Feisbook Control]

(10-24-2014 08:20 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Zel, maybe I've suddenly become daltonistic but I can't tell apart the categories in the legend of this graph. Which box corresponds to which?

Top to bottom equals left to right. So, the "Physical Abuse" graph is as follows:

Married Biological Parents = 2.5
Other Married Parents = 15.4
Unmarried Parents = 13.5
Single Parent w/Partner = 26.2
Single Parent, no Partner = 9.0
Neither Parent = 10.6

It then repeats those categories in the same fashion for the other two graphs.

Zelcorpion: Can you please provide a link to where you got that?

EDIT: I did an image search which led from http://theothermccain.com/2014/06/10/fac...-new-hate/ to http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteveryt...t-married/ to the original study.

[Muk]

a 17 year old girl is incapable of consenting to sex with her 18 year old boyfriend
but an 11 year old can consent to being pumped up with drugs, silicone put in his chest, and having his junk cut off??

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-24-2014 08:50 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

[

Zelcorpion: Can you please provide a link to where you got that?

EDIT: I did an image search which led from http://theothermccain.com/2014/06/10/fac...-new-hate/ to http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteveryt...t-married/ to the original study.

That's the one - I also found this one using slightly different data (maybe different years or countries) - but essentially with the same message:

http://www.zentactics.com/childabusestatistics.html

[The Father]

Someday, people will look back at this era - with our lesbo "parenting" etc - and see it as institutionalized child abuse. That's what it is.

And the decision to let them CASTRATE a little boy - criminal. Absolutely criminal. Ghoulish, concentration-camp experiment sort of stuff. I never advocate violence on the internet. But if someone was to decide they'd had enough and were to cut up those two cunts the way they cut that little boy...well, I wouldn't advocate that but I'd certainly understand it...

[Lizard King]

The article is 3 years old. Is anyone aware of any updates on this story?

[aphelion]

(10-24-2014 01:50 PM)Muk Wrote:  

a 17 year old girl is incapable of consenting to sex with her 18 year old boyfriend
but an 11 year old can consent to being pumped up with drugs, silicone put in his chest, and having his junk cut off??

[kosko]

It's hard to find same-sex couple data. Governments don't care for it or its basically illigal in other places to do so. Only now Sweden is the only country with a large longbstanding database. Canada used to take same-sex data but our Conservative Government nuked our Government Stats agency so it no longer has the power or resources to take that detail of data any longer.

[Feisbook Control]

(10-25-2014 11:39 PM)kosko Wrote:  

It's hard to find same-sex couple data. Governments don't care for it or its basically illigal in other places to do so. Only now Sweden is the only country with a large longbstanding database. Canada used to take same-sex data but our Conservative Government nuked our Government Stats agency so it no longer has the power or resources to take that detail of data any longer.

Lack of funding probably isn't the reason. The additional cost of adding one or two extra questions or categories regarding sexuality would probably be fairly marginal. No, it's political, even when it comes from a conservative (i.e. progressive-lite) party. It's part of the "they're just like us"/"everyone is the same" agenda being pushed. It's precisely because the people with power know that people aren't all the same. They know that if such knowledge were readily available in the form of cold, hard facts, it would immediately be taken up and used against them by the real right.

[Only One Man]

So an 11 year old child who hasn't yet gone through puberty and developed secondary sex characteristics can completely understand sexuality and gender dynamics and possess the agency to make a permanent, extreme life-altering decision. And we should leave that decision completely up to the child.

But grown women don't possess the ability to consent to sex if they've been drinking.

Edit: Didn't see the post above me that said essentially the same thing.

[kosko]

(10-26-2014 10:56 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 11:39 PM)kosko Wrote:  

It's hard to find same-sex couple data. Governments don't care for it or its basically illigal in other places to do so. Only now Sweden is the only country with a large longbstanding database. Canada used to take same-sex data but our Conservative Government nuked our Government Stats agency so it no longer has the power or resources to take that detail of data any longer.

Lack of funding probably isn't the reason. The additional cost of adding one or two extra questions or categories regarding sexuality would probably be fairly marginal. No, it's political, even when it comes from a conservative (i.e. progressive-lite) party. It's part of the "they're just like us"/"everyone is the same" agenda being pushed. It's precisely because the people with power know that people aren't all the same. They know that if such knowledge were readily available in the form of cold, hard facts, it would immediately be taken up and used against them by the real right.

Well they hide it behind political reasons because Canada used to make the robust census packacke mandstory for a large enough portion of Canadians that you could get a realible measure on the data. It was one of things Canada did very well, our Stat agency had one of the most detailed databases in the world and didn't politicize the findings like they do elsewhere like America.

The Canadian Consertives used a weak right side approach in that the census was a "violation of privacy" simply as a way to papaer over outputs from thier shoddy policies, especially with the economy. Now we have no idea if incomes are actually rising or tanking for example because the data is now all junk as it gives people incentives incentives not participate or lie on the data which was hard to do before.

So for same-sex couples and homos this came in handy because Canada viewed them the same and they were subject to the rules. What they did with the data was another thing but it was there. I remember for my prep school thesis when I had to do it on gays and attempting to link poverty to depression I had a lot of resources to draw on.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(10-27-2014 06:29 AM)kosko Wrote:  

...

Well they hide it behind political reasons because Canada used to make the robust census packacke mandstory for a large enough portion of Canadians that you could get a realible measure on the data. It was one of things Canada did very well, our Stat agency had one of the most detailed databases in the world and didn't politicize the findings like they do elsewhere like America.

The Canadian Consertives used a weak right side approach in that the census was a "violation of privacy" simply as a way to papaer over outputs from thier shoddy policies, especially with the economy. Now we have no idea if incomes are actually rising or tanking for example because the data is now all junk as it gives people incentives incentives not participate or lie on the data which was hard to do before.

So for same-sex couples and homos this came in handy because Canada viewed them the same and they were subject to the rules. What they did with the data was another thing but it was there. I remember for my prep school thesis when I had to do it on gays and attempting to link poverty to depression I had a lot of resources to draw on.

They don't need census nowadays. The NSA in the US and the CSES in Canada is keeping a better eye on the real population structure than it ever could in the old times. As soon as you enter the country - legally or illegally - there is a virtual you archived - complete with mobile GPS position data, your income and living situation - with whom you live for how long etc. Even Dilbert once joked that they have more data saved than you've got yourself - in case of data loss, you could get a backup of your hard-drives from them.

With data like this they could solve most crimes, but then openly admitting that level of surveillance is counterproductive and that is not what they are here for. The old statistical bureaus were limited, because they no longer were needed for the real administrative top. My estimate is that access to that kind of data is well beyond highest official political levels among the true leadership of each country. You - know - those guys who rule regardless of who is charge supposedly. Somewhere up top they know exactly how much havoc is being caused via feminism & the gender crap.

Even the mainstream is admitting it partly, but of course not telling the full story either:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10...story.html

[kerouac]

If the kid decides to later-on-in-life commit suicide, and the sexual-reassignment surgery had an important play in his/her decision, would the lesbian parents and/or doctors be held responsible for the death? Is there a statute-of-limitations for this sort of thing?