Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaster86
An uneducated rube with no ability to read, research and comprehend what they are reading could reasonably feel that way, yes. Because they can't read. Unfortunately, Mr. Pollievre can read, so he would be able to take all the same information available to us and process it, which would unfortunately lead him to the conclusion that this type of ban will do infinitely larger amounts of harm than good to those same children.
Because normally when we place limitations on kids, it is to prevent them from harming themselves or others based on science and data that says the actions we are preventing them from taking are harmful or destructive to themselves and those around them.
In this case, we are doing the opposite and seeking to impose bans and enforce rules that will prevent a child (or their parents) from seeking gender affirming care (among other things puberty blockers are used for). Care giving you a very good indication as to what the scientific intention is.
True. If you lean to the side of science and doctors, you realize bans like this are destructive and bad for the overall health of a decent part of our population. If you lean on the side of ignoring science, you're probably not working with the best interest of these people in mind because you're wilfully ignoring all the data we have infront of us to choose to be a barbaric nerd..
|
Thanks for your insight. It is really obvious you have no ability to even try to understand differing views from what you deem to be correct. It’s too bad, and one of the underlying failings in society currently.
And then you cloud your moral views, though legitimate, under a misplaced veil of solved science. It is a difficult and reasonable debate, and there is potential for significant harm to either side if they get it wrong. A nuanced and challenging issue that you simplify into a black and white, right or wrong answer. An issue like that needs debate and discussion, not name calling in response to a reasonable differing opinion.