Conversion Therapy

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is not the first time. You did it in the transgender thread.

https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/356168-transgender-serious/page-1 (post 15)

Though I since I couldn't seem to find any more examples of it, I guess you don't say nearly as often as I thought you did. However, you did spend nearly that entire thread trying to prove transgendered people don't exist, and also at one point compared it to autism so, I mean I really don't know what you think is offensive, but that kind of is.

 

Also, I didn't just hone in on one word, I replied to you whole point, and didn't really get angry until I addressed your point on the hormones. Then when I responded to both arguments you guys basically just straw maned me and used a "lol u mad" argument, which you are continuing to use now.

 

 

The research article makes no claim to being able to change people, though. In fact, it says that it says that it's impossible to change people's sexualities through hormones outside of the womb. If people want to change good for them, but an embryo in the womb doesn't want to change. It doesn't even know what gay or straight is. Hell, even the theory that you can alter sexuality prenatally is suspect.

 

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000020

There is research from both sides of the aisle White, and even then none of it suggests that you can change people's sexualities as adults. That is simply not how hormones work, which is what I've been saying this entire time, and you guys have yet to present concrete evidence otherwise.

 

Also while there's nothing wrong with monitoring children in the womb it is kind of unethical to try to create gay babies don't you think? That's a little bit more extreme than creating babies who will be like super athletic or have blonde hair. 

In that case I apologize for that instant. In my defense, the post in question where I used the word "Transsexualism" I did use transgender many more times. I was unaware of the nature of the word. 

 

Um, well, there were multiple trans people who agreed with me on that thread that it would be considered a mental illness. We can talk about my feelings on trans later and somewhere else if you would like, but this is not the place for it. 

 

---

 

Science changes Elly, if sexuality can change naturally overtime (as evidenced by some cases with Bi people), there should be a way to change it artifically.

 

No, it's not unethical. There's not a god damn thing wrong with being gay. So I don't see anything wrong with creating gay babies

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

No, it's not unethical. There's not a god damn thing wrong with being gay. So I don't see anything wrong with creating gay babies

First off, though being gay isn't wrong by any means, it absolutely makes their life more difficult as a whole for little benefit.

 

Second, this mentality is on par with human genetic engineering, which is taboo AF.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First off, though being gay isn't wrong by any means, it absolutely makes their life more difficult as a whole for little benefit.

 

Second, this mentality is on par with human genetic engineering, which is taboo AF.

Oh well, gay marriage was taboo a decade ago, it's about time we change 

 

I'm quite happy to push that envelope. If parents want a gay kid or a black kid (they're white), etc. I think that should all be allowed. Like god damn, I wish I could have gotten my parent's grey eyes. If genetics could have made that happen, I'd happily trade my shitty brown ones in for it

[a bad post]

Oh well, gay marriage was taboo a decade ago, it's about time we change 

 

I'm quite happy to push that envelope. If parents want a gay kid or a black kid (they're white), etc. I think that should all be allowed. Like god damn, I wish I could have gotten my parent's grey eyes. If genetics could have made that happen, I'd happily trade my shitty brown ones in for it

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being gay, but I don't think that's something you should try to manipulate. Especially because the same science to can be used to say "we only want straight babies". Like you should be able to love your kid no matter what they are gay, straight, whatever, and you shouldn't try to change who they are before they can even discover it for themselves. I mean I'm already iffy on the idea of designer babies, but imo this goes beyond what we should try messing with. Idk, wanting grey eyes seems a far cry from wanting a gay baby.

[Makο]

I personally fail to see the issue with attempting to design a child to your liking before the child even lives or breaths, i.e. in an embryonic state or even earlier. At least, when thinking about the stance of abortion about many of the debaters here. If people here believe a woman should be able to terminate the pregnancy at any point within said pregnancy, then why does it matter to them whether or not the baby is being genetically modified for whatever? It should still hold the same status as lifeless clump of cells, shouldn't it? It's not living or breathing, cannot make it's own choices, has no desires or preferences, and it's still a part of the woman's body, of which they state she should have full control over. Something like this doesn't matter to it one way or another to it; it'll deal with the life hand dealt it once it's born.

 

It just seems a tad hypocritical to me.

[Delibirb]

You did not answer the question? And I don't really. There are people like Roxas and Wahr who have fundamentally different world views, it's logical they're on the opposite side more oft then not. 

 

Shall I repeat the question?

I was not trying to, and have no intention of, answering the question, because if such a question must be asked, then clearly reason and understanding won't be present in the ensuing debate, and such a debate is not worth having.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I personally fail to see the issue with attempting to design a child to your liking before the child even lives or breaths, i.e. in an embryonic state or even earlier. At least, when thinking about the stance of abortion about many of the debaters here. If people here believe a woman should be able to terminate the pregnancy at any point within said pregnancy, then why does it matter to them whether or not the baby is being genetically modified for whatever? It should still hold the same status as lifeless clump of cells, shouldn't it? It's not living or breathing, cannot make it's own choices, has no desires or preferences, and it's still a part of the woman's body, of which they state she should have full control over. Something like this doesn't matter to it one way or another to it; it'll deal with the life hand dealt it once it's born.

 

It just seems a tad hypocritical to me.

well, in one of those scenarios, it will become a being capable of making decisions and having their own views. That's the main difference, really.

[Dad]

This isn't a political correct thread though, nor a trans one. Will you call her out on derailing for her personal agenda? Avoiding derailment is a cornerstone of a sensible and civil debate isn't it?

 

C'mon...really y'all are actually gonna claim the moral higher ground here?

 

Summary:

 

It wasn't my intention to trigger Elly; I don't care enough to deliberately "delegitimize" trans people, therefore transsexual and transgender have equal bearing to me. Elly and I assume others here, want me to use Transgender, so I will. She's will being a SJW and derailing, and deserved to be called out. YCM left has no higher ground when it comes to civility.

 

Conversion therapy has everything to do with transexual/transgendered persons if I'm not mistaken.  This subtopic break I'm not to upset about, but seeing how closely related these two are, I can understand why the topic came up.  However, the whole biting at each other over terminology and further derailing I won't tolerate.  You seem to have cleared it up.

 

Keep it that way.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Except I have not been proven wrong. None of my arguments have.

 

The theory cannot be disproven, and Transsexuals is acknowledged as a proper term by major institutions.

I don't browse Tumblr so I'm not familiar with the reasoning behind what I'm supposed to be called, so I don't know whether you're right or wrong. I'm just attacking the nature of your arguments. Saying that someone getting angry while arguing means there's a flaw in their argument is disingenuous to the highest degree.

 

I could point out that I believe your religion is 100% bullshit and probably tantamount to mental illness and you'd get angry at me (and promptly try to mask it as self-righteous condescension), so why is this any different?

 

It's not.

 

That's also not how proof works. Saying something can't be disproven is irrelevant- something has to be proven to hold any true weight.

[Tentacruel]

Although from a religious standpoint allowing consensual conversion "therapy" makes some sense, it's a really dangerous path to tread considering factors that are likely involved.  (ie: Pressuring/threatening people into doing it.)

 

Also anything involving any physical conditioning or anything other than just talking about it should be banned immediately.
 
From most stories I hear it seems to be pretty funking shady.
 

I could point out that I believe your religion is 100% bullshit and probably tantamount to mental illness and you'd get angry at me (and promptly try to mask it as self-righteous condescension), so why is this any different?
 
It's not.

 

Uncalled for.  Try to keep this kind of sweeping personal attacks to a minimum.  It does not help this section.  

 

Please and thank you. <3

[Makο]

well, in one of those scenarios, it will become a being capable of making decisions and having their own views. That's the main difference, really.

If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that because a fetus will grow up into a thinking feeling creature, the mother should not be allowed to perform any genetic modifications on it. But at the same time, should the mother wish to instead terminate this fetus, it should be fine?

 

...That's... a bit weird, isn't it? Is it just an unthinking, unfeeling clump of cells, or is it a potential life that will develop its own thoughts and feelings? If it's the former, there isn't really a single reason to justify not doing the genetic modifications, should the mother choose to do so. It's a part of the mother's body at that point, and she has the right to do with it what she will, correct? However, if it's the latter, why should the mother, save for special circumstances, have the ability to terminate the fledgling life on a whim, regardless of her reasons?

 

Morality of the situation aside, what you're saying just seems inconsistent.

[Dad]

If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that because a fetus will grow up into a thinking feeling creature, the mother should not be allowed to perform any genetic modifications on it. But at the same time, should the mother wish to instead terminate this fetus, it should be fine?

 

...That's... a bit weird, isn't it? Is it just an unthinking, unfeeling clump of cells, or is it a potential life that will develop its own thoughts and feelings? If it's the former, there isn't really a single reason to justify not doing the genetic modifications, should the mother choose to do so. It's a part of the mother's body at that point, and she has the right to do with it what she will, correct? However, if it's the latter, why should the mother, save for special circumstances, have the ability to terminate the fledgling life on a whim, regardless of her reasons?

 

Morality of the situation aside, what you're saying just seems inconsistent.

 

Keep this in the new "Abortion" thread.  Not here.

[Makο]

Keep this in the new "Abortion" thread.  Not here.

Oh, there's one of those? My bad.

 

Should you, Rocchi, wish to respond, do so in that new thread, and I'll continue there as well.

 

 

edit: if there is one i actually cant even find it so rip

edit2: oh that one

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Keep this in the new "Abortion" thread.  Not here.

That's a valid argument though Dad, the same people saying that a fetus is a mere clump of cells and not a human, thus deliberating over the "death" of said fetus, now have concern about the life of said fetus. If the argument stands there, I don't see why it shouldn't here. I understand your concern to want to not turn this into another abortion referendum, but Mako's point doesn't seem flawed to me, and I'm curious as to your logic on why it would be (if you think such). Being the mother's body, if she has a right to terminate a potential life, surely she should have control over less than capital punishment aspects over potential life as well right?

 

For the sake of not turning this into an abortion debate, we can start with the premise the mother does have the right over her body, and go from there

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I could point out that I believe your religion is 100% bullshit and probably tantamount to mental illness and you'd get angry at me (and promptly try to mask it as self-righteous condescension), so why is this any different?

I'm willing to admit the mad comment was unnecessary for the argument. I never should have said that and, in retrospect, I will delete that part of it.

 

However, you should know your argument is valid. One must always walk understanding that their belief of the world could be wrong. If one were to say it is a mental illness to believe in God, I could accept that argument, but disagree. Faith is not Truth. I believe in a supreme being that created the world but let's his creation tear itself apart. It is understandable to consider a belief like that bordering on delusion. While I may disagree, to pretend like the argument holds no water is ridiculous.

 

That's all I will say about the subject because it is irrelevant to the debate right now.