As other governments cover sex reassignment, Anne Arundel County considers it elective

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and Unfounded OPINION

NO It is not ...... progressives have been LYING About Global Climate Warming Change for 25 yrs

Actually they originally tried to sell everyone on a "Coming Ice Age!" in the 70s' but it didn't take.

They rebranded to "Global Warming" and tried again in the 90s.

That time there were enough fools to buy it.
 

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
Like climate change, this is settled science.

If it was something before but now it's changed, how is this settled? Maybe they had it right the first time and the revision is wrong?

Just the fact that a few years ago it was something different is the red flag of uncertainty.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
You can pay for someone's sex reassignment any time you want. There are forums out there specifically for trans people to discuss life; go on one and offer it up. You could also start a crowdfund for this purpose.

You're welcome.

^

+1

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Like climate change, this is settled science.

1. What - exactly - is actually settled?

Four unsettled issues/questions (among many) immediately come to mind (that puts the "settled science" trope in doubt).

- That gender dysphoria exists?

- That we fully understand why gender dysphoria exists (or what it really means; as in, root problem or symptom of something else)?

- That sexual (organ) reassignment surgery corrects (or even substantially alleviates) the reason behind the request?

- That anyone fully understands the dynamic behind the request for sexual reassignment surgery?

Would be curious to explore these questions. And others....

2. Moving on, this "because you won't pay for whatever I want means you're intolerant" has already worn waaaaaaaay too thin. I agree with Vrai; if it's that important, crowd fund it. Government tax dollars are supposed to work for the benefit of the Greater Good, not pay for private projects. If you have ever complained about politicians' pork barrel spending you should immediately see the problem of publicly funding things like this. And no, you don't get to get away with, "But, but, but, this is different...."

3. And "climate change." Ugh. By definition, "climate change" means "weather." So please do a better job of presenting what you mean. In this case, I expect you mean, "human-caused, negative climate change." But again, we have a problem of "definition of terms." What do you mean by "negative"? Who decides whether the change is, in fact, negative. Even if any of this drivel is true, there is significant debate as to whether it's harmful as a global phenomenon (as in, while there may be some losers, large populations would actually stand to gain from "it"). So it's not "settled" from either a science or public policy perspective. But, as we know, you're not brandishing the "climate change club" for any other reason than a political one; to gain power over me to do your bidding.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
"If the rate of pollution increases during the nex 50 years as much as the authors expect it to, the average temperature of the earth could well drop by about 6 F. Sustained over a period of a few years, it is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age" Dr. S. I. Rassool and Dr, S. H. Schneider, Science journal.

"Fortunately, the authors hold out one bit of comfort. Within 50 years, they suggest, nuclear power may have replaced fossil fuels in energy production, and contamination of the atmosphere may have been curtailed" Walter Orr Roberts, National Geographic, April 1972, discussing the work of Rassool and Schneider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Orr_Roberts


Scientists ....settling science...
 
"If the rate of pollution increases during the nex 50 years as much as the authors expect it to, the average temperature of the earth could well drop by about 6 F. Sustained over a period of a few years, it is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age" Dr. S. I. Rassool and Dr, S. H. Schneider, Science journal.

"Fortunately, the authors hold out one bit of comfort. Within 50 years, they suggest, nuclear power may have replaced fossil fuels in energy production, and contamination of the atmosphere may have been curtailed" Walter Orr Roberts, National Geographic, April 1972, discussing the work of Rassool and Schneider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Orr_Roberts


Scientists ....settling science...

Hmmmmmmmm........ so where and how did they account for the massive burning woodlands all over the world. How many cars taken off the road would be the equivalent of the amount of CO and CO2 being generated by the fires, clouds of smoke able to be seen on satellite images as far east as the eastern seaboard, not to mention the loss of O2 producing greens? And volcano eruptions spewing noxious gases miles into the air? Rocket launches?

We should be in the ice age any minute now.... but we won't.
 

Salmon

Well-Known Member
Top