Jump to content

Do Republicans Believe in Democracy?


Recommended Posts

Anytime you ask a Republican about living in a democracy they deflect and talk about our being a “Republic”. Do they associate democracy with Democrats and therefore mistrust the term by association? Or does their antipathy signal a deeper lack of faith in our Constitution and its modern interpretation which necessarily leaves behind old power structures and assumptions?

This essay sparked my query:


“'Do Republicans believe in democracy?' It is a question that on the surface might seem dismissive or even divisive. Certainly the answer for many Republicans is a resounding yes. However, the facts are what they are. And as journalists we need to follow trails of inquiry, even if they lead to uncomfortable places. One of those places right now--and it has been for some time-- is voter suppression and questions around the national commitment to majority rule through elections. 

The Washington press corps has operated for decades under one basic assumption: both Democrats and Republicans, whatever their ideological differences, ultimately believe in the norms and tenets of America’s constitutional government. Sadly, this assumption is no longer a given. What that means for the future of American journalism, and for the country as a whole, is not entirely clear. We are living in dangerous times that cannot be normalized or ignored.

Over the years, we all have seen plenty of examples when Democratic and Republican orthodoxies have proven to be right, and wrong. We’ve seen corrupt politicians in both parties. From issues of war, to economics, to domestic and social policy, no one party has had a monopoly on wisdom, or the truth. To write this is to risk wading into "false equivalence," that treacherous phrase which has rightly become a topic of fervent discussion over the last several years. To be sure, there have been major differences between the parties, and you could argue that Democrats have tended to be more progressive on important issues like equity and justice around race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Although even there, the record has been mixed. Others will surely argue that Republicans have been better on a range of issues.

Regardless of how you might assign praise and blame to the parties on policy, a fundamental thing to remember is this: for most of our history, how American politics was supposed to work was that you had honest competition between the parties for votes. This competition could be fierce and even dirty, but it was ultimately rooted in a belief that elections had consequences and thus should be won. Once elections were over, the winners took office in a peaceful transfer of power. That was a given. Reporting then turned to what politicians did with the authority bestowed by voters. The press corps was expected to probe, investigate, and explain that to the public. 

Where we stand now in 2021 is very different."

An excerpt from today’s #Steady post. 
 

Another OpEd here describing an alternative form of democracy called “competitive democracy” which was first seen in Cold War authoritarian states.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Perhaps you can name a country with pure capitalism. Then we could perhaps identify a monopoly therein. Your assumption that America is capitalist is cute. Since we grew beyond an agrarian econom

Go play college sophomore with someone else. I'm not interested in your pedagogy. We have an actual country with real people who need policy solutions. You're not smart enough or worldly enough to pro

Posted Images

Both parties used to believe in democracy, though both tended at times to be fickle about which humans were people,  Currently Democrats believe in the democracy of the dollar, but pretend to believe in the masses.   The Republicans abandoned all pretense.   White, Christian, landowning gun owners are citizens, but their voting rights are a transient privilege  granted by whim of the elite.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Of course they believe in democracy. 1 acre 1 vote. What’s the problem?

Do you really think Republicans want to give some Kansas farmer priority over the owner of multiple high rises?   The day they quit controlling him or fail to indoctrinate him at church they will cast his votes aside as misguided unamerican rambling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That "Democracy" / "Republic" distinction they attempt make really demonstrates how utterly ignorant they are.

Of course you have to be able to read and understand a dictionary to know the meaning of words so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the topic title, apparently not -
 

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/07/974443597/biden-signals-support-for-voting-rights

Excerpt -

As Republicans in statehouses across the country introduce hundreds of bills raising barriers to vote, President Biden is issuing a new executive order signaling his administration's commitment to expanding, not shrinking, voting access and rights.

snip

Republicans in Congress are united in opposing the measure authored by Democrats. Former President Donald Trump's false claims of widespread voter fraud, while rejected by federal judge after federal judge, have further galvanized the Republican Party into pushing for more barriers in the voting process, including restrictions on early voting days, and more identification requirements for mail-in ballots, among other proposals in dozens of statehouses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Of course they believe in democracy. 1 acre 1 vote.  One dollar, one vote What’s the problem?

FiFY - see Citizens United 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who was paying attention to how the Democrats dealt with Bernie in the last to presidential primaries would not associate them with democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dog said:

Anyone who was paying attention to how the Democrats dealt with Bernie in the last to presidential primaries would not associate them with democracy.

"Two"... Larn ta reed moran.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dog said:

Anyone who was paying attention to how the Democrats dealt with Bernie in the last to presidential primaries would not associate them with democracy.

Okay Bullshitter. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

As to the topic title, apparently not -
  

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/07/974443597/biden-signals-support-for-voting-rights

Excerpt -

As Republicans in statehouses across the country introduce hundreds of bills raising barriers to vote, President Biden is issuing a new executive order signaling his administration's commitment to expanding, not shrinking, voting access and rights.

 snip

Republicans in Congress are united in opposing the measure authored by Democrats. Former President Donald Trump's false claims of widespread voter fraud, while rejected by federal judge after federal judge, have further galvanized the Republican Party into pushing for more barriers in the voting process, including restrictions on early voting days, and more identification requirements for mail-in ballots, among other proposals in dozens of statehouses.

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:

Anyone who was paying attention to how the Democrats dealt with Bernie in the last to presidential primaries would not associate them with democracy.

 Dog's whataboutism is weak.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Anyone who was paying attention to how the Democrats dealt with Bernie in the last to presidential primaries would not associate them with democracy.

Really?

Which candidate got more votes?

I have the feeling that you are missing the basic point of this "democracy" stuff

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Anyone who was paying attention to how the Democrats dealt with Bernie in the last to presidential primaries would not associate them with democracy.

You're forgetting that parties are like country clubs. Bernie's not actually a member of the democratic party. They allow to him to eat in their clubhouse and to play on their golf course, but he's not a member of the club.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Remodel said:
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Anyone who was paying attention to how the Democrats dealt with Bernie in the last to presidential primaries would not associate them with democracy.

You're forgetting that parties are like country clubs. Bernie's not actually a member of the democratic party. They allow to him to eat in their clubhouse and to play on their golf course, but he's not a member of the club.

^^This^^. Bernie made clear he was not a Democrat, and eschewed being active in the Democratic Party machinery.  BUT, he wanted them to support HIM.  I don't recall he did much in the way of promoting the Democratic Party.  He prided himself on being outside.

And, Dog pretending he gives a shit about the Democratic Party and how they select their candidates is cute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Remodel said:
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Anyone who was paying attention to how the Democrats dealt with Bernie in the last to presidential primaries would not associate them with democracy.

You're forgetting that parties are like country clubs. Bernie's not actually a member of the democratic party. They allow to him to eat in their clubhouse and to play on their golf course, but he's not a member of the club.

Let's also remember that he ran a good campaign but did not get as many votes.

That's how democracy is decided... who gets the most votes.

Not "the candidate Dog likes"

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Anytime you ask a Republican about living in a democracy they deflect and talk about our being a “Republic”. Do they associate democracy with Democrats and therefore mistrust the term by association? Or does their antipathy signal a deeper lack of faith in our Constitution and its modern interpretation which necessarily leaves behind old power structures and assumptions?

This essay sparked my query:


“'Do Republicans believe in democracy?' It is a question that on the surface might seem dismissive or even divisive. Certainly the answer for many Republicans is a resounding yes. However, the facts are what they are. And as journalists we need to follow trails of inquiry, even if they lead to uncomfortable places. One of those places right now--and it has been for some time-- is voter suppression and questions around the national commitment to majority rule through elections. 

The Washington press corps has operated for decades under one basic assumption: both Democrats and Republicans, whatever their ideological differences, ultimately believe in the norms and tenets of America’s constitutional government. Sadly, this assumption is no longer a given. What that means for the future of American journalism, and for the country as a whole, is not entirely clear. We are living in dangerous times that cannot be normalized or ignored.

Over the years, we all have seen plenty of examples when Democratic and Republican orthodoxies have proven to be right, and wrong. We’ve seen corrupt politicians in both parties. From issues of war, to economics, to domestic and social policy, no one party has had a monopoly on wisdom, or the truth. To write this is to risk wading into "false equivalence," that treacherous phrase which has rightly become a topic of fervent discussion over the last several years. To be sure, there have been major differences between the parties, and you could argue that Democrats have tended to be more progressive on important issues like equity and justice around race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Although even there, the record has been mixed. Others will surely argue that Republicans have been better on a range of issues.

Regardless of how you might assign praise and blame to the parties on policy, a fundamental thing to remember is this: for most of our history, how American politics was supposed to work was that you had honest competition between the parties for votes. This competition could be fierce and even dirty, but it was ultimately rooted in a belief that elections had consequences and thus should be won. Once elections were over, the winners took office in a peaceful transfer of power. That was a given. Reporting then turned to what politicians did with the authority bestowed by voters. The press corps was expected to probe, investigate, and explain that to the public. 

Where we stand now in 2021 is very different."

An excerpt from today’s #Steady post. 
 

Another OpEd here describing an alternative form of democracy called “competitive democracy” which was first seen in Cold War authoritarian states.

Well, first of all - I agree with the take of the article..... I am not convinced that the GOP any longer cares for the rule of law or the norms and traditions of our Republic any longer.  Which is ironic given that "conservative" typically means they want to keep the norms and traditions alive while eschewing the new and shiny until it's proven.  The deliberate scuttling of Garland's nomination by not even letting it come to a vote was really the nail in the coffin for me.

However, in your opening remarks about "living in a Democracy" and thinking that folks who correct it are deflecting..... they are technically correct.  We don't live IN a Democracy, we live in a Republic.  The concepts of our gov't are democratic in nature - but the actual form of gov't is a Republic.  But I digress.....

Anywho...... I think where we've gone off the tracks is that we no longer view politics as a fiercely fought battle but where the winners and losers alike sit down afterwards and work together for the common good.  Or that the sides disagree on policy but assume the other side at least has the best interest of the country and their constituents at heart and they are simply going about trying to achieve that in different ways.  Instead, we've gotten used to the idea that politics is scorched earth tactics and that it's a no-holds barred fight to the death.  And I truly see it getting worse not better.  I don't think there's anyway to put that genie back in the bottle until something dramatic comes to a head.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Well, first of all - I agree with the take of the article..... I am not convinced that the GOP any longer cares for the rule of law or the norms and traditions of our Republic any longer.  Which is ironic given that "conservative" typically means they want to keep the norms and traditions alive while eschewing the new and shiny until it's proven.  The deliberate scuttling of Garland's nomination by not even letting it come to a vote was really the nail in the coffin for me.

However, in your opening remarks about "living in a Democracy" and thinking that folks who correct it are deflecting..... they are technically correct.  We don't live IN a Democracy, we live in a Republic.  The concepts of our gov't are democratic in nature - but the actual form of gov't is a Republic.  But I digress.....

Anywho...... I think where we've gone off the tracks is that we no longer view politics as a fiercely fought battle but where the winners and losers alike sit down afterwards and work together for the common good.  Or that the sides disagree on policy but assume the other side at least has the best interest of the country and their constituents at heart and they are simply going about trying to achieve that in different ways.  Instead, we've gotten used to the idea that politics is scorched earth tactics and that it's a no-holds barred fight to the death.  And I truly see it getting worse not better.  I don't think there's anyway to put that genie back in the bottle until something dramatic comes to a head.  

There seems to be a large portion of the country trying to drag it back to 1860. I'm not sure what kind of cooperation you can expect from them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Well, first of all - I agree with the take of the article..... I am not convinced that the GOP any longer cares for the rule of law or the norms and traditions of our Republic any longer.  Which is ironic given that "conservative" typically means they want to keep the norms and traditions alive while eschewing the new and shiny until it's proven.  The deliberate scuttling of Garland's nomination by not even letting it come to a vote was really the nail in the coffin for me.

However, in your opening remarks about "living in a Democracy" and thinking that folks who correct it are deflecting..... they are technically correct.  We don't live IN a Democracy, we live in a Republic.  The concepts of our gov't are democratic in nature - but the actual form of gov't is a Republic.  But I digress.....

Anywho...... I think where we've gone off the tracks is that we no longer view politics as a fiercely fought battle but where the winners and losers alike sit down afterwards and work together for the common good.  Or that the sides disagree on policy but assume the other side at least has the best interest of the country and their constituents at heart and they are simply going about trying to achieve that in different ways.  Instead, we've gotten used to the idea that politics is scorched earth tactics and that it's a no-holds barred fight to the death.  And I truly see it getting worse not better.  I don't think there's anyway to put that genie back in the bottle until something dramatic comes to a head.  

The USA is a democratic republic. The representatives in the republic are chosen by popular election.

Both current parties agree that the big corporations are the most important constituents. Meanwhile, Democrats at least go thru the motions of doing something good for the people who voted for them... sometimes it actually works. Republicans have gotten so much brand-loyalty and have become so stratified that they scoff at the concept, sometimes even when they're speaking to their voters.

Parties have reversed roles in several respects over the past few generations. And both used to be more of a mixed bag.

15 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

There seems to be a large portion of the country trying to drag it back to 1860. I'm not sure what kind of cooperation you can expect from them. 

No, they're using the glamor 1860 to try and drag it into an alternate dimension.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

^^This^^. Bernie made clear he was not a Democrat, and eschewed being active in the Democratic Party machinery.  BUT, he wanted them to support HIM.  I don't recall he did much in the way of promoting the Democratic Party.  He prided himself on being outside.

And, Dog pretending he gives a shit about the Democratic Party and how they select their candidates is cute.

Not cute, but disingenuous as always.

 

As Sol would say, Doggy styling as usual, or bullshitting. Take your pick. it amounts to the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Well, first of all - I agree with the take of the article..... I am not convinced that the GOP any longer cares for the rule of law or the norms and traditions of our Republic any longer.  Which is ironic given that "conservative" typically means they want to keep the norms and traditions alive while eschewing the new and shiny until it's proven. 

That in no way shape or form is what "conservative" means. unfortunately for the US and it's citizens, that's what 70+ million of TFG's voters thin it means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't say the 'gop', as of about two decades ago, 'believes' in democracy. fuck, indeed true democracy is utterly toxic to their cause (and they know it)!

they have dropped virtually all pretense of morality and of being guided by truth and facts. the twisted fkn' parasites have become virtual enemies of decency and have earned their place firmly on the wrong side of history.

all the cards are on the table, fuck 'em sideways, their global equivalents, too.

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And now the big boys of the GOPPER Reich are 

proclaiming loudly that theirs is the party of working class Americans . . 

but . . . but . . . Where are they on the fight for the $ 15 minimum wage ?? 

Completely and totally MIA is where 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/03/republicans-are-trying-to-rebrand-themselves-as-working-class-heroes

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Remodel said:

You're forgetting that parties are like country clubs. Bernie's not actually a member of the democratic party. They allow to him to eat in their clubhouse and to play on their golf course, but he's not a member of the club.

Bernie doesn't play golf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Remodel said:

You're forgetting that parties are like country clubs. Bernie's not actually a member of the democratic party. They allow to him to eat in their clubhouse and to play on their golf course, but he's not a member of the club.

So they allow him to run but stack the deck against him. Not very democratic IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

And, Dog pretending he gives a shit about the Democratic Party and how they select their candidates is cute.

“Only a complete moron would presume to know what another poster thinks “... Bus Driver

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dog said:

“Only a complete moron would presume to know what another poster thinks “... Bus Driver

You pretend we don't have your voluminous posting history from which to draw upon.

Stop pretending to give a shit about Democrats and/or Blacks.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

You pretend we don't have your voluminous posting history from which to draw upon.

Stop pretending to give a shit about Democrats and/or Blacks.  

When all else fails, go personal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

When all else fails, go personal.

Just because you don't like your reflection in the mirror, doesn't mean the mirror is somehow broken.  If you don't care for how your posts here reflect on your character, then change the way you post. The basis of the statement is factual.

For instance - have you changed your mind on your standpoint that all transgender people have a mental illness?

WHO says no.  AMA says no.  APA says no.  Mayo says no.  But you, in all your wisdom, say it is.

Own your flaws dog.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

And now the big boys of the GOPPER Reich are 

proclaiming loudly that theirs is the party of working class Americans . . 

but . . . but . . . Where are they on the fight for the $ 15 minimum wage ?? 

Completely and totally MIA is where 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/03/republicans-are-trying-to-rebrand-themselves-as-working-class-heroes

Don't be silly! Working class people don't want more money. They're happy with what they get, and will get by somehow... It's the lazy underclass that wants more money, just for showing up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Just because you don't like your reflection in the mirror, doesn't mean the mirror is somehow broken.  If you don't care for how your posts here reflect on your character, then change the way you post. The basis of the statement is factual.

For instance - have you changed your mind on your standpoint that all transgender people have a mental illness?

WHO says no.  AMA says no.  APA says no.  Mayo says no.  But you, in all your wisdom, say it is.

Own your flaws dog.

 

 

I think you're referring to people with gender dysphoria, not transgender's. In any case I agree with Dr. McHugh. When one thinks they are the opposite sex of their biology they have a mental disorder.

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ | CNSNews

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dog said:

I think you're referring to people with gender dysphoria, not transgender's. In any case I agree with Dr. McHugh. When one thinks they are the opposite sex of their biology they have a mental disorder.

Why can't you on the Reich just leave those people alone ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I think you're referring to people with gender dysphoria, not transgender's. In any case I agree with Dr. McHugh. When one thinks they are the opposite sex of their biology they have a mental disorder.

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ | CNSNews

Sometimes the biology is wacky. Check out genetic hermaphrodites (XXY) and sex chromosome switching: outwardly male yet XX chromosomes. Or girls with androgen insensitivity who are XY. Finally there are genetic harlequins, with two distinct cell lines contributing to embryogenesis. Swab their cheek and get one individual, test their blood & get another.

Are you so omniscient you can tell all these persons what gender they are just by looking under the hood?

Sorry, punk. The science is clear and you don’t understand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Why can't you on the Reich just leave those people alone ?? 

They really love big-gov't getting into the bedroom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Sometimes the biology is wacky. Check out genetic hermaphrodites (XXY) and sex chromosome switching: outwardly male yet XX chromosomes. Or girls with androgen insensitivity who are XY. Finally there are genetic harlequins, with two distinct cell lines contributing to embryogenesis. Swab their cheek and get one individual, test their blood & get another.

Are you so omniscient you can tell all these persons what gender they are just by looking under the hood?

Sorry, punk. The science is clear and you don’t understand it.

We're not talking about close to the line. We're talking about people who feel they are the opposite sex from their biological sex. Those people have a mental disorder.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

We're not talking about close to the line.

Bull Pucky as usual - you want to mess with all of them. Show me a single Reichista web site that makes such a distinction. 

Not that you know or care at all, but as Philly notes above all human beans are a mix of male and female characteristics - trans folks are simply closer to being 50-50 male & female than the rest of us. 

Stop with your hate for once. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Bull Pucky as usual - you want to mess with all of them. Show me a single Reichista web site that makes such a distinction. 

Not that you know or care at all, but as Philly notes above all human beans are a mix of male and female characteristics - trans folks are simply closer to being 50-50 male & female than the rest of us. 

Stop with your hate for once. 

Bullshit. Most trans biological sex is not at all ambiguous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bullshit. Most trans biological sex is not at all ambiguous.

You don't need evidence or sources because you have your hate to keep you warm. 

Sources ??  

Let's see, you've now gone all hysterical about women's sports, and gender ID - bathrooms are next, right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AJ Oliver said:

You don't need evidence or sources because you have your hate to keep you warm. 

Sources ??  

Let's see, you've now gone all hysterical about women's sports, and gender ID - bathrooms are next, right? 

Spot the hater.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
11 hours ago, Dog said:

When all else fails, go personal.

You mean like, calling you a liar because you tell lies all the time?

Considering that every post The Mutt has ever made has been a fail, what else is there but going personal?

Calling that asshole disingenuous is a high compliment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

We're not talking about close to the line. We're talking about people who feel they are the opposite sex from their biological sex. Those people have a mental disorder.

There isn’t a line, that’s what you refuse to understand. It’s a fuzzy boundary that ultimately defies binary description.

Your reductio ad absurdam approach to genetic sex characteristics hasn’t kept pace with scientific knowledge or modern mores. 

Why are you afraid of knowledge & science? MAGA-era tropes don’t cut it anymore. It’s unAmerican to force your religion on others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Considering that every post The Mutt has ever made has been a fail, what else is there but going personal?

Calling that asshole disingenuous is a high compliment.

it's almost 'liberating', I'll tell hard-case right-wingers that they're disingenuous, fuckwitted arseholes all day long. in good conscience, even!

but, there is a limit, because evidence very strongly suggests that they dropped from they mommas like 'that'.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

it's almost 'liberating', I'll tell hard-case right-wingers that they're disingenuous, fuckwited arseholes all day long. in good conscience, even!

but, there is a limit, because evidence very strongly suggests that they dropped from they mommas like 'that'.

On their heads.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

There isn’t a line, that’s what you refuse to understand. It’s a fuzzy boundary that ultimately defies binary description.

Your reductio ad absurdam approach to genetic sex characteristics hasn’t kept pace with scientific knowledge or modern mores. 

Why are you afraid of knowledge & science? MAGA-era tropes don’t cut it anymore. It’s unAmerican to force your religion on others.

The science is that for the vast majority of transgenders their biological sex is unambiguous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dog said:

The science is that for the vast majority of transgenders their biological sex is unambiguous. 

I'm sorry, you need to remind us.  Is this the type of science we should believe? Or is the type of science that says it's NOT a mental disorder, so it's OK to ignore it?

It's very hard to keep track of what science is truthy enough for you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

The science is that for the vast majority of transgenders their biological sex is unambiguous. 

And yet, it is clear that the relationship between external genitalia and sex identity is non binary. You can continue to say "I know this is true", yet it is clear your argument requires ignorance and minimizing the impact of exceptions which disprove your assumptions.

I've listed hormonal and genetic reasons why genitalia and biological sex don't always match. Why are you so sure there aren't other reasons, or reasons why sexual identity doesn't match either a person's genetic sex or their biological sex characteristics?

Let me simplify. Do you have proof that genitalia always correlates with sexual identity? No, you do not. There is, in fact, evidence to the contrary. So in order to convince yourself that you are nonetheless in charge on this issue, you label those who don't conform to your assumptions "abnormal" and act in a condescending fashion towards them.

Here's something that will blow your mind. There are millions of people who will never conform to your assumptions. They know you are full of shit, and as citizens of this country, they are entitled to do something about it. Just be glad you are happy and secure within your own body. Let them worry about themselves. Its none of your business, and you haven't the mental aptitude or attitude to begin to discuss it with them. 

You suffer from a mental condition similar to narcissism: its called being a self-centered troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

And yet, it is clear that the relationship between external genitalia and sex identity is non binary. You can continue to say "I know this is true", yet it is clear your argument requires ignorance and minimizing the impact of exceptions which disprove your assumptions.

I've listed hormonal and genetic reasons why genitalia and biological sex don't always match. Why are you so sure there aren't other reasons, or reasons why sexual identity doesn't match either a person's genetic sex or their biological sex characteristics?

Let me simplify. Do you have proof that genitalia always correlates with sexual identity? No, you do not. No one is arguing that There is, in fact, evidence to the contrary. So in order to convince yourself that you are nonetheless in charge on this issue, you label those who don't conform to your assumptions "abnormal" and act in a condescending fashion towards them. I haven't labeled anyone abnormal unless you count a mental disorder. I certainly have not condescended toward anyone, that was your imaginary Dog again.

Here's something that will blow your mind. There are millions of people who will never conform to your assumptions. They know you are full of shit, and as citizens of this country, they are entitled to do something about it. Just be glad you are happy and secure within your own body. Let them worry about themselves. Its none of your business, and you haven't the mental aptitude or attitude to begin to discuss it with them. 

You suffer from a mental condition similar to narcissism: its called being a self-centered troll. You don't know me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog thinks that telling trans folks they have a mental disorder isn't condescending.  Even when the medical experts have said explicitly that dog is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I haven't labeled anyone abnormal unless you count a mental disorder. I certainly have not condescended toward anyone, that was your imaginary Dog again.

Yes.

Telling people whose biological structure, chemistry, personal history & genetics coalesce to lead them to a conclusion at variance with your simplistic notions that their sexual identity is wrong and allows you to diagnose them with a mental disorder from behind your keyboard while drinking a beer is condescending as hell.

I'm not sure how you think you can justify being such a fucking know-it-all when your argument depends on not knowing it all. It screams pure arrogance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dog said:

You suffer from a mental condition similar to narcissism: its called being a self-centered troll. You don't know me.

Yet you think you know hundreds of thousands of people better than they know themselves :rolleyes:

I think you just don’t want to acknowledge who & what you’ve become.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Yet you think you know hundreds of thousands of people better than they know themselves :rolleyes:

I think you just don’t want to acknowledge who & what you’ve become.

He doesn't think he's knows them, he thinks he should tell them how to be and what to think, just like he does with every other topic where he feigns superiority on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

... You don't know me.

We know that you believe you should have the authority to tell people what their identity must be.

That's a mental illness

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This stupid “debate” is exactly the stuff that makes this thread relevant.

An arrogant white man is busy telling other people he’s never met that their gender identity is wrong, that they have a mental disorder, and he’s worried about being called condescending.

Authoritarianism in da flesh. 

Self-determinism cannot be trusted. Ya gotta let a whiny bitch instruct you on what is right & wrong, how to think. Meanwhile, ignore science and feign righteousness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

This stupid “debate” is exactly the stuff that makes this thread relevant.

An arrogant white man is busy telling other people he’s never met that their gender identity is wrong, that they have a mental disorder, and he’s worried about being called condescending.

Authoritarianism in da flesh. 

Self-determinism cannot be trusted. Ya gotta let a whiny bitch instruct you on what is right & wrong, how to think. Meanwhile, ignore science and feign righteousness.

Apparently, the USA has gone from putting a man on the moon to having 40% of it's people wanting it to be governed on this basis.

Stupid... and convinced that it's cool to be stupid

Mean-spirited... and convinced that being mean is the way to succeed.

And unwilling to break away from obviously insane & destructively dysfunctional people as long as they are shouting Trumpublican buzzwords and/or Jeezuss-blather.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dog and the elk don't understand statistics. There are enough people in the US that something out of the ordinary is not only likely, but almost guaranteed.

non-single set of DNA? Check

crazy chromosomal sets? Check

external genetalia that doesn't match the hormonal profile of the body? Check

Idiots who don't understand that even a rare case is going to be pretty common in a big enough population?  Check

And non-binary isn't even all that rare. .5% of the population.   1.5million people

I think we know who is suffering from mental delusions here....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

@Dog and the elk don't understand statistics.

Stats are kin to facts so they don't believe in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, phillysailor said:

This stupid “debate” is exactly the stuff that makes this thread relevant.

An arrogant white man is busy telling other people he’s never met that their gender identity is wrong, that they have a mental disorder, and he’s worried about being called condescending.

Authoritarianism in da flesh. 

Self-determinism cannot be trusted. Ya gotta let a whiny bitch instruct you on what is right & wrong, how to think. Meanwhile, ignore science and feign righteousness.

Speaking of condescending.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Speaking of condescending.

Poor little dawgy.  I don't think he's the one pretending to know more than the scientific community though......  conflating him calling you an idiot with you saying that all the major medical groups are wrong is a little bit... dishonest... don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Speaking of condescending.

Ignored these statistics again I see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

We know that you believe you should have the authority to tell people what their identity must be.

That's a mental illness

- DSK

 

No I don't...You imagined that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Speaking of condescending.

Calling out racists & minimizing their effects has become “reverse racism” to many entitled white people. So I shouldn’t be surprised that upon being told to stop diagnosing people you’ve never met with a mental illness, and displaying both ignorance of and antipathy to scientific realities, you are only worried that you’ve been called “condescending.”

You're earning your troll label by daily effort. Your willful ignorance isn’t an act or an accident... it’s done with full understanding that you can only tolerate your own opinions, and are free to reject the facts & stats of reality at your leisure.

You repeatedly take the path of least effort by not engaging in substantive discussion of issues and you deny all responsibility of your actions, traits common to Republicans who have all but given up responsible leadership in our country.

To do otherwise might threaten your self-perceived authority & power in society. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grrr... said:
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Speaking of condescending.

Poor little dawgy.

Someone should explain the difference between contempt and condescension to The Mutt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Dog said:

No I don't...You imagined that.

Do you believe that it's ok to tell people they have a mental disorder when the medical, sociological, and psychological scientific communities directly contradict the statement?

If so, what expertise and/or medical degree do you believe you have to make that determination?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Calling out racists & minimizing their effects has become “reverse racism” to many entitled white people. So I shouldn’t be surprised that upon being told to stop diagnosing people you’ve never met with a mental illness, and displaying both ignorance of and antipathy to scientific realities, you are only worried that you’ve been called “condescending.”

You're earning your troll label by daily effort. Your willful ignorance isn’t an act or an accident... it’s done with full understanding that you can only tolerate your own opinions, and are free to reject the facts & stats of reality at your leisure.

You repeatedly take the path of least effort by not engaging in substantive discussion of issues and you deny all responsibility of your actions, traits common to Republicans who have all but given up responsible leadership in our country.

To do otherwise might threaten your self-perceived authority & power in society. 

Very well summarized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grrr... said:
1 hour ago, Dog said:

No I don't...You imagined that.

Do you believe that it's ok to tell people they have a mental disorder when the medical, sociological, and psychological scientific communities directly contradict the statement?

If so, what expertise and/or medical degree do you believe you have to make that determination?

Okay.  We have a direct question posed to Dog. 

Will he answer it?  If so, will the answer be clear and unequivocal?  Or, will it be vague, affording him the opportunity to deny having said something?

Will he simply ignore the question and pose one of his own?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Do you believe that it's ok to tell people they have a mental disorder when the medical, sociological, and psychological scientific communities directly contradict the statement?

If so, what expertise and/or medical degree do you believe you have to make that determination?

He's an old white guy, isn't that enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Someone should explain the difference between contempt and condescension to The Mutt.

Well, to be fair, it's a combination of both.  I find it hard not to condescend to someone who preaches intolerance and enables hatred and bigotry through a combination of rejection of scientific principles and active and intentional campaign of lies and deceit.  Trump and Dog have a LOT in common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As y'all can readily ascertain, the Reich's project is to get people all riled up about cultural flash points . . 

while they busy themselves picking the public's pockets and trashing the right to vote. 

A political cartoon: GOP strategy - distract their voters : democrats

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2021 at 6:01 AM, Bus Driver said:

You pretend we don't have your voluminous posting history from which to draw upon.

Stop pretending to give a shit about Democrats and/or Blacks.  

This is why you should never feed a stray dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Democracy?  The only thing Republicans still believe in seems to be owning the libs...and using bullshit culture wars to stoke white grievance. 

Like this?

I really hope she gets nailed for giving tours to the insurrectionists the day before the attack on the Capitol. Stupid cow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Democracy?  The only thing Republicans still believe in seems to be owning the libs...and using bullshit culture wars to stoke white grievance. 

That's their voters.

Their leaders believe in money and power.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just drove out I80 to Fort Collins and back to pick up a bike (2008 Look 595, barely ridden with full DA). Colorado was nice, SLC was surprisingly nice. Reno was Reno. On the way back, I was lucky to scoot through Donner just as chain control was shutting everything down. Very lucky, I spun out once, a controlled spin at about 20 ending in a snow bank. No chains, rear wheel drive and definitely not winter tires. I had done my research in Reno and couldn't find anything that said conditions were getting bad. I would have laid over in Reno if I had known. I was lucky.

But oh Nellie. Small town NV, UT and WY were little fear camps. Let's just say that when I rolled up in long hair and a Tesla, they just kinda knew I wasn't from around them parts. However, I did learn at the diner that the Johnson+Johnson vaccine was 5% effective and if they'd just let things alone the flu would have worked itself out last summer. I also heard the phrase city slicker used un-ironically for the first time in my life (and refrained from pointing out that their boy Shitstain was the ultimate city slicker). In these small towns, anyone with any brains, looks or talent had long ago left leaving a town full of ugly, shiftless idiots whining about city slickers while listening to actual city slickers on AM radio.

Still, it was a beautiful drive, especially so with the light traffic. Well, I did get pulled over in NV. I was more than a little annoyed with myself for not having seen him. Actually I did see him when I crossed him (I was doing 80, the speed limit and traffic average, on cruise control). But I hadn't noticed him creeping up on me and he certainly knew his territory. There was a 50mph construction zone but I slowed for that. But then it choked down to a single lane and an idiot wouldn't merge in front of me so I scooted past him. Oops. But I didn't complain at all and I ultimately got let off.

I80 in NV without the traffic is like US 50 in NV only more so. About every few hundred miles or so there's a sign saying, Prison Zone, No Hitchhiking. Really. It's like their local industry but don't call it socialism.

image.png.a07d613c0b4b6e85d9a418018ac6c6fa.png

Also, you see triple trailers in NV, UT, WY and CO. It's a regional thing.

image.png.2033d502392a8e1b3ca1a28a41867fb2.png

Anyways, I got the llello, 15 pounds of carbon goodness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2021 at 11:45 AM, Grrr... said:

Do you believe that it's ok to tell people they have a mental disorder when the medical, sociological, and psychological scientific communities directly contradict the statement?

If so, what expertise and/or medical degree do you believe you have to make that determination?

That one is comfortable with being transsexual and therefore does not satisfy the definition of "Gender Dysphoria" does not mean they don't have a mental disorder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dog said:

That one is comfortable with being transsexual and therefore does not satisfy the definition of "Gender Dysphoria" does not mean they don't have a mental disorder.

I think you're confused.  I didn't mention "Gender Dysphoria".  I asked if you you believe that it's ok to tell people they have a mental disorder when the medical, sociological, and psychological scientific communities directly contradict the statement?

Your answer is clearly yes - that you believe YOU are the decider of mental disorders in regards to trans-genders.  And before your pathetic mealy-mouthed ass tries to back pedal, let's make it even clearer.

Being Transgender Not a Mental Disorder, WHO Says

The APA: Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder.

I could keep going.  I have before.  You're simply a bigot.

@Bus Driver Sorry man.  He actually gave a crystal clear answer this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dog said:

a mental disorder

I'd argue you have a 'mental disorder', you fkn' petty dipshit, and that's not merely rhetorical.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'd argue you have a 'mental disorder'

He is gravely afflicted with psychopathic malevolence, malignancy and malignity . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'd argue you have a 'mental disorder', you fkn' petty dipshit, and that's not merely rhetorical.

Signs of Mental Illness in Dogs

The symptoms of depression in dogs include:

  • Changes in appetite.
  • Weight loss.
  • Reduced activity.
  • Withdrawal from social interaction.
  • Refusal of water or treats.
  • Excessive shedding.
  • Sudden changes in behavior.

Anxiety in dogs also presents with similar symptoms as seen in humans. While some anxieties are based upon mild, learned fears, more extreme cases, such as separation anxiety, are true mental illnesses that require veterinary and behavioral intervention.

General anxiety symptoms in dogs include:

  • Trembling.
  • Withdrawal or hiding.
  • Attempts to escape.
  • Self-injuring behavior.
  • Diarrhea or vomiting.
  • Reduced activity.
  • Destructive behavior.
  • Obsession with the perceived offenses of Democrats
  • Issues with poodles identifying as transgender

Separation anxiety in dogs is akin to a panic attack, marked by extreme behaviors such as urination, coprophagia (eating feces), chewing and attempts at escape. In the case of separation anxiety, these behaviors usually occur at or near exit points of the home. For example, dogs may chew on door frames or jump out of windows.

Signs of Mental Illness in Dogs (cuteness.com)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites