Nigeria Gets It Right - Castrate Rapists

I see authoritarian "conservatives" are confused by the concept of consent . . . again. Seems to be a recurring thread among rightwing authoritarians.

 

Consent...something I'm sure a child can give on such matters, ya?

 

Something parents can give. I'm sorry if this concept is too complex. Please, tell us more about how your Nanny State knows better. Can't wait. But, hey, I look forward to the next post where you again can't provide a real argument and use meme images instead. Countdown: 3 . . . 2 . . .

 

Oh so you mean that the individual's fate is left up to a panel of "experts" you will call "parents" but of which we can also call a "jury" to deliberate and decide an outcome of which could have lasting negative effects to that individual if they got it wrong?

lol!

I'm sorry if the comparison is so bang on that you are uncomfortable with it to the point you can't follow along...

 

Reading fail. Try actually reading.

I'm sorry that your "comparison has failed spectacularly and crumbles under even the slightest scrutiny. But congrats on being able to use words instead of just memes this time.

 

The comparison is actually bang on.

And it's hilarious that now you are in denial because of it.

 

The comparison is complete garbage, and I can try to tutor you on this if further instruction is necessary. Not all of us follow your "Government knows best" philosophy.

 

Oh you mean that you are asking for permission to back up your claim that my comparison is "complete garbage"?

You have my permission, son. Go for it. I'd love to read you break it down for me.

 

Thank you for admitting that you can't distinguish between consent and nonconsent.

 

The child can't consent just as the suspect can't consent.

I know what consent means.

You need to bring something else to the table now as I've just explained how neither can consent

 

They have these things called "guardians." I'm surprised you've never heard of them.

Your posts prove otherwise.

Can you tell the difference between an adult being forced to undergo circumcision against their consent and an infant undergoing circumcision with their parents' consent? You are claiming you can't understand the difference. I think you can if you put your mind to it.

 

Can you please explain the difference between the parents or guardians forcing a life altering procedure on an individual who can't consent based off of evidence versus a jury who orders a punishment of an individual involving a life altering procedure based off of evidence?

 

If their child is requesting it and their physician is recommending it and the parents are supporting it, then no one is being forced into anything. It's just butthurt rightwing authoritarians crying that they weren't allowed to use the State to force their beliefs on others. Do you require more lessons on how consent works?

 

Child cannot consent. Do you not understand that?

The child is not of a mature enough age to fully grasp or understand that which they are requesting. So you need to remove the child's request from the equation.

A child. Cannot. Consent.

Do you understand the meaning of the word consent?

Lol

 

Their parents can.

Parents can. You expect me to believe that you support outlawing infant circumcision or that you honestly think that no underage person can ever undergo any kind of surgery? I call bull ****.

Yes. I'm trying to help educate rightwingers, who seem upset that anyone would support the concept.

 

The parents consent based off of evidence given by the child and consult with doctors. So the doctors and parents weigh evidence...from the child.

This is no different now to that of a jury weighing evidence from the trial and the suspect to decide a course of action we call punishment to that of the suspect.

Both have life altering consequences

Do you have anything else because so far you are failing

 

Yes. As with all other medical care involving children.

Bull ****, and you know it. See below.

You are claiming that there is no difference between 1) a patient, their guardians, and their physician coming to a mutual decision on medical care for the patient and 2) A jury of strangers overriding all three. I'm sorry, but if you actually do believe that pile of **** (and I don't think you do) you are the only one on the planet short of a fascist dictator who thinks the two are the same.

Be honest: While I know you won't answer this question, I have to ask -- are you honestly going to say that any medical decision that you would make for your child, while consulting with a physician, should instead be decided by a jury of strangers? You say that's what you believe, but I don't think you actually believe that.

 

So your arguement is "bullshit and you know it"

Lol

Physicians are strangers. They are impartially looking at the evidence provided to decide a course of action...

The child like the suspect are both helpless to the decisions of others to decide life altering consequences.

Both of which, have been wrong. Yet you support one and not the other.

Lol

Thanks for playing.

 

Then I feel sorry for you. No, that isn't how physicians typically work.

Yes. And you are fine with that unless you don't like their conclusion. But, again, that doesn't make them strangers. They are familiar with their patients.

No. They are more helpless with your preferred Nanny State intervention than they are working with their own physician and guardians.

Yes, I support medical decisions being left up to the patient, their guardians, and their physician over the government telling them what to do. I'm sorry you disagree and I'm sorry that you are so blinded by the desire for authoritarianism that you can bring yourself to pretend that you can't tell the difference between the two. The rest of us can. Best of luck.

 

So they are castrating accused rapists (their legal system is notoriously corrupt), executing homosexuals for even saying they are gay and are almost mandating Christianity after the lobbying from numerous American groups have been propagandizing them for years.


Sound like a right wing paradise

 

Oops, I should have said residency. For those of the America-hating right.

 

You have a hell of a lot more faith in the infallibility of our government than I do

 

The consequences if you are wrong are the same. They are life altering for both the child, and the suspect who cannot consent. They can both provide "evidence" that is weighed in such decisions.

Where you are getting tripped up on here is the difference between motivations. The jury is motivated to come to some kind of punishment. The parents and the doctors are motivated to come to some kind of treatment.

I would argue that the parents and the doctors could form bias decisions based off of personal agendas' for gender affirming care. And of which they have been wrong in the past and yet you are ok with that practice. Jurors can also be wrong. But you are not ok with that practice. You get tripped up in perceived motivation...I do not.

 

umm..... we were discussing Nigeria, or did you miss that part? Do you feel that sexual predators shouldn't be corrected? If so, why not? You support the mutilation of minors in your rhetoric on this site, but the state mitigating future risk is the bridge you suddenly find too far?

 

This response makes no sense in context of the conversation. Did you wish to amend your response so that it might?