Taxpayer funded sex change operation?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:02 pm

Betty Boop;1404128 wrote: It is hard to see ahso, do you use the smilies? they so help people who don't know your sense of humour.It wasn't humor, it was meant to lighten the mood. Imagine it this way: you're sitting at a table with 3 other people and the discussion gets a little too close for comfort between two of the people so a third person says to the fourth bla-bla-bla in relation to a small bit of the discussion assertive enough to get everyone's attention and then immediately goes back to eating their desert. It's a mood breaker, that's all. S/he doesn't sit there smiling at everyone because that would be disrespectful to the people who believe the discussion to be a serious one.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:04 pm

Ahso!;1404125 wrote: The indicator is there, you just didn't see it.

When a comment is made which diverts attention away from the main discussion and onto some insignificant part it's often intended as a means to lighten the mood, let everyone take a breath and then continue on a bit refreshed.

I frequently see the "indicators" in other posters' comments, probably because I'm accustomed to their style and am expecting a light hearted comment.

Clearly, I got your posting style wrong and didn't expect a mood lightening post from you.

I sincerely apologise.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:14 pm

spot;1404084 wrote: They're the reasons one might expect to hear from a third world country, not the richest go-anywhere do-anything hyperpower the world's ever seen. Do you feel you have an inherent national problem distributing resources?

DUHHHHHH---We sure do! The Puritan Ethic it used to be called. Now it's called Tinkle Down, or Voodoo Economics. That's progress! :yh_rotfl

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:30 pm

spot;1404084 wrote: They're the reasons one might expect to hear from a third world country, not the richest go-anywhere do-anything hyperpower the world's ever seen. Do you feel you have an inherent national problem distributing resources?

We're not a communist country, you baboon. The rich keep what they have and the rest of us eke by. What the hell does this have to do with Valerie's original topic? And why are you attempting to browbeat her into submission with condescending remarks, ie 'pretty little head'?

Once again, this kind of behavior is EXACTLY why this forum is practically empty. Who wants to post with a vulture hovering over every word, waiting to pick it apart?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:35 pm

Discussions end when people cease participating in them not when whining takes them over.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:59 pm

SnoozeAgain;1404163 wrote: We're not a communist country, you baboon. The rich keep what they have and the rest of us eke by. What the hell does this have to do with Valerie's original topic?
Valerie asked "Where then do we draw the line? How far do we go paying for things?". We were exploring the degree to which state-funded health provision was appropriate under a Capitalist regime.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:34 pm

I can fully understand Valerie questioning the decision.

I don't think It has anything to do with capitalism. In the UK yes, we carry out gender changes on the NHS, This means that an unemployed person who has never paid a penny Into the system stands as much chance of getting the gender change as someone who has paid his stamp for years. Folk are fine with that and we don't question It because It's our system and a system that works perfectly well.

However America has a different health care system so what works and what Is acceptable to us, Is not always so In other countries. If the system happens to be that It's citizens pay for all their health care, then we In the UK can not even begin to understand how Americans feel when someone who has taken another human life, gets a freebie on the state that should they wish It, then they would have to pay for It.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:46 pm

Ahso!;1404165 wrote: Discussions end when people cease participating in them not when whining takes them over.

Was that meant to lighten the mood? You're 0 for 0.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:48 pm

theia;1404135 wrote: I frequently see the "indicators" in other posters' comments, probably because I'm accustomed to their style and am expecting a light hearted comment.

Clearly, I got your posting style wrong and didn't expect a mood lightening post from you.

I sincerely apologise.

YZGI is very good at it. Ahso's attempt looked like he was just piling on behind spot.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:49 pm

oscar;1404167 wrote: However America has a different health care system so what works and what Is acceptable to us, Is not always so In other countries. If the system happens to be that It's citizens pay for all their health care, then we In the UK can not even begin to understand how Americans feel when someone who has taken another human life, gets a freebie on the state that should they wish It, then they would have to pay for It.America does not have a health care system. America has stores where health care can be purchased piece-meal like purchasing groceries in a delicatessen, or we have health insurance which is somewhat similar to car insurance. So, with that in mind, I fail to see how anyone who chose to think about America's health care market would not be capable of understanding the dilemmas which would be associated with such an approach to health care.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:26 pm

SnoozeAgain;1404168 wrote: Was that meant to lighten the mood? You're 0 for 0.No, I had decided to post that comment without quoting you so to avoid embarrassing you directly, but you just went ahead and did it to yourself anyway. Oh well, I tried.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:30 pm

Ahso!;1404175 wrote: No, I had decided to post that comment without quoting you so to avoid embarrassing you directly, but you just went ahead and did it to yourself anyway. Oh well, I tried.

If it was a personal comment aimed at a specific member, even though you did not name that member, then you were out of order.

To all members :-

Enough is enough!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1404176 wrote: If it was a personal comment aimed at a specific member, even though you did not name that member, then you were out of order.

To all members :-

Enough is enough!No, it was a comment aimed a previous comment.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:38 pm

Ahso!;1404178 wrote: No, it was a comment aimed a previous comment.

Your response suggests otherwise - there has been too much taking the person out rather than discussing the subject and it will stop, I am giving fair warning.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:41 pm

You're right Bryn, I shouldn't have called spot a baboon.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:41 pm

Bryn Mawr;1404179 wrote: Your response suggests otherwise - there has been too much taking the person out rather than discussing the subject and it will stop, I am giving fair warning.How does my response suggest otherwise? I avoided putting her name on my comment, that makes it even the more cautious on my part.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:43 pm

The only person being personal here is snooze, and she does it constantly. You should begin right there.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:56 pm

back on topic... I can understand how a sex change may seem superfluous and self indulgent. Keep in mind that cancer treatment is also provided to child molesters who are imprisoned. I'm not very aware of gender identity "health" problems. I even put quotes around it. As a bisexual person who is often told I act more like a man, I find it ridiculous that anyone cares which body they were given in a world where you can have sex with whichever gender you choose. Even with a sex change... you're not fooling anyone! Not when your clothes come off. At some point they're going to figure out there is misrepresentation there. If they find someone who doesn't care and loves them anyway then that person will love them no matter what body they wear.

I watched videos on the link spot provided and found their subjects charming but... ultimately no different than the emo kid who slashes their skin other than emos choose a different reason than the form their genitals took.

I suspect this dude should be in a psych ward where he doesn't get out until he is stable. The psychiatrists could start by teaching him that everyone hates something about their bodies.

I know someone who wanted to get a sex change. At one point he realised he was being an idiot. He quite successfully sleeps with girls now. Some might quite successfully sleep with boys. Generally they have flipped their lids and need counselling.

That's my opinion. And I consider myself really open minded about it.

Maybe the dude should just get some new pantyhose and luxury bed in the psych ward for the rest of his life.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:16 am

SnoozeAgain;1404169 wrote: YZGI is very good at it.

I hear this a lot.

You know I HAD to quote that..

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:16 am

koan;1404196 wrote: back on topic... I can understand how a sex change may seem superfluous and self indulgent. Keep in mind that cancer treatment is also provided to child molesters who are imprisoned. I'm not very aware of gender identity "health" problems. I even put quotes around it. As a bisexual person who is often told I act more like a man, I find it ridiculous that anyone cares which body they were given in a world where you can have sex with whichever gender you choose. Even with a sex change... you're not fooling anyone! Not when your clothes come off. At some point they're going to figure out there is misrepresentation there. If they find someone who doesn't care and loves them anyway then that person will love them no matter what body they wear.

I watched videos on the link spot provided and found their subjects charming but... ultimately no different than the emo kid who slashes their skin other than emos choose a different reason than the form their genitals took.

I suspect this dude should be in a psych ward where he doesn't get out until he is stable. The psychiatrists could start by teaching him that everyone hates something about their bodies.

I know someone who wanted to get a sex change. At one point he realised he was being an idiot. He quite successfully sleeps with girls now. Some might quite successfully sleep with boys. Generally they have flipped their lids and need counselling.

That's my opinion. And I consider myself really open minded about it.

Maybe the dude should just get some new pantyhose and luxury bed in the psych ward for the rest of his life.

I know the feeling. I tend to go lesbian at times.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:54 pm

I was thinking about a good comparison to show how self-indulgent demand for sex-change is and ended up with this: A person born without all their limbs rightfully believes that they have the mind of a fully limbed person so they should be given a body that matches their brain. There are paraplegics who can rightfully say that their body gets in the way of their enjoyment of life... yet they find a way to go on. Billions of people every day get out of bed, clothe a body that they wish was different, then go about their day making the best of it. The medical problem isn't that they have the wrong body, it's that they think their body defines who they are and can't mentally get over it.

Billions of people feel alone, isolated, misunderstood, at odds with their environment and peers, crushed by oppression etc. Changing the appearance of one's gender is not going to make those problems go away.

That this guy is in jail doesn't mean he shouldn't get medical help for his mental health issues. If a guy can come to terms with being physically crippled and wheelchair bound, then this guy can come to terms with having a dick. I mean... how big is it really? If it's down to his knee I might reconsider.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:41 pm

I would think that somewhere in obama care there should be a clause allowing folks to insure incarcerated loved ones.

If an inmate has needs, his/her/its family should provide for them.

I read today that OJ is still getting his football pension while he is in prision. Nah... give it to some sports related charites while he's in..

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:43 pm

Ahso!;1404182 wrote: The only person being personal here is snooze, and she does it constantly. You should begin right there.

You're just like Boner. Big crybaby. "It's not me, mommy, snooze did it too". Geesh. Grow up.:yh_shame

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:48 pm

flopstock;1404289 wrote: I would think that somewhere in obama care there should be a clause allowing folks to insure incarcerated loved ones.

If an inmate has needs, his/her/its family should provide for them.

I read today that OJ is still getting his football pension while he is in prision. Nah... give it to some sports related charites while he's in..

Absolutely NOT! What if the prisoner has no family? You're the ward of the government when you're convicted of a crime. You can't have special prisoners in the population, they'd be killed for stuff. Constant mayhem. Besides, then the Resluglicans would try to pass laws that if your family won't feed you in jail, you don't eat. The family is the one who raised the felon to begin with. Flop, bad idea.

As for OJ, you just can't illegally take what he earned in his career. You can't take pensions away from people, it's his, or at least his children's.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:50 pm

And here I thought I was being pleasant and personable. I'm distraught now.

I read a novel about a man committing a felony so he could go to prison and get a heart transplant or something similar since his health care didn't cover it... this was written years and years ago so this isn't a new problem.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:35 pm

AnneBoleyn;1404291 wrote: Absolutely NOT! What if the prisoner has no family? You're the ward of the government when you're convicted of a crime. You can't have special prisoners in the population, they'd be killed for stuff. Constant mayhem. Besides, then the Resluglicans would try to pass laws that if your family won't feed you in jail, you don't eat. The family is the one who raised the felon to begin with. Flop, bad idea.

As for OJ, you just can't illegally take what he earned in his career. You can't take pensions away from people, it's his, or at least his children's.

If they have no family and no means to insure themselves, they should be made as comfortable as possible for the time they have left.

There are too many old folks choosing between medicine and food.

As for OJ and others. If they have the means to pay for their keep they should have to shoulder the burden, not us.

There are too many hard working families going without in this country.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:56 pm

flopstock;1404302 wrote: If they have no family and no means to insure themselves, they should be made as comfortable as possible for the time they have left.

There are too many old folks choosing between medicine and food.

As for OJ and others. If they have the means to pay for their keep they should have to shoulder the burden, not us.

There are too many hard working families going without in this country.

The fallacy of your argument is that even IF prisoners were forced to pay for their own incarceration, any left over money would go to social programs. It would not.

There wouldn't be left over money anyway. There never is. And if there was, as I said, it would not go to "hard-working families" & poor elderly. Hmm, I can hear the Rethuglicans screaming "Redistribution of Wealth!" and "Socialism!".

It's double jeopardy to punish people twice. If in jail, "we the people" took their freedom. That's all we are entitled to do. I'm not speaking of prisoners like Bernie Madoff, or other white collar crooks. I'm speaking of the average prisoners, who usually come from poverty and/or "hard-working" families.

What do you mean by making prisoners without health insurance comfortable? That the insured prisoners get the chemo & the uninsured just get aspirin and painkillers? They are all in jail, all committed some crime, & all should get the same treatments available to all.