James105

Well, in the UK this was thousands of kids. https://segm.org/GIDS-puberty-blockers-minors-the-times-special-report "Many parents, informed by trans activist groups their child may commit suicide if they went through the “wrong puberty”, signed the consent form. Others did research: they discovered that Lupron, while used to chemically castrate sex offenders or treat prostate cancer, is unlicensed for gender dysphoria. They read blogs by “detransitioners”, mainly young women in America – where private gender clinics perform double mastectomies on girls as young as 13 (a process TikTok-savvy surgeons jocularly call “Teetus Deletus”) – who later regretted this hasty, irreversible process. And they felt an urgent mission to tell the world what GIDS was doing." Kids are not allowed to get tattoos when they are under 18. Have a think about why this is and then you will be halfway to understanding why it is irresponsible to perform life changing surgeries on kids before before they have reached a mature enough age to provide informed consent.

Yes, it far is too much to ask for the "leader of the free world" to have the mental faculties to look where he is walking. This sort of thing just does not happen to anybody else.

Even left wing outlets were saying the movie is not good. e.g: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/may/27/the-little-mermaid-review-bland-but-good-natured-disney-remake-halle-bailey I presume they watched it.

Is this some new fresh hell of an acronym or did you accidentally post your wifi password on here?!

Well done! You have pretty much described what safeguarding is.

If I defended the bill you would no doubt complain that it is off topic. So I didn't. However, if you insist. The bill in question mentioned in the OP was designed to prevent teachers or 3rd parties talking about sexual orientation and gender identities to kindergarten through grade 3 kids (5-9 year olds) and defer this topic to a more age appropriate time. I don't really think there is much to defend about that bill as most non pedophiliacs of rational mind would consider that safeguarding kids of that age from sexual literature or discussion is not really that controversial.

Not sure I needed to answer it considering it's literally in the OP of this thread but if you insist I'll copy the relevant bit down here for you and highlight the bit about Disney in bold to make it easier for you: "Trump, in a Truth Social post, criticized Disney for being a “Woke and Disgusting shadow” of its old self before taking aim at DeSantis, who has been in a feud with the company since its opposition of the state’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill."

This proves my point that Disney are a divisive company now that they have decided to get involved in Politics. Did the original version of this movie get review bombed? No. Why is that you ask? Because back then Disney focused on what they were good at and did not get involved in politics.

Once again, I didn't use the word woke (I used political) but a visual representation of just how divisive they are nowadays can be easily seen by looking at the IMBD ratings for their latest remake of a classic property (Little Mermaid) that has been put through the diversity blender: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5971474/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt If I was a shareholder of Disney I would not be best pleased about this as it is so easily avoidable by simply steering clear of politics, sticking close to the source material (if remaking something people previously loved) and creating new stories that include diverse characters if they want to increase representation.

Since I didn't actually say any of what you said let me give you the definition of a straw man argument: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

What happened to the Disney that was universally loved and focused on creating entertaining stories rather than shoehorning "the message" into every bit of content they create? They are now a political - and therefore divisive - company. I fail to see how that will help their bottom line as they are alienating large portions of their potential customers and losing out in big markets such as China. Most people don't want to see DeSantis creating animated feature films in much the same way that most people don't want to see Disney creating overtly political movies.

But... did the German politicians laugh when Obama/Biden said it as they did with Trump? I suspect they are not laughing now. Perhaps if they had taken his wise words more seriously then they might not be in quite such a pickle.

Literally no-one could have predicted this was going to happen! Oh wait, somebody did:

If a male cannot compete in an open category it is not open. Perhaps you are referring to a category that is not open, but a category just for transgender people that excludes anyone who is not transgender and therefore not open. The article by the way suggests that the male category will become an 'open' category which means male, female, transvestite, transgender, 2 spirit, whatever else can enter. As it is open.

They took 9 months to long to come to a conclusion that only required half a seconds worth of thought. Had I been involved in the consultation this would have been wrapped up in a few seconds e.g: Is it fair for people born as males to compete against females in any sport where there is any element of strength or speed required? No. To prevent anyone from missing out the male category will now be open to anyone of whatever gender they claim to be and the female category will only open to females. Nobody is banned from participating as this covers everyone. You're welcome.

There might have been a societal change amongst some very noisy people on Twitter but there hasn't been a scientific one. Males cannot become females so should not be permitted to participate in female only categories when it comes to competitive sports. It doesn't need a consultation to establish this and certainly not a 9 month one to come to this conclusion. Maybe they decided in about a second 9 months ago that it was unfair to allow males to compete against females and then pretended to have a consultation to appease the science deniers who claim that a "trans woman is a woman" and should be given the same legal rights to protected spaces and sports as actual women.

A 9 month review to ascertain whether or not it is fair for biological males to compete against females? Even if it was a 9 second review that is still 8 seconds longer than is necessary for any sane or rational person to judge whether or not this would be fair.

Surely the solution to this is to find a property that you can actually afford to rent. If you are already behind on rent then unless your circumstances change (higher paying job, inheritance, lottery win etc) then this is only going to get worse and I'm not surprised the LL wants to evict. The right thing to do (regardless of law) if you cannot afford the rent and there is nothing in the future that will change that is to be honest with yourself and the Landlord and come to an arrangement so that you can move out and find somewhere that is within your budget before it gets to the stage where he changes the locks.

Regardless of "need" a car provides a level of convenience that your alternative suggestions do not come close to in comparison, and yes, if someone "wants" a car and they can afford a car then they can have a car as that is how the world works, at least in free countries. People will choose to buy electric cars when they offer the same convenience and value that their ICE cars currently provide and not before then. I suspect this will be when car batteries are much, much smaller, can travel the same or more distance than ICE between charges and can be easily/quickly swapped with a pre-charged one that is bought from "petrol" stations without waiting however long for it to charge. So probably in about 40-50 years. During that period of time a better fuel source could come along that makes electric cars "evil" in comparison so people are rightly skeptical about jumping to the latest green thing. In the meantime I would suggest you "Man up" and learn to live with people going about their business as they choose to do.

I can't believe I am about to defend Sunak, but it's not his fault. Here is deputy PM Nick Clegg back in 2010 saying how it's pointless building new nuclear power stations as they would not come online until about 2021/2022 (from about 7:00 minutes) and how he would veto any public spending on them. It's short term thinking from clowns like this that has caused the energy issue in the UK today.

As someone who believes in a free market I don't really care what a company sells but it's quite funny to see the double standards of the left in action. Imagine if Target sold a range of t-shirts or mugs with the perfectly legal phrase "It's okay to be white" written on them? How do you think that would go? Are you going to pretend to yourself that you would not be outraged at this?

I'll be in the 10% of laggards on this! I think putting all the eggs in the EV basket is a bit of a mistake as battery technology is probably decades behind where it needs to be to make EVs a viable option for the majority. It's a bit of a shame all this investment was not spent making what we currently use better and letting EVs naturally replace this as and when battery tech becomes genuinely viable. The car replaced the horse and cart as clearly it was better than what came before. EVs will replace ICE when they become better than what was before in terms of distance between charges and convenience, such as being able to charge it in the equivalent time as filling a car with petrol. Currently EVs are the equivalent of the horse and cart for most people as it is less convenient than a petrol car.

The article states: "on the grounds that it “is not educational” and contains “indirect hate messages." You don't know why it was pulled and you are making assumptions. It was most likely pulled as it is rubbish, serves no educational benefit and when they saw the complaint they couldn't justify it being part of any curriculum as to include this would obviously mean leaving something else out. Which of the classic authors would you "cancel" to make way for this garbage?

Who even is the author of this rubbish "poem" and why does she deserve to be on the same bookshelf as Keats, Poe or Whitman? I could understand a bit of outrage if the classics were being pulled, but this doesn't seem to meet that standard.

The poem does not rhyme, so why miss women from this line: To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters andconditions of man