I have no idea what to title this... "It?" "Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa?"

[Balog]

I'm not sure why you guys keep trying to convince AJ to support a moral argument?

I'm pretty sure he (and I) are completely morally bankrupt as far as you guys are concerned already... Calling him morally, spiritually and intellectually poor isn't going to change it.

You (and AJ) are making moral arguments. You're merely arguing for a different morality than we are. But you're also trying to claim to not be doing so, which is annoying.

[Balog]

Rooster, you completely bypassed the question of competency.

You have to DEFINE mentally ill. Define the EXACT parameters and do so in a way that can't come back and bite you in the ass.

That's already done. Determinations of competency are a common legal proceeding. And if anyone cared enough about this person to bring the matter up "He thinks he is a magical beast" would fit the definition.

[Balog]

But he's not a schizophrenic. He has no diagnosis of a recognized mental illness. Is he delusional? Hearing voices? Does he meet the criteria of having a severe mental illness? Nope.

He probably just likes walking around and pretending he's a *expletive deleted*ing dragon and you know what, if that's what he wants to do, we can't stop him.

You're saying you believe he is actually that mentally incompetent? You are literally beyond not so bright. 

Says guy who believes he is a dragon is not delusional.
Calls me stupid.

 

[AJ Dual]

You (and AJ) are making moral arguments. You're merely arguing for a different morality than we are. But you're also trying to claim to not be doing so, which is annoying.

Being a sanctimonious statist is annoying too, yet here you are. (shrug)

And no, we're not making moral arguments, we're making arguments about self-ownership, and agency of action, and what threshold (which I and BSL think ought to be set very very high) at which you have the "right", if ever, to violate someone's self ownership and agency.

5 second psych test. "Do you REALLY think yourself to be a dragon, or are you a human that just really wishes he/she was one, and wants to look like one as much as possible?"

Of course, said psych test would be voluntary, to satisfy potentially meddling busybodies, and not coerced.

It's not hard really.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Says guy who believes he is a dragon is not delusional.
Calls me stupid.

 

says the guy who believes the dragon is telling the truth.  

because the attention seeking narcissist would NEVER lie about about what he REALLY REALLY REALLY believes... (this is sarcasm, btw, just to be clear. Sarcasm)

[Sideways_8]

The threshold for intervention on my part is is very much dependent on my relation to the person is question.  Lowest for those nearest to me by blood or relation, getting gradually higher the more distant the relationship by blood or fellowship. 
* Immediate family (wife & kids)
* Father, mother, siblings
* Nieces, nephews
* Aunts, uncles
* Cousins
* Friends
* Neighbors, fellow parishioners
* Strangers of same biological background
* Strangers of even more distant biological background

Another axis to consider is that of the severity of self-harm.  Still another is risk to my self or my family.  There are probably more factors.

So where does dragon lady fit into this? Where is the harm, in their self harm, to you? Please don't use hypothetical arguments such as they might do this, or they might do that. I want actual evidence of how someone's self mutilation cause's you harm.

[Fitz]

my only problem with the whole attitude of "he/she isn't hurting anyone, so let him/her/xe/xirself/whatever do whatever it wants to" is that this is "normalizing" mental illness. The transgender suicide rate remains high, and IIRC has climbed, and doesn't go down with conversion, because we're treating mental problems as physical mismatches and allowing folks to edit their bodies without fixing the underlying mental illness

that said, I don't think it's any of the government's business to stop them from doing it unless they've been proven, through due process in court, to be mentally incompetent.


I guess I feel like "i really like dragons so I want to modify myself to look like one" is fine. Weird, but fine. Your body, your rules.

"I AM a dragon and was merely born into the wrong body" = crazy as a loon.

[Sideways_8]

I guess I feel like "i really like dragons so I want to modify myself to look like one" is fine. Weird, but fine. Your body, your rules.

"I AM a dragon and was merely born into the wrong body" = crazy as a loon.

The second they get the science down for wings and fire breathing, I know what I'll be self identifying as.

[BlueStarLizzard]

my only problem with the whole attitude of "he/she isn't hurting anyone, so let him/her/xe/xirself/whatever do whatever it wants to" is that this is "normalizing" mental illness. The transgender suicide rate remains high, and IIRC has climbed, and doesn't go down with conversion, because we're treating mental problems as physical mismatches and allowing folks to edit their bodies without fixing the underlying mental illness

that said, I don't think it's any of the government's business to stop them from doing it unless they've been proven, through due process in court, to be mentally incompetent.


I guess I feel like "i really like dragons so I want to modify myself to look like one" is fine. Weird, but fine. Your body, your rules.

"I AM a dragon and was merely born into the wrong body" = crazy as a loon.

I actually sort of agree with a lot of what you are saying, especially in terms of the transgender community. Changing the plumbing around does not address underlying emotional and mental issues of "being different". I see a lot of the push for surgery being the only answer and as a magic fix. The problem is, it isn't. It doesn't deal with the emotional trauma of their lives. What's more, I've said so pretty publicly, and to the extent that I do not support the so called Transgender community in their push for surgery over the mental well being of the individuals. 

The issue is still the same though, just from a different angle. You cannot stop them from doing these things, you also cannot force them to seek alternatives. Ultimately, it's up to the individual.

[grampster]

So where does dragon lady fit into this? Where is the harm, in their self harm, to you? Please don't use hypothetical arguments such as they might do this, or they might do that. I want actual evidence of how someone's self mutilation cause's you harm.

As for harm, it is more than likely that they won't ever find a job anywhere other than in the body modification business.  Probably not a lot of opportunity there.  Thus they wind up on welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps etc etc.  So We The People wind up supporting them.  Since they chose to do this to themselves, it should preclude providing any taxpayer support.  So my question is should there not be support for ameliorating the "harm" to the taxpayers because of your choice, in this case, to modify your body?   

[Perd Hapley]

And no, we're not making moral arguments, we're making arguments about self-ownership, and agency of action, and what threshold (which I and BSL think ought to be set very very high) at which you have the "right", if ever, to violate someone's self ownership and agency.

All of those things are moral issues. I.e., is it morally right/wrong to interfere with "someone's self-ownership and agency"?

[BlueStarLizzard]

As for harm, it is more than likely that they won't ever find a job anywhere other than in the body modification business.  Probably not a lot of opportunity there.  Thus they wind up on welfare, subsidized housing, food stamps etc etc.  So We The People wind up supporting them.  Since they chose to do this to themselves, it should preclude providing any taxpayer support.  So my question is should there not be support for ameliorating the "harm" to the taxpayers because of your choice, in this case, to modify your body?   

First of all, Dragon Lady is a 55 year old former banker. I'm going to take a leap of assumption and guess that she knows how to manage the money she has and that she actually does have money.
Second, the assumption that she can't get a job or raise money is false. A traditional job? no, probably not. But freaks have their niche and can make, at the least, a living in that niche. I'm not checking her Youtube channel, but it's probably monetized, and with this latest publicity, she's probably getting plenty of hits. I wouldn't be surprised if she has more cash in her pocket than you do.
Furthermore, the only reason she can't get a traditional job is the general public's nonacceptance of the way she looks. The last I checked tattoos, lack of nose and ears, fake boobs and whatnot do not impede a persons ability to flip burgers, run a check out lane at Walmart or whatever. So, if you contend that this is wrong because she can't get a traditional job based on how she looks, maybe you should look at the other side of the equation.

Finally, since when do any of us support ANYONE living on the government dole? How is she different from the drug users, Cadillac drivers and others who've made poor life decisions that make them unable to support themselves and ultimately never get their *expletive deleted*it together?

[grampster]

The question was "what harm" does she cause.  I stand by my comments.  Actually, you reinforced it by noting that the taxpayer subsidizes all sorts of people who make bad choices deliberately.  My position is that we've become quite blase' about supporting those who use the system to support their bad choices.  America in general, as well as those who made the bad choice, might be better served by being less supportive of bad choices and behavior.

[BlueStarLizzard]

The question was "what harm" does she cause.  I stand by my comments.  Actually, you reinforced it by noting that the taxpayer subsidizes all sorts of people who make bad choices deliberately.  My position is that we've become quite blase' about supporting those who use the system to support their bad choices.  America in general, as well as those who made the bad choice, might be better served by being less supportive of bad choices and behavior.

and a good start would be NOT PAYING FOR IT. Duh.

However, if taxpayers aren't paying for it (and in this case, I actually don't believe they are) then who are you to say what she can and cannot do?

[AJ Dual]

Finally, since when do any of us support ANYONE living on the government dole? How is she different from the drug users, Cadillac drivers and others who've made poor life decisions that make them unable to support themselves and ultimately never get their *expletive deleted*it together?

Amen.

And honestly, arguing that someone's choices/lifestyle should be regulated against because it may make them dependant on public assistance is the most bass-ackwards argument I think I've heard this month.

This is like a battered spouse arguing that "Yeah, he's abusive, but I MAKE him hit me. And he wouldn't hit me as often if I didn't upset him."

[BlueStarLizzard]

Amen.

And honestly, arguing that someone's choices/lifestyle should be regulated against because it may make them dependant on public assistance is the most bass-ackwards argument I think I've heard this month.

This is like a battered spouse arguing that "Yeah, he's abusive, but I MAKE him hit me. And he wouldn't hit me as often if I didn't upset him."

Not to mention the best form of social control to modulate an individuals actions is to NOT ENABLE THEM.

The choice between putting food on the table and a roof over ones head or getting that horrendous face tattoo becomes a lot clearer when the face tattoo pretty much 86's any food or roof. Oh sure, you'll still have that guy, but that guy will be homeless and wretched or independently wealthy, which makes the options fairly clear to the rest of mankind.

And the best part is the individuals can't blame anyone but themselves!