Biden makes trans women register for draft

[JoeB131]

Lets lay this out for the cult.

18 year old men must register for the draft.

The Biden admin says trans women must register.

Therefore, trans women are men.

Cult, you have a conundrum, dont you?

You have no choice but to call the Biden Admin transphobic.

Good luck navigating your bullshit.

Works on the assumption anyone is actually bothering to cross reference birth certificates with selective service registration...

So if someone is a trans-male, do you really think that anyone is running down to check that he used to be Ellen before he became Elliot? Nope. No one is doing that.

Conversely, if John is now identifying as Jenny, no one is checking if she is post-op or pre-op. Because the first time she gets a driver's license, she's identifying as female.

As pointed out, 8% of cisgendered males who are supposed to sign up don't now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think it does. How can you argue force when you chose to engage in commerce? Force is when you're not given a choice.

Fact remains: you approve of the government using force to collect taxes in a situation that does not involve the use of force in the exercise of the individual right to self-defense; your attempt to introduce the issue of "choice " is an attempt to move the goalpost.

Sure it does. The people who choose to maintain a system of commerce have a right to seek redress from people who would rob it of value.
We are within our right to seek redress from harm.

"Redress from harm" is not the use of force in the exercise of the individual right to self-defense; you cannot shoot someone pooping in your cistern.
You, again, attempt to move the goalpost.

Neglect is harmful.

Fact remains: You approve of the use of force to send people to school, a situation not related to the exercise of the use of force in the exercise of the right to self defense - you cannot, shoot someone because they refuse to send you to school.
Your introduction of "neglect" is an attempt to move the goalpost.

Your actions don't come free of responsibility, that's not how liberty works.

And the enforcement of these responsibilities has nothing to do with the use of force in exercise of the individual right to self-defense - you cannot, individually or collectively,. shoot someone for violating their contact with you.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the collective organization of the individual right to self defense is.

What you think and what you can prove with a rational argument appear to be two different things but I welcome you proving otherwise.

I don't believe people can own natural resources without force

And thus, another set of laws you approve of where the the government uses force not related to the exercise of the right to self-defense.

I'm not sure of the force you imagine in adoption.

Adoption law involves a great many things, all of which must be adhered to, lest the adoption be denied, children forcibly removed or other actions taken y the government.
Thus, another use of force by the government that does not involve the exercise of the right to self-defense.

As for discrimination people do that all the time. It's only when you try deny access to a portion of commerce that people of different races, religions or genders contribute to and are thus entitled to are their interests protected.

But not the use of force in the exercise of the right self-defense - you cannot shoot someone for refusing to serve to because you are queer. Thus, another exanple of the government using force that does not involve the exercise of the right to slf-defense.

Be more specific. What force do you imagine I wish to exert on you.

I never claimed you wanted to exert force on me - I claimed "you do not take issue with the government forcing people to do things, so long as you agree with those things".
And you do, as proven by your own words:
"To put it more clearly I believe that force is only justified, even collectively, when it is a collective organization of what would be an individual right to self defense."

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Exactly. Most people don't realize that selective service registration is even a thing.

Only 88% of men actually sign up, and then they forget they did it.

Not if you apply for a government job! You must provide your selective service number assigned to you when you register.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not if you apply for a government job! You must provide your selective service number assigned to you when you register.

True - and if you do not register wit the draft, you are also ineligible for federal student aid.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Um, okay, sure. the only reason why "biological women" dream of competing in sports is because Title IX requires colleges to hand out scholarships for sports no one cares about otherwise. So I find it amusing that people are insistent on one government carve out but are upset about the other. "Wah, I was going to get a track scholarship, but some Tranny got it first" really ranks up there as a "First World" problem.

Lots of men and women have lifelong dreams to excel in sports; many work hard their whole lives to achieve success, and many do.

The men have a level playing field. The women don't.

And you think that is a "First World problem?"

That's almost sickening. You must not have any daughters, sisters or a wife you care for. If you do, you might want to ask their opinion and have some fruitful discussions so you can see how serious this is.

Women are a majority, but they often have to work a bit harder to achieve the same level of success as men. And folks like you want to make it even harder.

Look, being born with a Y chromosome gifts a man with larger lungs, heart, blood volume, and muscles. It is an unfair advantage which persists even after gender surgery or hormone therapy.

Doping is not allowed in sports, but Trans BS is, even though it is much worse than doping. It's close to the worst form of cheating imaginable!

Regards,
Jim

 

[whitehall]

Actually nobody really has to register for the draft. The old stodgy bureaucratic government machine isn't geared up to consider men with tits so the beat goes on.

 

[Curried Goats]

Fact remains: you approve of the government using force to collect taxes in a situation that does not involve the use of force in the exercise of the individual right to self-defense; your attempt to introduce the issue of "choice " is an attempt to move the goalpost.

I'm not sure how else to explain to you that you can't claim you were forced into a situation you chose, freely, to enter into to.

"Redres from harm" is not the use of force in the exercise of the individual right to self-defense; you cannot shoot someone pooping in your cistern.
You, again, attempt to move the goalpost.

I never suggested anything of the sort. How does shooting someone get you redress for damages? You should stop making assumptions and arguing in generalities and ask about specifics. There are ways of recouping loses from tax dodgers without violence.

Fact remains: You approve of the use of force to send people to school, a situation not related to the exercise of the use of force in the exercise of the right to self defense - you cannot, shoot someone because they refuse to send you to school.
Your introduction of "neglect" is an attempt to move the goalpost.

Usually a debate is a back and forth, not one person telling the other what his argument is.

I posit that not taking responsibility for the education of a child who is under your care is neglectful and that neglect equates to harm and that children should be protected from this harm. If you disagree then make an argument don't just cry about it.

And the enforcement of these responsibilities has nothing to do with the use of force in exercise of the individual right to self-defnsse - you cannot, individually or collectively,. shoot someone for violating their contact with you.

Why is it you always imagine having to shoot someone?

What you think and what you can prove with a rational argument appear to be two different things but I welcome you proving otherwise.

It only appears that way when you think it's your right to decide the parameters of another person's argument.

And thus, another set of laws you approve of whe ther the fovrnment uses force not thelated toi the exercise of the right to self-defense.

Adoption law involves a great many things, all of which must be adhered to, lest the adoption be denied, children forcibly removed or other actions taken y the government.
Thus, another use of force by the government that does not involve the exercise of the right to self-defense.

What use of force? Why don't you be more specific?

But not the use of force in the exercise of the right self-defense - you cannot shoot someone for refusing to serve to because you are queer. Thus, another exanple of the government using force that does not involve the exercise of the right to slf-defense.

Always with the shooting. You don't have much of an imagination.

I never claimed you wanted to exert force on me - I claimed "you do not take issue with the government forcing people to do things, so long as you agree with those things".

Yes and yet you haven't proven that with any specific examples, only vague ones in which you insist the end result is me shooting someone.

And you do, as proven by your own words:
"To put it more clearly I believe that force is only justified, even collectively, when it is a collective organization of what would be an individual right to self defense."

You don't seem to understand the part about collective organization. You seem way too focused on your desire to shoot people.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually nobody really has to register for the draft. The old stodgy bureaucratic government machine isn't geared up to consider men with tits so the beat goes on.

You obviously have not read the thread yet. Please do so, so your misconception can be corrected.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not sure how else to explain to you that you can't claim you were forced into a situation you chose, freely, to enter into to.

What you cannot explain is how that makes any difference with regard to the enforcement of taxation - because it does not.
You believe tax laws should be en-forced; tax laws have nothing to do with self-defense.
And so, an example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense

I never suggested anything of the sort.

And so, you agree- "redress for damages" is not related to the use of force in self-defense.
Yet, you support the use of government force to redress those damages.
Just another example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense

Usually a debate is a back and forth, not one person telling the other what his argument is.

You told me what your argument is. I am demonstrating to you that you, contrary to your claim, do indeed support the use of government force not related to self-defense -- in this case, forcing people to go to school.

Why is it you always imagine having to shoot someone

YOU brought up the use of force in self-defense. Shooting people in self-defense is an effective an example as any. If you like, I can use "stab them", "cleave them", "impale them", "flay them", "beat them", "arrest them", "detain them", "jail them" or"fine them" -- all have exactly the same effect, for the purposes of this conversation. Feel free to pick one.

It only appears that way....

Noted, your failure to present a rational argument demonstrating my "fundamental misunderstanding of what the collective organization of the individual right to self defense is". As such, I accept your concession of the point.

What use of force? Why don't you be more specific?

With regard to adoption?
First: Adoption forces a child do go with an adult. This has nothing to do with self-defense
Thus, another example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense

Always with the shooting. You don't have much of an imagination.

And you do not have an an effective response.
Thus, another example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense

Yes and yet you haven't proven that with any specific examples...

I have. I provided a quote from you that, indeed, proves my claim -- reiterated, below.

That, aside...
This is, of course, a lie - You support the enforcement of tax laws, property laws,, discrimination laws, marriage laws, adoption laws, discrimination laws, mandatory schooling and redress of grievances by the court. Each of these is an example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense
Disagree? Demonstrate the error in the above.

You don't seem to understand the part about collective organization. You seem way too focused on your desire to shoot people.

What you seem to think and what you can prove with a rational argument appear to be two different things but I welcome you proving otherwise.

And thus:
I claimed "you do not take issue with the government forcing people to do things, so long as you agree with those things".
You responded:
"To put it more clearly I believe that force is only justified, even collectively, when it is a collective organization of what would be an individual right to self defense."
Thus, my claim, proven.

 

[Curried Goats]

What you cannot explain is how that makes any difference with regard to the enforcement of taxation - because it does not.

Are you telling me I can't explain it or are you asking me to?

You believe tax laws should be en-forced; tax laws have nothing to do with self-defense.

They have to do with collective organization.

And so, an example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense

That is supposition. Again, what force? Force can me measured and observed, what force exactly are you referring to?

And so, you agree- "redress for damages" is not related to the use of force in self-defense.
Yet, you support the use of government force to redress those damages.
Just another example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense

Your arguments and accusations continue to be vague.

You told me what your argument is. I am demonstrating to you that you, contrary to your claim, do indeed support the use of government force not related to self-defense -- in this case, forcing people to go to school.

No. I detailed the use of force for protecting children from harmful neglect.

YOU brought up the use of force in self-defense. Shooting people in self-defense is an effective an example as any. If you like, I can use "stab them", "cleave them", "impale them", "flay them", "beat them", "arrest them", "detain them", "jail them" or"fine them" -- all have exactly the same effect, for the purposes of this conversation. Feel free to pick one.

Why should I be limited by your imagination and understanding?

Noted, your failure to present a rational argument demonstrating my "fundamental misunderstanding of what the collective organization of the individual right to self defense is". As such, I accept your concession of the point.

Your insistence on having both sides of the conversation is amusing.

With regard to adoption?
First: Adoption forces a child do go with an adult. This has nothing to do with self-defense

It is in defense of the child. Leaving a child to fend for themselves is neglect.

Thus, another example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense

When you make victorious declarations without allowing others a chance to respond you get way ahead of yourself there guy.

And you do not have an an effective response.
Thus, another example of your support for the use of force by the government that does not relate to self-defense

And you knew this before I even had a chance to respond?

 

[Burgermeister]

Klinger would have been disappointed with that decision.

View attachment 708980

Klinger was trying to get out on a section 8, figuring that they would find that any man dressing like a woman must have mental problems. Now, decades later, not only is that not considered a mental problem, but they are celebrating cutting the genitals off of children to complete the facade.

 

[CowboyTed]

No one is forcing you to drive anywhere and if they tried to that would be a crime. Driving against traffic however if you so choose to drive endangers other motorists. Stopping this ongoing danger through use of force is an act of self defense.

You can avoid taxes by owning no property, hunting for your food, living off the grid and bartering with willing trade partners for whatever else you need. Choosing to engage in the sort of commerce that requires monetary institutions to produce and protect legal tender and operate a legal system that can manage disputed claims comes at a cost and you accept this cost when you choose to partake in it.

Leaving time on the microwave isn't a life threatening situation unless you have reasonable cause to suspect it to be booby trapped.

Civilised society has rules (laws) you must follow.

An Example is you can't pollute.

 

[JoeB131]

Lots of men and women have lifelong dreams to excel in sports; many work hard their whole lives to achieve success, and many do.

The men have a level playing field. The women don't.

And you think that is a "First World problem?"

Totally. We have children who go to bed hungry at night in this country, and THIS is what you are worried about?

That's almost sickening. You must not have any daughters, sisters or a wife you care for. If you do, you might want to ask their opinion and have some fruitful discussions so you can see how serious this is.

I do.
I worry that they might be forced to carry their rapist's baby to term because Republicans want to turn them into unwilling breeding machines.
I worry less that they might encounter a trans person in a track meet.

Women are a majority, but they often have to work a bit harder to achieve the same level of success as men. And folks like you want to make it even harder.

I agree entirely.

Yet it's Republicans who want to ban reproductive choice.
Republicans who oppose paid family leave
Republicans who oppose expanding health care (which women need more of than men.)
Republicans who oppose making sexual harassment laws stronger
Republicans who oppose the Lily Ledbetter equal pay act
Republicans who opposed the violence against women act.

But not to worry, ladies, if you happen to be part of the very small group that are into athletics and have a very unlikely encounter with a trans person, the GOP is all over that.

Look, being born with a Y chromosome gifts a man with larger lungs, heart, blood volume, and muscles. It is an unfair advantage which persists even after gender surgery or hormone therapy.

Doping is not allowed in sports, but Trans BS is, even though it is much worse than doping. It's close to the worst form of cheating imaginable!

Again- only reason why this is a big deal at all is because Title IX gives away big bags of money for sports no one cares about. Get rid of Title IX, and you'd be amazed if anyone still cares.

 

[martybegan]

Then you should be about to show that with a counter argument rather than an ad hominem.

Considering your only argument is appeal to authority without any comprehension, you get the responses you deserve.

 

[Curried Goats]

Considering your only argument is appeal to authority without any comprehension, you get the responses you deserve.

What appeal to authority? What are you even talking about?

 

[martybegan]

What appeal to authority? What are you even talking about?

When you run to your medical "Experts", dumbass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you telling me I can't explain it or are you asking me to?

The former.
Feel free to explain it, and prove me wrong in the process.

They have to do with collective organization.

None of them have anything to do with self-defense.

That is supposition. Again, what force? Force can me measured and observed, what force exactly are you referring to?

Enforcement of tax law usually involves financial penalties, but can involve incarceration.
Redress for damages usually involves a judgement of monetary compensation from one party to another - that is, the government forces one party to pay another.
Obviously, these uses of force can be measured.
You support these use of force, which have nothing to do with self-defense

Your arguments and accusations continue to be vague.

Your responses continue to be evasive and ineffective.

No. I detailed the use of force for protecting children from harmful neglect.

Nothing here changes the fact that forcing people to go to school is not a use of force in self-defense - a sue of force that you approve of.

Why should I be limited by your imagination and understanding?

And thus you have no actual complaint here.

When you can present a rational argument demonstrating my "fundamental misunderstanding of what the collective organization of the individual right to self defense is", please do.
Until then, my statement stands.

Your insistence on having both sides of the conversation is amusing.

Your inability to effectively respond to the issues put to you is, more and more, expected.

It is in defense of the child. Leaving a child to fend for themselves is neglect.

The use of force is self-defense is a necessity - adoption is not.
That is, the state need not force the child to go to an adult as a means of protecting it from neglect.
Thus, the force involves in adoption - which you support - has nothing to do with self-defense.

When you make victorious declarations without allowing others a chance to respond you get way ahead of yourself there guy.

When you believe you can muster an effective response, please do.
Meanwhile we're left with numerous examples of the use of government force you support that do not involve self-defense -- all of which are contrary to your claim.

And, the fact remains:
I claimed:
"You do not take issue with the government forcing people to do things, so long as you agree with those things".
You responded:
"To put it more clearly I believe that force is only justified, even collectively, when it is a collective organization of what would be an individual right to self defense."
Thus, my claim, proven.

 

[DBA]

Totally. We have children who go to bed hungry at night in this country, and THIS is what you are worried about?

Obviously Democrats are the ones that considered it to be a big problem thus why we have biological men with psychological problems participating in women’s sports. You don’t care now because you already got what you wanted and now, of course, it is time to move on to some other more important issues and leave this one be.

Democrats have to be the most ignorant and hypocrtical people on planet earth.

 

[Curried Goats]

The former.
Feel free to explain it, and prove me wrong in the process.

Enforcement of tax law usually involves financial penalties, but can involve incarceration.
Redress for damages usually involves a judgement of monetary compensation from one party to another - that is, the government forces one party to pay another.
Obviously, these uses of force can be measured.
You support these use of force, which have nothing to do with self-defense

I don't think we need to physically assault one another to address financial crimes. If you're not going to meet your responsibilities to society I don't feel that society needs to continue to honor it's agreements with you but since I also don't believe in the right to private ownership of natural resources, if we were constructing a society to my specifications it's probably going to look a lot different than you're imagining. Trying to imagine how my society would work superimposed on the rules of this one is going to cause you some confusion.

Nothing here changes the fact that forcing people to go to school is not a use of force in self-defense - a sue of force that you approve of.

You're the one who keeps talking about forcing kids to go to school. I said depriving your children of a basic education is neglectful. I posit that neglect is equal to harm and that there is nothing incompatible with my belief in only using force in self defense when removing children from that harmful environment. Its the equaivalent of removing children from a home covered in garbage and feces. Whoever took over responsibility for that child is now responsible for their education. Homeschool them if you want, I'm just arguing there's nothing incompatible with protecting children from neglect.

The use of force is self-defense is a necessity - adoption is not.

First, I thought we were talking about adoption where both parties are in agreement and I was struggling to understand the need for force in such a scenario. This makes more sense.

That is, the state need not force the child to go to an adult as a means of protecting it from neglect.

Force isn't being directed at the child in this scenario it is being directed at the neglectful parent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think we need to physically assault one another to address financial crimes.

The government exacts penalties for financial crimes.
This is an example of the government using force not related to self-defense.
You support his use of force.

You're the one who keeps talking about forcing kids to go to school. I said depriving your children of a basic education is neglectful.

And you agree - education should be mandatory.
This is an example of the government using force not related to self-defense.
You support his use of force.

First, I thought we were talking about adoption where both parties are in agreement and I was struggling to understand the need for force in such a scenario. This makes more sense.

And so, you agree: adoption is an example of the government using force not related to self-defense.
You support this use of force.

And then, there's laws regarding property and discrimination - all examples of the government using force not related to self-defense, which you support.

And so, we have numerous examples where you support the government using force that does not relate to self -defense.
Thus, I have proven, with a rational argument, my "among others" surety.
And, as previously noted, I have proven that you do not take issue with the government forcing people to do things, so long as you agree with those things.

My job here is done.