OMG
- Thread starter Sheriff Joe
- Start date
Multi Sport
DA
Jessica “Jonathan” Yaniv, who infamously brought human rights complaints against multiple British Columbia estheticians for declining to perform services on her male genitals has lost her cases.... maybe he should have hired Messy! He would have waxed his nuts for free!!!
Sheriff Joe
DA
So do you think this place is better without him?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Sheriff Joe
DA
BREAKING: Judge Rules Father of James Younger WILL Have Say in Any Gender “Transition” the 7 Year Old Boy’s Mother Seeks
Posted at 5:00 pm on October 24, 2019 by Bonchie
This is a big surprise coming out of the courtroom in Dallas, TX.
After days of outcry across the political spectrum (and don’t be fooled, this went far past conservative concerns), Judge Kim Cooks has ruled that Jeffrey Younger, the father of James Younger, will have decisionmaking power over the boy’s medical decisions. This is big news because it appears to grant him the authority to veto any attempts by the mother to “transition” the 7-year-old boy into a “girl.”
Here’s a recent video that exposed some of the mother’s mental manipulation of the boy.
Originally, a jury decision had recommended a sole conservatorship and that it not be Mr. Younger in charge. This would have put all decision making power in the hands of his mother, who insanely admitted in court that she decided James was really a girl after he took a liking to a McDonald’s toy.
Sheriff Joe
DA
They should make this cunt sleep with espola.
Video Surfaces of “Trans” Child From Texas Custody Battle Saying His Mother Tells Him He’s a Girl
Posted at 8:00 am on October 24, 2019 by Brandon Morse
The case of James Younger, a seven-year-old boy from Texas who was recently the central figure in a custody battle between a father trying to protect his son from an abusive mother, has now taken a much larger spotlight on the national stage.
The case revolves around James’s supposed decision to be a transgender girl. The father, Jeff Younger, maintains that James prefers to be a boy and only seems to act as if he wants to be feminine around his mother, Anne Georgulas, and that these thoughts of transgenderism are a direct result of his mother’s influence.
A video has now come into public light where you can see the father asking James questions about whether or not he’s a girl or a boy. The child answers that he is a girl because his mother told him so.
“You’re a boy, right?” asks Younger.
“No, I’m a girl,” replies James.
“Who told you you’re a girl?” asks Younger.
“Mommy,” said James.
The father continued to ask questions of his young son about his preferences, including how “mommy puts you in a dress and puts nail polish on you?” The son answers in the affirmative, noting that his mother buys him dresses, hairbands, and hairclips, and that he likes nail polish.
“And what does mommy tell you?” asks the father.
“She tells me I’m a girl,” replies James.
“My three-year-old son tells me — he’s at my home — he tells me that he’s a girl. And I had the presence of mind, thank goodness, to pull out my iPhone and videotape me asking him about that. And that was literally the first time that I really understood what was happening to my son,” Younger said on the “The Luke Macias Show” during an interview about the video.
“That was the first time I noticed. He was just past his third birthday,” he added.
Younger believed that his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, was “only giving [James] love and affection if he acted like a girl,” and “was putting my son into time-outs and she would lock him in his room and say that monsters only eat boys.”
The court, in an 11 of 12 jury decision, has given Georgulas sole managing conservatorship of James and his twin brother Jude, and is now forcing the father to affirm James’s status as a transgendered person. When around James, Younger must refer to him as “Luna” with feminine pronouns.
Video Surfaces of “Trans” Child From Texas Custody Battle Saying His Mother Tells Him He’s a Girl
Posted at 8:00 am on October 24, 2019 by Brandon Morse
The case of James Younger, a seven-year-old boy from Texas who was recently the central figure in a custody battle between a father trying to protect his son from an abusive mother, has now taken a much larger spotlight on the national stage.
The case revolves around James’s supposed decision to be a transgender girl. The father, Jeff Younger, maintains that James prefers to be a boy and only seems to act as if he wants to be feminine around his mother, Anne Georgulas, and that these thoughts of transgenderism are a direct result of his mother’s influence.
A video has now come into public light where you can see the father asking James questions about whether or not he’s a girl or a boy. The child answers that he is a girl because his mother told him so.
“You’re a boy, right?” asks Younger.
“No, I’m a girl,” replies James.
“Who told you you’re a girl?” asks Younger.
“Mommy,” said James.
The father continued to ask questions of his young son about his preferences, including how “mommy puts you in a dress and puts nail polish on you?” The son answers in the affirmative, noting that his mother buys him dresses, hairbands, and hairclips, and that he likes nail polish.
“And what does mommy tell you?” asks the father.
“She tells me I’m a girl,” replies James.
“My three-year-old son tells me — he’s at my home — he tells me that he’s a girl. And I had the presence of mind, thank goodness, to pull out my iPhone and videotape me asking him about that. And that was literally the first time that I really understood what was happening to my son,” Younger said on the “The Luke Macias Show” during an interview about the video.
“That was the first time I noticed. He was just past his third birthday,” he added.
Younger believed that his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, was “only giving [James] love and affection if he acted like a girl,” and “was putting my son into time-outs and she would lock him in his room and say that monsters only eat boys.”
The court, in an 11 of 12 jury decision, has given Georgulas sole managing conservatorship of James and his twin brother Jude, and is now forcing the father to affirm James’s status as a transgendered person. When around James, Younger must refer to him as “Luna” with feminine pronouns.
The plumber never associated with the " Outhouse ".......
The " Outhouse " is still here...
His name is Wez/" Messy " Financial.............
Bruddah IZ
DA
Who is John Galt?
Hüsker Dü
DA
Outhouse is an id persona, like with most trump supporters. Ricky, Affleet, B-ear crap, Bernie, were basically the plumber, Sean S. until November 2016 at which point the wheels started coming off and he dove hard into the nono troll zone where fiction ruled out fact if facts were inconvenient to the intended goal. He had always been prone to believe mythical right wing mumbo jumbo designed to come off as folklore or Americana, but would debate the facts. He lost that and became a carbon copy troll. Might as well be a fictitious account made in a bot farm from some Russian military facility like some of the rest of you.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You try so hard.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Biologically Male NCAA Runner Named Conference Female Athlete Of The Week
October 25th, 2019
Screenshot/ABCFoxMontanta
The Big Sky Conference named University of Montana runner June Eastwood, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman, the cross-country female athlete of the week.
“June Eastwood finished second in a field of 204 runners at the Santa Clara Bronco Invitational,” helping “Montana place seventh as a team,” the conference noted in its announcement Tuesday. Eastwood previously competed on the University of Montana’s men’s team.
The University of Montana’s athletic director previously citedNCAA policy in explaining why Eastwood was competing on the women’s team. The NCAA allows male runners who identify as transgender women to compete in women’s athletics after suppressing testosterone levels for a full calendar year.
Multi Sport
DA
Doesn't he? Reminds me of Messy a bit..but a drunk version.
Multi Sport
DA
This is the party of espola, ratboy, messy and friends (that's probably all there is, the other screen names are their second or third accounts)They should make this cunt sleep with espola.
Video Surfaces of “Trans” Child From Texas Custody Battle Saying His Mother Tells Him He’s a Girl
Posted at 8:00 am on October 24, 2019 by Brandon Morse
The case of James Younger, a seven-year-old boy from Texas who was recently the central figure in a custody battle between a father trying to protect his son from an abusive mother, has now taken a much larger spotlight on the national stage.
The case revolves around James’s supposed decision to be a transgender girl. The father, Jeff Younger, maintains that James prefers to be a boy and only seems to act as if he wants to be feminine around his mother, Anne Georgulas, and that these thoughts of transgenderism are a direct result of his mother’s influence.
A video has now come into public light where you can see the father asking James questions about whether or not he’s a girl or a boy. The child answers that he is a girl because his mother told him so.
“You’re a boy, right?” asks Younger.
“No, I’m a girl,” replies James.
“Who told you you’re a girl?” asks Younger.
“Mommy,” said James.
The father continued to ask questions of his young son about his preferences, including how “mommy puts you in a dress and puts nail polish on you?” The son answers in the affirmative, noting that his mother buys him dresses, hairbands, and hairclips, and that he likes nail polish.
“And what does mommy tell you?” asks the father.
“She tells me I’m a girl,” replies James.
“My three-year-old son tells me — he’s at my home — he tells me that he’s a girl. And I had the presence of mind, thank goodness, to pull out my iPhone and videotape me asking him about that. And that was literally the first time that I really understood what was happening to my son,” Younger said on the “The Luke Macias Show” during an interview about the video.
“That was the first time I noticed. He was just past his third birthday,” he added.
Younger believed that his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, was “only giving [James] love and affection if he acted like a girl,” and “was putting my son into time-outs and she would lock him in his room and say that monsters only eat boys.”
The court, in an 11 of 12 jury decision, has given Georgulas sole managing conservatorship of James and his twin brother Jude, and is now forcing the father to affirm James’s status as a transgendered person. When around James, Younger must refer to him as “Luna” with feminine pronouns.
It's disgusting..
Bruddah IZ
DA
A bit messy you mean? Lol!
Bruddah IZ
DA
Is that your response when you read something you don’t like? Well is it, stupid?
Multi Sport
DA
He learned it from you...
No, Acknowledging That All Genders Can Menstruate Doesn’t “Erase Women”
If you think only women have periods — and feel upset when people tell you that other genders have them too — let’s talk. Period product company Always announced last week it will be removing the Venus symbol (commonly used as a “female” emblem) from its packaging to be inclusive of all the...
www.yahoo.com
Sheriff Joe
DA
Reclaiming Common Sense
By Richard Kirk
How has it come to pass that in America, a man can identify as a woman, and his linguistic affirmation by itself, at least in New York City, obligates others to refer to him as "her"? And why is it increasingly considered mandatory to declare that men taking female hormones can compete against women in sporting events? What aberrant philosophical doctrine, you may ask, is behind the assertion that there are sixty-three genders or that marriage must no longer be considered the union of a man and a woman? The answer to these and other absurdities can be found in Robert Curry's new book, Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. This brief and manageable philosophical analysis forms a welcome addendum to Curry's earlier work, Common Sense Nation, which "explores the thinking of the American Founders" and "present to Americans today what was once known by virtually every American."
What Americans once knew was humorously summarized by Abraham Lincoln when he posed this question, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" Abe's answer: "Four, because even if you call it a leg, it's still a tail." This "common-sense realism" was once, as Curry points out, the currency of both everyday Americans and the nation's academics. The author, however, goes well beyond Lincoln's yarn to explain the philosophical background of "common sense" as developed in the writings of Scotland's Thomas Reid. Reid notes the foundational quality of certain "self-evident" truths not only for practical living (You can't fly if you jump out a fifth-story window.), but also for intellectual and moral pursuits. These basic truths are not ideas that can be proven. Instead, they are the necessary presuppositions of rational analysis and moral reflection. Furthermore, these basic, "self-evident" truths aren't always obvious, but rather are recognized as rational or moral pillars once discovered. Even simple mathematical truths, to say nothing of more advanced axioms, require a grounding in the discipline to be seen clearly. With respect to morality, the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal" was capable of being clearly perceived only after history and thoughtful refection prepared individuals (like the Founders) to see and acknowledge this seminal insight.
So when did Americans begin to lose this commonsense perspective that was an essential component of the Founders' belief that self-government is possible? Curry points to the ascendance of German-trained academics among American intellectuals in the latter part of the nineteenth century. With the importation of "Romantic" and "progressive" ideals that often sailed under the heading of science, intellectuals dismissed the notion that ordinary folk were capable of discovering the not so obvious truths according to which society should be ordered. Psychiatrists, sociologists, and political scientists would henceforth, they believed, set down rules for raising children and organizing society. This perspective was widespread among American intellectuals in the early twentieth century as the philosophical gap between academics and ordinary Americans widened tremendously.
A Marxist variant of these "progressive" ideas became all the rage on American campuses in the sixties and seventies thanks to another German émigré, Herbert Marcuse. By that time, however, the illusion that Marxism and science were joined at the hip was becoming implausible. Eventually, instead of rejecting Marxism or other utopian constructs, science and reason were themselves jettisoned in favor of the unbridled emotions that always lay at the heart of Marx's romanticism. The absurd conclusion of this intellectual cul-de-sac is today's "linguistic realism" that asserts that people actually are what they say they are. Thus, a boy in a tutu and tiara who insists he is a girl must be considered a girl — a proposition considerably removed from the commonsense statements about dogs, legs, and tails put forth by Lincoln. A further consequence of this escape from reality is the assertion that speech itself is violence, a corollary of attributing to words the status of reality and thus the justification for hate speech laws. The pseudo-scientific cherry on top of this irrational hodgepodge is the popular misunderstanding of Einstein's "theory of relativity" as asserting that "everything is relative," including morality — thus the ubiquity of the modern phrase "my truth."
All these philosophical twists and turns are unpacked slowly by Curry and in a manner that doesn't require a formal background in philosophy or intellectual history. Dreams, for example, are used to illustrate the romantic alternative to commonsense perceptions, and Jane Austen's two major characters in Sense and Sensibility provide literary examples of two different approaches to life, one based on commonsense moderation (Elinor) and the other ruled by self-destructive emotion (Marianne).
Other than showing us exactly how far we have traveled from the commonsense doctrines of Thomas Reid and the Founders, Curry provides in this short work no advice for reversing course other than admonishing each reader to "make the life-defining effort to become a person of robust common sense." Perhaps a third postscript to Common Sense Nation will take on that necessary task with more detailed strategies that extend beyond an appeal to individuals to adopt a perspective that's at odds with the enormous emotional power of a corrupt academic and popular culture (cf. Attorney General Barr's Notre Dame speech) that controls almost all the major instruments of communication and education.
How has it come to pass that in America, a man can identify as a woman, and his linguistic affirmation by itself, at least in New York City, obligates others to refer to him as "her"? And why is it increasingly considered mandatory to declare that men taking female hormones can compete against women in sporting events? What aberrant philosophical doctrine, you may ask, is behind the assertion that there are sixty-three genders or that marriage must no longer be considered the union of a man and a woman? The answer to these and other absurdities can be found in Robert Curry's new book, Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. This brief and manageable philosophical analysis forms a welcome addendum to Curry's earlier work, Common Sense Nation, which "explores the thinking of the American Founders" and "present to Americans today what was once known by virtually every American."
What Americans once knew was humorously summarized by Abraham Lincoln when he posed this question, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" Abe's answer: "Four, because even if you call it a leg, it's still a tail." This "common-sense realism" was once, as Curry points out, the currency of both everyday Americans and the nation's academics. The author, however, goes well beyond Lincoln's yarn to explain the philosophical background of "common sense" as developed in the writings of Scotland's Thomas Reid. Reid notes the foundational quality of certain "self-evident" truths not only for practical living (You can't fly if you jump out a fifth-story window.), but also for intellectual and moral pursuits. These basic truths are not ideas that can be proven. Instead, they are the necessary presuppositions of rational analysis and moral reflection. Furthermore, these basic, "self-evident" truths aren't always obvious, but rather are recognized as rational or moral pillars once discovered. Even simple mathematical truths, to say nothing of more advanced axioms, require a grounding in the discipline to be seen clearly. With respect to morality, the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal" was capable of being clearly perceived only after history and thoughtful refection prepared individuals (like the Founders) to see and acknowledge this seminal insight.
So when did Americans begin to lose this commonsense perspective that was an essential component of the Founders' belief that self-government is possible? Curry points to the ascendance of German-trained academics among American intellectuals in the latter part of the nineteenth century. With the importation of "Romantic" and "progressive" ideals that often sailed under the heading of science, intellectuals dismissed the notion that ordinary folk were capable of discovering the not so obvious truths according to which society should be ordered. Psychiatrists, sociologists, and political scientists would henceforth, they believed, set down rules for raising children and organizing society. This perspective was widespread among American intellectuals in the early twentieth century as the philosophical gap between academics and ordinary Americans widened tremendously.
A Marxist variant of these "progressive" ideas became all the rage on American campuses in the sixties and seventies thanks to another German émigré, Herbert Marcuse. By that time, however, the illusion that Marxism and science were joined at the hip was becoming implausible.
By Richard Kirk
How has it come to pass that in America, a man can identify as a woman, and his linguistic affirmation by itself, at least in New York City, obligates others to refer to him as "her"? And why is it increasingly considered mandatory to declare that men taking female hormones can compete against women in sporting events? What aberrant philosophical doctrine, you may ask, is behind the assertion that there are sixty-three genders or that marriage must no longer be considered the union of a man and a woman? The answer to these and other absurdities can be found in Robert Curry's new book, Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. This brief and manageable philosophical analysis forms a welcome addendum to Curry's earlier work, Common Sense Nation, which "explores the thinking of the American Founders" and "present
What Americans once knew was humorously summarized by Abraham Lincoln when he posed this question, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" Abe's answer: "Four, because even if you call it a leg, it's still a tail." This "common-sense realism" was once, as Curry points out, the currency of both everyday Americans and the nation's academics. The author, however, goes well beyond Lincoln's yarn to explain the philosophical background of "common sense" as developed in the writings of Scotland's Thomas Reid. Reid notes the foundational quality of certain "self-evident" truths not only for practical living (You can't fly if you jump out a fifth-story window.), but also for intellectual and moral pursuits. These basic truths are not ideas that can be proven. Instead, they are the necessary presuppositions of rational analysis and moral reflection. Furthermore, these basic, "self-evident" truths aren't always obvious, but rather are recognized as rational or moral pillars once discovered. Even simple mathematical truths, to say nothing of more advanced axioms, require a grounding in the discipline to be seen clearly. With respect to morality, the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal" was capable of being clearly perceived only after history and thoughtful refection prepared individuals (like the Founders) to see and acknowledge this seminal insight.
So when did Americans begin to lose this commonsense perspective that was an essential component of the Founders' belief that self-government is possible? Curry points to the ascendance of German-trained academics among American intellectuals in the latter part of the nineteenth century. With the importation of "Romantic" and "progressive" ideals that often sailed under the heading of science, intellectuals dismissed the notion that ordinary folk were capable of discovering the not so obvious truths according to which society should be ordered. Psychiatrists, sociologists, and political scientists would henceforth, they believed, set down rules for raising children and organizing society. This perspective was widespread among American intellectuals in the early twentieth century as the philosophical gap between academics and ordinary Americans widened tremendously.
A Marxist variant of these "progressive" ideas became all the rage on American campuses in the sixties and seventies thanks to another German émigré, Herbert Marcuse. By that time, however, the illusion that Marxism and science were joined at the hip was becoming implausible. Eventually, instead of rejecting Marxism or other utopian constructs, science and reason were themselves jettisoned in favor of the unbridled emotions that always lay at the heart of Marx's romanticism. The absurd conclusion of this intellectual cul-de-sac is today's "linguistic realism" that asserts that people actually are what they say they are. Thus, a boy in a tutu and tiara who insists he is a girl must be considered a girl — a proposition considerably removed from the commonsense statements about dogs, legs, and tails put forth by Lincoln. A further consequence of this escape from reality is the assertion that speech itself is violence, a corollary of attributing to words the status of reality and thus the justification for hate speech laws. The pseudo-scientific cherry on top of this irrational hodgepodge is the popular misunderstanding of Einstein's "theory of relativity" as asserting that "everything is relative," including morality — thus the ubiquity of the modern phrase "my truth."
All these philosophical twists and turns are unpacked slowly by Curry and in a manner that doesn't require a formal background in philosophy or intellectual history. Dreams, for example, are used to illustrate the romantic alternative to commonsense perceptions, and Jane Austen's two major characters in Sense and Sensibility provide literary examples of two different approaches to life, one based on commonsense moderation (Elinor) and the other ruled by self-destructive emotion (Marianne).
Other than showing us exactly how far we have traveled from the commonsense doctrines of Thomas Reid and the Founders, Curry provides in this short work no advice for reversing course other than admonishing each reader to "make the life-defining effort to become a person of robust common sense." Perhaps a third postscript to Common Sense Nation will take on that necessary task with more detailed strategies that extend beyond an appeal to individuals to adopt a perspective that's at odds with the enormous emotional power of a corrupt academic and popular culture (cf. Attorney General Barr's Notre Dame speech) that controls almost all the major instruments of communication and education.
How has it come to pass that in America, a man can identify as a woman, and his linguistic affirmation by itself, at least in New York City, obligates others to refer to him as "her"? And why is it increasingly considered mandatory to declare that men taking female hormones can compete against women in sporting events? What aberrant philosophical doctrine, you may ask, is behind the assertion that there are sixty-three genders or that marriage must no longer be considered the union of a man and a woman? The answer to these and other absurdities can be found in Robert Curry's new book, Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. This brief and manageable philosophical analysis forms a welcome addendum to Curry's earlier work, Common Sense Nation, which "explores the thinking of the American Founders" and "present
What Americans once knew was humorously summarized by Abraham Lincoln when he posed this question, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" Abe's answer: "Four, because even if you call it a leg, it's still a tail." This "common-sense realism" was once, as Curry points out, the currency of both everyday Americans and the nation's academics. The author, however, goes well beyond Lincoln's yarn to explain the philosophical background of "common sense" as developed in the writings of Scotland's Thomas Reid. Reid notes the foundational quality of certain "self-evident" truths not only for practical living (You can't fly if you jump out a fifth-story window.), but also for intellectual and moral pursuits. These basic truths are not ideas that can be proven. Instead, they are the necessary presuppositions of rational analysis and moral reflection. Furthermore, these basic, "self-evident" truths aren't always obvious, but rather are recognized as rational or moral pillars once discovered. Even simple mathematical truths, to say nothing of more advanced axioms, require a grounding in the discipline to be seen clearly. With respect to morality, the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal" was capable of being clearly perceived only after history and thoughtful refection prepared individuals (like the Founders) to see and acknowledge this seminal insight.
So when did Americans begin to lose this commonsense perspective that was an essential component of the Founders' belief that self-government is possible? Curry points to the ascendance of German-trained academics among American intellectuals in the latter part of the nineteenth century. With the importation of "Romantic" and "progressive" ideals that often sailed under the heading of science, intellectuals dismissed the notion that ordinary folk were capable of discovering the not so obvious truths according to which society should be ordered. Psychiatrists, sociologists, and political scientists would henceforth, they believed, set down rules for raising children and organizing society. This perspective was widespread among American intellectuals in the early twentieth century as the philosophical gap between academics and ordinary Americans widened tremendously.
A Marxist variant of these "progressive" ideas became all the rage on American campuses in the sixties and seventies thanks to another German émigré, Herbert Marcuse. By that time, however, the illusion that Marxism and science were joined at the hip was becoming implausible.