jerryskids

The reason the impact is being minimized is that dissent is being censored, so people can't discuss it. I just saw the following, which was apparently banned on TikTok. Because, of course, China wants to destroy our culture.

I agree with this, although I don't want to sidetrack on the age of consent.

After you mentioned Habit yesterday, I thought hmm, I think there is one around here somewhere. But when I went to their website, it was directing me to Cali, so I figured it closed up. But then I drove a direction I don't usually go and, walla!, there is a Habit a few miles from me. So I've got both that 5 Guys within a few miles. And... my wife is heading out of town next Saturday and leaving me to fend for a week. I told her last night about this discussion and how I might do a little taste test while she is gone. Looks like Shake Shack was added to the fray. I've got to drive further for that, but in the interest of science... Maybe I'll add In N Out as a control for the experiment as well. I know I like them.

Good luck! I'll say a prayer for you.

A pointy stick is no flagpole, that's for sure.

So, what are the next steps?

is churning out a lot of stories today. Amen Thanks

I wonder why white liberal women hate themselves, and hate their daughters. About the only thing they seem to defend themselves on is the ability to kill inconvenient unborn children.

There is one a few miles from me but I've never eaten there. Just checked out the menu -- a bacon double cheeseburger is $13 Now I'm intrigued though, I might need to try it.

Without knowing the details of the case, I could see the court upholding the bans. There is certainly precedent of laws specifically restricting behavior to minors. And there is precedence of the government being involved in the medical care of minors (vaccine mandates for schools, for instance). Finally, this court has shown through Dobbs a desire to put state legislators back in the legislature business, and getting the courts and executive branches out of the legislature business (no matter how much folks like @The Real timschochetthink we are better off with an activist court full of Sotomayors who will just support whatever feelz right that day).

A few things. Speaking of preheld convictions: what do you think are the preheld convictions of doctors who get into the gender care business? I thought so. Those are the ones supporting surgical and hormonal mutilation of children. The vast majority of doctors just defer to them, because that's what doctors do. Two, it's difficult to prove the lack of existence of something. To my knowledge, most trans child "care" is based on a Scandinavian study (never since replicated) which showed improvement for trans kids after surgery. Problem was, that was a very carefully culled cohort. But based on it, European countries decided that medical intervention was the call for a lot more folks. US followed suit. The European countries have since realized that this was a grievous error, and to a one have backed off on such policies. The US has not reached this obvious conclusion yet, hence why we are having this seemingly idiotic conversation. Three, it is possible to hold multiple views which are not contradictory, all of which I've stated before: 1. There are true trans people, and people with gender dysphoria. We should help those people to the best of our abilities. 2. Such help should not default to medical intervention. That should only be a last resort and after years of counseling/therapy. 3. There is a social contagion going on with young people in our society, particularly with confused girls going through puberty, who take testosterone and, shockingly, feel more assertive and confident. 4. Until we get #3 under control, we should full stop end medical interventions for children. Europe has figured this out, we haven't, and you will find yourself on the wrong side of history.

By the way, I looked up that particular color of blue you got, and agree it is quite sharp.

We've been through this, and yet you still say it. The AMA is not a scientific organization; it is a political/lobbying organization. Here is an interview with the head of the AMA -- the first openly gay head. Most of the interview is about his being gay and pushing a gay and trans agenda: https://apnews.com/article/american-medical-association-president-bd8b9b9bdb61da2ad00285d83e353d5e Also, it is not the "majority of doctors around the world," the majority of doctors just want to practice their area of medicine and otherwise be left alone. The above interview has the following exchange: It is categorically wrong that hormonal and surgical intervention for children is "evidence-based health care."

Why invite a "local political activist" to sing the anthem? Seems like asking for idiocy.

Good find!

I philosophically agree with you. The problem is that the "science" that these parents (and kids) are being provided is, for lack of a better word, crap. Also, the number of gender clinics treating children has risen from zero to > 100 in the past 15 years. These places need to pay the bills. Do you think they are in the business of turning potential clients away? That stat is from the following link, which is a really good read. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-care/

Agreed. Puffy nipples make it move. Also... medium-sized, on an otherwise slim torso.

Acts is in your Bible because the Catholic Church put it there. Amen Thanks

I'm in. Thanks for your money.

Also, interesting that the 3.5 is powerful enough. What's the torque, and what do you plan to do with it?

That looks pretty cool, I'll bookmark that for when we make our way up to Moab.

2 Timothy is in your Bible because the Catholic Church put it there. Amen Thanks

I just rented a car for a trip to Scotland next month (going to The Open with my son!). They still drive a lot of manuals there. I paid a good amount extra for an automatic -- driving on the wrong side of the road after visiting a few scotch distilleries will be challenge enough, I don't need to figure out how to shift with my left hand on top of it.

He often does.

Oh, I've tried to have this talk with him. He won't listen. The Catholic Church didn't preserve the Bible per se, it curated it. Up until the fourth century, there was no book, there were collections of stories that were read in churches throughout the land. The Catholic Church got together and decided which stories were the true word of God, and which were, for lack of a better phrase, fan fiction. You see, Jesus was a popular dude, and people liked to write stories about him. These stories are considered apocryphal, or part of the "apocrypha." Here is a collection of them: https://www.nasscal.com/e-clavis-christian-apocrypha/ The site doesn't have a good search mechanism, just use ctrl-f. In it you will find hundreds of stories which didn't make the cut. Gospels of Judas, Mary, Barnabas, Thomas, Peter. The Gospel of Peter is somewhat known in religious circles, although not by name -- Peter was crucified for his beliefs, but asked to be crucified upside down, so as to not be likened to Jesus. @weepawswon't even click that link, because he would consider it heretical. Knowledge and weepaws do not mix well. Anyway, my point is that for all he considers his surfer cult superior to the Catholic Church, his Bible wouldn't exist if not for it.