gearhog

But I was told it was a homocide by bigoted transphobe hate group.

Absolutely not. First, this is not what I would call "taking a stand". If someone were helping to write language of the legislation they hope to enact and sending it to their representatives, protesting in the street, actively preventing access, going door to door, then I would say a person has real conviction in their beliefs and were taking a stand. We're just debating about allowing the choices of people we've never met nor seen and have who near zero impact on our lives. Both of us should be able to argue our respective positions and what we believe to be right and wrong. Freedom of speech. If you feel you can make someone understand the logic of what you believe and change the mind of a parent or child who may be considering this, I 100% support you and I'll argue alongside you. But even after we've educated them, they stand up and say don't agree and are going to proceed anyway, would you physically restrain them? There are natural laws governing this sort of thing. Let them work. If and when this "crisis" comes to an end, it won't be due to legislation, it'll because enough people did or did not get the result they expected, and the word got around.

Sorry, man. Not true. You're using the example of the dirt bike, yet there are literally thousands of kids competing in 7 year old classes at races around the country. Do you support banning that, also? Kids are allowed to do dangerous things that can either make them happy or harm them horribly. That's life. There is a laws against minors and alcohol, but parents spend hundreds of billions of dollars drugging their kids in other ways with an incredible amount of OTC and prescription drugs. They're encouraged to do it, and often times required by the state to do it. In addition to gender transitioning medication, what other medications would you ban? Why would you just pick one? Lots of kids live in a household with guns, and some of them shoot themselves. Should the guns be illegal? Should the ATF be allowed to inspect your home and make sure they'll locked up? My point when asking if you knew any was to say that if it weren't for the magic window in your hand, you would never know this was a problem. If it weren't for the magic window in everyone else's hand - the problem would be non-existent. Your perception of the frequency and severity of the problem is radically skewed. And even if someone did know one of these kids, I guarantee that they have never contacted the family and asked to discuss the matter. Everyone wants to bypass that step make someone else work to create a new law of the land for everyone that suits their worldview. I admire your compassion. Always offer help. But if it is refused, let it go.

You're making quite the leap by intentionally conflating gender transitioning with veteran suicide. That's a retarded line of reasoning. People who undergo gender transition aren't doing so in order to hurt or end their lives. What would be the point of that? They're doing it because in their own heads, it'll improve their lives. I don't agree with it, either. But should your judgement regarding what a child and his/her parents decide to do with their bodies supersede theirs? They argue consistently that they go through the process to avoid resorting to suicide or self-harm. Of course life has innate value, as does the right for self-determination. Who are you to tell a family what they believe is making life more livable is actually harm? Two categories, eh? The first is a mental disorder from thinking you’re the opposite sex, and the second is completely different: sexual gratification from transitioning to the opposite sex, which is cool. I hope you're making yourself available to explain that distinction for each person who wants to transition, because I'm pretty sure no one else can. lol

Huh? No offense, but you don't appear to understand the meaning of the word. Eugenics is a deliberate intervention in another person's choices regarding reproduction. I'm advocating for exactly the opposite. Let the family decide and stay out of it. To be clear, I don't think children are currently allowed to be making these decisions without the concurrence of the parents. I would agree that kids should not be deciding for themselves without parental involvement, but isn't that already the law? How many issues do we want the state to supersede the parents? Riding a dirt bike can be a life-altering decision for a child, going swimming, flying to Nashville with family in a GA aircraft, as well as many other things. I had a few students who SIE'd from pilot training. Why would I want to force them to remain? If someone and their family wants to SIE from the procreating population - so? Go live your childless life and disappear. If someone is considering self-amputation, they're 100% going to be unhappy in life either way. It is better for them to blame themselves than you. Does anyone here actually personally know a child transitioning? Have you spoken with them or their family and still want to circumvent their wishes and impose yours via legislation? I bet the answer is "no".

That's kind of my point. What is the goal of preventing gender affirming care? Are we creating better people? They're likely to be a dreg of society with or without a penis. Any legislation on gender affirming care addresses the end result of harmful or neglectful parenting and social norms, not the destructive conditions that lead to mental illness. So now if you want to address the root causes, you have to create nanny state laws that allow for seizure of kids from homes and laws that prevent exposure to whatever the state deems dangerous. I don't like that either. The people who are least equipped (and being raised) to deal with modern life are self-sterilizing and effectively ending their genetic lineage. And... they're happy to do it. And... likely willing to become angry/violent if not allowed. Who are we to deny their pursuit of happiness? Why not let it play out? I'm willing to speak with your neighbor's kid and list all the reasons why he shouldn't touch the hot stove, but if he still want's to.... It's not on me. It's on his parents. What I am against, is any sort of outside funding. Do what you want, but not with my taxes or insurance premiums. If the parents have to work overtime for months on end to have their kid's tits chopped off, I think the whole dynamic might change.

Maybe hard to believe, but I may have an unpopular opinion on this. Raising my kids was the most incredibly difficult thing I've done. I was working an airline job and guard job to include TDYs, deployments, etc while trying to be a decent father. The amount of thought and mental churning it took to anticipate, recognize, and mitigate all the potential pitfalls in a modern child's (especially girl's) life often seemed overwhelming. I have a very strong wife and immediate/exteneded family who live nearby. Fortunately, we were able to shape these young ones into an even better version of ourselves. Now there's another generation beginning and he's starting life with an even bigger advantage and more people to help guide him. You can't remove the danger from a child's life, but you can prepare them to confront it. That takes an extraordinary effort today. Those countless hours at the dinner table, sitting next to them on the bed talking, sitting on bleachers until my ass was numb, Googling calculus answers, etc, was painful, but a family legacy is the most important thing to me. I can't imagine attempting to concern myself the children of others to the extent that I care about mine. That's their job and so many are failing. If a family or society fails to produce mentally and physically fit young people who are wholly unable to produce the strong family dynamic required to go forth and multiply, those people eventually cease to exist. All I have to do is wait. I'lll help where I can, but I am under no obligation to drag the weak through life. If your child succumbs to these dangers, where does the responsibility lie? With the things you can't control (danger) or the things you can (preparation)? If you're someone who becomes conflicted about who you are and believe you need to change your body, I support whatever makes you happy. The chances of you outlasting my family and friends are slim.

Do you like classical? Well, you do now.

More terminal velocity “relief”. WTF.

The entire State of the Union:

Gaza's population concentration is said to be about 14,000 people per square mile. We should help them by doing a CDS airdrop there without an established DZ. Maybe we should go back to dropping the "aid" in the ocean. https://x.com/InsiderWorld_1/status/1766061321550762100?s=20 https://x.com/MilitaryPOV/status/1766068960263344501?s=20

Veteran's Affairs actually put this memo out.

As far as I know, Flight Physiology is separate from Flight Medicine. I don't believe they create records for your medical file. I'd tell them that you want some help without going into detail, but not if it is going to generate a paper trail. I definitely would not document it this early in your flight training. Try to rectify it without paperwork and seek help off base if possible.

This guy has been digging deep. A FOIA lawsuit revealed there was, and is currently, a concerted effort, by the Biden admin, to fly hundreds of thousands of illegals into the US. They illegals depar from an unknown number of foreign airports and arrive at 43 US airports. But the Biden admin won't say where. The reason given: "The public can’t know the receiving airports because those hundreds of thousands of CBP-authorized arrivals have created such “operational vulnerabilities” at airports that “bad actors” could undermine law enforcement efforts to “secure the United States border” if they knew the volume of CBP One traffic processed at each port of entry." The illegals sign up for the flights via the Customs and Border Patrol "One" app. They're processed separately from other passengers at departure and destination airports. How do you feel about this? Original report: https://cis.org/Bensman/Government-Admission-Biden-Parole-Flights-Create-Security-Vulnerabilities-US-Airports https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13155765/biden-illegal-migrant-flying-program-national-security-vulnerability.html

Dune Part 2. Fantastic. Up there with Blade Runner 2. Warning: I did feel the plot was as complex as Zandaya's hairline, so some foreknowledge of the story is needed. Such a welcome reprieve from the cute snarky pop-culture sci-fi wokefest Star Wars has become.

In UPT, I could pull positive Gs all day, but I had a O/negative G reaction. Instant active airsickness. Barany chair fixed me right up. Never had another problem. I'm not a doctor, but it's possible you could be dealing with an overly sensitive semicircular canal. That, in turn, could be triggering an issue known to flight docs as "Manifestation of Apprehension". Several of my UPT studs had it. There are ways of dealing with both. If you have a Flight Physiology office near you, surely they'd be willing to help out even if you're not yet rated. Good luck.

Hats off to that guy! But seriously, Awesome!

Good points. I understand your perspective. I have an strong urge to write a 20,000 words on this, but I don't want to derail this thread too much. Watch as civil unrest continues to increase in frequency and intensity. If you want to establish that witnessing destruction of property is sufficient cause for a government official to reasonably fear for their life and begin spraying, I'll think we'll face another Kent State or Boston Massacre at some point. Actually, that's probably going to happen anyway. Setting a reasonable expectation for it just moves up the timeline. Anyway, back on track. This is your United States Air Force. Or Space Force. Or whatever. https://x.com/ClownWorld_/status/1763536537520947682?s=20

Dayyyyum....

When I used the term "reasonable expectation", that is a legal term and how I intended it. You seem to be applying a gut instinct as to what the term "reasonable" means to you. There are as many personal definitions to what constitutes "reasonable" as there are people. The use of deadly force against a non-violent criminal has probably been legally argued thousands of times. There are, in fact, Supreme Court rulings on the subject. Breaking and entering in and of itself is not grounds for use of deadly force by law enforcement unless additional parameters and assessments are met. Would you know what those are without having to look them up? They were actually argued in this specific case and it was found that the officer doing the shooting may not have acted appropriately, but it would have been too difficult to argue and prove that he did beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not arguing on behalf of Ashley Babbitt or her beliefs. But as I said before, if you believe that any of us should have a reasonable expectation to be shot and killed for entering locked door in a government building, then you must also believe that it is reasonable and justifiable for law enforcement to do the killing. Perhaps there is nothing you feel strongly enough about that would compel you to protest your government, but don't you want there to be significantly high threshold for the taking of anyone's life should you one day feel the need? Should we have mowed down the Antifa protestors smashing windows and lighting things on fire? Most of us would admit a part of us would find it satisfying, but if you spend the time to sort through the logic and downstream effects of giving your government the authority use kill someone over a property crime... you may one day wish you hadn't.

If it is reasonable to expect to die, then you must also believe there is a reasonable expectation and legal justification to kill an unarmed person who has committed no acts of physical violence purely for the reason of attempting to enter a locked door. Surely there must be some law, or even Supreme Court decisions that address this.

Germany pissed off the Brits today by revealing British soldiers are, in fact, already on the ground in Ukraine and helping the Ukr army launch long-range cruise missiles against Russia. https://news.yahoo.com/british-soldiers-ukraine-helping-fire-195700593.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANthDvD7fFcnt40QA9svzNDCwc4UHmwd50vlnHruuR61ggiElu8UYv40vyJHe-WP6rwtK8swSSWMnl9GPVOHxyXSFKTx5mECVDXDTUOtSLlfa3RgPcJE6Q_ckCq9nebLncS1z3SHQo1flxAO-D2coNTlDb3fZdbbUfFh1QC6hFM6

Financial Times article from today details some leaked Russian nuclear doctrine, including the thresholds required for nukes to be used. https://www.ft.com/content/f18e6e1f-5c3d-4554-aee5-50a730b306b7

Tornado at Wright Pat fucked some shit up.