Skyler

@WKCosmo 2) "gender affirming care" via medical intervention has even less evidence to support it and far more long-term consequences. Whoever wrote that article puts on blast how "science" is used as dogma to indoctrinate by zealots and fanatics just as much as religion.

One of the most Orwellian linguistic sleights-of-hand in modern science communication is to label telling confused and vulnerable children "Hey, you're just great the way you are, and you don't need invasive, irreversible medical intervention" as "conversion therapy."

@WKCosmo This article isn't just misleading its misrepresentation. Therapists don't practice "medical conduct" whatever that even means. Therapy isnt regulated under medical boards or a medical license. A therapist engaging in "medical conduct" is practicing medicine without a license.

@amazing_physics Since energy cannot be created or destroyed I'd say the earth, sun, water, moon, stars and everything else made of matter (including us) are the same exact age. We've just taken different forms and cosmic structures since the beginning.

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 3) I might disagree with you in substance but I agree with you in principle

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty Because we have not created the administrative mechanisms and the A/B testing process that could make this happen. You expressed the idea that people should not begrudge having to contribute to society.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." — Ayn Rand

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 2) even the mere act of questioning the system we live in, and genuinely wanting a structure that brings the benefits beyond ourselves is a valuable. Its the groupthink or absolute deference to authority no matter the harm or consequences that causes the greatest destruction

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty As a personal belief, no, I don't think people should begrudge contributing to society. I also don't see taxes or other monetary contribution as the only, or most important, form of contribution.

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty To clarify, for myself, is it direct democracy youre speaking of?

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 'Anarchy' means 'no rules'. But the rule stipulated above is that people can only move funds UP THE GRADIENT, toward support of things that are widely recognized as more important or valuable than the thing being defunded. The respect individuals have for their gov't would grow

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 2) wanting something is different then getting it. Simply wanting tax money to not be used for war and expressing it is a freedom. Being granted absolute authority over it though is not.

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty In your view, if I am reading you correctly, a person who says, "I want to move the money that I pay in tax that goes to supply weapons that are being aimed at civilian targets, toward support of emergency medical relief of civilians injured in war", is practicing totalitarianism

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty I'm agreeing with you about this. Its a collective decision and I'm pretty sure our country is supposed to bases on this exact principle even if though it's not how it works in practice

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty I'm not asking whether people should be free to stop paying taxes. The question is whether people should be able to focus their support where they think it does the most good, provided that community standards agree that the money is being well-used. gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2025/07/respec…

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty Yes, I agree with this but I don't see this a individual sovereignty. Its a social effort not a sovereign individual effort. But who is in control of the funds? It can't be hundreds of citizens all with direct access and equal control. It would be a free for all

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty I was asking specifically not about 'total sovereignty', but about the possibility of allowing latitude to move funds in the direction that aligns with what most people would say is an improvement--toward more valuable public services. (An A/B testing process is described above.)

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty This reads contradictory. It opposes radically ideology but promotes rejection of anything that offends the conscience. It proposes an alternative "philosophical" system. These alternatives are the same radical ideology as they are abstracts and beliefs, not practicalities.

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty The proposal is to allow taxpayers latitude to decide what their tax payment is in support of, not whether they face a tax obligation Rather than force people to aid something they think is harmful, it is forced support of what ppl want to support anyway (or @ least don't oppose)

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 4) if there a tax that you object to so much that you demand not to pay then you are free to recruit a majority of members who agree with you to oppose whatever you object to. Taxpayers vetoing taxes is a majority decision, one taxpayer having absolute veto is totalitarianism

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty No opinion on the 'Respect individual sovereignty' idea that would allow taxpayers a veto on how their tax money is spent? I think the type of immoral action that we would associate with a Machiavellian State is exactly what respect for individual sovereignty could foreclose.

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 2) contraction of wealth into the hands of a few will invariably bend systems in their favor. Not all Machiavellian traits are bad. To prevent the worst from seizing power at all levels, the governors must look eye to eye with the governed to stand in judgment for their actions

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty What change could we make to the political system that would make it less likely that people of bad character will cause damage. I think we should only vote for people who aim to reduce or eliminate initiation of force by government. (Can't say I follow that rule.)

@ODNIgov @alexahenning It's always the same game: sabatoge by forcing an impossible timeline and then using that impossibility to claim failure, evasiveness, or errors d/t rushing and then seizing on it as "evidence" of their accusations. It's a preferred unsophisticated, boiler plate sabatoge.

Correct, @alexahenning. The same discredited Guardian reporter who published completely false information about ODNI earlier this year contacted our press team at midnight and again at 2:45am — in the middle of the night during Easter and Passover weekend — because, as @catebrown12 has proven previously, they are not interested in the truth. Sources only go to The Guardian when no other outlet will publish their tabloid lies. This was the case in February, when they were forced to issue a correction for their sources’ false claims and their own faulty journalism. And it is the case now. The Trump administration constantly combats these types of hit pieces, which are littered with unsubstantiated gossip from uninformed, anonymous sources who know nothing about what is actually going on and who run their mouths to the press to feel a heightened sense of importance. Guardian reporters are among the top culprits in facilitating this dishonesty and should not be trusted. (1/3)

@SummerStephan the question is why youre so opposed to a board of supervisors consumer protection and whose interests your really trying to protecting. The COI, self dealing, fraud and corporate exploitation is beyond criminal and it lies at your feet.