LogFAQs > #929352110

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Texas jury rules against dad trying to stop 7yo son's gender transition
darkjedilink 10/28/19 4:10:02 PM #450:	King_Hutton posted... darkjedilink posted... King_Hutton posted... Its so confusing how people want to have strong opinions taken seriously when its obvious that havent read much about this case. Like how, after this blew up nationally, the judge gave the father medical rights over the child. That means that no transitionary procedures can be done on this child without the father's express consent. Kind of hard to argue that maybe the courts got it right the first time if that's the case huh? Your argument here is that propaganda and public pressure persuaded a judge rather than facts and expert opinions. In case you werent sure what you were saying, because it really doesnt sound like you know what youre saying. No, my argument was that the decision is so obviously flawed that the judge had no choice but to succumb to public pressure. Again, the judge and those 'experts' are actively ignoring video evidence that clearly refutes their decision. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:929352110] in Texas jury... [t:78108026]...</cite> <quote>King_Hutton posted...</cite> <quote>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>King_Hutton posted...</cite> <quote>Its so confusing how people want to have strong opinions taken seriously when its obvious that havent read much about this case.</quote> Like how, after this blew up nationally, the judge gave the father medical rights over the child. That means that no transitionary procedures can be done on this child without the father's express consent. Kind of hard to argue that maybe the courts got it right the first time if that's the case huh?</quote> Your argument here is that propaganda and public pressure persuaded a judge rather than facts and expert opinions. In case you werent sure what you were saying, because it really doesnt sound like you know what youre saying.</quote> No, my argument was that the decision is so obviously flawed that the judge had no choice but to succumb to public pressure. Again, the judge and those 'experts' are actively ignoring video evidence that clearly refutes their decision. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1