kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"
Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.
With all due respect, why don't we let people decide for themselves whether they've been harmed or helped?
I don't let my children even decide what they wear out of the house. Much less what their gender should be. Their brains wont be developed until after puberty, and those ideas can change.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"
Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.
With all due respect, why don't we let people decide for themselves whether they've been harmed or helped?
Really, well were did you get the idea that you can change your "gender"?Sapper Redux said:TxAgPreacher said:
People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"
Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.
Your perception of the past is beyond warped.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance. My great uncle owned a hometown grocery store, and they used to fire people if they got a divorce.
Things definitely used to be simpler. But, better depends on who you ask.
Imagine if I said life would be better if everyone just beat the hell out of Christians, forced them into secrecy, and forced them to be the most hated marginalized pariahs of society. While I understand you are not calling for violence against anyway, this was the reality for many many people prior to these 'subversive ideologies'.
There is no doubt that we are witnessing a massive social revolution that has begun playing out and will play out for decades to come. I would never ask you to accept or believe anything you don't want to. But, my hope is that more and more people will understand others (like trans people) with a bit of actual love and humility rather than disgust and hate. Not implying that you hate. . . but, I think it's hard to deny that there is no shortage of hate.
I'm not sure the idea ("depends on who you ask") is appropriate or reasonable. People thought differently before many different philosophies were released into the world (the enlightenment, critical theories, etc.). You can't take your way of thinking and project it backwards to assume some wrong took place. That's anachronistic and egotistical (not as a slander, but to say centering your way of thinking as a measure of how everyone throughout history has ever thought). Facts not in evidence.
I don't understand your objection. When social change occurs there are often some people that agree with it and some people that disagree. Do say that things were 'better' before some social change occurred is to state an opinion that may not be shared by everyone. This isn't about me or my way of thinking. Lets go out and find a bunch of 80 year old gays and ask them if they'd prefer to live in their childhood society where they were denied equal rights and openly legally marginalized or if they'd prefer to live now.
I am saying that the 'better' part of the statement: "Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance." is undeniably subjective. Do you not agree?
TxAgPreacher said:I don't let my children even decide what they wear out of the house. Much less what their gender should be. Their brains wont be developed until after puberty, and those ideas can change.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"
Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.
With all due respect, why don't we let people decide for themselves whether they've been harmed or helped?
Factually, the outcomes are still bad, even after transition. This is a radical new ideology. Frankly, I really don't care if someone wants to poke out their eyes. I will not let them. They need help.
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:I don't let my children even decide what they wear out of the house. Much less what their gender should be. Their brains wont be developed until after puberty, and those ideas can change.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"
Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.
With all due respect, why don't we let people decide for themselves whether they've been harmed or helped?
Factually, the outcomes are still bad, even after transition. This is a radical new ideology. Frankly, I really don't care if someone wants to poke out their eyes. I will not let them. They need help.
We aren't necessarily talking about children. We're talking about grown adults. Many of them very intelligent and self aware.
I don't think your words of"Everyone should be treated with basic dignity, and respect" is compatible with saying that some people don't get to speak up for themselves or control their own actions or say whether something is harmed them or hurt them.
As far as I'm concerned, you still don't get to decide that their outcomes are bad. Its just not your call.
Imagine your church is debating a new policy to be implemented in and I bust and tell you and your whole congregation that your new policy is wrong and its going to cause harm and I won't let you do it. Pretty ridiculous, right?
AGC said:
Right but the opposite could also be true which is the risk in you drawing a conclusion based on what you, Kurt, think now. What about gender confused people who didn't have the opportunity kids do today for surgery and intervention, but grew out of it? How would you quantify the number of those people whose lives are immeasurably better because we didn't think it was 'good' or worth doing to indulge that idea? That's why projection (anachronism) isn't a useful tool for discussion.
TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
I also do not have the right to chop of a body part.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
What happened to:Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
What happened to:Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
Quote:
Zero tolerance socially. In other words let the churches handle it. If you believe different than me then find a community that will support you. Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance. My great uncle owned a hometown grocery store, and they used to fire people if they got a divorce. I believe social pressure is the way to end this ideological contagion. private companies don't have to employ those who engage in sinful practices and refuse to repent.
TxAgPreacher said:I also do not have the right to chop of a body part.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
What happened to:Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
funny you left out this part:kurt vonnegut said:kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
What happened to:Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
And what happened to letting social pressure do the work?Quote:
Zero tolerance socially. In other words let the churches handle it. If you believe different than me then find a community that will support you. Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance. My great uncle owned a hometown grocery store, and they used to fire people if they got a divorce. I believe social pressure is the way to end this ideological contagion. private companies don't have to employ those who engage in sinful practices and refuse to repent.
Zero tolerance socially.Quote:
On the state level, states should be allowed to make whatever moral laws they want so long as they do not violate our God given rights. God limits me on what I am allowed to bind on my fellow man in His law. I'm a strict constitutionalist.
TxAgPreacher said:I also do not have the right to chop of a body part.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
What happened to:Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
TxAgPreacher said:
funny you left out this part:Zero tolerance socially.Quote:
On the state level, states should be allowed to make whatever moral laws they want so long as they do not violate our God given rights. God limits me on what I am allowed to bind on my fellow man in His law. I'm a strict constitutionalist.
I disagree. Don't like it, leave my state. I'll vote for every social conservate law I can until I die. The founders made the country this way. Sodomy laws were on the books back then. They had no problem with it, and everyone equally had to follow the law. It's how the country works.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:I also do not have the right to chop of a body part.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
What happened to:Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
Saying everyone has the same right to live the way I want them to live is not equal to equal treatment under the law.
A state could pass a law that outlaws Christianity and requires everyone to be a practicing Satanist and then claim that everyone has the same equal rights to practice Satanism.
If equality doesn't extend to equal freedom of choice, it is definitely not equality.
TxAgPreacher said:Really, well were did you get the idea that you can change your "gender"?Sapper Redux said:TxAgPreacher said:
People were happier when they just had to work to make a living. They had no time to incessantly wish they were a different gender, or make up ways in which they are "oppressed"
Perhaps they were oppressed in many ways, but these radical ideologies have harmed, not helped.
Your perception of the past is beyond warped.
The answer is someone made it up.
TxAgPreacher said:I disagree. Don't like it, leave my state. I'll vote for every social conservate law I can until I die. The founders made the country this way. Sodomy laws were on the books back then. They had no problem, with it, and everyone equally had to follow the law. It's how the country works.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:I also do not have the right to chop of a body part.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
What happened to:Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
Saying everyone has the same right to live the way I want them to live is not equal to equal treatment under the law.
A state could pass a law that outlaws Christianity and requires everyone to be a practicing Satanist and then claim that everyone has the same equal rights to practice Satanism.
If equality doesn't extend to equal freedom of choice, it is definitely not equality.
That's highly debatable.TxAgPreacher said:
At least they could answer basic moral questions.
Alright guys. I'll leave it at this, I don't think its tyranny, or an infringement on anyone's rights to stop them from "trans"ing themselves.
You won't change my mind. Carry on.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Right but the opposite could also be true which is the risk in you drawing a conclusion based on what you, Kurt, think now. What about gender confused people who didn't have the opportunity kids do today for surgery and intervention, but grew out of it? How would you quantify the number of those people whose lives are immeasurably better because we didn't think it was 'good' or worth doing to indulge that idea? That's why projection (anachronism) isn't a useful tool for discussion.
Everything you stated above is true. However, its obviously a strawman as I did not state that EVERY LGBTQ person is better off now than they were back . . . . whenever we are talking about. I merely said that it depends on who you ask.
Actual real Christians already know how it's going to play out. We have a book with stories about previous cultures that devolved into degeneracy and what became of them. Trust me, there are lots of arguments about this in Christian circles. Churches have split into traditional vs progressive congregations over it. Traditional Christians accept the warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible as well as the fire and brimstone portions because both are true and important. Progressive Christians don't ever talk about sin or damnation.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
Life was better and simpler before all the subversive ideologies were accepted in the name of tolerance. My great uncle owned a hometown grocery store, and they used to fire people if they got a divorce.
Things definitely used to be simpler. But, better depends on who you ask.
Imagine if I said life would be better if everyone just beat the hell out of Christians, forced them into secrecy, and forced them to be the most hated marginalized pariahs of society. While I understand you are not calling for violence against anyway, this was the reality for many many people prior to these 'subversive ideologies'.
There is no doubt that we are witnessing a massive social revolution that has begun playing out and will play out for decades to come. I would never ask you to accept or believe anything you don't want to. But, my hope is that more and more people will understand others (like trans people) with a bit of actual love and humility rather than disgust and hate. Not implying that you hate. . . but, I think its hard to deny that there is no shortage of hate.
AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Right but the opposite could also be true which is the risk in you drawing a conclusion based on what you, Kurt, think now. What about gender confused people who didn't have the opportunity kids do today for surgery and intervention, but grew out of it? How would you quantify the number of those people whose lives are immeasurably better because we didn't think it was 'good' or worth doing to indulge that idea? That's why projection (anachronism) isn't a useful tool for discussion.
Everything you stated above is true. However, its obviously a strawman as I did not state that EVERY LGBTQ person is better off now than they were back . . . . whenever we are talking about. I merely said that it depends on who you ask.
Why would someone who had gender dysphoria but grew out of it be included in lgbt+? Part of my point is that not everyone actually had it but today they would have been considered to be. Even now, the people you could ask think differently about themselves (Eddie Izzard for example). It's liquid modernity, it's not a question with a meaningful answer because everything has changed in their lifetime. They may have been content but now reframe it, despite being fine in the past.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Right but the opposite could also be true which is the risk in you drawing a conclusion based on what you, Kurt, think now. What about gender confused people who didn't have the opportunity kids do today for surgery and intervention, but grew out of it? How would you quantify the number of those people whose lives are immeasurably better because we didn't think it was 'good' or worth doing to indulge that idea? That's why projection (anachronism) isn't a useful tool for discussion.
Everything you stated above is true. However, its obviously a strawman as I did not state that EVERY LGBTQ person is better off now than they were back . . . . whenever we are talking about. I merely said that it depends on who you ask.
Why would someone who had gender dysphoria but grew out of it be included in lgbt+? Part of my point is that not everyone actually had it but today they would have been considered to be. Even now, the people you could ask think differently about themselves (Eddie Izzard for example). It's liquid modernity, it's not a question with a meaningful answer because everything has changed in their lifetime. They may have been content but now reframe it, despite being fine in the past.
You are still fighting a strawman.
My comment boils down to 'social change is perceived differently by different people'. Can you respond to just that comment?
AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Right but the opposite could also be true which is the risk in you drawing a conclusion based on what you, Kurt, think now. What about gender confused people who didn't have the opportunity kids do today for surgery and intervention, but grew out of it? How would you quantify the number of those people whose lives are immeasurably better because we didn't think it was 'good' or worth doing to indulge that idea? That's why projection (anachronism) isn't a useful tool for discussion.
Everything you stated above is true. However, its obviously a strawman as I did not state that EVERY LGBTQ person is better off now than they were back . . . . whenever we are talking about. I merely said that it depends on who you ask.
Why would someone who had gender dysphoria but grew out of it be included in lgbt+? Part of my point is that not everyone actually had it but today they would have been considered to be. Even now, the people you could ask think differently about themselves (Eddie Izzard for example). It's liquid modernity, it's not a question with a meaningful answer because everything has changed in their lifetime. They may have been content but now reframe it, despite being fine in the past.
You are still fighting a strawman.
My comment boils down to 'social change is perceived differently by different people'. Can you respond to just that comment?
Sure. Why would an individual or incredibly small group be an adequate or accurate representation of whether things are better, as opposed to other measures like social cohesion, general societal happiness, etc.?
I found the proclimation in poor taste and they should have made the day something like the first Monday after March or something...just not where it could fall on Sunday and certainly don't make a thing of it.TxAgPreacher said:I disagree. Don't like it, leave my state. I'll vote for every social conservate law I can until I die. The founders made the country this way. Sodomy laws were on the books back then. They had no problem with it, and everyone equally had to follow the law. It's how the country works.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:I also do not have the right to chop of a body part.kurt vonnegut said:TxAgPreacher said:
As far as I am concerned States have every right. Don't like it? Move to a lib state.
And yes, for adults too. They are mentally I'll. They cannot decide to chop of an arm, or sexual organ.
What happened to:Quote:
Legally everyone should be treated the same under the law, and nobody gets extra rights, or special protections.
Saying everyone has the same right to live the way I want them to live is not equal to equal treatment under the law.
A state could pass a law that outlaws Christianity and requires everyone to be a practicing Satanist and then claim that everyone has the same equal rights to practice Satanism.
If equality doesn't extend to equal freedom of choice, it is definitely not equality.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Right but the opposite could also be true which is the risk in you drawing a conclusion based on what you, Kurt, think now. What about gender confused people who didn't have the opportunity kids do today for surgery and intervention, but grew out of it? How would you quantify the number of those people whose lives are immeasurably better because we didn't think it was 'good' or worth doing to indulge that idea? That's why projection (anachronism) isn't a useful tool for discussion.
Everything you stated above is true. However, its obviously a strawman as I did not state that EVERY LGBTQ person is better off now than they were back . . . . whenever we are talking about. I merely said that it depends on who you ask.
Why would someone who had gender dysphoria but grew out of it be included in lgbt+? Part of my point is that not everyone actually had it but today they would have been considered to be. Even now, the people you could ask think differently about themselves (Eddie Izzard for example). It's liquid modernity, it's not a question with a meaningful answer because everything has changed in their lifetime. They may have been content but now reframe it, despite being fine in the past.
You are still fighting a strawman.
My comment boils down to 'social change is perceived differently by different people'. Can you respond to just that comment?
Sure. Why would an individual or incredibly small group be an adequate or accurate representation of whether things are better, as opposed to other measures like social cohesion, general societal happiness, etc.?
Its a good point. The social changes percieved as better by a small group might not necessarily a better representation of overall social net better-ness. But. . . I'm afraid, I didn't argue that it was. Still fighting that strawman, my friend.
Yeah, a gay 80yo man is probably just super happy they didn't die of AIDS. That's going to skew the results of an already small sample size.AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Right but the opposite could also be true which is the risk in you drawing a conclusion based on what you, Kurt, think now. What about gender confused people who didn't have the opportunity kids do today for surgery and intervention, but grew out of it? How would you quantify the number of those people whose lives are immeasurably better because we didn't think it was 'good' or worth doing to indulge that idea? That's why projection (anachronism) isn't a useful tool for discussion.
Everything you stated above is true. However, its obviously a strawman as I did not state that EVERY LGBTQ person is better off now than they were back . . . . whenever we are talking about. I merely said that it depends on who you ask.
Why would someone who had gender dysphoria but grew out of it be included in lgbt+? Part of my point is that not everyone actually had it but today they would have been considered to be. Even now, the people you could ask think differently about themselves (Eddie Izzard for example). It's liquid modernity, it's not a question with a meaningful answer because everything has changed in their lifetime. They may have been content but now reframe it, despite being fine in the past.
You are still fighting a strawman.
My comment boils down to 'social change is perceived differently by different people'. Can you respond to just that comment?
Sure. Why would an individual or incredibly small group be an adequate or accurate representation of whether things are better, as opposed to other measures like social cohesion, general societal happiness, etc.?
Its a good point. The social changes percieved as better by a small group might not necessarily a better representation of overall social net better-ness. But. . . I'm afraid, I didn't argue that it was. Still fighting that strawman, my friend.
He said life was better, you said it depends on who you ask (and followed up with 80 year old gays, yes?). I say that's not a great measure for better if you're going to question it - we have others and they're plentiful. So what's the deal now?
The thing that is incredibly rare is babies born with bothMacarthur said:Macarthur said:Rongagin71 said:The real cruelty is when children are pressured to have life changing surgery that cannot ever be totally repaired.Sapper Redux said:TxAgPreacher said:
Secular people should agree, because the ideology behind transsexualism is harmful to them too!
The way folks like you treat transgender people as borderline non-humans is disturbing.
I think the problem here is that you are taking incredibly rare instances that had negative outcomes and extrapolating that over the entire group of practitioners that have had overwhelmingly positive outcomes and have literally saved many kids lives. If something goes horribly wrong, it should be treated like any other medical malpractice.
Rongagin71 said:The thing that is incredibly rare is babies born with bothMacarthur said:Macarthur said:Rongagin71 said:The real cruelty is when children are pressured to have life changing surgery that cannot ever be totally repaired.Sapper Redux said:TxAgPreacher said:
Secular people should agree, because the ideology behind transsexualism is harmful to them too!
The way folks like you treat transgender people as borderline non-humans is disturbing.
I think the problem here is that you are taking incredibly rare instances that had negative outcomes and extrapolating that over the entire group of practitioners that have had overwhelmingly positive outcomes and have literally saved many kids lives. If something goes horribly wrong, it should be treated like any other medical malpractice.
male and female genitals, but it does happen and is the reason
"trans" surgery was developed.
The market to do this to mentally ill adults wasn't enough,
and the transing industry has expanded to children in the U.S.
Many of these children have become dissatisfied adults,
and those that don't commit suicide are starting to file suits
on those they blame for ruining their chance at a normal life
with their own children rather than constant pain and high maintenance bills.
kurt vonnegut said:
One of my very favorite quotes in the whole wide world is from the German pastor Martin Niemoller about his complicity after WW2.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew.
Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak for me.
This quote hits me hard right in the feels. And the sentiment here and the regret he speaks of represents so much that we aspire to. There is a meaning in here that speaks to the thing I love the most about and wish for the most from Christianity. And I think your positions on what legal actions should be taken against trans people represents everything I hate most and wish against from Christianity.
Luckily, I think you are in the minority even amongst Christians.
That is true, but one can infer it WAS way too many by the number of countries that have restricted the transing of children. Listen at 0.50 of Senator Kennedy's speech for a long list of countries that have elected to protect their children from early transing.Macarthur said:Rongagin71 said:The thing that is incredibly rare is babies born with bothMacarthur said:Macarthur said:Rongagin71 said:The real cruelty is when children are pressured to have life changing surgery that cannot ever be totally repaired.Sapper Redux said:TxAgPreacher said:
Secular people should agree, because the ideology behind transsexualism is harmful to them too!
The way folks like you treat transgender people as borderline non-humans is disturbing.
I think the problem here is that you are taking incredibly rare instances that had negative outcomes and extrapolating that over the entire group of practitioners that have had overwhelmingly positive outcomes and have literally saved many kids lives. If something goes horribly wrong, it should be treated like any other medical malpractice.
male and female genitals, but it does happen and is the reason
"trans" surgery was developed.
The market to do this to mentally ill adults wasn't enough,
and the transing industry has expanded to children in the U.S.
Many of these children have become dissatisfied adults,
and those that don't commit suicide are starting to file suits
on those they blame for ruining their chance at a normal life
with their own children rather than constant pain and high maintenance bills.
How many? Numbers are not easy to come by...
Louisiana is full of compassion and common sense. We know the transgender agenda is dangerous and outrageous.
— John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) April 3, 2024
So does the United Kingdom. pic.twitter.com/XuFXDDhp23
AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Right but the opposite could also be true which is the risk in you drawing a conclusion based on what you, Kurt, think now. What about gender confused people who didn't have the opportunity kids do today for surgery and intervention, but grew out of it? How would you quantify the number of those people whose lives are immeasurably better because we didn't think it was 'good' or worth doing to indulge that idea? That's why projection (anachronism) isn't a useful tool for discussion.
Everything you stated above is true. However, its obviously a strawman as I did not state that EVERY LGBTQ person is better off now than they were back . . . . whenever we are talking about. I merely said that it depends on who you ask.
Why would someone who had gender dysphoria but grew out of it be included in lgbt+? Part of my point is that not everyone actually had it but today they would have been considered to be. Even now, the people you could ask think differently about themselves (Eddie Izzard for example). It's liquid modernity, it's not a question with a meaningful answer because everything has changed in their lifetime. They may have been content but now reframe it, despite being fine in the past.
You are still fighting a strawman.
My comment boils down to 'social change is perceived differently by different people'. Can you respond to just that comment?
Sure. Why would an individual or incredibly small group be an adequate or accurate representation of whether things are better, as opposed to other measures like social cohesion, general societal happiness, etc.?
