new

[Royce has previously cited transphobic, discredited, disavowed psychologist Paul McHugh to support trans-bashing. Ambulance Chaser has responded that there is ample evidence McHugh is wrong.]

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Cite your evidence

Ambulance Chaser:
Arlene Lev: Transgender Emergence: Therapeutic Guidelines for Working with Gender Variant People and their Families

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
That's not evidence. That's a reference. And it's not even a good one.

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, it's a reference to a well-written, well-researched book by an expert in the field. Come back to me once you've read it.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Thanks for publicly displaying what you consider "well-written, well-researched book by an expert in the field".

"Grounded in feminist family therapy, therapeutic services are directed towards empowerment and authenticity and the nurturing of healthy queer families."

"In 2000 Lev founded the Rainbow Access Initiative, a training program on LGBT issues for therapists and medical professionals in the Capital Region of New York."

"As Lev began to work with transgender clients and their families in the mid-1980s, she realized how little her training had prepared her in sexuality, sexual issues, and gender. In the process of training herself in this area she wrote her first book"

As always, appreciate you discrediting yourself and bringing to our attention another bias "expert" promoting the immoral behavior.

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes? I don't see a problem with any of that.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
They ya go folks! Finally an admission from a spiritually-dead one that he had no problem with a biased, non-expert, non-qualified, promoter of the LGBTQABCXYZ agenda being used as an expert and their books and "counsel" being used to establish Societal norms.

Is that who ya wanna listen to and rely on?

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, she's biased. Just like Paul McHugh, meaning we should ignore everything he says as well.

Or maybe we should stop playing ad hominem games and start evaluating the statements themselves. So, what is it Arlene Lev said that you disagree with?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Provide your evidence that McHugh is biased? He's got the credentials. She don't!!

Ambulance Chaser:
Again, stop playing your ad hominem game and let's discuss what was actually said.

Now, what part of Lev's book do you disagree with?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Again, stop playing your ad hominem game. Provide your evidence that McHugh is biased.

Ambulance Chaser:
Well, he keeps ignoring evidence and insisting on his position.

Now, can we discuss the issues or not?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
What evidence? Provide it.

Ambulance Chaser:
Enough with Paul McHugh. Are we going to talk about the facts or not?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Ah, I see. So your saying you want to rely on the "experts" was just a lie. A ruse.

Got it. Thanks.

Ambulance Chaser:
No, I'm saying I want to talk about the subject and not play games with whose expert is smarter.

Now, for the last time, are we going to discuss the actual topic or not?

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Hmm, trying to follow your logic and reasoning abilities here. Earlier you said that we have to rely on the "experts". Now you say we don't. Which is it?

And you want to discuss the topic? Why? Are you claiming to be an expert now? If so, would you be the expert that we're supposed to listen to or the one that doesn't matter?

Ambulance Chaser:
I'm saying there's no value in playing ad hominem games about who wrote articles. Either the conclusions in the article are correct, or they're not. And there's no reason to discuss which author is smarter, who has more experience, etc.

Now, are we going to discuss the actual science or not? (For what must be the fifth time?)

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Oh, so you're admitting you get to decide whether the conclusions are correct or not? If there is no reason to discuss which author is smarter, who has more experience, etc. then why are you the one who said we have to rely on the experts? You seem to be confused. Smh. Since the "science" actually came from someone which their intelligence, experience, etc. is irrelevant why would one bother to discuss that science anyways? After all, if they're not smart enough and not experienced enough to conduct what's needed and properly record the results why would anyone want to discuss that? Again, you seem quite confused.

Of course we all know why you say that now. Because the only thing that matters is who agrees with you. Because YOU are the expert. Got it. You're a legend in your own mind. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with God. He knows more than you do.

And I know what He has said.

Ambulance Chaser:
I said I wanted to DISCUSS the topic, not that I was smarter, or you were. But you clearly just want to play disingenuous games, insult me, bob, dodge, and weave, and literally do anything but actually have a conversation about the issues.

So we're done.

Royce E. Van Blaricome:
We can all see what you said. Just as you were the one who said you wanted to disperse with the ad hominems and just proved that a lie as well.

The only one playing disingenuous games, insulting, bobbing, dodging, and weaving, and literally doing anything but actually having a conversation about the issues is you. Otherwise you wouldn't be contradicting yourself, citing your evidence, and resorting to empty rhetoric like you just did.

Now, since we're done, I gotta get outside and do a few things before dark. Thanks again for publicly displaying what ya got for all to see. Always appreciated when things go back to the Truth with a simple "because that's what God said".

[Bob Blaylock continues his crusade against anti-discrimination laws.]

Bob Blaylock:
The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion and expression (including nonexpression), and strongly implies freedoms of thought, conscience, and association.

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, but it doesn't specify where the line gets drawn when that right conflicts with other rights.

Bob Blaylock:
Forcing a baker, or any other businessman, to give support to a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of his own religious and moral values, as a condition of being allowed to make a living, blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Ambulance Chaser:
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that the First Amendment didn't forbid the government from passing laws that forced public accommodations to serve a specified class of clientele.

Bob Blaylock:
There is no right to another person's labor. Nothing in the Constitution implies or hints at any such right.

There is no legitimate basis on which to conclude that a nonexistent right, nowhere stated, implied, nor even hinted at in the Constitution, can take precedence over a genuine right, explicitly stated or strongly implied in the Constitution.

Ambulance Chaser:
The "legitimate basis" is that the Supreme Court ruled it. You can disagree with the ruling all you want but it's there and it's law, and your disagreement is irrelevant to American jurisprudence.

Bob Blaylock:
The Supreme Court does not have the authority—no matter how many times it has gotten away with illegally usurping it—to override the Constitution. No part of the Constitution can legitimately be overridden or overturned by anything short of a Constitutional Amendment

TheKingofRhye:
They don't "override" the Constitution, they interpret it.

Bob Blaylock:
Calling a thing by a different name doesn't change what it is.

When the courts “interpret” the Constitution to mean something contrary to what it clearly says, then they are overriding it, and engaging in open corruption and malfeasance.

Ambulance Chaser:
I don't understand what kind of system you think we run. Do you think that Supreme Court rulings are only valid conditionally? Who gets to determine when rulings are valid or not? Any random person? Is our system just anarchy?

Bob Blaylock:
The Constitution is the highest law, and all public servants, in all levels of government, are under a sworn duty to uphold, obey, and defend it. Any act of any public servant, which violates the Constitution, is invalid and illegal. This certainly includes the acts of corrupt judges who “interpret” the Constitution contrary to what it clearly says.

There is a problem, of course, when those who we charge with the duty of upholding the law choose, instead, to pervert and violate it.

Ambulance Chaser:
Still not answering my question, just soapboxing.

Bob Blaylock:
It's unclear what answer you are expecting, or what answer would satisfy you. The Constitution is the highest law; and you seem bent on arguing that it is subordinate to the wills of corrupt judges who would “interpret” it away from its clear meaning. You are simply wrong in that position.

Ambulance Chaser:
No, I'm asking you who makes the final decision about what the Constitution means. You keep saying that the judges are corrupt. Who decides that? You? Who determines when judges' rulings can be ignored because they're "corrupt?"

Bob Johnson:
Certainly some interpretation is required. What does “press” in the 1st Amendment or “his” in the 6th Amendment mean? However, in this case, it seems that what is clear to you is not the same as what is clear to several courts with scores of judges over several decades.

Bob Blaylock:
To a very limited degree, yes, some legitimate interpretation is called for. But then we have plenty of instances where the Constitution is absolutely clear on a matter, and we have courts trying to twist it to mean something other than what it says. Consider the Second Amendment. We have courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, issuing rulings about when and where and how the government may infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment already clarified that. Government is forbidden from infringing this right at all. Period. Yet the courts and other parts of government absolutely refuse to obey this part of the Constitution.

The First Amendment is clear about religious freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. And yet our government violates these rights, in order to uphold fake “rights” that are nowhere even hinted at in the Constitution. This is not “interpretation”; it is corruption and malfeasance.