Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Noidenous]

If it is with the consent of both parents, then the child (along with their medical practitioner) is making the decision with the consent of their adult parents.
If it is without the consent of a parent, then the decision is made by the family court (presided by an adult judge).

Under no scenario is an adolescent child legally permitted to make the decision to undergo treatment - without the express consent of an adult (parents or family court judge) acting in their best interests.

This isn't my opinion, it is the applicable case law in Australia:

1. In circumstances where there is a dispute about diagnosis, consent or the nature of treatment, an application to the court is mandatory (see Re Jamie: Bryant CJ at [140](b); Finn J at [172] and Strickland J at [192]).
2. As the Attorney-General points out, there is a basis in proper medical practice for requiring an application to the court if a dispute cannot otherwise be resolved:
   1. Without such a determination, a medical practitioner may run the risk of being crissminally or civilly liable in the event that, notwithstanding the practitioner’s assessment that the child is Gillick competent, that is not in fact the case. That risk may be heightened in circumstances where there is a dispute between the parents as to the appropriate treatment, and one of the parents does not consent to the treatment.
   2. Without such a determination, a medical practitioner may run the risk of effectively giving preference to one parent’s view over that of the other in circumstances where, if the child is not Gillick competent, each parent with parental responsibility has power to consent (or not consent) on behalf of the child (s 61C of the Act). If parents disagree, it is invidious for medical practitioners to be required to give preference to the views of one parent rather than the other.

Gee, that's great.

Seems to me we've come full circle to the exact point I was making about the father.

Not able to dispute what is happening to their child because the courts are full of and influenced by a bunch of namby-pamby, ideological, self-interested bed-wetters.

 

[yebiga]

I’ve got kids. If you have, that terrifies me. Trusting your poorly thought through, rusted on ideological beliefs (no wait, your “common sense”) to trump expert opinion, and then accuse people who disagree as sickos or pedos.

It can’t be much fun to have your arse handed to you in this thread the way Suspense did, but your responses are a disgrace.

I would wager, that if the entire world were asked to judge between the respective parenting qualities of your self and firecracker - based on your respective posting history here - the vote would fall terribly against you. Whatever moral claims you may think you are making - they do not belong to our species.
To fill the existential boredom of our age we are increasingly prone to give birth to grotesque phantoms. Take them seriously if you wish.

 

[sdfc]

Yes, if the child does not wish to undergo treatment, they will not be forced to. Does this really need stating?

If there is a dispute, the final arbiter is the family court.

If there is no dispute, there is no need for a final arbiter.

Narrowing the definition of arbiter is not much of an argument. There's a reason from we shield the decisions of children.

 

[Suspense]

Narrowing the definition of arbiter is not much of an argument. There's a reason from we shield the decisions of children.

Sure. Which is why an adolescent child alone is not legally permitted to undergo treatment without the express consent of an adult (parents or family court judge) acting in their best interests.

1. This judgment confirms the existing law is that any treating medical practitioner seeing an adolescent under the age of 18 is not at liberty to initiate stage 1, 2 or 3 treatment without first ascertaining whether or not a child’s parents or legal guardians consent to the proposed treatment. Absent any dispute by the child, the parents and the medical practitioner, it is a matter of the medical professional bodies to regulate what standards should apply to medical treatment. If there is a dispute about consent or treatment, a doctor should not administer stage 1, 2 or 3 treatment without court authorisation.

 

[sdfc]

Sure. Which is why an adolescent child alone is not legally permitted to undergo treatment without the express consent of an adult (parents or family court judge) acting in their best interests.

1. This judgment confirms the existing law is that any treating medical practitioner seeing an adolescent under the age of 18 is not at liberty to initiate stage 1, 2 or 3 treatment without first ascertaining whether or not a child’s parents or legal guardians consent to the proposed treatment. Absent any dispute by the child, the parents and the medical practitioner, it is a matter of the medical professional bodies to regulate what standards should apply to medical treatment. If there is a dispute about consent or treatment, a doctor should not administer stage 1, 2 or 3 treatment without court authorisation.

The child is always the final arbiter. You are arguing that if there is a dispute between the child and the other parties, the child's wishes are weighed against that of the other parties.

Is this something you're advocating?

 

[Suspense]

The child is always the final arbiter.

No, the child is not the final arbiter when there is a dispute - that is the family court. I don't know how much clearer this sentence can be:

If there is a dispute about consent or treatment, a doctor should not administer stage 1, 2 or 3 treatment without court authorisation.

You are arguing that if there is a dispute between the child and the other parties, the child's wishes are weighed against that of the other parties.

Along with the concerns of the other parties and any other relevant factors, the child's wishes are taken into account by the family court when determining whether treatment should be permitted. Although they hold significant weight, the child's wishes alone (even with the support of their medical practitioner) are not authoritative in the court making such a determination.

Is this something you're advocating?

I'm not advocating anything. I'm telling you what the current law is.

 

[Noidenous]

No, the child is not the final arbiter when there is a dispute - that is the family court.

What are you talking about? If the child doesn't want to or communicate they want to at the very least, no ruling can be made and nothing will proceed. You do realise the word 'final' does not necessarily apply chronologically?

Now, let's take that at different ages:

3 - Obviously brainwashed kid

8 - Starting to understand they get special treatment for adopting these 'views' or starting to identify benefits that apply to being either sex, particularly through axioms. eg. You can't hit girls.

13 - Likely confused or showing dysphoric tendencies during onset of puberty or resulting from sexual / psychological trauma (including that exacted by parents who are anti-homosexuality).

18 - Near completion of puberty. More likely to be affected by peer pressure and philosophical echo-chambers, but legally an adult.


Which of these common stages of development is the most acceptable for consenting to anything?

 

[yebiga]

This is one hell of a post for bigfooty. Something to respond to in detail elsewhere but not here, just wanted to acknowledge the effort and point out that that last bit in bold was not inevitable, but rather a shift away from many schools of Hellenistic thought toward Abrahamic, most often as a result of conquest and sometimes natural catastrophe (referring to the demise of Sparta and the rise of Athens in its place, and subsequent Roman intervention and dominance).
An act of God, perhaps? Small joke.

Plato is perhaps the most recognisable (by name, at any rate), but he was also perhaps the more easily transportable philosophy into Roman and later Abrahamic tradition, with several stumbles along the way by means of Hellenistic Judaism and Hellenistic Christianity, and thus has endured as a founder of modern thought, where history has paid less attention to other Greek philosophers and their adherents. I do not necessarily regard Plato as a "pinnacle" of Greek philosophy. I have a soft eyes for Epicurus and Epicureanism in general, and its important to remember that most of the Greek schools of thought existed at more or less the same time, all learning from and sometimes complementing each other (notwithstanding several personal dislikes and enmities among the philosophers themselves) - Platonic thought is the progenitor of modern Western philosophy more as a result of expedience than any natural evolutionary process.
I personally believe that Abrahamic religion (and, subsequently, the modern Western world) is such a chaotic mess because it departed from the Stoics and Epicureans, replacing them with a more nihilistic approach (note here that I'm using the word nihilistic in the ancient Greek sense, not the modern), and that is a significant factor in how we've arrived where we are.

The primary thing to understand in my view is that thought, philosophy and civilisation are not necessarily "progressive" (in the positive-outcome sense that word is used in social circles) by nature, but rather linear by expedience and chance, rather than objective merit.

I appreciate your post and had meant to acknowledge it much earlier. It was a very crude summary of philosophical history - one that I probably shouldn't so carelessly attempt. I have too high a regard for JP and am subsequently too often ruffled by the increasing number of vermin loitering in this thread with seemingly no other purpose than to disparage a man that has done no one any harm or suggested any.

Peterson offers a synthesis of phenomenology, psychology and mythology that for me resolve age old philosophical arguments concerning epistemology - knowledge, ontology - being, ethics, and meaning. His religious lectures - are not religious - they are deconstructions of historical myths which reveal the very scaffolding of human consciousness. I have been labouring thru his book the "maps of meaning' for the last 9 months. It's a tour de force, dense, simple and hard work all at the same time. He is brilliant in so far as he has synthesised Jungs work, with his own experiences and training as a psychologist together with our literary and philosophical traditions. It is a tour de force.

I don't think he actually fully understands the ramifications of his own work and persists with what I believe is a naive and unnecessary infatuation with Christianity. It undermines his work and standing. Nevertheless, amongst Serious Thinkers - outside slavish and popular celebrity circles - Petersons' standing is second to none. He has become the revered god-father of the politically diverse group known as the intellectual dark-web.
Thank you

 

[rank and file]

What are you talking about? If the child doesn't want to or communicate they want to at the very least, no ruling can be made and nothing will proceed. You do realise the word 'final' does not necessarily apply chronologically?

Now, let's take that at different ages:

3 - Obviously brainwashed kid

8 - Starting to understand they get special treatment for adopting these 'views' or starting to identify benefits that apply to being either sex, particularly through axioms. eg. You can't hit girls.

13 - Likely confused or showing dysphoric tendencies during onset of puberty or resulting from sexual / psychological trauma (including that exacted by parents who are anti-homosexuality).

18 - Near completion of puberty. More likely to be affected by peer pressure and philosophical echo-chambers, but legally an adult.


Which of these common stages of development is the most acceptable for consenting to anything?

3-Obviously brainwashed kid.
Your kids go for Saints?

 

[Noidenous]

3-Obviously brainwashed kid.
Your kids go for Saints?

Haha. No kids and never will (by choice).

Rest assured, I was certainly brainwashed.

 

[mcnulty]

they do not belong to our species

I’m sure that sounded good in your head.

Could you possibly be any more ridiculous?

 

[yebiga]

I’m sure that sounded good in your head.

Could you possibly be any more ridiculous?

Sure, just watch! Why put limits on it? I may even decide to become a woman - why not?
Or perhaps I could racially transition. Sky's the limit. Even that is self limiting - I'm with Elon Musk and the stars.
Transhumanism is the thing - the hot thing - cut the appendage off and free yourself of biology.

 

[mcnulty]

Sure, just watch! Why put limits on it? I may even decide to become a woman - why not?
Or perhaps I could racially transition. Sky's the limit. Even that is self limiting - I'm with Elon Musk and the stars.
Transhumanism is the thing - the hot thing - cut the appendage off and free yourself of biology.

Not even close. Your brain fart about morals and separate species is still clubhouse leader for dumbest idea put forward on the interwebs for 2021. Though I certainly don’t put it past your good self to top it!

 

[Noidenous]

Not even close. Your brain fart about separate species is still clubhouse leader for dumbest idea put forward on the interwebs for 2021. Though I certainly don’t put it past your good self to top it!

Is transracialism / trans-specieism / transageism a slippery slope fallacy, or does it already exist?

 

[FireKrakouer]

I’ve got kids. If you have, that terrifies me.

Just had my first one (of many to come). I'll love them equally whether they are heterosexual or fall under any of the LGBT labels. They won't be mutilated under my watch though, at least not until they are adults and can make an informed, mature choice of their own.

 

[mcnulty]

Just had my first one (of many to come). I'll love them equally whether they are heterosexual or fall under any of the LGBT labels. They won't be mutilated under my watch though, at least not until they are adults and can make an informed, mature choice of their own.

Well good for you. It’s a decision you’re extremely unlikely to have to make. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but if you do happen to be confronted by it, hopefully you at least gain some insight into what these kids and parents go through.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Well good for you. It’s a decision you’re extremely unlikely to have to make. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but if you do happen to be confronted by it, hopefully you at least gain some insight into what these kids and parents go through.

Genuine question, do you not believe that some younger trans kids are overly influenced into being "trans" by politically motivated parents?

To me, this child looks like a puppet, with their mum right there guiding them through their printed speech, to roaring applause. Do you believe that a prepubescent 9 year old has any idea which gender or sexuality they will be as adults?

 

[Gough]

Do you believe that a prepubescent 9 year old has any idea which gender or sexuality they will be as adults?

Yep.

 

[yebiga]

Not even close. Your brain fart about morals and separate species is still clubhouse leader for dumbest idea put forward on the interwebs for 2021. Though I certainly don’t put it past your good self to top it!

McNutty, that's what trans-humanism is all about
First, you begin as animal, then you become human, than with enough post-modern programming your thinking becomes post human - at this point you are ready to transition gender and what must follow is species. Why not? If you are going from a woman to a man, why not have a horse-utensil? Or a even a tail! Imagine how useful that would be?

 

[mcnulty]

Genuine question, do you not believe that some younger trans kids are overly influenced into being "trans" by politically motivated parents?

To me, this child looks like a puppet, with their mum right there guiding them through their printed speech, to roaring applause. Do you believe that a prepubescent 9 year old has any idea which gender or sexuality they will be as adults?

I would imagine that’s extremely unlikely. And it would be even less likely to get through numerous health professionals.

If parents are using “political motivations“ to transgender their child they dont deserve to be parents. But sadly, there are an awful lot of parents in that boat, for a variety of reasons, almost none of them political.

Not every issue in life can framed through the culture wars, mate.

 

[mcnulty]

McNutty, that's what trans-humanism is all about
First, you begin as animal, then you become human, than with enough post-modern programming your thinking becomes post human - at this point you are ready to transition gender and what must follow is species. Why not? If you are going from a woman to a man, why not have a horse-utensil? Or a even a tail! Imagine how useful that would be?

No dopey, you framed a differing opinion as belonging to another species. Own your own idiocy, for crying out loud.

 

[Noidenous]

No dopey, you framed a differing opinion as belonging to another species. Own your own idiocy, for crying out loud.

Or your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

 

[mcnulty]

Or your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

Whatever moral claims you may think you are making - they do not belong to our species.

Ok, you explain what this means.

 

[Noidenous]

Ok, you explain what this means.

Explain what it means in the context of the entire post and/or discussion.

 

[mcnulty]

Explain what it means in the context of the entire post and/or discussion.

It’s pretty straightforward. He’s claiming a different moral perspective belongs to a different species. Now, about your comprehension skills...