Exactly, that's why we need to keep Muslims out of the US.

The majority of terrorism in the UK is Islamic despite the UK being "only" 6% Muslim. And all that carnage is with knives and cars! Imagine if the US were 6% Muslim but they had easy access to guns due to our constitutional rights.

It wouldn't happen here because we don't have mass Muslim immigration creating this situation where the majority of terror attacks in the UK are jihadist.

We have other types of terrorism, but Islamic terrorism is rare, and it would be so much worse if we were 6% Muslim like the UK—esp with guns.

The majority of terror attacks in the UK are jihadist though, like this one where the guy was literally named "Jihad". Without Muslim immigration, the rate of terror in the UK would be more than halved.

Democracy doesn't mean they have free speech.

Wtf are you talking about, naturalized citizens are not second-class citizens. They are full American citizens.

‘Beyond comprehension’: Florida Keys prosecutors seek death in child molestation case The victim was his 3-year-old daughter, police say.

They are literally doing that. I'm glad you agree with death penalty for child rape!

www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c...

‘Beyond comprehension’: Florida Keys prosecutors seek death in child molestation case The victim was his 3-year-old daughter, police say.

Yes.

www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c...

‘Beyond comprehension’: Florida Keys prosecutors seek death in child molestation case The victim was his 3-year-old daughter, police say.

Yes, that is something that many Republican states have recently passed: Florida, Idaho, and and Tennessee, with likely more to follow.

This year, Florida began pursuing a historic first case of death penalty for child rape:

www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c...

This is like looking at democrats imprisoning people for violent crimes and saying, "These are the pro-liberty people."

It's not a matter of deterrence; it's a matter of a sense of justice. Many people feel that the only just sentence for mass murderers is the death sentence.

I've always hated this rhetoric, it's so specious.

It's like, "Democrats support putting violent felons in prison, taking away their liberty. Yet they claim to be for liberty!? Hypocrites!"

This isn't from Cox, it's from the prosecutor. They *are* (or shortly will be) court documents the prosecution will use in its case.

Texts, plans and a confession: prosecutor lays out startling details in Charlie Kirk shooting Jeffrey Gray called Kirk’s death an ‘American tragedy’ – and said the murder suspect had begged his friend to stay quiet

He confessed his motive in the texts he sent to his roommate:

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...

He killed Charlie Kirk because—verbatim quoting him—

"I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out."

This was a rare case of left-wing terrorism.

𝘈𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 is a "maladaptive coping mechanism". They are not "completely different things" from a psychotherapeutic perspective.

What is it with people on this app being so self-righteous, judgmental, and insulting about things they don't know much about? It's caustic to productive discourse.

I agree. I'm not a fan of this dismissive fundamentalism against the possibility of anyone having an addictive relationship with food or sex.

Like, "food addiction" also shouldn't be in the DSM, but that doesn't mean compulsive eating isn't a real struggle for some:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overeat...

Also, while some people have done things like spend their life savings on camgirls, I don't think it should be an official DSM diagnosis; severe cases like that are too rare for the DSM, unlike with gambling addiction. So, I actually agree with you, but thanks for the completely unjustified insult.

"Just stop gambling moron," she said to the gambling addict. Obviously, but the whole point of addiction is that it's a neuropsychological disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences. That's why people usually need community mutual-help programs.

When people say they have a "drug addiction", it's not a way for them to escape responsibility. It just refers to an addiction that severely impacts the person's quality life. It's the same with "porn addiction" or "gambling addiction" or "gaming addiction"; it doesn't offload responsibility.

I don't like that emotionally charged rhetoric; using loaded terms like that is the fallacy of "begging the question" when used in persuasion.

But thanks for helping me understand what SCOTUS meant by the "lack of identity" between transgenderism and childhood gender dysphoria, e.g., my own cousin.

Good point, how could I forget my own cousin had gender dysphoria as a kid, going so far as to say "When I grow up I want to have a penis like daddy", and turned out to be a happy lesbian.

If that's not what trans people are saying then they will continue to lose as they have lost in Sweden, Norway, Britain, France, Netherlands, and more. The dogmatic absolutism that women with penises must be placed in women's prisons and other wildly unpopular positions are why this keeps happening.

Maybe. Something I'm confused about is your claim that gender dysphoria occurs only among trans people. Wikipedia says that "gender-affirming hormone therapy" is "administered to transgender or gender nonconforming individuals", seeming to imply that those who are not trans may also have dysphoria.

The court addresses this by citing Geduldig v. Aiello (1974) in which it ruled that California was allowed to exclude disability coverage for pregnancy despite pregnancy only affecting women; just because a condition occurs only among a "quasi-suspect class" does not prohibit all laws about it.

Firing someone for being trans is sex-based because a man would be fired for dressing in women's clothes, but not a woman. In contrast, for a young male for whom the Tennessee law prohibits puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, the outcome would be identical if he were female, ergo not sex-based.

I can tell you didn't read the judgment. They use the "but-for causation standard" established by Bostock v Clayton County (2020), which determined that firing someone for being trans is sex-based discrimination. "But-for causation" says to change one thing, like sex, and see if the outcome differs.