Fighters are an integral and important part of air defense. Naturally you need GBAD starting from securing the airfields of the fighters, but the fact remains that you can fight against enemy aircraft with your own aircraft. — ssu

Note that you stated fighters are "a more effective alternative" - something which is simply untrue for the reasons I gave.

Of course fighters can play a role in air defense, in the context of a modern army which also features various forms of ground-based / mobile air defense.

On their own fighters would be terribly inefficient.

You think fighters are (or would be) kept 24/7 in air? How about having them up when you have enemy aircraft up in the air. — ssu

Without the capacity to keep fighters in the air 'round the clock, the enemy would simply wait for all to be grounded before launching their attack.

Considering these planes would have to be stationed quite far from the frontline, scrambling them only when there are threats in the air also seems unfeasible due to time, fuel and weight constraints.

It's quite rare to have fighter aircraft on CAP 24/7. — ssu

Yes. Because, as I said, it's extremely inefficient. And modern militaries have ground-based systems to ensure such a task doesn't fall squarely on aviation most of the time.


It seems you don't really understand the practical problems of using air planes in a defensive role in the conditions the Ukrainians would be flying under.

Flying at low altitudes is essentially a given due to the threat of Russian anti-air systems. This means flying at decreased speeds (due to higher drag) and thus increased reaction times. It also means lower fuel efficiency.

All of this translates into increased reaction times, low time on station. lighter weapon loadouts, etc.

Are they now? AGM-88E came into service in the 2010s. AGM-88G is coming to service only now. — ssu

This is not an argument.

First, find out which version the Ukrainians have received. Then, look up what specifications these upgrades altered. Finally, figure out how that relates to my argument, namely that Russian AA can shoot down AGM-88s.

For reference, S-400 has a maximum target velocity of between Mach 8 and Mach 14.

However, a small number of expensive planes can't be risked to conduct air strikes. — boethius

I don't see why not.

Every use of these F-16s will incur some risk.

One advantage the Ukrainians will have is the intel they are getting from the US and other nations will probably allow them to craft a fairly accurate picture of the Russian AA network and use it to their advantage.


The other proposed roles for the F-16s I don't find so convincing. The Russians barely use their air force over Ukraine, and taking down missiles with fighters is not ideal for the reasons I mentioned.

Are they going to put a 40 million dollar plane into the air to swat a handful of 20,000 dollar Iranian drones, with missiles that each cost a million also?

Maybe they're anticipating a heavier use of air power by the Russians, however again I think planes would not be the logical choice if their intention was defensive use.


Unless they're planning to keep them grounded, which I doubt, I think air strikes and bombing raids is what they plan to use them for. They might take a page out of the Israeli book. They are pretty crafty with their air force as well.

For, the Russians can't risk much their expensive planes either, so as long as Ukraine has planes with missiles that can get into the air and shoot missiles then this is a big risk to Russian fighters. — boethius

I don't remember who it was, but don't the Russians have ~1,000 4th and 5th generation fighters lying around? Why wouldn't they be able to risk those?

The F16's are better than having no planes at all, but everything you explain just emphasises they cannot get near Russian forces and their use is severely limited. — boethius

Depending how they operate, they can.

AA systems may have hundreds of kilometers of range, but the radar horizon is a severely limiting factor when it comes to low-flying targets.

Assuming the term 'incel' refers to this specific, somewhat radicalized internet group, the numbers probably aren't terribly high.

But the amount of people who suffer under the same social problems is probably quite high, especially among the youth whose upbringing has been dominated by the birth of the internet.

Since WW1, it has been obvious that ground based air defence GBAD has a more effective alternative, namely fighter defence, other aircraft. And this is why GBAD has usually played the second fiddle in wars. The machine guns fitted to biplanes then were as potent or actually statistically more potent to shoot down enemy aircraft than artillery pieces on the ground. Nothing has changed since then as this is a matter of simple physics. A missile shot from an aircraft has already speed, doesn't need to climb as high and obviously the pilot with his speedy weapons platform can change places far more quicker than a land based one to get the optimum firing solution. — ssu

This is an inaccurate idea of how air defense works.

Fighters are not efficient at air defense at all.

Consider the amount of resources it would take to keep fighters in the air 24/7 in sufficient numbers to cover all important areas in Ukraine. Multiply that number by three to account for the fact that for every plane in the sky there are two on the ground (repairs/maintenance, refitting/refueling). Couple that with the fact that fighters are able to carry only a handful of anti-air missiles to stop salvos of dozens of Russian missiles/drones.

For the Ukrainians this would be completely unfeasible, even without taking the threat of Russian anti-air into consideration.

Hence if Ukraine wants cut off the land bridge to Crimea or some other do outstanding stuff, it is extemely difficult and perhaps impossible without denting the Russian GBAD. The are only few MiG-29s now capable of firing HARM missiles with the Ukraine Air Force. — ssu

Also suggesting a somewhat inaccurate idea of how SEAD works.

AGM-88s are no magic bullets. In fact, they're pretty old.

Modern anti-air systems like S-300, S-400, Pantsir, etc. can shoot these missiles down, and it would take absolutely massive volleys to get through a layered defense like what the Russians use. (Not to mention anti-radiation missiles only destroy radar transmitters. To actually destroy an AA installation it would take a lot more).

Again, considering the resources the Ukrainians have, it is rather unlikely their aim is to degrade the Russian air defenses in any serious way.


What SEAD might be able to accomplish for the Ukrainians is to provide temporary defensive cover to accomodate air strikes.

And in line with what Mearsheimer argued, I think this is likely what the Ukrainians plan to do with the F-16s.

Again, I think this incel problem is indicative of a wider trend among all the young (not just males) - increased isolation and social atomization, increased anxiety, depression, etc.

The 'digital age' is doing a number on kids and young adults, by completely socially (and mentally) disregulating them.

Perfectly normal people are unable to find a mate, and are looking for answers why. Predictably, some become very resentful.

My sense is that a certain subgroup of people - extravert, confident, etc. - are still able to go about their social needs through the dating scene/dating apps/clubbing, whereas the more introverted, shy types completely miss the boat, since those types have always relied on a more gradual type of relation-building - something which is becoming harder and harder.

Because of pacification of the held areas, Russia isn't advancing? — ssu

That's my view, yes. Taking too much territory would greatly increase the risk of an insurgency materializing, which is almost certainly what actors like the United States are trying accomplish in the background.

How about the simple fact that neither side has the capability for large-scale maneuver warfare [...] — ssu

That's compatible with my view. The Russians may not be in a hurry to rebuild their offensive capability if they're not planning on lauching a new offensive in the near future.

It should be noted though, that the Russians have mobilized several hundred thousand men and have an elaborate arms industry, so I think the question of whether Russia is currently capable of lauching a new offensive is somewhat ambiguous.

How did that Russian winter offensive go? Ah, they got Bakhmut! — ssu

Bakhmut wasn't an offensive, and there haven't been any real offensives since the initial invasion.

Bakhmut was more like a siege. A slow strangulation. Mainly attrition warfare. More than anything it looked opportunistic, taking advantage of weaknesses in the Ukrainian line the Russians took the area around Soledar and Krasna Hora, after which they partially encircled Bakhmut and sent Wagner in to do the dirty work.

It will take time for Russia to transform into a wartime economy, [...] — ssu

I'm no expert on the Russian economy, but according to Mearsheimer Russia isn't mobilizing to a war economy.

And as those Ukrainian air defence systems have been mainly from Cold War stocks and the factories for additional missiles lie in Russia, Ukraine is urging for fighters and seems that the US obviously has noticed this problem and will start to give those fighters. — ssu

F-16s can't fill the role of ground-based anti-air systems, so I would probably look for a different explanation. Especially since Russia sports one of the most sophisticated AA networks in the world, and the F-16s would have to contend with that.

Mearsheimer speculates that the F-16s are brought in to compensate for the lack of Ukrainian artillery, since (according to Mearsheimer) the Americans have ran out of artillery they can spare.

A recent talk by John Mearsheimer on the Ukraine war, in which he delves into quite a bit of detail:



Some interesting points he makes:

- Mearsheimer believes the Russians will aim to (eventually) annex a little under 50% of Ukraine, including Odessa and large parts east of the Dnieper river.

- The war has turned out to be a classic war of attrition, that the Russians stand to win due to factors of population and artillery imbalance. Mearsheimer estimates casualty exchange ratios to be roughly 2:1 in favor of the Russians. This is likely a conservative estimate as he also cites sources stating 3:1 or even 4:1 (in favor of the Russians). The 7:1 exchange ratio in favor of the Ukrainians that is regularly cited in news media he considers a bogus claim, considering Russia holds between a 5-10:1 artillery advantage. (Artillery being the primary factor in a war of attrition.)

- In the Q&A Mearsheimer explains the role of the Biden administration in the outbreak of the war, pointing out that Biden was in charge of the Ukraine portfolio when vice-president under Obama, and was notoriously hawkish. He also notes that upon his election Biden likely took this view in relation to Ukraine further, 'doubled down', causing the increase in tensions shortly after his election in 2021.

I personally think 'the Daltons': Biden, Sullivan, Blinken and Nuland, are the individuals who bear the primary responsibility for the outbreak of this conflict. They have been involved in Ukraine (and with each other) and sown the seeds for conflict for over a decade.


I would add to Mearsheimer's second point that it's somewhat clear why the war turned into a war of attrition during this stage. Russia is not looking to take large chunks of territory while the occupied areas are still being pacified, and thus with more or less stationary fronts attrition is the way the Russians can still erode the Ukrainian fighting strength, which they seem to have been successful at.

I mean, take a look at the posts in this thread. The stigmatization should be obvious.

I wonder how many incels are also virgins. I don't think it's healthy for people to stay virgins for too long into their adolesence (unless they really want to). Sex will start to take a mythical place in one's mind, that in my experience it really doesn't deserve. Love does, but sex doesn't.

Maybe incels should muster the courage to visit a prostitute at some point. :grin:


I was referring to the social stigmatization. The rejection these men experience probably can't be called abuse in most cases, but their suffering is real. Unresolved suffering may lead to abuse, and an environment which is unable to recognize the dynamic will perpetuate and worsen that cycle.

I'm not rooting for any team. I think you are, and that's why you're so eager to project that onto others who post here when things don't go the way you want them to.

The frustration is palpable, but it is yours.

Keep it to yourself or express it in a less passive-aggressive way. Don't burden others with your emotion.

Bakhmut has finally fallen it seems. Both sides more or less confirmed it.

One thing that popped out to me about the last weeks is the barrage of misinformation from both sides. From an apparent Russian "crisis of command" featuring Prigozhin, to the Ukrainians 'pushing the Russians back', mere days before the final push for the city. In hindsight, it all seems phoney to me - attempts at shaping the information landscape or playing the public.


The coming period will be interesting, to see if and where the Russians may continue to push for ground.

My guess is that they will, since there are other Ukrainian cities in precarious positions, like Adviivka. Adviivka is under threat of being encircled, much like Bakhmut was, and has been subjected to Russian attacks for a long time.


There was also the matter of the Patriot - Kinzhal encounter. Very interesting from a military perspective, since they're both modern missile systems.

My guess is the Ukrainian forces received either Patriot PAC-2 or PAC-3 , both of which have been designed with the purpose of ballistic (read: hypersonic) missile defense. Therefore, if this weapon system was able to take down Kinzhal missiles it should come as no surprise. In fact, countering Kinzhal probably was the reason Patriot was shipped to Ukraine.

Typically, when roughly equal missile systems compete, the attacker will seek to saturate the defending missile systems in order to overwhelm it. In this case it seems Kinzhal managed to overwhelm a Patriot battery with some ~six Kinzhal missiles. Five were reportedly shot down. Possibly other types of lower generation missiles were included in this salvo as well, but those are details we cannot access.

All in all, very interesting but not very shocking.

I don't want to be an apologist for their behaviours either. — ChatteringMonkey

Problematic behavior almost always stems from suffering, and in the case of incels that's pretty clear. Recognizing that doesn't make you an apologist.

The incels represent a resistance to the liberation of women, but this is its self-image, its ideology, a manifestation of an underlying problem--and, I would say, a self-consciously countercultural reaching back to a patriarchal worldview that they have not in fact developed naturally from their communities. — Jamal

I would interpret it differently.

Incels' resentment towards women probably has little to do with any real social theory, and more to do with something as simple as continuous rejection, or the perception of such. "You hurt me, I hurt you."

I say perception, because probably a great deal of these 'incels' aren't quite as undesirable as they believe to be. As many have pointed out, people of all shapes and sizes find partners and get married, and that has always been the case. So the question is where they get these notions of worthlessness and undesirableness.

Perhaps it's communicated implicitly through popular culture, which floods the young with artificial imagery of what success looks like. Perhaps it's through lack of a father figure or male role models. Maybe it's a combination of both.

Why do they choose to be miserable? — Vera Mont

The social stigmatization, which is on full display in this thread, is probably a large part of the reason.

The term 'cycle of abuse' comes to mind.

The addictive, 'social contagion/social pressure' dynamics of social media also play a big role. I agree.

It probably doesn't help that social media software is almost exclusively designed by the nerdy types that are mainly interested in numbers and maximizing the effectiveness of algorithms, and seem to lack awareness that their products are affecting are actual people.

They shouldn't be expected to do it all on their own. What happened to their support network? The adult mentors and community organizers, coaches, teachers, scout-masters, den-mothers, big sisters and brothers, and church-ladies? — Vera Mont

A good question.

My take on this is that parents are more overworked than ever, and lack their own support network to fall back on, which in previous generations was provided by for example grandparents and the extended family, perhaps even an entire neighbourhood. Again we see social atomization.

The more people who are genuinely involved, the more balanced the child's upbringing will be. For today's young it's more likely to be the opposite; that only their parents are involved.

If they even have both parents. The number of single parent households have been steadily increasing over the last decades, and I'd be interested to see if there's any link between that and the many problems plaguing today's young. I'd wager a bet that there is.

In essence what it does is widen the community to which one must conform to he seen or heard. Thus expectations are much higher across such a broad sphere than they ever would have been in a small close knit circle of friends.

Being aware of global society from our phones, we are aware of greater heights of beauty, greater depths of skill - from extreme sports to cooking to all sorts. We see the best of the best in every discipline going viral. — Benj96

It's an interesting dynamic, but I'm not convinced of its importance. For example, weren't high standards of beauty already available to everyone before the era of social media, through things like magazines and TV?

I think the more important dimension is the one you address here:

What used to be genuine popularity for your authentic self has become being a brand, self promoting, being all things to all people, and if you can't, fake it till you make it/edit the shit out of yourself, and this just isn't a true social relationship like the ones that evolved for millenia. — Benj96

And on social media platforms, what one shows to the outside world is malleable.

It encourages young people to adopt fake personas - something that almost always goes hand in hand with the rejection of the authentic self and leads to a myriad of mental issues.

Maybe they should get off their cellphones and go out to the baseball park or volunteer to pick up roadside garbage or join go a voter recruitment drive. You won't develop intimate relationships without meeting actual people in the actual world. — Vera Mont

Certainly, but it's not that simple.

Social media, cellphones, the internet - all of these things have hijacked young people's minds, and their capacity for social interaction has diminished correspondingly, leading to a surge of mental issues like social awkwardness, anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, etc. Many of these also lead to self-isolating tendencies, further compounding the problem.

The solution 'just go out and meet people' is a major barrier for the young who were caught up in this mess. It's their entire mental wiring that's messed up.

Have we corrupted the beauty ideal as a society? How do we ensure every child grows up feeling attractive/ with good self esteem? — Benj96

It probably goes a bit beyond the beauty ideal, but it's certainly a part of it. Consider rates of plastic surgery for example, but also the photoshopping that happens on social media and the image of success that is forwarded in popular culture. It's depressing.

It's like we're teaching kids from a young age to be narcissists (ergo, lacking core self-esteem and instead deriving it from the perceptions of others), turning the successful ones into social vampires and turning the others into anemic dregs. With narcissism social interaction is a zero-sum game.

Social media plays a huge role in this.

Young people everywhere are struggling with developing intimate relationships (and relationships in general), and that is a serious problem.

I think increasing social atomization is at the root of this, basically forcing young people into an artificial dating scene that for obvious reasons doesn't appeal to nor suit many of them.

The way this topic is treated in regards to young men is especially worrying, and some of the replies to this thread are an indication of that. Trying to force people who are clearly suffering into silence through derision and shame is exactly what creates resentment and pushes people over the edge to commit terrible deeds.

The issue with inflation and debt is how hidden their effects are, and perhaps more importantly, what kind of perverse incentives propel policymakers to accept (perhaps even encourage?) and downplay.

Even when the writing is on the wall, the long-term, indirect nature of something like inflation will always give policymakers a patsy.

I remember a while back having a discussion about inflation here, and for reasons I cannot possibly fathom it seemed people were desperate to find something other than economic policy to blame.

As long as people believe there is such a thing as a free lunch, this problem will persist forever. What people must understand is that someone always has to pay, and 9 times out of 10 it's the common man who gets shafted.

Transgenderism has always struck me as seriously contradictory.

On one hand it seems to dismiss notions of male/female stereotypes, yet on the other seems to work very hard to conform to them.

On one hand it seems to advocate self-acceptance, yet at the same time doesn't accept the part of the self that is the physical body.

Rose is absolutely right.

Structures of political control are, at their very best, a necessary evil, and they need to be questioned and mistrusted at every turn. One need not look very far in our history to understand why.

These structures are by nature piloted by the worst mankind has to offer, and responsible for the worst excesses mankind has known. They rely solely on coercion, and are especially prone to corruption the larger and less transparent they become.

In discussions on this forum I have often been confronted by just how far acceptance for such a rotten concept have nested in society, to the point where it's nearly impossible for people to admit that something as simple as law is completely predicated on coercion (ergo, threats of violence).


At it's core, political structures are a manifestation of man's desire to control others. At the individual level we would immediately recognize this as an immoral desire. Ironically, at the macro-level, there where such desires can produce the most harm, we consider it completely normal.

A dangerous idea indeed.


Democracy and ideas of 'legitimate' government are the culprits, I believe. They produce a facade of participation and fairness, when in reality they are scarcely better than the feudal systems they so readily condemn (and through the process of corruption have a tendency to degenerate back into that very same state).

It's much easier to recognize oppression when the rulers are wearing crowns and sitting on gilded thrones. By masking the dynamics of power, ideas of 'legitimate government' have expanded the power of the monarchs while lullling the public to sleep.

It's a shoddy article.

Luck skips explaining the key term for his question: morality.

And this is where he goes wrong.

He confuses morality with social convention, and as such starts asking himself nonsense questions, like whether it is morally permissible for a person to 'murder' a pixel on a screen.

Morality and moral actions pertain to people, and not to pixels.


He treats morality as though it is the same as social convention, however by pretending he is talking about morality he allows himself to reject the obvious answer to his dilemma: social convention dictates that certain things in video games are acceptable, and other things are not - on the grounds that it seems arbitrary.

We can perhaps expand a little upon my earlier post in which I talked about how people are goaded into integrating ideology into the sense of self, usually by instilling a sense of moral superiority.

The role of pride in this is that if one has to walk back on their ideology at any point, it would mean having to give up that sense of superiority with it.

Further, integrating ideologies into the self makes parting with such ideologies akin to amputating an arm or a leg. Ideologies being vulnerable as they are, this leaves its participants in a constant state of fear - fearful (and reactive, as you said, ) of anything that may rock the boat, like debate, like stubborn realities, etc.

This fear is subdued by creating echo chambers. In the absence of certainty, the next best thing is to get as many people to chant one's beliefs in unison. Perhaps when the whole world chants my 'truth', it will magically become so - or at least, it won't take as much effort to keep up the facade.


Individuals have essentially been tricked into accepting a massive psychological stake in these ideologies, which is of course how said ideologies bind people to them.

And they will stay bound, until circumstances become dire. People caught in this trap will simply refuse to admit they are wrong unless there truly is no other option.

Mass media, of course, ensures there is always another option. There's always another newspaper article to latch onto. Always another way to interpret the facts. Always another onto whom one can shift the blame when theories fail in practice.

The nature of reality ensures we can never be certain, and ironically that also means we can (almost) never be certain we are wrong.

One who seeks to delude themselves will never run out of ways to do so.


, how to best educate people in a way they develop critical (or better, 'autonomous'?) thinking skills is an interesting question. Perhaps intuitively one would look toward the education system to improve things, but perhaps the answer is simpler.

Socrates simply asked questions - an intuition so natural to the human condition that a child never even needs to be taught to do so. Without any instruction they will question their parents until the parents run out of answers.

Perhaps the question isn't how we can teach people critical thinking, but rather what is making them forget how to do it.

So arrogance, pride and brainwashing are the sources of social conflict? — Joshs

Well no, but I think those things will ensure social conflicts won't be solved by any other means than force, since communication is made impossible. And they're the tools which enable the elite to easily manipulate people. Via that route, what may start as a genuine social conflict is artifically inflamed and warped into something else - something which ultimately serves no one, except the ruling class, which will profit from never solving it.

If we discard moldy subject-based moralisms in favor of a more sophisticated account of human behavior based on reciprocal and joint interaction we can leave the personalized blame aside and focus on collective aims. — Joshs

I suppose the question is how such a reciprocal and joint interaction can take place when communication is deliberately made impossible.

As I noted, many of the posts in this thread show a clear lack of respect for them - the irrational, non-critical thinking hoi polloi. That just makes things worse. Why should anyone make common cause for someone who feels contempt for them? — T Clark

I perceive a large amount of people being manipulated by mass media.

I don't think it's contemptuous or disrespectful to talk about that, and I am merely trying to understand why this manipulation can take place.

If one wishes to mend society, then one must point out the flaws. Sometimes that can be painful.

The problem of our time is that the ruling elite have turned mass manipulation into an artform that would have made even Goebbels proud.

They know exactly what strings to pull to get people emotionally invested in their narratives, generally by feeding a sense of moral superiority. The narrative becomes an integral part of their self-image. The narrative has been tied to the ego and becomes as precious to its followers as if it were an arm or a leg.

Along those lines people are then easily divided, because criticism of the narrative becomes a criticism of the person themselves. Communication becomes impossible, because every debate is a battle between personas.

This is 'identity politics', and it essentially keeps us in a state of permanent intellectual warfare with our fellow man.


Education is pointless to combat this, because even the well-educated fall prey to pride. In fact, so-called intellectuals may be more susceptible to it.


Man has been utterly divided and conquered by the powers that be, and its his arrogance that stops him from admitting that.


Critical thought is what is needed, but can critical thought even be learned?


Perhaps virtue would be the place to start.

Humility, so as to always keep the possibility that one may be wrong, and the other may be right. The quintessential quality for critical thought, perhaps.

Charity and kindness, to extend the benefit of the doubt to other people. To assume they act in good faith. And to treat them well, even if they don't believe what you believe.

What makes him an idiot exactly? It seems he has a lot of guts, throwing down the gauntlet towards big pharma, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the foreign policy establishment, etc.

I thought that type of thing would be looked upon more favorably here.

It's probably worth mentioning that Seymour Hersh has been defending his Nord Stream story all over the internet, though has been rarely invited by any major western news networks, nor has his story been reported on by major western news networks. I wonder why.

Here is a somewhat older interview from February, in which Hersh makes pretty much the same objection I did to the use of open source intelligence (OSINT), namely the fact that it is extremely easy to manipulate:

I will tell you the trouble with open source intelligence is the first thing you do in an operation like that is you use open source as a cover. You invent boats that aren't here. You have airplanes that turned off their transponder which means they can't be seen. [...] The guys who know what they're doing, they can turn everything topsie-turvy. They can create boats, signals of boats, that's what you do before a mission like that. [...] The first thing you do is manipulate the on-going intelligence.

He said this in response to a different event, but the objection remains the same.


More recently he went on this interivew, and states outright that he believes the Russian move on Kiev was a military feint - a position that I've defended here for quite a while - in addition to sharing some thoughts about the Ukraine intel leak. (Timestamp 35:05).

A shocker to some perhaps, that such opinions can also be held by people other than Russian agents.

[...] the likelihood of a forum like this having either of them is pretty high. — Christoffer

I’m not gonna do like others do and conjure up theories based on nothing but belief. — Christoffer

Yet here you are, conjuring up theories about people on this forum being 'Russian agents', literally using the words 'pretty high likelihood'.

Perhaps worst of all, you lack the spine to own up to your words.

Stop backpedaling.

It is not unreasonable to actually argue that a forum like this might very well have such actors. — Christoffer

Who on this forum do you believe 'might very well be' a Russian actor?

It is not unreasonable to actually argue that a forum like this might very well have such actors. — Christoffer

If you have accusations to make, make them Sherlock. Otherwise keep this type of low-brow copium to yourself.

Can you not try harder? — universeness

Let me remind you of an exchange we had not too long ago.

This dramatised example of a cis male, dressed as a female, playing agony aunt and giving advice to children, I assume would make your 'acceptable' list, if 'The Mrs Doubtfire show' was a real show on TV today: — universeness

Sure. I see nothing wrong with that. — Tzeentch

Why don't you try a little harder yourself?

Have you ossified when it comes to your notions of conservative norms? — universeness

Ah, I called it:

I honestly think what we're witnessing here are your interpretations of my views. — Tzeentch

No point in continuing this conversation.

What dangers do you think children are being placed in when they are being read a story by a man dressed as a woman or a female character? — universeness

It's hard to interpret this as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation of my views.

So it's just certain forms of clothing the children should be made to fear... — universeness

No. It's simply that (hyper)sexuality has no place in a children's classroom.

Does the lead singer of twisted sister not also look like a hooker? — universeness

Somewhat. I'd say sexualized rockstars are inappropriate for children too.

Why do you assume the clown or 'tootsie' is not trans? — universeness

I didn't. Clowns just aren't inappropriate for children so I didn't see anything objectionable.

Cn you not see that you brought your own interpretation to that image in particular? — universeness

I honestly think what we're witnessing here are your interpretations of my views.

You think I have a problem with transgenders, which I do not.

Which of these images should we make sure children are mist afraid of? — universeness

I'm unsure what that sentence means, but obviously the man dressed as a female prostitute is inappropriate for children.

If not having children amounts to 'avoiding responsibility' that implies we have a responsibility to procreate - I would disagree with that.

I also dislike the characterization of people as fearful, 'refusing to live', 'zombie state of existence' for asking the question - I think those amount to little more than thinly-veiled personal attacks.

And it is a little ironic, when in the next sentence you say this about procreation:

[...] it is certainly not a ‘selfish’ ploy although it has countless positives with the responsibility it brings. — I like sushi

Selectively extending the benefit of the doubt to people who you agree with and not to those you disagree with won't make for a fruitful discussion.

I could just as easily flip it around: I am taking my responsibility towards my fellow humans (including my would-be children) by deliberating on how my actions (could) impact them. And in doing so, I am not afraid to ask hard questions, and face unwelcome realities.

This dramatised example of a cis male, dressed as a female, playing agony aunt and giving advice to children, I assume would make your 'acceptable' list, if 'The Mrs Doubtfire show' was a real show on TV today: — universeness

Sure. I see nothing wrong with that.

There is loss and suffering in many conceivable future states. But someone could just as easily conceive of future states containing joy and pleasure and make the same sort of leap that birth causes pleasure. — NOS4A2

True. The problem is that we dont know, which is a serious issue if one believes child-having to be an imposition. Not only are we putting someone in a position that they themselves didn't ask for, but we also don't know if what we're providing them with is actually going to benefit them.

I just can’t see how refusing to have a child is anything but a self-satisfying endeavor. — NOS4A2

In my view, there's nothing self-serving about it, considering the above-mentioned dilemma.

In addition, if one from an ethical standpoint wishes to do good onto other people, there are plenty of opportunities for it in life. Opportunities that will allow one to alleviate the suffering of already-existing people in a consensual manner.

I can’t see that this behavior is ethical and moral insofar as it protects someone or alleviates anyone’s suffering, because one can do it alone without interacting with a single person his entire life. — NOS4A2

If one were to accept that child-having is immoral, then refraining from it isn't necessarily a moral deed, but rather neutral, in the same way as for example 'not stealing' is. You probably wouldn't consider someone a moral person simply for 'not stealing'.

[...] implying that parents are harming their child by conceiving him, birthing him, and nurturing him for a prolonged period of his life is unjust. — NOS4A2

The sad reality is that there are plenty of individuals to whom this may apply.

We simply don't know who they will be before they've lived out their lives, and that's essentially the gamble that a parent takes.

There's a lot of suffering in the world, and while I haven't made up my mind one way or the other, I defend these positions without a shred of joy or satisfaction. It might be a very uncomfortable truth.

As for the imposition of conception, looking around at the biological processes involved in it I can’t find anyone imposing anything on anyone else. — NOS4A2

Suppose I plant a time-bomb at night on a busy street.

The next day it blows up and kills a random person.

That person was nowhere to be found when I planted the bomb.

Was it therefore not an imposition?

It can’t be conception because there as yet no human being to impose upon. — NOS4A2

I'd say conception is the point, and I've already pointed out why I disagree with your objection..

At the point of conception there is no human being yet, however the first step has been taken in creating one.

As such, our behavior needs to be seen in relation to the future states it causes, which, as I argued, is a perfectly suitable basis for moral evaluation, since all our behavior is aimed at future states.

My sense is that only a small portion of the transgender movement consists of people who will genuinely benefit from adopting the label.

A larger portion seems to consist of:
1. people who carry trauma from childhood in which their individuality was not accepted (feminine men, masculine women, homosexuals, lesbians, etc.)
2. children/young adults who had no idea what they were doing
3. sexual deviants
4. parties with ulterior motives, like pharmaceutical companies and surgery clinics (hence the movement's superb marketing)

I'll probably be called bigotted for pointing this out, but this is genuinely what I see, and my stomach churns at the implications.