kitchinsink t1_jcufgrh wrote

Conversely, you're taking the book you don't like away from everyone based on your personal opinions.

I don't see why some people can't just parent their children when they see objectionable content. That is how parenting works: you're supposed to prepare them for the real world, when they'll see things that hurt their feelings all the time that they can't just roll up and ban.

Additionally, there is already a process for this. Your duly elected school board will hear book ban requests.


kitchinsink t1_jcfd1iv wrote

Give me a goddamn break.

This is ridiculous. Get this book banning-esque shit out of NH. Clutch your pearls somewhere else.

Educators don't make enough money to deal with this garbage. It erodes the confidence in the school systems, which, if we're looking at Florida, seems to be the goal.

Also, while it's "only a framework" you KNOW that people will abuse the shit out of this to get what they want, and wear down already exhausted educators. That appears to be the point.

The real world exists, and your kids might learn about it. If you don't want your kid reading something figure out your shit. That's your problem. Quit wasting my tax dollars on this garbage.

Edit: Thanks for the gold.


kitchinsink t1_jc1vvx4 wrote

Some real interesting banding on the snow totals. At first glance it seems like mountainous regions, but then it hits in some of the valleys too. If you have time (no worries if not), in this case, what has caused that banding? I'm seeing it on several models, including yours, so I was curious.

I figure that normally there's some level of banding but this seems super pronounced in areas outside of the mountainous regions (which, obviously get higher snow totals).

Thanks cloud boy! You rock!


kitchinsink OP t1_jbjma5t wrote

I'm a biological woman, who continues to be so, who received gender affirming care in my teens for hormonal issues, like many other teens.

Not something to be legislated against.

If they wanted to ban children from having surgery, they should've made that the bill, not banning trans kids from existing.


kitchinsink OP t1_jbjkbi3 wrote

That's not what the bill reads.

It's not limiting children from having sexual reassignment surgery, its limiting them from *any* treatment not aligned to their present gender. It bans gender dysphoria and pretends it is nonexistent.

Children and teens receive this sort of care all the time. They're just banning anyone from being trans before they are an adult. That's barbaric. You wouldn't have banned me from taking testosterone blockers and progesterone for my hormone issues when I was a teen, why ban children with gender dysphoria from doing so under the watchful eyes of doctors and therapists?

And sure, surgery on a child is a stretch, but how many times has that happened? 56. 56 times. "The Komodo analysis of insurance claims found 56 genital surgeries among patients ages 13 to 17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2019 to 2021." That's nationally. That is an absolutely microscopic number of people.

Wanna ban that? Whatever, make a bill for it. Don't ban normal healthcare for children that has already been occurring for a while. That's fucked.

23 times MORE children are killed by guns each year than have had sexual reassignment surgery, and we don't legislate those away now do we.


kitchinsink OP t1_jbf3619 wrote

Ignoring my actual feelings on this, Both the senate and house bills on this are garbage.

Senate Bill: "Parents bill of rights" broad crappy thing, like Florida.

House Bill: "No, you can't have any kind of gender affirming care except therapy under 18".

How about we leave that to the doctors, counselors, researchers, and not some clowns in Concord, thanks.

Edit: Removing "experts" because some of y'all really wanna get that big authoritarian govt D by letting them legislate things that don't need to be legislated, all because you're big mad you were asked to wear a mask and not be gross.

Yes. There are experts. They study really hard for a really long time and there are plenty of trustworthy experts. Government != Experts.


kitchinsink t1_j9u9aq5 wrote

I haven't, and will continue not to vote for him, largely because I don't align with him on many issues that are important to me.
On The Issues

A sprinkling of examples:
I believe that we should legalize cannabis. He does not, and often uses the opioid crisis as an example. While that seems like a good argument on the surface, because fighting drugs with more drugs feels weird, studies show that "states with medical cannabis laws experienced slower rates of increase in opioid analgesic overdose death rates compared to states without such laws." One such study

I disagree with him on restricting funding to Planned Parenthood. PP provides tons of valuable services. Community based health services are a boon for people, and as such they should be funded accordingly. Having good access to birth control and sexual health information is also good for reducing abortions.

I agree with his business-minded changes. I've owned more than one business in NH and NH continues to be a pretty business friendly state.

I disagree with the school choice, because I see it as taking away money from public schools. I grew up in pretty extreme poverty and public school was my saving grace. It helped me become an educated and well rounded. I also do not want my tax dollars to go to religious schools, because I see it as a violation of the separation of church and state, something which is important to me.

I agree with him on things like environmental cleanup, PFAS mitigation, no state income and sales tax. I disagree on him blocking commuter rail, as it would provide solid public transportation to a lot of people and bring economic success to NH.

In the end, I largely don't vote for him because of those harm reduction issues. I believe that in our society there are always things we will not like, but are necessary to keep things moving along and keep people safe and sound.


kitchinsink t1_j9tqxpw wrote

I mean, I get this, and I'm not too upset about it, but at the end of the day having licensing and standards for people who are using dangerous chemicals and razor blades near your face and neck isn't the worst idea. The threat of losing your license is one of the reasons people are careful.


kitchinsink t1_j9mvyfx wrote

Thank you for the detailed response. I appreciate it! I really need to get better at reading soundings. I can pick out favorable tornado conditions, but that's about it.

Also, I thoroughly enjoy the weather, especially the nuances of forecasting, but unfortunately went the engineering route so now it's just an interest. Still, always learning!