Such is the case with a particularly egregious euphemism: “gender-affirming care.” This is the phrase gender activists have coined to describe irreversible sex-change treatments and procedures, such as puberty blockers and hormonal injections and double mastectomies and vaginoplasties. In fact, it’s the exact phrase being used by a major U.S. children’s hospital to defend administering these experimental treatments to minors.
A series of videos posted on the Boston Children’s Hospital’s website shows its doctors advocating the medical treatment of gender-confused children. In one viral video, a doctor promotes hysterectomies as a solution for gender-confused girls. The hospital has since claimed it doesn’t perform this procedure on minors, but between 2017 and 2020, the hospital reportedly performed 65 double mastectomies as part of its “affirmation” program.
Another page on the hospital’s website, which has since been deleted, says 17-year-olds are eligible for “affirming” vaginoplasties. Other videos show Boston Children’s Hospital medical experts promoting puberty blockers for young children, encouraging gender-confused boys to “tuck” their penises to make them look more like vaginas, and claiming that children as young as 2 and 3 years old can know they are a gender different than their sex.
As I’ve said before, encourage kids to drink, smoke, vote, have indiscriminate sex, make porn, shoot heroin, quit school, and carry guns, and I will then try to consider the argument to allow them to mutilate themselves in an attempt to become something they are not. But until then, the entire subject is sheer lunacy. I fail to see how adults encouraging underage kids to permanently mutilate their bodies is any less a crime than statuatory rape - either a kid is capable of deciding what they want an adult to do to them, or they are not.
They’re the same thing! The only confusion here is that these trans nutcases are confusing the difference between gender and gender roles/stereotypes. Break down gender stereotypes all you want - if a boy wants to wear a dress, go right ahead. But he’s still a boy, period.
The British have stopped the crminal abuse in one clinic but you will notice that they spread it around to other clinics. The crimes were so egregious at the one clinic that it was getting too much publicity so they spread the abuse around to other clinics.
But I’ve often wondered about the entire LGB, and I think the Qs too but I’m not really certain about them or about the plusses, alignment with the Ts.
All the others are pretty much normal people. OK, you might argue with that. But I’m a “live and let live” sort. Somebody else’s sexual preference is none of my damn business. Period. End of discussion, at least for me.
But then you come to the Ts. They are different, at least the activists are, not the same attitude at all. They want to cut up little kids. The female Ts want access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. They want to compete in women’s sports as females and win all the trophies and scholarships really intended for actual women. In short, they are FAR from live and let live. They are in our faces.
Why gay, lesbian, and bisexual folks embrace these Ts is beyond me, and it is unfortunate. I don’t even get why the male Ts embrace the female Ts. Male Ts are far less intrusive or threatening to regular society, unless they actively seek to cut up kids. But it’s the female Ts who, in some instances, are the most obnoxious.
For the record I have always believed females, T or not, should be permitted to compete in “all male” sports if they are able and if they are willing to risk being hurt. After all, Billie Jean King defeated Bobby Riggs!!
Is every ad deceitful? I thought there were some legal requirements/liability for TV and radio ads (plus I do my best to avoid them all). No such thing online, of course, so uBlock blocks them all for me.
Due to the tips and tricks I provided in this thread, I haven’t heard from any Nigerian princes in a really, really long time. I hope they’re doing well.
But you see, I was paying attention when I signed up and I was paying attention to all the places that tell me exactly when my membership would renew. So my expectation is a specific date. Yet when they tell me that my benefits would end immediately, they make me question my expectations. The fact that they remain active is not a pleasant surprise, it is the expected outcome. The deceit occurs in the middle, when they make me think I’m gonna lose my benefits sooner than expected, making me not want to cancel until the last moment.
Yet you’ve already altered that expectation by trying to cancel in advance of that date.
If not for your bias from already being told they are [allegedly] going to deceive you, when your subscription runs thru December and you attempt to cancel it in August, why wouldn’t you expect them to respect your request and cancel your account in August? After all, you are “cancelling”, not “turning off auto renewal”.
Are you saying there’s a way to “turn off auto renewal” without cancelling? Because that was my intent, I just don’t remember seeing that option. I thought cancellation was the same as turning off auto renewal, but I do see your point if they are indeed separate choices.
And even if that option is there now, was it always there? I’m not sure what time period the FTC is pursuing.
I thought cancellation implies turning off auto renewal.
Across various subscription services I’ve seen this handled two ways:
“Cancellation” is immediate (example – car insurance) – in this case, you get a refund for the portion of the term that you didn’t use
“Cancellation” is at the end of the term only (example – Netflix, or any other service that doesn’t want to refund pre-paid amounts for a partial month or partial term of subscription) – in this case, you get to ride out your pre-paid term but don’t get a pro-rata refund
USUALLY, I’ve seen the service make it 100% clear how they operate during the cancellation process.
It sounds like Amazon may not make this completely clear.
I’m pretty sure turning off the auto renewal is not an option.
My point was it’s clearly referred to as cancelling your service; regardless of your intent or how you may characterize it inside your own mind, there are no other choices mentioned on the screen. And without your preconceived biases, what else would you consider “cancel service” to mean? By selecting cancel service, you are intending to cancel the service. Afterwards, finding they still keep your account active until the original end date is an unexpected bonus.
It’s only because you already know they’ll keep your service active and thus feel entitled to that happening, that you now find the cancel option to be deceptive. Knowledge is power, and knowing this detail gives you more flexibility in making your choices. But not knowing doesn’t mean you are getting screwed.
Amazon says something like “Are you sure you want to cancel? By canceling you will lose access to blah, blah, and blah. Do you still want to cancel?”
That’s what I’ve gotten the last four or five times I’ve cancelled. No where does it say, or imply to most, that the cancellation will be with immediate effect.
That’s what I’ve gotten the last four or five times I’ve cancelled. No where does it say, or imply to most, that the cancellation will be with immediate effect.
At best, that message is ambiguous. But I would agree with scripta that a direct interpretation at least sounds like it MAY result in immediate-effect.
My personal experience with other services where your cancellation doesn’t occur until the end of the term have said as much clearly and without any risk of ambiguity.
But again, without the existing knowledge that it wont, why would this matter when you are chosing “cancel service”? There’s two possible effects to cancelling, both resulting in losing your benefits, and even if it is unclear Amazon still goes with the one most beneficial to the customer.
I’d think current policy would be more of an issue considering that when someone cancels, they clearly do not want the service any more - yet they’re being “forced” to keep it for the remaining days or weeks of their existing subscription.
I think you guys are really going out of your way on this to try and prove Script wrong, or make him sound like an idiot for thinking Amazon’s cancellation messaging is unclear.
But the message is certainly ambiguous compared to other cancellation/retention messaging I have seen with other subscription services.
I’m more arguing against the fallacy that whatever Amazon does is somehow deceptive (and with legal implications). I really couldnt care less what Scripta thinks , merely being ambiguous isnt a crime regardless.
I don’t think it has legal implications, but it isn’t a fallacy to say that it is ambiguous language and doesn’t match up with the clearer messaging I’ve seen from other subscription services.
Not suggesting it is in any way criminal. But there is a pretty wide band of unethical and deceptive practices that are legal, though should still be frowned upon and discouraged.
After siding with @glitch99 over @scripta in this whole “amazon is deceptive” debate for a dozen or so posts now, I forgot how this all started, so I scrolled back up to the original post. I have come to the conclusion that I don’t really care anymore and Amazon sucks… except how they provide me with nearly anything I could ever want in two days or less to my doorstep for a reasonable price and a bunch of stuff to watch and a bunch of space to store my photos. I hate giving them so much of my money, but I can’t help but come to the conclusion that they are losing money on me year after year.
Amazon is making a good run at being the most evil company in America.
Amazon One works by linking a customers’ credit card to their unique palm signature. Users then hover their hand over a palm reader to pay, in this case for their overpriced groceries.
The ecommerce behemoth’s end goal here is to expand One’s use beyond its own business and provide the technology to third parties. Though primarily used as a contactless payment method currently, Amazon’s previously suggested it can also potentially be used as identity verification tools for offices. You can imagine a future where football stadiums, Midtown offices, concert venues, and neighborhood grocery stores partner with Amazon to roll out palm reading kiosks.
Anticipating privacy concerns, an Amazon spokesperson told Gizmodo in an email that “customer privacy is a foundational design principle for Amazon One.” The spokesperson said that while palm signatures are captured in-store the images are encrypted and stored in Amazon’s cloud.
, merely being ambiguous isnt a crime regardless.