16 is considered an adult on your country?

I think there was another comment that presented what most likely happened a little clearer and made much more sense. I think I can agree with. It mentioned breast reduction surgery which is already done on people 16 years old not relating to trans stuff. If that's the case, it makes much more sense to me.

I was mostly pointing out the odd fact that the original argument was that there wasn't surgery done on minors and then proceeded to support it by saying surgery was done on them while they were a minor.

While I understand the suicide aspect, there are alternatives to managing those kinds of issues that don't involve surgery.

My account isn't very old and many of the posts were mostly within the same thread about the same topic. It's not like I'd discuss everything I think in a single thread.

Feel free to ask me what I think about specific topics and I'm most likely willing to share.

So they want to keep people poor and stupid to control them? I can't really argue for or against that right now as I'm not that conservative myself.

To my understanding, Republican / Conservative tend to be closely aligned. Republican tends to favor more local control and decision making while puts the direct citizens in more control of their lives. That has a side effect of sometimes a local population might make what's perceived as silly or stupid decisions, but it's what they want.

The other side tends to go for big government with more control because to enact a lot of the policies they want done, they need that power and control. It also has a side effect of sometimes placing inefficient policies that don't take into account specific circumstances in a particular area. A possible example would be banning motors running on gas in a rural area with no infrastructure to support that kind of change. Not to mention the hindrance on those doing important jobs like food production.

I'd wager there are daily goods that have far more exploitation than most people would be comfortable with.

But you are right in some cases things aren't necessities and could probably be limited or cut out. That being said, there's a morale / mental component too. For example, you don't need that chocolate birthday cake for your sibling, parent, child, etc., but it is still is considered very important. If it wasn't there, it could be considered a huge blow and/or insulting.

You can't possibly know each person's reasoning on why they may need or not need a particular thing. Saying someone cannot get it at all will end up hurting the little guy. The person why can't go through all the hoops to get some random exception for their specific use case.

You talk about it being dangerous, doesn't every driver go through roughly the same certification process for that state? If you're problem is the quality of their driving, you should be pushing for higher standards for getting a license

You say they are wasteful on gas. Wouldn't that mean the owner would need to pay extra money out of pocket to maintain it's use? They are bearing the cost extra cost of ownership, so why not let them use it? For example, you are probably paying for internet. Should I be allowed to stop you from using the internet you paid for because I don't agree with your reasoning? No, and that's completely ridiculous.

Correlation isn't causation. Example, we all have drunk water. Everyone dies at some point. I found correlation that drinking water causes death 100% of the time.

The number of guns isn't the issue, it's what he's choosing to do with them. There are legitimate reasons to own them that are not malicious. Gun collection for example. There are some wacky designs out there. Look up the forgotten weapons YouTube channel for examples.