Quote:
The argument is self-defeating because it contradicts itself. The banners would be better served by recognizing the difference between what one thinks should be, and what actually is rather than conflating the two. Instead of trying to have the cake and eat it too (pretending that banning essentially all post-civil war technology in the field, de facto total bans via a 10,000x tax, ignoring the 4th amendment as well, etc. are somehow actually in accord with the Constitution), a logical argument would be that while this is what the document, the highest source of US law, states, it should be changed. There is a process to do so, spelled out in the Constitution itself as the founders recognized times would change, and the people might need to reconsider things and consider new things. It's a loser of an argument to play the game the way they are playing it now - to pretend the 2nd and now the 4th also can just be ignored whenever politically expedient for political goals they agree with, without actually violating the amendments they are insisting be practically set aside. It's an argument without any logical merit. Make the case that the people should have no meaningful right to self-defense, that guns should not be allowed (or only allowed for pre-civil war technology), and that the Constitution should be amended through the legal process put in place to do exactly that to eliminate this liberty of the people. I would strongly disagree with it, but the argument would at least be internally consistent with itself instead of a series of absurd contradictions. |
Quote:
Many who cheer on the cadre of rich old men asserting their (and their supporters') ability to control women's bodies are the same ones who happily ignore the fact that AR-15s did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written (and of course that the rights in the constitution were only for white male property owners). |
Quote:
Shhhhhh. The sound logic hurts my eyes. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I apologize if I miscategorized you. I made the contextual assumptive leap that your post had some bearing on the topic of the thread and the present debate in it. If your criticisms are only applicable to the Mississippi decision, I'm not sure why it is here. That really should be a separate thread, if you are saying your statement has nothing to do with the topic and I am wrong to think that it did. |
Quote:
Those "rich old men" just don't seem to think women own their own bodies. To be intellectually consistent (and obviously that is not your intention, but let's pretend it is,) vax mandates should be illegal, and all drug use and prostitution should be legal. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Your comment is sexist. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
You are making a derogatory comment about a certain age and gender group. If you don't like a decision made by a Neil Gorsuch or Sam Alito, try punching a hole in their argument. But why bring age and gender into it, as though those things are relevant? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You are free to disagree, but my view is that America would be a better place if decisions were more often made by people and groups comprising a more diverse range of (to quote you) "ages, genders, races" as well as other orientations/experiences. If you are perfectly happy and satisfied with the state of America, then I can understand your not wanting to change anything in this regard. |
Vax "mandates" were not forcing someone to do something against their will. It was the definition of "choice". Get a vaccine to protect society at large, or find another job, just not on the government teat.
|
I also am very happy the Supreme Court consists of people from multiple races and both genders. Clarence Thomas' take down of Dred Scott in this decision and his declaration that rights apply to all Americans is particularly resonant.
Or is this not the diversity we like, because he has the wrong opinion? Of course, when valid arguments can no longer be found, it is the response to try and make it about race and gender, even though it was authored by an African-American male and a woman's addition to the Court is what made it a clear majority (many of us are surprised that Roberts signed on with this). |
Quote:
Side note: accused sexual abusers as the paragon of conservative virtue is fairly ironic. |
Quote:
Women/women of color is a funny way of saying "women". Accused = guilty. That sounds right. |
Quote:
That's how some people work. Meanwhile, the law of the land (for those of us who care) says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I guess that's just another law, like the 2nd Amendment, that we can ignore when convenient. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nobody has made a contradiction or double standard. You’re just accusing him of it because of an assumption you’ve made up? None of which has anything to do with the subject of the thread. |
Quote:
|
Regarding schools, there are common sense proposals out there, like locking all side doors and only having one main entrance open, and that with one or two armed guards and metal detectors (same type of setup as airports have when people board airplanes.)
Do a little research to see who's been proposing such solutions, and who has been opposing them. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you think that proposal - single entry/exit to schools (excluding fire emergency exits of course) and metal detectors and armed guards - would be a good idea? Do you think it's a good policy at airports? Again I urge you and anyone else to take a couple minutes to see who has been proposing, and who has been opposing, such measures. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The single-entry approach is currently in widespread use as I understand it, and IIRC the Uvalde school even had this. One issue with metal detectors (in schools and airports) is that it slows down the process of getting in, to the point where, much like flying, students would end up having to get there much earlier than unusual and stand in a long line. I know I hate that aspect of flying, and I don't love the idea of making that a part of every child's school day. Putting more guns in schools may end up working in some ways or some situations, but generally I think fewer guns in schools tends to be better. I suppose we'd all get used to it eventually (as we have with more armed guards/dogs at airports, transit hubs, etc.) but I miss the pre-9/11 days in that aspect. |
Quote:
Hope-cine should be the name, not vaccine, especially when they changed the definition of it. ;) https://twitter.com/plmilligan1968/s...not-science%2F |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You say you want "fewer guns in schools" as though there's little difference who has those guns. I want fewer guns in the hands of mass murderers, but since it is usually rather difficult to predict who and when that will happen, I like the idea of guns in the hands of law enforcement. This is something I wish we could agree was "common sense" but you are proof it isn't common. The shooter at Uvalde got in through a side door. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are you actually a pro-2A plant to make the banners look bad? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It seems to me that you are proof that in our Divided States of America, reasonable conversation of controversial issues may not be worth attempting. Good luck and good evening to you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't know if Anita Hill was telling the truth or not. What I take issue with is the notion that you need a woman to provide "the female" point of view, or you need an Asian person to provide "the Asian" point of view. Because, if you mostly have "old rich men" you will only have the "old rich man" point of view. It is simplistic. I'm all for diversity because it is fair, and the most qualified people should always be the best choices regardless of any attribute like gender, race, hat size, weight, etc. Your opposition to protecting kids in schools with metal (gun) detectors and armed guards tells me all I need to know about your "concern" for the kids. You only want armed law enforcement on scene after the kids have begun to get killed. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:15 PM. |