Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 08:05:46 AM »
Yeah, the Supreme Court has made invalid interpretations in the past and its past rulings are regularly overruled. One was just overruled a few days ago.

Well it’s valid until it isn’t, like what just happened a few days ago.

In the meantime, the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

So Texas v White ruling is still valid until SCOTUS wipes it out. They haven’t yet.

When Texas left the Union it was stripped of its representation as a State:

https://tnm.me/news/political/texas-vs-white-why-the-supreme-court-is-dead-wrong-on-texas-independence/

    "This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain “reconstruction” acts of the U.S. Congress."

A state denied representation and rights of a state as guaranteed by the Constitution, how does that work? If you think the Civil War decided the issue and not the Constitution, as you have argued previously, then by all intents Texas was not a State.

Yeah SCOTUS rulings can be filled with contradictions, like recently. So what? Doesn’t change the fact that a ruling was made and stands until it is dispensed with. Your argument is neither here nor there.

On what basis exactly, does Salmon P. Chase say that the states couldn't leave?

Don’t know, but that was the ruling in Texas v White some 150+ years ago. Still stands today.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter. SCOTUS ruled that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

SCOTUS decides what’s covered by the constitution and what’s not by interpreting the constitution and applying it where appropriate.

So as it stands, state succession is forbidden an states that did succeed were still apart of the union even though their rights were hampered as a punishment during reconstruction.

So there you have it in a nutshell.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 06:02:44 AM »
Quote
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.

Actually, according to SCOTUS, succession states were still a part of the US and succeeding is actually forbidden:

Even before Texas formally rejoined the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that secession had never been legal, and that, even during the rebellion, Texas continued to be a state.

In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase added: “The ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”

If there were any doubt remaining after this matter, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set it to rest when he asked by a screenwriter in 2006 whether there was a legal basis for secession. In his response, he wrote: “The answer is clear,” Scalia wrote. “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 12:59:28 AM »
Quote from: stack
So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

Correct. The Constitution originally just gave men the right to vote. There was a successful Constitutional amendment for the right for women to vote, for which a super majority of States agreed. By this standard there should be something specific in the Constitution about abortion if you are insisting on the national right to abortion. If a super majority of the States can't agree on it then it is a subject that is still too controversial for a national blanket law.

Obviously, this topic is too controversial for such an amendment. The Constitution is clear: It is given to the States to decide. The same standard is given to all other "rights".

The argument you are making is that you you know that there is an agreed upon procedure in place, but you simply don't care. This is a fault on your part.

So the bottom line is that you would be ok with some States making interracial marriage illegal if SCOTUS says it's not a constitutional right?

Quote from: stack
I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges


Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of a procedure means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored. The Constitution doesn't bring it up at all.

The Constitution doesn't bring it up specifically. But I'm pretty sure it's been "explored", mostly between 1861 through 1865.

But the Constitution definitely does not say that if a State leaves the Constitution that people must start killing each other. That would clearly be a naked act of aggression, and the North was probably guilty of that when they started killing people for wanting to break away from the Constitution.

"George Sholter James, the commander of the mortar battery that fired the first shot of the American Civil War, was born in Laurens County, South Carolina in 1829. He was the second son of a prominent attorney and merchant and spent most of his young life in Columbia, the state capital. At the age of seventeen, James left his college studies for the adventure of fighting in the Mexican-American War."
https://www.nps.gov/people/george-s-james.htm

Looks like the South, not the North, started the killing.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 12:02:41 AM »
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal and punishable? And that’s ok with you?

The things you are bringing up are simply no longer applicable. Many years ago people did not like interracial marriage because it was an unknown, like sodomy, and thought that it would lead to the degradation of society. This is no longer the case, and now interracial marriage is widely supported by over 90% of the population.

The majority of the American's did not want RvW axed. So what's the difference?

Going by your fantasy, if the Supreme Court determined that it was one of those rulings that was improperly made, and several States then made interracial marriage illegal, which is extremely doubtful at this point, the States could simply band together simply make a proper Constitutional amendment on that subject. If they can't get a 3/4ths majority then it's not accepted well enough and society has not progressed enough that it should be a national blanket rule.

So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

In this scenario, SCOTUS throws out Loving v Virginia on the same grounds as the current situation, the 14th doesn't cover it. 33% of the States make interracial marriage illegal and obviously won't sign off on any amendment. That would be ok with you? Having 1/3 of the States making interracial marriage illegal?

If the States failed to get the required agreement they would then treat each other like countries in the EU who have objectionable laws to each other: Peacefully, diplomatically, and under mutual understanding that they are part of a Constitution or Charter with an understood and agreed upon method for amendment.

I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 10:24:28 PM »
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal an punishable? And that’s ok with you?

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 08:45:31 PM »
Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

Would you like to see a further swing to the right and have SCOTUS overturn: Griswold v. Connecticut (right to access contraceptive), Lawrence v. Texas (states could not outlaw consensual gay sex) Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)

They’re all predicated on the 14th amendment just like RvW. And Thomas seems to want to venture down that path, except for Love v Virginia, of course.

I would like to see it discussed in light of the RvW precedent, sure. It is possible that the Constitution was never intended to decide that, and should be a topic left to the states.

Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

Why have just about anything Federally mandated? Why not turn it all over to the States?

As for polygamy, Utah reduced it from a felony to a misdemeanor, basically a traffic ticket, in 2020. So you might be getting close to what you want.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 27, 2022, 08:53:47 AM »
Do you want to get rid of The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

For reference: The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 27, 2022, 08:50:03 AM »
From what I've been told and studied intensively, a sane person can only draw one conclusion, we were spoon fed deceptive analysis of events that could not and did not happen. Links and videos are abundant internet wide.

Weird, from what I've been told and studied intensively, a sane person can only draw one conclusion, we landed men on the moon 6 times and brought them home safely. Links and videos are abundant internet wide.

See why that's not really a very convincing or compelling argument?

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 08:42:39 AM »
Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

Would you like to see a further swing to the right and have SCOTUS overturn: Griswold v. Connecticut (right to access contraceptive), Lawrence v. Texas (states could not outlaw consensual gay sex) Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)

They’re all predicated on the 14th amendment just like RvW. And Thomas seems to want to venture down that path, except for Love v Virginia, of course.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 26, 2022, 05:33:46 PM »
I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.

So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?
It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.

Agreed, but lots of people think they have faith, conviction, and traditional values when in the midst of committing a crime like assault. Like what about someone like the guy Qanon guy who broke into the Pizza place to save kids held against their will in the basement that didn't exist? He certainly had faith, conviction, and traditional values.

What about all the people that stormed the capitol, whacking police officers over the head, threatening to hang Pence, etc. Did they have faith, conviction, and traditional values?

You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".
Actually, I was banned for posting a characterization of Joe Biden, in a thread about Joe Biden.

Apparently, that is untrue. Your ban literally says, "Personal attacks in the upper, did not take the hint when warned. +30 days due to attempted ban circumvention +30 days due to another attempted ban circumvention!". Last I checked Biden wasn't here to be personally attacked. So it must have been personal attacks on others.

My point being, glass houses.


A little thing called "discrimination".
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.

That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.
You act as if you do not engage in the process yourself.

Which is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

So you think it's ok to deny someone a service or product or job based upon their gender, color, or sexual orientation?

No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.
I usually ignore worthless questions.

Fair enough. All you have to do is plead the 5th.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 25, 2022, 09:54:10 PM »
People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.
So all people make their residence location decisions solely based upon whether abortion is legal or not in their area?
Like-minded individuals congregate together.

So only pro-choice folks live in, say, New York City? And everyone who lives there does so for the express reason that it's all pro-choice people?

My legitimate polls state that people who are against it will be living in places where it will not be legal.

What legitimate polls are those? Let's see them. A link(s) will do.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 25, 2022, 09:45:36 PM »
I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.

So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?

You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".

But, anyone committing assault on a homosexual and subsequently apprehended, would likely face criminal charges.

Cool.

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.
If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

A little thing called "discrimination".
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.

That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.

Where does it end?
It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?
I achieve no sense of pride out of either.


No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.
Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?
Who cares what they write about their values? I don't care.

Ok, cool, so I guess you agree that if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values".

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 25, 2022, 09:30:07 PM »
My legitimate polls state that people who are against it will be living in places where it will not be legal.

What polls are those? Let's see them.

People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.

So all people make their residence location decisions solely based upon whether abortion is legal or not in their area?

Your polls are invalid for they are limited to areas of the country where people tend to love to kill the unborn.

What's your basis for this? Source?

14
You missed the bit about a "valid perspective".
I didn't miss it at all - in fact, I addressed it directly. Did you misread, or are you just really driving the point that you don't have an ounce of honesty in you home?

It’s unclear what my dwelling has to do with anything.

I was previously aware of the existence and benefits of self-reflection before you mentioned it. I'm pretty sure you didn't come up with the concept.
What on Earth does this have to do with anything? Have you already forgotten what you're being chastised for? Impressive!

I guess I wrongfully assumed you were simply offering your brand of what you perceive to be sage advice. And advice is usually welcomed when delivered from a valid perspective and by a respected voice.

So yes, self reflection is a good thing for everyone. I think most would agree and are probably aware of the concept prior to you feeling compelled to introduce it here.

15
Sure, if it's a valid perspective from a respected individual it would trigger self-reflection.
I see. So, even though you've immediately conceded my perspective, you will not reflect on it, because of the individual who made you aware of it - me.

That's terrible. You've definitely cemented yourself as intellectually dishonest.

It's not conceding "your" perspective. I was previously aware of the existence and benefits of self-reflection before you mentioned it. I'm pretty sure you didn't come up with the concept. And like I wrote, a valid perspective from a respected individual would trigger self-reflection. You missed the bit about a "valid perspective". It's not just about the respectability of the individual who delivered the perspective. 

16
I imagine it would be pretty bad if that were the case.
Indeed. Will that perhaps trigger a little bit of self-reflection for the future?

Sure, if it's a valid perspective from a respected individual it would trigger self-reflection.

Do better. Be better. Introspect.

Words everyone should abide by including yourself.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 25, 2022, 06:04:17 PM »
Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.
Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."

I think what's pretty sad on a simply human level is this:

"...and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Does that really mean it's ok to beat up a homosexual individual because they are abnormal (homosexual) and you won't be charged with assault because your beating of the individual was out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.
If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

A little thing called "discrimination".

Where does it end?
It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.
Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 25, 2022, 05:45:29 PM »
70 percent, uh?

I am sure the polls you refer to are totally legitmate. ::)

Yeah, they are:









What do your "legitimate" polls have to say?

19
Definitely gives FE a bad rap.
Imagine how bad RE's "rap" would be if we were as intellectually dishonest as you are and judged a group by its worst representatives.

I imagine it would be pretty bad if that were the case. Fortunately, I'm not intellectually dishonest. But thanks for backing me up and agreeing that I was right about who is one of the worst representatives of FE.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 25, 2022, 06:32:09 AM »
Mission: Success



How is never getting casually fucked again a successful mission? Have you gone full Gilead; that fucking is solely the realm of procreation?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133  Next >