Remove this ad

avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#21 [url]

May 31 16 6:42 PM

You want to know what I find kind of funny? Is that we talk about how SJW are bad because they are extreme, but not neccesarily because there policies are wrong. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but is this because SJW are more left leaning, therefore why do we have to be careful to what we say about them?
I could call conservatives cock juggling thunder cunts and I doubt I would be corrected on most forums. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying conservatives always need to be defended, nor am I saying that you should always explain yourself when you say something baseless and crass. What I don’t get is if I called liberals cock juggling thunder cunts, I always have to explain myself, like conservativism is flawed without explanation but liberalism is the better one so I have to explain why dislike the “superior” one. Well, I say liberalism is just as bad as conservatism and here are some points as to why.

Liberals will always agree and defend minorities 100%. Always.

Have you noticed that minorities will nearly always vote for liberals, but they themselves are obviously conservative? Like, liberals brag about how progressive they are with their gay rights, anti-bigotry and birth control, even though it is obvious most Blacks, Hispanics and Muslims do not agree with that at all. I mean, just look at the Muslims. I’m not saying all Muslims are like this, but some of the more radical ones make radical Christians look like Gandhi in comparison. Why are they constantly defending a group of people that are obviously more conservatives than there supposed opponent? Ben Shapiro said its because they both have the same goal of wiping out the evils of western civilization. I find that to be unfair and contrived, because the better answer is actually much stupider. The reason the left condones the actions and behaviors of minorities is because they want their votes, and they don’t care what they have to do to get it. Its like the left believes that as long as you cater to your voter block, even if it is obvious they don’t respect you or your views, then eventually they will see it your way and will agree with you. Even conservatives are not that stupid, as they make sure that their voters at least agree with their views. “Vote republican, but make sure you disagree with a raise in the minimum wage because that will raise your taxes.” In politics, your supposed to make sure that your voters agree with your views, that’s politics 101. All the left are doing is not different than spoiling a child; yeah, you’re child gets what they want, but that does not mean that respect your authority or agree with you. It creates a worse mentality, and can often damage that person or group in the long run if your keep agreeing with their views when they contradict your own. I would say the left are being naïve, but it sounds more like arrogance, thinking that eventually they will see it your way without actually explaining to them what they want them to do.

It does not just extend to politics it extends to media to. For instance, black people are right or usually in the higher pecking order than whites. What are some stereotypes for blacks? Well, there good at sports, are good at sex and can dance, which are qualities that white people do not have. Well, those are the positives for black people, what are the negatives? They like fried chicken and watermelon. That’s not a negative, that’s neutral at best because nearly every culture loves fried chicken and watermelon. Its normal food to like. Black people have hardly any negative sterotypes that is their own and come out looking like the ubermench. You’re not making fun of someone if all your saying is complements about them. Hell, its getting so bad that even things that are not considered compliments are written off as positives. I keep on hearing about how Mexicans are amazing for doing basic manual labor. C’mon, its basic manual labor, what retard cant even do that? Even a child will roll their eyes if someone treats that as a good thing. Excelling at mediocrity is not something worthy of praise, and if that is the best compliment you can give to that culture, why the hell are you not helping that culture?

Liberals think conservatives are stupid, when the opposite is true.

This one pisses me off, not because I like conservatives, but because so many problems with politics could be fixed if the left respected their enemies intelligence. I always hear that conservatives are dumber than liberals, based on how stuff they say and how many liberals are in college compared to conservatives. (Even though college is mostly frivolous and is actually a bad investment.) So, I have a question for the Left; if conservatives are so stupid, why do they own nearly all the big businesses? Oil, automobiles, agriculture, industry etc. have a firm grip from the right. Sure, the left has unions and universities, but that pales in comparison to the rights ownership of corportations, which has more influence around the globe. It makes sense if you think about the usual mentality of the right; they are introverts who care about making a profit and don’t care how they get it done. A job just cares about achieving profit, not if you like doing it or not, so it makes sense that someone as indifferent as a conservative would be good at making money. The major problem is Liberals do not understand that mentality, and just call them stupid and xenophobic, when the problem is that conservative are not stupid or xenophobic, considering that they are the ones providing jobs for illegal immigrants.

I remember someone saying on this forum that 70% of Muslims Immigrants are men coming to Europe. That does not surprise me as Europe is one of those aging nations that are looking for cheap manual labor. I think the occasional immigrations is a good thing, providing that the ones coming into the country are documented and there should be a limit per year how many are coming. The problem is that there is a flood of immigrants coming in not because they are hard to control, but because industry wants cheap labor. If too many people come in, there wont be as much demand for labor, so companies can pay cheaper wages to laborers, as they are more expendable. And with the flood of immigrants coming in, the wages can be kept at a constant low. That’s not a conspiracy theory, that business 101. What helps is liberals are calling racism to the act and thinking that it is damaging conservatives. Ignoring that the European Union are a bunch of sovereign nations and can actually decide who they want into their country, liberals are just doing a favor for the conservatives. With no one controlling the wave of immigration, conservatives, who pretty much own industry, can make a profit from exploiting both the immigrants and the Europeans. And if Europe goes to hell, fuck it, the industries will just move their operations to third world nations, like what they did in the United States. The conservatives are not losing, there winning, exploiting the lefts desire to take care of everyone but their own people. Multiculturalism isn’t a liberal idea, it’s a conservative one, because its easier to make a buck off of someone if they all believe in the same ideas.

One a side not, is the any nation out there other then white ones that believe in multiculturalism? You may call it racism, but I believe cultures have a right to separate if they choose, be they Black, White, Asian etc. Variety is the spice of life.

Liberals even fail to understand what they have interests in I think its pretty asinine that there are still a lot of fundamentalists not wanting to teach evolution in school.  What is even crazier is it would be so easy just for the fundamentalist to say god created evolution and let that be the end of that. However, while I think fundamentalists are bad at science, I would still trust their scientific knowledge over a liberals. Two pre-faces: 
a.     While it is annoying that fundies do not believe in evolution, I at least understand their refusal. Evolution is not something you can observe. Its not Pokemon, Evolution is something that happens in the past tense, so people, especially children, would have a hard time believing in something that they cant see. Global Warming is the same but in a future tense, and that’s even trickier because that’s not looking at the past for answers, that guessing what will happen in the future, and people can easily fuck up that. For all the faults fundies have, at least they agree with present tense science. Like, you will not find too many conservatives disagreeing that whales are mammals as they produce milk and give out live young. Even the more hard core fundie could agree with that scientific fact.
b.     I find that the definition of a first world problem is plastic surgery. I’m not saying everyone who has plastic surgery is stupid, sometimes the surgery themselves can fix physical mistakes, like adjusting your nose so that it looks nicer and you can breath better. Even if it is just purely for cosmetic, I don’t have a problem with if the changes are subtle enough. My problem is when people go extreme with it, like people who try to look exactly like Barbie or Mat Damon is when it becomes a problem, as you are trying to become someone you are not. I think its fair to say the more extreme you go with plastic surgery, the more shallow it becomes. 
Well I think we can agree with what I am saying, lets talk about human anatomy and transsexuals! Yeah, for all the faults the fundies have, at least they don’t disagree with stuff on a present tense level. Yeah, they may take out their kids for sex eds in school, but at least its on the grounds that they think their kids are too young to learn about that stuff. At least its not the liberal refusal of “How dare you hurt the feelings of those who cant help but feel that their the opposite sex!” 1. feelings are not facts and 2. You have to actually learn about the opposite sex in order to know that there is an opposite sex, so it does not have a biological drive in it at all. You libtards. Normally, I’m okay with people butchering themselves as long as it dosent affect me. My problem is that liberals are saying that transgender is scientific, when Liberals also say that sexuality is a social construct. Well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways, but I prefer the social construct one because it allows us to have choices.Another problem I have is supporting this tranny stuff is more damaging than helpful. Even after surgery, trannies still have a 50% suicide rate. Now, I’m not one for statistic; they have their place, but the only time people use stats is want to win an argument, so they will cherry pick the ones that support their views. No, I didn’t use the stats for the sake of winning an argument, I choose the stat because no one should be surprised by the high suicide rate. By that I mean YOU CUT OFF YOUR JUNK FOR A SHALLOW REPRESENTATION OF FAKE GENTILLA WHILE SPEED BALLING HORMONES AND VARIOUS OTHER DRUGS, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THAT IS GOING TO DO TO YOUR BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM! You don’t think someone going to be kind of fucked up mentally from that? Even tweekers can tell that mixing hard core drugs  is going to fuck up the trannies brain and body.  It messes up your brain, it shortens your life span, it makes your life miserable, so why, all because you couldn’t admit defeat on a shallow level? You can call me a monster, but if Kurt Cobain mother can call his suicide stupid, why cant I call a trannies obvious, hollow and self inflicting ‘tragedy’ stupid too? But what’s really horrible is when they commit suicide, Liberals say “we are all to blame, (especially the conservatives who made fun of them.)” No! It was yore fault in turning these people in a Frankenstein monster! If you ask me, trannies commit suicide because they realize what they did was stupid, but Liberals will say that they made the right choice because they don’t want to admit that their wrong! I know all Liberals are not like this, but why support an obviously monstrous act? 

Last Edited By: ohitsyou May 31 16 9:28 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Jun 1 16 12:35 PM

I learned not to give a shit about those extremists working within the capitalist system. Most of them are ignorant of what cause so much inequality, that they rather treat the symptoms as opposed to addressing the cause of it all. In short, they either don't know what they're talking about, or have trouble getting the point across.

Also, that political chart is too vegue to be properly used; replace left/right with socialist/capitalist and we'll be good.

Last Edited By: Melonhead Jun 1 16 12:41 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#23 [url]

Jun 1 16 1:30 PM

True, some of them are ignorant, but I just think conservatives are more aware then the liberals give them credit for. The thing with conservatives is that they don't care about most people, including their voters. If you want to look at a party who always seems to have pockets in corporations, its deffintely the conservatives, becuase their more concerned in making a profit for themselves. I dont think their sociopaths, I believe they care for their immediate family, but are at best indifferent to their voters. My problem with conservatives is that they only care about making a profit, while the liberals think their too stupid to even tie their own shoes, always talking about how racist and ignorant thier party is, while ignoring that the liberals just said how white people are all inherientely evil. Things in Washington would go so much smoother is the Liberals just said "Okay, here are some new programs that will help their general people. Dont worry, these programs will also help net you a nice profit." Conservatives are not stupid evil racist, they are indifferent pragmatic introverts who's primary concern is to make a quick buck, while the Liberals seem to only care about appearing intellligence and well-versed, when in reality their actually pretty incompetent at politics. Conservatives sin is succesful greed, but the liberals is inept pride which the latter is more damaging if you ask me.

Last Edited By: ohitsyou Jun 1 16 1:34 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 163

#24 [url]

Jun 1 16 2:40 PM

Melonhead wrote:

Also, that political chart is too vegue to be properly used; replace left/right with socialist/capitalist and we'll be good.

Nah. Classical liberalism and neoliberalism split on that line, and it leaves out the cultural values of either as well as anything distinctly conservative. It would be very hard to plot Milton Friedman, for example, on that graph, as he was ardently libertarian and pro-capitalist. You'd have to shove him in a corner, and you'd be hard pressed to find pro-socialism libertarians. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#25 [url]

Jun 1 16 2:44 PM

This chart does not seem well thought out. At all.  It even asks an astrology question. It feels more like i'm reading a fortune rather than telling me what my political affliation is. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

peabrain

Regular User

Posts: 167

#26 [url]

Jun 1 16 5:27 PM

ohitsyou wrote:
What I don’t get is if I called liberals cock juggling thunder cunts, I always have to explain myself, like conservativism is flawed without explanation but liberalism is the better one so I have to explain why dislike the “superior” one.
 

I can only speak for American politics, because what's considered liberal or conservative can vary greatly country by country. Our Democrats would be considered conservative in many European countries.

As for US conservatives, I think a lot of people are disillusioned by the social issues many conservatives use as part of their platform to get elected. Ted Cruz, for example, is super-duper against gay marriage. I even recall an interview of his where he said he wanted to oust the Supreme Court for allowing same sex marriage. Additionally, a lot of conservatives put way too much energy into limiting female reproductive healthcare. It's an issue they probably should leave alone and instead focus primarily on the economy.
ohitsyou
So, I have a question for the Left; if conservatives are so stupid, why do they own nearly all the big businesses?

You answered your own question in a later post. These big business owners support the politicians/party that serve their needs. Why do you think so many corporations support Hillary Clinton, for example? She's not a Republican.
ohitsyou
a.     While it is annoying that fundies do not believe in evolution, I at least understand their refusal. Evolution is not something you can observe. Its not Pokemon, Evolution is something that happens in the past tense, so people, especially children, would have a hard time believing in something that they cant see.

First, evolution is not something you "believe in." It's something you understand. Second, evolution is absolutely something you can observe. Where do you think antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains come from?  Third, evolution is not something that only occured historically. Evolution is an abstract concept, which is why it requires understanding. Many people will never understand evolution because they will never receive the appropriate information in their lifetime. Other people are just stubborn. It really has nothing to do with belief.

The rest of your post seems like a rant about transgender people, so I'll refrain from commenting since there's already a discussion about that in the DoA thread.

And the political compass test is FOR FUN. If you're curious why some of the statements are included, read the FAQ. You're literally bringing up the exact same thing that other posters already have.
 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,165

#27 [url]

Jun 1 16 5:43 PM

peabrain wrote:

I even recall an interview of his where he said he wanted to oust the Supreme Court for allowing same sex marriage.

 

This is actually a somewhat contentious issue that goes beyond gay marriage itself. A fair number of legal scholars don't like the court ruling simply because it's not the Supreme Court's place to dictate policy; that's the legislature's job. Giving the court that kind of power takes it out of the hands of voters. Of course, there's also the belief that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place and be kept a strictly private affair, but that something that doesn't get discussed.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,098

#28 [url]

Jun 1 16 5:54 PM

plarblman wrote:

peabrain wrote:

I even recall an interview of his where he said he wanted to oust the Supreme Court for allowing same sex marriage.


 

This is actually a somewhat contentious issue that goes beyond gay marriage itself. A fair number of legal scholars don't like the court ruling simply because it's not the Supreme Court's place to dictate policy; that's the legislature's job. Giving the court that kind of power takes it out of the hands of voters. Of course, there's also the belief that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place and be kept a strictly private affair, but that something that doesn't get discussed.

I am so sick of hearing of marriage as being something the government has nothing to do with.  You cannot have marriage without government.  Marriage isn't between just two people; it involves property rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, etc.  Should the government have allowed Jerry Lee Lewis to have married his 13-year-old cousin?  And the government has the right to say who can marry.  Can brothers and sisters marry?  Can you marry a 9-year-old child?  (Yes, in Iran.)  Can you have 23 wives?  (A reference to as Bud Lite commercial.)  No, the US Constitution does NOT say that gay marriage is legal.  The SCOTUS overstepped its authority.  And abortion is not a right either.  Why not infanticide, while you're at it?  It should be noted that the government can take away chldren whose families abuse them.

For the record, if you want gay marriage to truly be a right, let the legislature make it into a law.  Just remember that what the SCOTUS can give, it can just as easily take away.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,098

#29 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:00 PM

peabrain wrote:
First, evolution is not something you "believe in." It's something you understand. Second, evolution is absolutely something you can observe. Where do you think antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains come from?  Third, evolution is not something that only occured historically. Evolution is an abstract concept, which is why it requires understanding. Many people will never understand evolution because they will never receive the appropriate information in their lifetime. Other people are just stubborn. It really has nothing to do with belief.

 

Oh yes it does.  You obviously don't understand science.

None other than the late science fiction author Keith Laumer had pointed out that what modern people "know" is what authorities tell them.  Do we really know that the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth?  Of course not.  Ordinary people cannot determine that themselves.  We depend on authorities to tell us this.  Scientific authorities also told us that the Piltdown Man was real too.  Blind faith exists just as much now as it did in ancient times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,165

#30 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:12 PM

Long Tom wrote:
I am so sick of hearing of marriage as being something the government has nothing to do with.  You cannot have marriage without government.  Marriage isn't between just two people; it involves property rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, etc.  Should the government have allowed Jerry Lee Lewis to have married his 13-year-old cousin?  And the government has the right to say who can marry.  Can brothers and sisters marry?  Can you marry a 9-year-old child?  (Yes, in Iran.)  Can you have 23 wives?  (A reference to as Bud Lite commercial.)

The issue is where the government derives its precedence for marriage rules. Traditionally, marriage was a religious institution, hence marriage laws followed the rules of said religion. But since the government has made it clear that it doesn't follow the Christian rule on "no gay marriage", then you can expect the rest to follow, save for child brides. That would likely fall under the legal precedent of children being unable to consent to legally binding contracts. You're going to see everything else get challenged and the government isn't going to be able to put up a strong enough arguement to uphold them.

The point I'm trying to make is that marriage is, first and foremost, a religious thing, and getting government involved is inhereintly dangerous. If you want to know what I mean, look at how Canada penalizes churches that don't agree to do gay marriages (to the point that some churches have opted not to hold marriage ceremonies at all). Yes, I acknowledge that marriage is also tied to legal institutions such as custody rights and such, but I am too damn scared of the government deciding it has a say in your personal life to care about that. If there were some way around that issue, I'd be all for it. I don't care if a gay couple adopts children or gets tax breaks, I don't even care if they find a church that will marry them. But once you invite an organization with the power to take away your freedom to decide for you what you're allowed to believe and practice, you are not a free citizen anymore.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#31 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:16 PM

You answered your own question in a later post. These big business owners support the politicians/party that serve their needs. Why do you think so many corporations support Hillary Clinton, for example? She's not a Republican.

Its actually why I like Hillary. She is one of the very few liberals who are aware of how much control corporations have. I mean, have you been to my college campus? With a bunch of students praising how free they are from corporate control, the only drink you can buy is coke, and their having an Eli Lily Job fair in the main hall. There not even being subtle about it. With Republicans, they allow the corporations to do whatever they want, but I think Hillary could negatioate with them and hopefully create a better economy and work system with them. I'm not naive and am going to say that is what Hillary will do and that are her intentions, but you cannot deny that she seems more competent than Bernie Sanders. And competency is a rarity among democrats. I'm not saying I agree with how corporations work, and I wish a lot of them could be dismantled, but maybe if you listen to their demands, and be smart about it and make sure they are not screwing you over, I think someone like Hillary could do that.

First, evolution is not something you "believe in." It's something you understand. Second, evolution is absolutely something you can observe. Where do you think antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains come from?  Third, evolution is not something that only occured historically. Evolution is an abstract concept, which is why it requires understanding. Many people will never understand evolution because they will never receive the appropriate information in their lifetime. Other people are just stubborn. It really has nothing to do with belief.

I said "believe" as in more of how a child would aproach evolution, and comparing it to the Westboro Church, who have that same mentality. And antibiotic bacterial strains comes off of has more adaptation than evolution. You know, your body builds immunity towards are substance the more you consume it. Even fundies understand that. I'm talking about the evolution of a monkey becoming a human (I know thats not how it actually works) becuase that is so much harder to proof, becuase you cant literally show it happening. You have to use past tense data to proof your research, and people tend to believe stuff if they can physically observe it. 
I understand what you mean by "abstract concept" but that comes off as more like it only exists if you believe in it enough, which ironically comes of as a belief. Like I said, understood what you meant, but someone could easily dismantle that notion of "abstract concept."
Yeah, people are stubborn but, meh. Its not like learning evolution is going to help to general population anytime soon. Its best used when playing trivia pursuit. Kind of frivolous.

I can only speak for American politics, because what's considered liberal or conservative can vary greatly country by country. Our Democrats would be considered conservative in many European countries.

As for US conservatives, I think a lot of people are disillusioned by the social issues many conservatives use as part of their platform to get elected. Ted Cruz, for example, is super-duper against gay marriage. I even recall an interview of his where he said he wanted to oust the Supreme Court for allowing same sex marriage. Additionally, a lot of conservatives put way too much energy into limiting female reproductive healthcare. It's an issue they probably should leave alone and instead focus primarily on the economy. 


Kind of the problem with European countries, huh? So liberal that they are willing allow foreigners in even if it hurts their citizens. Not very smart.
I doubt Ted Cruz would make any of those promises. When conservatives get into office, there more concerned with making money than keeping the promises of gay marriage or abortion rights. They hardly ever keep those promises, its more of getting the most votes during elections, which they get becuase liberals have open disdain for Middle America. Listen to Bernie Sanders about how poor black have it harder then whites, ignoring how bad it can get out in the boonies for poor white people no one cares about. I wonder why conservative get the midwest vote? 
Conservatives use these issues of gay marriage and abotion as a distraction; Ted Cruz is also big about removing corporate tax cuts, which as stated, is something conservatives would support becuase they get more money. Thats why conservatives pressed more for Cruz then Trump to win, becuase while Trump does have money and owns a corporation, his business is more on the entertainment side. With Cruz, he's more on the agricultural, industry and big oil side, the big money makers for conservatives and the reason they get into office. Not saying I'm right, but when has a conservative never been more interested in tax cuts than the issues that they promise?

Yeah, I know its for fun, but I find the chart to be more silly than helpful. It just felt more like my tea leaves were being read.

Last Edited By: ohitsyou Jun 1 16 6:20 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

peabrain

Regular User

Posts: 167

#32 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:26 PM


plarblman wrote:
This is actually a somewhat contentious issue that goes beyond gay marriage itself. A fair number of legal scholars don't like the court ruling simply because it's not the Supreme Court's place to dictate policy; that's the legislature's job. Giving the court that kind of power takes it out of the hands of voters.


Except that gay marriage should have already been legal according to the law. If you read the decision it clearly explains how the law already supports SSM.

Long Tom wrote:
No, the US Constitution does NOT say that gay marriage is legal.


http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/

Long Tom wrote:
Oh yes it does.  You obviously don't understand science.


According to whom? You? Science and belief are two entirely different animals. Can people "believe" in a scientific theory? Yes, but they don't understand it.

ohitsyou wrote:

I'm not saying I agree with how corporations work, and I wish a lot of them could be dismantled, but maybe if you listen to their demands, and be smart about it and make sure they are not screwing you over, I think someone like Hillary could do that.

And antibiotic bacterial strains comes off of has more adaptation than evolution.


I'm starting to see why people think you're a troll.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,098

#33 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:27 PM

plarblman wrote:

Long Tom wrote:
I am so sick of hearing of marriage as being something the government has nothing to do with.  You cannot have marriage without government.  Marriage isn't between just two people; it involves property rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, etc.  Should the government have allowed Jerry Lee Lewis to have married his 13-year-old cousin?  And the government has the right to say who can marry.  Can brothers and sisters marry?  Can you marry a 9-year-old child?  (Yes, in Iran.)  Can you have 23 wives?  (A reference to as Bud Lite commercial.)
 

The issue is where the government derives its precedence for marriage rules. Traditionally, marriage was a religious institution, hence marriage laws followed the rules of said religion. But since the government has made it clear that it doesn't follow the Christian rule on "no gay marriage", then you can expect the rest to follow, save for child brides. That would likely fall under the legal precedent of children being unable to consent to legally binding contracts. You're going to see everything else get challenged and the government isn't going to be able to put up a strong enough arguement to uphold them.

The point I'm trying to make is that marriage is, first and foremost, a religious thing, and getting government involved is inhereintly dangerous. If you want to know what I mean, look at how Canada penalizes churches that don't agree to do gay marriages (to the point that some churches have opted not to hold marriage ceremonies at all). Yes, I acknowledge that marriage is also tied to legal institutions such as custody rights and such, but I am too damn scared of the government deciding it has a say in your personal life to care about that. If there were some way around that issue, I'd be all for it. I don't care if a gay couple adopts children or gets tax breaks, I don't even care if they find a church that will marry them. But once you invite an organization with the power to take away your freedom to decide for you what you're allowed to believe and practice, you are not a free citizen anymore.

Marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a LEGAL institution!  It's like saying that owning a car is a religious institution.  If marriage were a religious institution, atheists be definition could not possibly legally marry.  As for Canada, it sound suspiciously like a police state, even if ostensibly a democracy.

So you have completely failed to refute a word of what I have said.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 163

#34 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:31 PM

plarblman wrote:

peabrain wrote:

I even recall an interview of his where he said he wanted to oust the Supreme Court for allowing same sex marriage.


 

This is actually a somewhat contentious issue that goes beyond gay marriage itself. A fair number of legal scholars don't like the court ruling simply because it's not the Supreme Court's place to dictate policy; that's the legislature's job. Giving the court that kind of power takes it out of the hands of voters. Of course, there's also the belief that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place and be kept a strictly private affair, but that something that doesn't get discussed.

There are a good few libertarians that take the stance, and actually I think some conservatives. I believe this position is probably closer to western classical liberalism specifically in regards to dual federalisms, like the US. I think the general argument goes that, while there are certain things the government must be involved with with marriage, state governments could handle a lot more than we currently allow them, and the federal government's role could merely be to smooth out differences between states and provide the legal framework for cross-state dramatics. 

Outside of even legal scholars, a lot of people plainly believe that the court's move towards activism has lost its purpose as an institution. Problem is, even people who bitched about this, like Scalia, had no qualms with using the court to advocate for their own pet projects. The whole "lifetime appointment" thing needs to be rethought with the way it works now, honestly. Of course, the notion of a president being able to dismiss the justices is a clear breach of balance of power... not that all too many americans much give a damn about that, since the legislative sits on its fat ass whining about whatever the lobbyists paid the most for on that day.



I think we're getting sidetracked into some ameri-centric topics, here, though, and breaking into politics-as-usual for this particular country and less regarding the overall SJW-focused discussion. Which, I mean, I don't much mind, beyond that my views on virtually every major politician at the moment are "they are reflective of the end stage of a terrible marriage of capitalism and government: worthless, deceitful, and as incompetent as the shoddy businesses that rely on them to keep competition down." 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#35 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:33 PM

I'm starting to see why people think you're a troll.

Sorry, I just dont consider me building up an immunity to a cold to be a sign of "evolution." Thats what the bacteria example sounded like.

As Ive said, I am not sure if that is how Hillary would do it, nor am I claiming thats what will happen. I'm just saying its smarter than Bernie Sanders saying he wants to dismalntle it. C'mon, youre making yourself a target for the corporations and banks! At least dont act like a retard and say "I dont know how to do it." Why do people support this guy? 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,098

#36 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:33 PM

peabrain wrote:

plarblman wrote:
[left]This is actually a somewhat contentious issue that goes beyond gay marriage itself. A fair number of legal scholars don't like the court ruling simply because it's not the Supreme Court's place to dictate policy; that's the legislature's job. Giving the court that kind of power takes it out of the hands of voters.

Except that gay marriage should have already been legal according to the law. If you read the decision it clearly explains how the law already supports SSM.
Long Tom wrote:
No, the US Constitution does NOT say that gay marriage is legal.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/
Long Tom wrote:
Oh yes it does.  You obviously don't understand science.

According to whom? You? Science and belief are two entirely different animals. Can people "believe" in a scientific theory? Yes, but they don't understand it.
ohitsyou
I'm not saying I agree with how corporations work, and I wish a lot of them could be dismantled, but maybe if you listen to their demands, and be smart about it and make sure they are not screwing you over, I think someone like Hillary could do that.

And antibiotic bacterial strains comes off of has more adaptation than evolution.

I'm starting to see why people think you're a troll.
 [/left]
How about pointing out this law?  I'd like to see it.  Of course an expert shyster can reinterpret laws in very convoluted ways.

Sorry, but scientists are just as guilty of blind faith as anyone else, as well as being influenced by politics.  Piltdown Man, again.  Scientists are not gods and are just as capable of being held back by orthodox beliefs as us ordinary schlubs.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

peabrain

Regular User

Posts: 167

#37 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:42 PM

Long Tom wrote:
How about pointing out this law?  I'd like to see it.  Of course an expert shyster can reinterpret laws in very convoluted ways.

It's all written clearly in their decision. The 14th Amendment guarantees that gays have a fundamental right to marry.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 163

#38 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:44 PM

The 14th amendment argument for SSM in the US was very tricky, built so far as I can tell around this clause

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If one establishes that the right to marry is a privilege of all US citizens, and one separates marriage from its definition as one-man one-woman, then states constitutionally barring SSM were in violation of the constitution. However, those two things needed to be established, which is why that case was contentious all the way up. I, personally, disagree with the ruling because of one other caveat in the fourteenth amendment:

"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress should have made the change, I personally believe. However, regarding that specific case itself, as I recall it was being settled regarding some of the more nuanced shit regarding the benefits of married peoples, and Congress is loathe to actually go in and work in depth on any bill at any time. It's the branch of government I detest the most and would really enjoy fundamentally overhauling in ways that folk like Thomas Sowell have suggested: longer terms, but only ever single terms for reps and senators.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,165

#39 [url]

Jun 1 16 6:48 PM

Long Tom wrote:
Marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a LEGAL institution!  It's like saying that owning a car is a religious institution.  If marriage were a religious institution, atheists be definition could not possibly legally marry.  

Marriage far predates marriage law. We're talking like ancient times here. Secular government had no authority over marriage until the early modern period.

As for whether atheists being unable to get married, it would be a moot point. If marriage is strictly a religious institution, atheists lose nothing by not getting married. If they want to form a couple, they can still do that. If they want to make vows, they can still do that. It simply won't be recognized under the formalities of a religion like it normally would, which they wouldn't even care about in the first place.

How about we say the government can give out civil unions (which would functionally and legally be identical to marriages today) but it has no authority on what religions consider is marriage? Is that a fair compromise?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

peabrain

Regular User

Posts: 167

#40 [url]

Jun 1 16 7:33 PM

Beardfist wrote:
"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress should have made the change, I personally believe. However, regarding that specific case itself, as I recall it was being settled regarding some of the more nuanced shit regarding the benefits of married peoples, and Congress is loathe to actually go in and work in depth on any bill at any time. It's the branch of government I detest the most and would really enjoy fundamentally overhauling in ways that folk like Thomas Sowell have suggested: longer terms, but only ever single terms for reps and senators.
 

Just from a little cursory research, it looks like a lot of civil rights court cases were decided upon because Congress did not pass "corrective legislation."I think my favorite is Lawrence v. Texas.
 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help