Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Jarhyn]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

It does not make you any kind of freak. I’m glad if it turned out well for you.

I even get it: I remember very well what boys in high school were like —made fresher by raising sons of my own and seeing it through different lenses.

Sometimes it works out well, whether the relationship lasts or does not. Just like any other relationship. But the age difference can create a power difference that does not work out well for the younger person.

I just bolded the part that I think is quite important here.

Politesse understands my meaning, as well.

 

[Toni]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

It does not make you any kind of freak. I’m glad if it turned out well for you.

I even get it: I remember very well what boys in high school were like —made fresher by raising sons of my own and seeing it through different lenses.

Sometimes it works out well, whether the relationship lasts or does not. Just like any other relationship. But the age difference can create a power difference that does not work out well for the younger person.

I just bolded the part that I think is quite important here.

Politesse understands my meaning, as well.

Yeah, I know girls that didn’t turn out so well for.

 

[Bomb#20]

 District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
...
The ruling overturned longstanding precedent. Seems to me that a fundamental constitutional right would not need to overturn a longstanding precedent, because such a fundamental right would have been understood.

Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia overturned longstanding precedents*. Do you consider equal protection of the law to be a nonfundamental constitutional right?

(* The longstanding precedents that had upheld segregation and prohibition of interracial marriage.)

Are we really comparing the outright violation of equal protection as it regards segregation with the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

No, we're comparing the length of time that the old precedents stayed in force before they were overturned. Heller rejected a 66-year-old interpretation; BvBoE rejected a 58-year-old interpretation; Loving rejected an 84-year-old interpretation. LD implied a right can't be fundamental if denial of that right had stood too long; I disagreed -- I think there's no limit to how long judges can manage to keep breathing with their heads up their asses. What do you think? Do you think equal protection can't be fundamental because if it were fundamental then it wouldn't have been misunderstood for 84 years?

You are asking the wrong question.

No, I was asking the right question: whether you agree with the previous poster's argument that I was refuting in the exchange you cut into. If whether his argument was any good is not of interest to you, you're free to talk about whatever you'd rather talk about and you don't need my involvement to do so.

Precedence matters because it provides stability and elasticity. When overriding precedence, there generally needed to be a very important reason to do so, because otherwise the interpretation of law becomes plastic and breakable and worst of all... partisan. In general, between 1950 and 2004 or so, SCOTUS has broken precedence to expand access to civil rights. In general, the idea that a law has stood a certain way for a period of time implies a not broken / don't fix it sort of thing. Yes, SCOTUS has erred. Yes, mistakes can last a long while.

Settling a conflict among lower court precedents is generally considered a very important reason. Interpretation of law is already plastic when federal law is different in courtrooms under the 1st Circuit and the 5th Circuit, and utterly unknowable in the 3rd Circuit where courts have no guidance on which precedent to violate.

Regarding whether a right is fundamental feels like a red herring.

If so, take it up with the previous poster.

Gun ownership was higher during the stretch of the SCOTUS precedence broken in Heller et al.

What SCOTUS precedence?!? It was 1st Circuit & 9th Circuit precedents they broke. It was 5th Circuit & DC Circuit precedents they would have had to break if they'd upheld the precedents you like better. There was no SCOTUS precedent. Previous SCOTUS opinions on the point were dicta, not precedents -- and they favored the individual right interpretation.

than it is currently is now. This implies the rights as noted in the 2nd Amendment weren't being starved from the people. So what exactly was broken that needed to be fixed?

Do you seriously think that's a good argument? Voting rates were higher in the Gilded Age than they currently are now; do you think that implies the right to vote as noted in the 15th Amendment wasn't being starved from the people so barring a black person from voting didn't mean anything was broken? The rights as noted in the 2nd Amendment were being starved from Mr. Heller. The fact that lots of Texan people got to have guns did Heller as much good as the fact that lots of white people got to vote in 1892 did that black guy.

Precedence was broken in Brown v BoE because Plessy v Ferguson was supremely [misguided]. There was substantial generational harm being done in America via segregation and the Constitution itself didn't condone that. Just a 19th Century Supreme Court bench and a lot of bigotry.

Not sure what the antecedent of "that" is. If you mean the Constitution doesn't condone segregation, you're exactly right. If you mean the Constitution doesn't condone substantial generational harm, sure it does.

Harm is crucial when it comes to lawsuits. No harm, no standing, no case. Well, that was how it was working for a long while. This SCOTUS is charging even that.

You're conflating standing with substance. Harm is relevant to whether you get a day in court but not relevant to whether what the legislature did to you violates the constitution, except in the rare cases where the constitution says something about harm, like the 8th Amendment. And you have to show harm to yourself to get standing -- harm being generational is immaterial.

The harm from segregation was generational, which is why SCOTUS decided to act firmly in Brown v BoE.

No doubt -- Supreme Court justices are emotional humans, not Vulcans. But generational harm isn't what it takes to make a government practice unconstitutional.

Whether a practice is doing too much harm to be continued is a Congress question, not a SCOTUS question, although our current SCOTUS apparently doesn't know the difference and thinks it's a House of Lords.

I think you are conflating a number of things here. Harm is most certainly a judicial thing. People go exclusively to court to manage harm.

You're conflating motive with legal reasoning.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

It does not make you any kind of freak. I’m glad if it turned out well for you.

I even get it: I remember very well what boys in high school were like —made fresher by raising sons of my own and seeing it through different lenses.

Sometimes it works out well, whether the relationship lasts or does not. Just like any other relationship. But the age difference can create a power difference that does not work out well for the younger person.

I just bolded the part that I think is quite important here.

Politesse understands my meaning, as well.

Yeah, I know girls that didn’t turn out so well for.

But don't you know, if someone had a good experience for a thing, that means everyone else must've had a good experience too and all bad experiences are false!

 

[Bomb#20]

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

It does not make you any kind of freak. I’m glad if it turned out well for you.

I even get it: I remember very well what boys in high school were like —made fresher by raising sons of my own and seeing it through different lenses.

Sometimes it works out well, whether the relationship lasts or does not. Just like any other relationship. But the age difference can create a power difference that does not work out well for the younger person.

A lot of things besides age can create a power difference between teenagers. Family wealth. Access to a car. Popularity. Male strength. And, we're now regularly assured, membership in marginalized ethnicities. Not sure we should conclude a poor black 16-year-old girl isn't mature enough for dinner and a movie with a rich white 16-year-old boy on the track team. But I hope we can all agree 22-year-old Tyler Robinson wasn't mature enough for access to a rifle.

 

[Derec]

To get back to "armed people at protests" part of discussion, is this also wrong, or is it ok because of the arms bearers' race and politics?

 

[laughing dog]

To get back to "armed people at protests" part of discussion, is this also wrong, or is it ok because of the arms bearers' race and politics?

View attachment 53373

It is wrong. But you just can’t help yourself.

 

[Derec]

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

No, just the victim of a groomer who correctly sensed vulnerability and took what he wanted while it was fresh. There are many like him, I meet them every day. They are the scum of our society, and they have done nothing to earn your support.

They were close in age. To say that the 19 year old teenagers was a "groomer" because he dated a girl who was three years younger is just insanity.
But your (and Jarhyn's and Toni's) attitude shows that the MAGA Right is by far not the only illiberal, authoritarian movement in our society.

It's obvious Jarhyn doesn't think you're sick because you are the victim of abuse.

How is dating somebody close in age even remotely the same as being "the victim of abuse"?

 

[Derec]

It is wrong. But you just can’t help yourself.

Help myself pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left who think Rosenbaum was justified in attacking Rittenhouse because the latter was armed? No, I could not.

 

[Arctish]

It is wrong. But you just can’t help yourself.

Help myself pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left who think Rosenbaum was justified in attacking Rittenhouse because the latter was armed? No, I could not.

Derec, you are not this ignorant or this incapable of thought. No one said Rosenbaum was "justified in attacking Rittenhouse because the latter was armed".

There were other people at that protest who were armed, some of them very openly carrying long guns of the same type or similar to Rittenhouse's AR-15. None of them were chased or run off by another protester. So while it was extremely irresponsible and stupid for 17 year old Rittenhouse to be out there unsupervised with a gun he could not legally own, that was not the reason he was chased by Rosenbaum.

Rittenhouse was accused by one of the protesters of having pointed a his gun at him, and his response was "Yes, I did". At the trial the Prosecution played the drone video that shows Rittenhouse dropped his fire extinguisher and pointed his gun at the protesters right before Rosenbaum called him an asshole and ran at him.

Rittenhouse was brandishing and menacing. That's why he was chased.

So unless you're prepared to offer evidence that the guys in your picture were doing something the armed militia guys in Kenosha weren't, that they were pointing the barrels of their weapons at people either intentionally or carelessly, your post is just an expression of how alarmed you are when black people act like they have the same Rights and privileges as white people and can be just as publicly obnoxious as anyone else.

 

[laughing dog]

It is wrong. But you just can’t help yourself.

Help myself pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left who think Rosenbaum was justified in attacking Rittenhouse because the latter was armed? No, I could not.

But you didn’t point hypocrisy by many on the left by the photos. But your “color blind” choice of photos pointed out some hypocrisy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is wrong. But you just can’t help yourself.

Help myself pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left who think Rosenbaum was justified in attacking Rittenhouse because the latter was armed? No, I could not.

I find neither of those cases viable in a civilized world.

As far as presenting as a threat that is viable enough to act upon, I would also note that Rittenhouse wasn't marching while the people in the photo were. So the two cases aren't exactly the same though they are similar.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is wrong. But you just can’t help yourself.

Help myself pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left who think Rosenbaum was justified in attacking Rittenhouse because the latter was armed? No, I could not.

I find neither of those cases viable in a civilized world.

As far as presenting as a threat that is viable enough to act upon, I would also note that Rittenhouse wasn't marching while the people in the photo were. So the two cases aren't exactly the same though they are similar.

I think I'd go further here in not only stating what Rittenhouse was NOT doing, i.e. marching or protesting, but rather what he WAS doing. His purpose and behavior was of stalking after people he opposed and perhaps waiting for an opportunity to do what he had said he would do: kill someone stealing something or vandalizing or anything else he deemed illegal. His presence by virtue of the convolving of both his presentation and his oppositional intentions of self-ordained executioner was threatening. This is a different kind of threatening because for the recipient it is rationally based. In comparison to persons who attend a protest for the purpose of protesting because they think their 2nd amendment rights apply, it is very different. Perception by observers of such people with guns who are out protesting as threatening could in certain circumstances be more emotionally based unless there were specific evidence of violent intentions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, I'm saw an article from TheBlaze of all places about Erika Kirk and The Amazing Race. It screams Duck Dynasty all over again, with people changing their personas for money. But I don't see this anywhere else. Is this legitimate?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Emily Lake]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

And plenty of people walk the bad parts of town in a red dress and nothing bad happens to them. And to be clear, it wouldn't be "your fault" either way, but rather the rapist's fault.

Most bad decisions don't end up having bad results, and many actions that would be criminally charged end up being swept under the rug.

If bad decisions has universally bad results nobody would make those decisions for long or often.

Congratulations that YOU didn't get hurt when someone raped you, but I don't think that justifies rape apologia.

At least now we know the quiet part out loud, that you endorse child rape openly.

That’s way offside.

Emily has been pretending for decades that trans folks have been indoctrinating kids while endorsing shit like this and being very silent about child beauty pageants.

This is a false statement. I oppose medical and chemical intervention in the natural process of puberty because it has irreversible harmful effects. I also oppose child beauty pageants, I think they're an abhorrent sexualization of children and I would like them stopped. Any "silence" you want to call out is solely because I haven't been involved in discussions about it. You cannot assume that I support something I haven't fucking been asked about.

Every actual thing that would reduce child rape and possibly prepare 16 year olds for relationships with 18 year olds, she has objected to over time.

Bullshit, this is another false statement by you. Again.

And now she's spouting apologia endorsing 16 year olds with 19 year olds like there's any comparison between the two, and you are supporting her.

Apologia? You're the one who claimed that 16 year olds aren't capable of dating 19 year olds. Some states define sexual relationships with between those ages as being staturory rapes, but a great many states use romeo & juliet approaches.

Bad decisions are bad decisions even if people accidentally fail to be harmed by those decisions, and the fact is that Emily has done more than enough to cement this view of her as a "concerned" person.

Not to mention that this Very Fine Person endorsing sex between 16 year olds and 19 year olds unironically thinks that that same 16 year old being trusted to make decisions which could get her pregnant and end her career before she even starts considering college (and that IS her position given that she also is hard-line anti-abortion) is somehow simultaneously incapable of (checks notes) making ANY decision about deferring puberty.

Yet more blatantly false claims from you. I am absolutely NOT anti-abortion, and it's intentional disinformation on your part to claim so.

Despite your rhetoric, puberty cannot be delayed. It's a time-bound two-part process, and GnRH agonists do permanent damage if used for more than just a few months. They are not FDA approved for use to interrupt a normally progressing puberty.

So a 16 year old is apparently old enough to get pregnant and ruin their career prospects, maybe old enough to brandish a gun at protestors and shoot people... But not old enough to take some pills and delay puberty by 2 years.

I don't think 16 year olds should be getting pregnant in the first place, but how the fuck misogynistic are you that you think a girl getting pregnant as a teen ruins her career prospects?

Likewise, I don't think 16 year olds should be using firearms except in extremely well controlled learning situations or perhaps while hunting under the supervision of an adult. I certainly don't think they should be shooting anyone - I don't think anyone should be shooting folks in aggression!

GnRH agonists, if taken for two years do not "delay" puberty, they derail puberty, and that progress cannot be restarted.

But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your creative manipulation of untruths to feel like you're scoring internet points.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily has been pretending for decades that trans folks have been indoctrinating kids while endorsing shit like this and being very silent about child beauty pageants.

Every actual thing that would reduce child rape and possibly prepare 16 year olds for relationships with 18 year olds, she has objected to over time.

And now she's spouting apologia endorsing 16 year olds with 19 year olds like there's any comparison between the two, and you are supporting her.

I can’t comment on decades of posting history you might share.

Me pointing out a disgusting smear does not equal supporting that person or their views.

That said, the difference between a 16 yr old and a 19 yr old could be as little as 732 days. Context matters.

...732 very long days full of experience with peers at critical times following critical educational periods and a period of increased travel privileges. And let's be clear, we're talking about a more practical gap of about 1000.

Context does matter and that context matters. Including that decade of history, though.

It's neither disgusting nor a smear, either way, though: "I was 16 and dated a 19 year old and nothing happened to me" is not an argument to allow it, it's an admission of idiocy and of having taken horrible risks and having been LUCKY nothing "horrific" happened, assuming she didn't get knocked up and have her future prospects ruined because she would have become a teen mother.

Sure sure, because you know, 16 year old girls are stupid and don't know how to use birth control or condoms, and of course, if I'd gotten pregnant it would have made me damaged goods and I'd never, ever be able to have a good job because clearly nobody would hire a "ruined" woman? Seriously dude, where the fuck is your head?

Never mind that, again, we have been discussing her opposition to abortion and the power of kids to make their own choices at 16 here in this thread...

I'm not opposed to abortion. Stop spreading intentional disinformation.

It strikes me that she's be stumping for statutory rapists to get a pass (because she took that risk) and for kids to be armed in crowds and shoot people, but yet again, actually doing anything to mitigate risks of harm (making birth control available, supporting family planning, banning child trafficking pageants or passing/enforcing gun control laws) and she's all opposed!

Nothing you're saying is true. All of this is false. Why do you feel the need to spread false information in your campaign of harassment against me?

She acts like a feminist, but the only time she ever brings up rape is when she thinks that being armed with a penis makes someone "too probably a rapist" (not even balls, mind you) to use a ladies restroom, but how then can she justify that being armed with a fucking RIFLE doesn't make you too "probably a shooter" to be at a protest? At least you can remove the rifle and get it back later.

Yes. Context matters. I'm sorry that a decade in, you aren't aware of the context that Emily Lake has more ideology in common with the Nationalist Socialist Party of 1930's Germany or perhaps with Serena Joy?

You are not being truthful. Your post is so far removed from truthful that only the rules prevent me from calling it what it is.

 

[Emily Lake]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

It does not make you any kind of freak. I’m glad if it turned out well for you.

I even get it: I remember very well what boys in high school were like —made fresher by raising sons of my own and seeing it through different lenses.

Sometimes it works out well, whether the relationship lasts or does not. Just like any other relationship. But the age difference can create a power difference that does not work out well for the younger person.

It can, sure. But similarly an age difference between a 16 year old and a 17 year old can create a power difference in some circumstances. A 3 year age difference in teens is neither uncommon nor particularly dangerous. A lot of states have romeo & juliet laws in recognition of this. You don't have to agree with those laws - if you want to take the position that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is a rapist, you can take that view. But it certainly doesn't support the assertion that a 16 year old dating someone 2 to 3 years older is being abused, nor that they're not "ready" to do so.

 

[Emily Lake]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

No, just the victim of a groomer who correctly sensed vulnerability and took what he wanted while it was fresh. There are many like him, I meet them every day. They are the scum of our society, and they have done nothing to earn your support.

Wow. That's a whole lot of assumptions you've got in there. And they're pretty spectacularly wrong.

It's obvious Jarhyn doesn't think you're sick because you are the victim of abuse. He thinks it's sick to use past victimhood as an excuse to look the other way while other women are harmed, and I agree. A lot of people have hurt me. I don't love that. Did it kill me? Not yet. But I'll be damned if I'll be the one who helps them find their next victims.

I wasn't abused, I wasn't a victim, and I'm certainly not using past victimhood to look the other way while women are harmed.

Honest to FSM, what the fuck are you guys smoking?

 

[Emily Lake]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

It does not make you any kind of freak. I’m glad if it turned out well for you.

I even get it: I remember very well what boys in high school were like —made fresher by raising sons of my own and seeing it through different lenses.

Sometimes it works out well, whether the relationship lasts or does not. Just like any other relationship. But the age difference can create a power difference that does not work out well for the younger person.

I just bolded the part that I think is quite important here.

Politesse understands my meaning, as well.

Nah, Poli just enjoys taking part in your harassment campaign.