• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.
It is a big Internet and I am sure could find nasty people cheering for Kirk's murder. But they are the exceptions.
What usually happens is people talking about how appalling Kirk's opinions were get misinterpreted in a way that resembles teapartiers.
Tom
 
Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

So. When asked to substantiate your claim that A did B, you respond with non sequitur, making the (unsubstantiated!) claim that C did D.

No, don't bother blurting out that E did F. Save the neuronal effort for contemplation about your own cognitive inadequacies.
 

No, don't bother blurting out that E did F. Save the neuronal effort for contemplation about your own cognitive inadequacies.
But wait! Don’t you want to spend a couple of pages exploring the qualitative differences between laughing at Colbert getting injured or killed by violent fascists, and MAGAt morons offing themselves by injecting bleach?
 
Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

So. When asked to substantiate your claim that A did B, you respond with non sequitur, making the (unsubstantiated!) claim that C did D.

No, don't bother blurting out that E did F. Save the neuronal effort for contemplation about your own cognitive inadequacies.

Gibberish.
 
Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.
You're kind of torturing the extension of an idea.

I'm frequently baffled by some of the things that people latch onto here and want to argue into the ground with a tenacity that approaches honey badger levels.

My position is that the balance achieved by RvW was good - it was a reasonable overall position, that allowed freedom of choice for the overwhelming number of cases, but still recognized that at some point it's a baby and maybe we shouldn't kill it. My position is that if congress had actually taken the interpretation that allowed RvW, and made an actual real on-the-books law, there's a pretty good chance that it would still be in place today. It's not some crazy outlandish stretch of the imagination to recognize that actual legislation is harder to overturn than non-legislative interpretations.

Why I'm being argued with on this, I really don't understand.
 
It is interesting to note that conservatives only bring up racism if they can somehow twist it into a counter argument, and not because they actually care about racism.
I think it's dumb to continue this crusade of casting Jason Harvestdancer as a racist. It's always been dumb, and it's never been supportably or defensible. None of his posts can reasonably be viewed as racist. I can only conclude that some people here, including you, lack the ability to actually debate a position like an adult, and instead think that name calling and insinuation somehow wins over hearts and minds.
 
There have been some pretty bad things but not at the genocide level. Nobody set out to annihilate a population for religious reasons. Yes, there has been genocidal intent towards armed groups, not against groups that aren't attacking.
You will forgive me for not taking your word for any of this.
You don't need to take Loren's word for it. All you need to do is look around.

Which countries are christian theocracies enforcing fundamentalist regimes? Which christian groups have a stated intention of exterminating all non-christians from the planet? Which have actively funded recent terrorist acts targeting civilians? Which christian sects are currently engaged in religious wars? Which christian theocracies outlaw the practice of any other religion?
 
This is your assertion, so defend it.
The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Nobody is allowed to argue with a Supreme Court ruling on what the constitution allows or prohibits, except the Supreme Court.

And it is always possible to find an argument for or against any interpretation of a sufficiently complex document (such as the US Constitution). It may be a very bad argument, but if the Supreme Court accepts it as a majority opinion, it is the way the constitution must be interpreted, until the Supreme Court overturns it.
 
This is your assertion, so defend it.
The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.

Nobody is allowed to argue with a Supreme Court ruling on what the constitution allows or prohibits, except the Supreme Court.

And it is always possible to find an argument for or against any interpretation of a sufficiently complex document (such as the US Constitution). It may be a very bad argument, but if the Supreme Court accepts it as a majority opinion, it is the way the constitution must be interpreted, until the Supreme Court overturns it.
In fact, many, if not most, Supreme Court opinions gave dissents, which means that there are Justices who can find arguments for and against a specific interpretation in a single case!
 
Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.
With women like Emily Lake defending women's rights, who needs Charlie Kirk?!
Sure sure. I'm so horrible, what with my support of abortion rights up to viability with no questions asked, and wanting that to be an actual real law written as legislation so it has greater protection from legal challenge. I'm just awful, what with defending the right of women to have bodily autonomy, and the right to give or deny consent. Silly me, wanting women to have access to intimate spaces where we're naked or vulnerable that are free from males, the right of women to be housed in prison without being forced to share cells with males, and the right of women to compete in athletics against only other females. Such a horrible traitor to women everywhere, yep, that's me.
 
And everybody who is not a leftist is automatically a "conservative" to you, right?
Nope. There's no objective measure of who is on any part of the political spectrum, but as far as I can tell conservatives tend to believe highly in nationalism "'Murica is greatest country in the world!" (and whatnot), a traditionalist belief system (blue hair is bad and scary!), "strong borders" (gubmit can do whatever they want to them illegals! And whatnot), being "tough on crime" (i.e. basically allowing cops to do whatever the fuck they want), to name a few things that can make a "conservative" a conservative.
Given the way you're framing this, I would say that you've greenlit conservatives framing liberals as believing that nations are stupid and that patriotism is evil, that social norms are oppressive no matter how reasonable, that borders are dumb and everybody should be able to go wherever they want with no consideration to citizenship or contribution to the communal good, and that catch-and-release of murderers and pedophiles is a great idea that should be adopted without any hesitation whatsoever because the happiness of criminals is really important and all prisons are bad.

Basically, your caricature demonstrates a deep and profound lack of understanding of those you have decided are your opponents (or perhaps even your enemies).

If you don't actually understand your opponent's motivations, you are guaranteed to lose.
 
Of course the MAGGOTs would wallow in glee if someone like Stephen Colbert were injured, but they pretend, WITH ZERO EXAMPLES to show for their claim, that good-spirited Americans are as bigoted and evil as they are.

There was plenty glee on here when unvaccinated, ivermectin taking Americans died of covid.

So. When asked to substantiate your claim that A did B, you respond with non sequitur, making the (unsubstantiated!) claim that C did D.

No, don't bother blurting out that E did F. Save the neuronal effort for contemplation about your own cognitive inadequacies.

Gibberish.
No wonder you keep doing it.
 
One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.
Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.
First off... you've entirely missed the point, and you've snipped my post in order to support your wrong point. But I'm not surprised.

I support licensing, with required training. I don't support the removal of a constitutional right.
If you don't support the removal of a constitutional right, then you don't support amendments to the Constitution (which can add, remove or modify rights). With this approach you should be opposed to the Second Amendment, as it changed your seemingly preferred immutable Constitution. Now, of course, you are not opposed to amendments (which are themselves a process that is a part of the Constitution), but your sentence was careless, as it implied that the Constitution should not be changed.
You made the same error I did in reading the use of the article “a” literally when you should have contextually understood Emily to only be addressing the second amendment right.
Meh, it's actually somewhere in between. You both started with the assumption that I think the Constitution should never be changed, which is too much of an extension. On the other hand, you're contracting it too far by saying it's only related to 2nd Am.

To be more clear, there are no rights in the current constitution that I would support getting rid of - I think all of them currently present are good and should stay. On the other hand, I think there are things that could very reasonably be added as constitutional rights which aren't currently in there.

I don't think the constitution is immutable, but I do think that what's in there is appropriate and good.
 
Yep. Free speech is dying fast.
To you and the five people who liked your post, seriously, you guys really need to chill, and then you guys need to remember it's important to apply critical thinking,
We aren't fanning flames of war.
That depends on how broad a set you have in mind by "We".

We don't have the head of the FCC threatening a corporate merger ax'ing in order to get someone fired from television because they don't like what they are saying.
Maybe not, but it was you anticapitalists who made it possible and maybe inevitable, when you handed discretionary authority to block corporate mergers to executive-branch bureaucrats. Whether a corporate merger violates antitrust laws should depend on objective criteria spelled out in legislation.

Perhaps it'd been easier for some to know what happened at the campus if Gov. Abbott knew and didn't post false information.
Abbott didn't actually post false information. He posted the truth, just not the whole truth. Charitably, he was being a petty dick indulging himself in a bit of schadenfreude. Or maybe, as Arctish suggested, he was being deliberately misleading in order to throw red meat to his anti-free-speech base.

This Administration has arrested a judge, has <snip>
This administration has exceeded its legal authority any number of times because it reports to another dirt bag; but it's illegal to help a criminal evade arrest and judges aren't above the law.

... and is targeting "the left" because some entitled white boy shot another white boy over something personal.
Can't say what's in Robinson's heart, but he called Kirk a fascist and hateful, and those are shrink-wrapped leftist slurs. Quack like a duck, don't be surprised if you're taken for a duck.
It amazes just how far right some of the "conservatives" are here.
What the actual for realsies fuck was "far right" in Bomb's post?
 
And, yes, sex work.
Sex work is work in the same way that child labor is labor. Call it what it actually is: exploitation and commodification of women's bodies for the sexual gratification of men who don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of the people that they're LITERALLY using.
And that is somehow different than any other single-service hiring of any other worker?? I hire an electrician, I show him the wires and what I want done, I consider him far more qualified than me in judging the safety of the situation so I don't concern myself with it.
Yes, Loren, fucking someone who wouldn't otherwise be willing to touch you with a ten foot pole, and treating them as if their entire body is a commodity is different from hiring an electrician. Why don't you offer your electrician $50 to let you stick your dick in him, and see how he feels about it?
 
Another thing is given the way Trump has been talking about leftists lately, not all leftist are willing to part with their guns just yet. ;)
Nor should they. Nobody should part with the only means of self defense that overshadows sheer physical size and strength. Personally, I think a whole lot more women should be armed.

Except my sister. Love her to pieces, but she's bipolar, and I kind of think putting firearms into the hands of the mentally ill isn't really a great idea.
 
Sex work is work in the same way that child labor is labor.
Bullshit. This view is infantilizing adult women, saying that they have as little agency over their bodies as children.
Call it what it actually is: exploitation and commodification of women's bodies for the sexual gratification of men who don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of the people that they're LITERALLY using.
Again, bullshit. If two people mutually agree to exchange sexual services for money, how is that "exploitation and commodification" any more than any other service profession? And just because one hires a hooker does not mean he does not care about her welfare.

And lastly, there are also women who hire sex workers, as well as male sex workers.
If your wife, or daughter, or sister, or close female friend or relative were to announce to you that she has decided to be a prostitute, would you proudly tell your friends and neighbors about her career choice in casual conversation? Would you recommend her services to your pals? Would you have any objection to your dad hiring her services?

How many women who have other feasible employment options do you think would consider a career in prostitution? How many retail workers do you know who were forced into that job on threat of being beaten or killed? How many plumbers do you think are raped or beaten and that's just one of the risks of their job?
 
Objection: Most "mental illness" has no bearing on whether one should be allowed to own a firearm. Want to avoid the knee-jerk reactions, limit it to those whose problems are of a nature that suggests they might misuse guns. And beware of rebound--you'll keep people away from treatment to avoid getting banned. I do support denying firearms to the dangerous, it's just that we need a narrow definition, not a sweeping definition.
Conditions that express with delusions, hallucinations, or other psychoses. Subject to reinstatement if the condition can be shown to be cured.
 
Back
Top Bottom