lol, good god you are a spiteful shit. did your son not get the participation trophy because his daddy was fightin the white capitalist supremacist patriarchy?
We all know that "make america great again" means "make america great for spoiled white people again".
you talk of strawmen then parade this bullshit. hurr hurr i am not racist because i hate the right race. hurr hurr segregation be bad except when we do it. hurr hurr white man need pay reparations. hurr. hurr. hurr.
They mostly did nothing to fix them
inaction of government in disagreement is a feature not a bug. convince people your solution is best instead of acting like a damn self righteous fool.
The baby boomers deserve more blame than mos
looking for blame on a huge demographic does nothing except make you look like a resentful asshole. the stage is the same with different actors. get over yourself.
as far as ww2. you sound resentful and full of spite and full of hate. not goin to defend any of those actions save for the fact that ww2 ended americas tradition of isolation. for better or worse.
Do me a favor. Cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it.
When you say "continue to gain more ability to fuck up the world" is an dumb way to say; technology marches on. Are you a Luddite? Do you think we should artificially limit the advancement of technology as to slow down this ability to fuck up the world? Or maybe just maybe, every generation faces different challenges and their ability to overcome those challenges is what defines that generation. Obviously, the "greatest generation" would have been much better off and more respected by bitching about how their parents created WW2 with the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. Bitching would surely solve their problems.
Maybe I have it wrong and I should blame all my problems on boomers. That will surly solve my problems that are just too difficult to solve that no one ever had to deal with. -.- Get over yourself.
College availability has increased. with increased demand with limited supply increases costs.
What is the proper ratio for funding college education between the person getting the education and the government?
If you subsidize college education with taxpayer money, then I as a taxpayer should have a say in what education I am willing to fund. If you want people to study w/e they want, then they must bear the burden of those costs because then it is no business of mine as a taxpayer.
Name a generation that wasn't fucked in some way. Stop being so fucking spiteful just because someone might have had it a little better/different than you.
Name a single generation that didn't have to worry about economics.
God forbid after the worst war humans have ever seen there was relative peace and prosperity. Damn their parents for making kids after coming back from war. Damn those kids for daring to be born and having different life circumstances that molded their outlook, just like you.
What the fuck is with the spite these days for prior generations? Your life isn't perfect? Big deal, no one has a perfect life.
Student debt is correlated to higher availability to university education. Are you saying that college education shouldn't be available to everyone to reduce costs via supply restrictions? Just because there are different ideas to fund it doesn't mean it was for the sole purpose of fucking over a generation. Hell I am one of those fucked by student loans. Yet, I am not going to blame the boomers or any other generation for my life circumstances and choices. Because student loan debt is a choice.
How does being spiteful help you get a job? Get a retirement? Get a house? Be fiscally responsible?.
I am sure you have all the answers how to solve all the economic problems while able to convince everyone you have those answers. Name a generation that didn't have to try and solve these kind of problems.
The stage is the same with different actors. Big fucking deal.
Saw this and thought it was pertinent to my point. Kind of fucked up if you ask me that the police disarm the Trump/freespeech rally people and then stand idly by as antifa riot and beat people up. How would you solve this kind of violence and complicity of the government?
The irony is that your signature decries the forgotten rights in the BoR yet you want to get rid of one of those rights because you don't like it.
I will quote myself because I highlighted this in different comments:
"...A physical thing compared to an idea or virtue or process. Compare "they'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" versus when do you have a right of privacy online when using a private company server traversing public/international infrastructure. One is a little easier to understand with much less subtlety and nuance that do not overlap with another Right.
An interesting read is about the invention/propagation of telephone/telegraph and what the government did with that new technology to stop criminal activity. A lot of similarities to today. It took a while for the courts and the legislatures to apply the Bill of Rights to that new technology (privacy, searches and seizures, etc) but they got there and we formed some good protections to those technologies as I am sure we will eventually understand and apply to modern technologies....it is becoming harder to understand these rights in conjunction with the other rights we hold dear. (private property of the server, the public access to infrastructure, privacy of the individual, and impartiality of public accommodations) for just one example."
most irrelevant one: The second... . Do you think that means that you're by any stretch of imagination a threat to your government or that you can keep it "in check" that way? I hold your gun and raise you an army.
You have a very narrow view of what the 2nd is for if you think it is only for holding the government to account. To quote msyelf in a previous comment because lazy.
"The right of arms is a right of self defense. Guns are a tool to that enables the citizenry to protect themselves from rogue agitators to state aggression. It is a tool that equalizes the odds of any violent encounter regardless of the physical and fighting prowess you or the agitator may have.
Tyranny does not have to come from the government. A recent is example is the UC Berkly riots where the rioters were beating people up while the police stood idly by. Something thing to consider is when the government does not enforce law and order. An example being the black panthers in California storming the legislature armed to protest gun control measures and to protest the governments inaction in their communities that was plagued by violence and crime. Guns make any protest to be taken serious and forces the government to acknowledge or respond.
The right of arms means that even if rhetoric gets out of hand, those "protesters" have to understand fully that if they advocate violence ("this is a war" Berkly riots), that they will have to be willing to put their lives on the line instead of hiding behind group think, propaganda (narrative crafting from news/government), and a complicit government allowing such riots to occur by not breaking them up when they turned violent.
If you are the receiving end of those protests or rhetoric and the government is complicit with those aggressions, the right of arms gives individual citizens the ability to defend themselves from mob justice and police inaction. Every group has to think twice about making another group the scapegoat of their violence because everyone can defend themselves regardless what the government does."
You people are really the perfect people any dictator could want.
How is that different than any other people on earth?
There is no right of matrimony. It is a privilege that the government defines and just like other privileges there can be restrictions to certain citizens like affirmative action.
If the government (both state and federal) abolished all laws pertaining to marriage, would it be illegal for the government to do that? Would it violate an inalienable right that the people have as if they had de-funded/abolished the public defenders office? If so, what right is that? People could still couple with whoever they wanted. They could still "marry" whoever they wanted even if the state didn't recognize the status of "married". The major laws affected by this change would be family law and the tax code. Should there be restrictions on a citizens ability to define their family? Should I be able to declare an 8 year old to be my wife therefore not statutory rape.
If the tax code was simplified and citizens had an ability to define their family (whether restrictions apply or not is irrelevant) what right would be taken away by abolishing the status of "married"??? The issue that the courts dealt with (for DOMA) was federal employee family benefits were not recognized in states (where the federal employee resided) that had different definitions of marriage that IIRC. That doesn't mean that marriage is a right.
States rights has long been code for I want to discriminate against some minority
Voting was used to discriminate. Therefore voting is bad lets abolish it. With power comes tyranny and States rights is a balance to the federal governments power. As the left is discovering now, it is a very VERY useful thing when there is a federal government that does things you do not like.
There is a dangerous tendency in these latter days to enlarge the functions of the courts, by means of judicial interference with the will of the people as expressed by the legislature. Our institutions have the distinguishing characteristic that the three departments of government are co-ordinate and separate. Each must keep within the limits defined by the constitution. And the courts best discharge their duty by executing the will of the law-making power, constitutionally expressed, leaving the results of legislation to be dealt with by the people through their representatives. Statutes must always have a reasonable construction. Sometimes they are to be construed strictly, sometimes literally, in order to carry out the legislative will. But, however construed, the intent of the legislature is to be respected if the particular statute in question is valid, although the courts, looking at the public interests, may conceive the statute to be both unreasonable and impolitic. If the power exists to enact a statute, that ends the matter so far as the courts are concerned. The adjudged cases in which statutes have been held to be void, because unreasonable, are those in which the means employed by the legislature were not at all germane to the end to which the legislature was competent.
The institution of marriage is much older than Christianity and is also used by other contemporary religions and cultures. What do your parents think of that?
I would imagine they would say, so what. Just like the old testament had different rules compared to the new and most Christians follow the new. Different times for different laws were different. FYI, i don't follow their religion and only guessing as to what they would think for those questions.
And yes, they would be fine with male/female atheists/Buddhists/ w.e to marry. But their definition of marriage excludes gay marriage. I'll go more into detail below.
Once you link something to another thing that predates and exists more widely than the first then it starts to get tricky
Not necessarily. As I have alluded to before just like the Old testament and new testament. Seemingly contradictory laws to follow yet there is reconciliation between the two by recognizing that the Old testament was for a different time and a different people. Both came from god, yet order of operations makes the older obsolete. Same idea. They would say; "the most recent word of god"...
Now, I know the reason why the religion has this belief ( not going to say which because irrelevant) because there is a strong emphasis on family. As I understand now, even though their church doesn't like gay marriage they still accept it to support those families with gay couples (whether that be parents, siblings, w/e). The idea being that family is sacred and since marriage is used to create family it is therefore sacred as well. I think their policy now is; "we don't like gay marriage but family is what is important and we will do anything to preserve and protect the family.". Almost like choosing the lesser evil because they are also commanded to follow the laws of the land. In addition, procreation is a duty that is to happen when married. There is a lot of... beliefs around marriage and that is why they think the way they do.
Again, I don't follow it and I am only guessing as to their responses. Take with salt.
Honestly, there are plenty of attacks and restrictions on the 2nd. If I were to agree with you it would be because that it is the hardest Right to take away. A physical thing compared to an idea or virtue or process. Compare "they'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" versus when do you have a right of privacy online when using a private company server traversing public/international infrastructure. One is a little easier to understand with much less subtlety and nuance that do not overlap with another Right.
An interesting read is about the invention/propagation of telephone/telegraph and what the government did with that new technology to stop criminal activity. A lot of similarities to today. It took a while for the courts and the legislatures to apply the Bill of Rights to that new technology (privacy, searches and seizures, etc) but they got there and we formed some good protections to those technologies as I am sure we will eventually understand and apply to modern technologies.
I am an optimist. So long as the people understand that they have these rights and that they must defend them from all manner of attacks, the government will eventually capitulate because eventually it would be suicidal for a politician to platform degradation of those rights. Although it is becoming harder to understand these rights in conjunction with the other rights we hold dear. (private property of the server, the public access to infrastructure, privacy of the individual, and impartiality of public accommodations) for just one example.
Are all state privileges given to all citizens? If so then what is affirmative action if not restricted privileges to certain citizens?
It comes down to definitions and purpose. The definition and purpose of marriage is different across the nation. Can you get the secular purpose of marriage without a legal status or use a different status other than 'married' like common-law marriage thereby leaving 'marriage' to be a private thing? I think you can and even if you can't get all the states to agree on that, does it matter? Simplifying the tax code and giving people the ability to define their family is all that is needed. Should there be restrictions on peoples ability to define their family? If a state doesn't recognize a marriage but still allow you the privileges (hospital visitations, employer benefits, etc) does it really matter what that state uses for a definition of marriage?
IIRC, one the reasons the courts favored expanding the federal definition of marriage (striking down DOMA) was because federal workers in states that do not recognize the same definition caused issues. Is that really an issue with marriage or an issue with the federal government taking part in too many aspects of our lives.
FYI, I have nothing against gay marriage but I do have an issue with using the courts to achieve societal goals instead of using the legislatures.
No one cares about what you do in your home. You do understand that society is not one uniform blob with one idea, right? There are segments of society with a different definition. The society in Alabama is a different "society" than in New York.
The issue is the laws regarding marriage and how the law was changed. Namely through the courts and NOT through the elected representatives that write the damn laws. Do you understand this?
You are making judgements without knowing anything. What is the difference between doing things in life based on faith and based on the whims of popular sentiment that changes faster than a fart in the wind? If nihilism informs your laws, so what so long as the rights of your fellow citizens are maintained? I don't give a rats ass what your gender studies professor taught you in the real world you have to live with people that disagree with you on issues.
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege that should be carried out by the states and not the federal government. Unless you get a super majority of the country to change that idea. What is the point in having the federal government involved with marriage?
neither your parents nor their religion has any right to comment on that.
Listen you totalitarian little twat, every citizen has a right to comment on the laws that we all live by. That is the whole fucking point of democracy. Just because you don't like the reasons why someone decides something that you don't like does not mean they have no right to comment. If your idea is soooo good, convince enough people to get the legislature to act. Don't bypass the legislature and use the courts to push your ideological agenda.
Again, the issue is HOW gay marriage became legal. Namely, through the courts and not the legislature. IOW, an anti-democratic means. You can be gay and married and still find the WAY it was done wrong. Check out Dave Rubin for a prime example.
I find it ironic you "ridicule for love of guns" yet with a signature about the Bill of Rights (or lack thereof). Did it never occur to you that a love of guns can be synonymous with a love of the Bill of Rights? Hypocritical much, eh?
So, it's ok to get people fired and killed so long as there are enough "interested" cylons? Quite the forest you have. It would be a shame if the firetruck couldn't get here on time.
Sorry, but my parents do not like or support gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. They are not bigots. They are not homophobic. They have their religious beliefs. They treat lgbt just like every other person. They believe marriage is sacred; a belief informed by religion. They are not bad people for having that belief.
This is the point of States rights and the limits of the federal government. You will never get people to agree. Forcing people to accept things they do not want by the government is tyrannical. There are plenty of gays that think this. Dave Rubin who is gay and married understands that it shouldn't be forced on the nation by the courts.
It isn't just one issue. It's every issue that is pushed to the federal government because some other state does things differently or believes something differently. Eventually, one straw breaks the camels back.
Not only that, there are some positions that will never change. For example, the unborn fetus has certain rights being informed by faith. Anyone that firmly holds that belief will not relent no matter how convincing your argument may be. You will never have consensus on this issue. Ever. Not even science will have a firm hard fast definition of when a unborn fetus should be protected by law just like any vulnerable human life.
That issue should evolve into a discussion of State's rights and the role of the federal government. The whole point of limiting the federal government was because people rarely agree on anything. If and when that issue becomes common enough to convince a super majority to become the law of the federal government (amendment) then all the better. But that requires maturity of both sides to live and let live. Just because people in Montana have a different view of abortion does not mean that people in California should force the issue there.
A great recent example was free college. Because Sanders/Clinton lost the free college movement at the federal level died in many discussions (good). New York on the other hand decided to lead by example and passed comprehensive college funding. I have my doubts but wish them the best. They are not forcing me to pay for their college so I have no problems with a State doing that. If they do it right it can become the model for the other States to follow.
I'm all for protest but you are missing the context and what some of those bills are outlawing. Namely BLOCKING A HIGHWAY. Is your pet protest more important than the people that lose their job because they couldn't get to work? Or the emergency response team that was delayed because muh protest? Should you be liable because some protestor walked out in front of your car AT NIGHT on a highway when you going high way speeds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
All of those are in repose to the violence and extreme actions of "protestors" lately. I don't like limiting protest but holy shit do I understand why States are doing it.
You just proved WrongMonkey's point. What is the response supposed to be? How is anyone on the right supposed to respond? Instead of talking about the issues or providing the evidence to support your position you doubled down on the labels and dismissed any point of view to be had because a straw man is easy to burn.
This is the conversation:
WM: "There are concerns about illegal immigration and crime." You: "You are either misinformed at best or at worst a racist xenophobic."
WM: "There is a concern about biological men using women's restroom." You: "That's transphobic."
WM: "Some believe an unborn fetus has certain rights." You: "Not saying it's because of misogyny but it's misogyny."...
Where does the conversation go? You dismiss the concerns because of strawmen arguments and expect everyone else to play along with your virtue signaling.
You're simply not going to retrain people in their 40s+.
After first hand experience I find this false. It depends on the person, their motivation, talent, and most importantly the companies willingness to invest in people. I had to retrain a "programmer" in their 50's. While he is slower and makes rookie mistakes he has a good work ethic (much better than mine TBH). Initially, I didn't want to have anything to do with him because I felt it was a waste of my time to go over basic things but my boss told us "we invest in people and our people are our most valuable asset". After some time, he is making good progress and being productive where I don't have to question every decision he makes (only some). Besides his speed he is doing fine and contributing to the company and projects.
Yes, it was difficult and frustrating and there is nothing romantic or idealistic about retraining someone twice your age. But if the company values the people it employs a few years investment is nothing.
lol, you have very bad reading comprehension. Where have I said I hate anyone? In fact, I did say: "I don't hate people I disagree with.".
Are you going to name any specifics or are you continue to justify lambasting an entire race behind a vernacular of moral superiority? I think you should look in the mirror bud if you are willing to collectively shame a group based on race.
I pointed out that the quotes were out of context and it was specifically related to what people actually did,
Really? Because I don't hear any specific thing any white person did that results in them harming some minority that is summed up in social justice and white privileged. All I hear is collective guilt by association.
What specifically did any white person alive today do to deserve the contempt from Sally Brown? If she wasn't a racist why would she specify race? How the hell does a white person not understand poverty according to Bernie Sanders?
What specific things are being done by a specific white person alive today that should result in this collective guilt? Why are you and Brown and Sanders judging individuals by the actions of some other individuals who share an arbitrary trait?
shut down" people who deny that racism and white privilege exist
Yes, that means her job is to shut me or someone like me down in the political process of the democratic party because I deny white privilege. I would also disagree on their notions of racism because it has been thrown around so much the meaning has been watered down to mean 'disagreement'. She is shutting down people based on skin color and wrong think. She is specifying race. She is the one being racist. She only accepts her version of racism. Her race ruler of acceptable skin tone just has the darker shades as "the good shades".
All I see is a meaningless tirade based on what you imagine was said and judging from your behaviour, it seems like you are easily manipulated by sound bites.
Or I keep seeing the same type of behavior from all corners of the progressive/social justice camp across various academic, media, and government institutions and inform my opinion (rightly or wrongly) based on that. I am only human after all and if I keep getting exposed (whether intentionally or not) to the same type of crap from social justice it tends to change my perspective on social justice. Go figure, I am human.
I didn't see any mention of shaming white people for being white, or redefining justice, or any of the bogeymen that you seem to have conjured out of your race-obsessive imagination.
Social justice is a redefinition of justice. Justice is blind. Social justice is not. There are plenty of examples of SJW shaming people for being white or male or both.
Race obsessive imagination? I am not the one saying that race should be used in deciding justice. I am not the one saying that race should be used in shutting down access to a political institution. How am I obsessed with race if I am not the one always bringing it up?
You could try giving one good reason.
How many examples in history do you need where one group of people use another as a scapegoat to justify violence and tyranny? How is that different now with white people being used as the scapegoat to justify tyranny via Social Justice and violence via "punch a nazi"?? After all, only nazi's are against social justice... -.-
I never said taxes were bad but that there is always somebody to defend your legal rights regardless of taxes. You can defend your legal rights without the government or taxes because one of those legal rights is self defense. The point of self defense is that you do not have to have the government to protect you from would-be aggressors.
It isn't about who has the bigger gun or w/e in your hypothetical because I am not saying that taxes are bad and I didn't give a hypothetical. You also missed when I said; "Sure, certain rights have a monetary cost...".
Using a specific term (rights) in a general way (legal rights) is a great way to confuse a conversation.
The way you are using "legal right", it sounds like law in application to people or institutions. The Civil Rights Act is a law that defines some "concept of legal rights" for protected classes but those are not rights the defined classes have but codified standards of behavior from institutions in regards to those classes. It isn't a right that people hold, like self defense or fair trial, it is a behavior that we force on institutions.
A right cannot be taken away without due process of law. If the Civil Rights Act was repealed (and assuming no State equivalent) what legal right would be taken away from those protected classes? Compare that to what codified behavioral standard has been removed from institutions regarding those classes?
If I run an institution that is not categorized under the Civil Rights Act, can I take away the "legal rights" of those protected classes without breaking the law? Or more specifically, does the KKK take away the legal rights of individuals because they don't allow blacks in their organization?
Slashdot Mirror
lol, good god you are a spiteful shit. did your son not get the participation trophy because his daddy was fightin the white capitalist supremacist patriarchy?
We all know that "make america great again" means "make america great for spoiled white people again".
you talk of strawmen then parade this bullshit. hurr hurr i am not racist because i hate the right race. hurr hurr segregation be bad except when we do it. hurr hurr white man need pay reparations. hurr. hurr. hurr.
They mostly did nothing to fix them
inaction of government in disagreement is a feature not a bug. convince people your solution is best instead of acting like a damn self righteous fool.
The baby boomers deserve more blame than mos
looking for blame on a huge demographic does nothing except make you look like a resentful asshole. the stage is the same with different actors. get over yourself.
as far as ww2. you sound resentful and full of spite and full of hate. not goin to defend any of those actions save for the fact that ww2 ended americas tradition of isolation. for better or worse.
Do me a favor. Cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it.
When you say "continue to gain more ability to fuck up the world" is an dumb way to say; technology marches on. Are you a Luddite? Do you think we should artificially limit the advancement of technology as to slow down this ability to fuck up the world? Or maybe just maybe, every generation faces different challenges and their ability to overcome those challenges is what defines that generation. Obviously, the "greatest generation" would have been much better off and more respected by bitching about how their parents created WW2 with the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. Bitching would surely solve their problems.
Maybe I have it wrong and I should blame all my problems on boomers. That will surly solve my problems that are just too difficult to solve that no one ever had to deal with. -.- Get over yourself.
College availability has increased. with increased demand with limited supply increases costs.
What is the proper ratio for funding college education between the person getting the education and the government?
If you subsidize college education with taxpayer money, then I as a taxpayer should have a say in what education I am willing to fund. If you want people to study w/e they want, then they must bear the burden of those costs because then it is no business of mine as a taxpayer.
Name a generation that wasn't fucked in some way. Stop being so fucking spiteful just because someone might have had it a little better/different than you.
Name a single generation that didn't have to worry about economics.
God forbid after the worst war humans have ever seen there was relative peace and prosperity. Damn their parents for making kids after coming back from war. Damn those kids for daring to be born and having different life circumstances that molded their outlook, just like you.
What the fuck is with the spite these days for prior generations? Your life isn't perfect? Big deal, no one has a perfect life.
Student debt is correlated to higher availability to university education. Are you saying that college education shouldn't be available to everyone to reduce costs via supply restrictions? Just because there are different ideas to fund it doesn't mean it was for the sole purpose of fucking over a generation. Hell I am one of those fucked by student loans. Yet, I am not going to blame the boomers or any other generation for my life circumstances and choices. Because student loan debt is a choice.
How does being spiteful help you get a job? Get a retirement? Get a house? Be fiscally responsible?.
I am sure you have all the answers how to solve all the economic problems while able to convince everyone you have those answers. Name a generation that didn't have to try and solve these kind of problems.
The stage is the same with different actors. Big fucking deal.
Saw this and thought it was pertinent to my point. Kind of fucked up if you ask me that the police disarm the Trump/freespeech rally people and then stand idly by as antifa riot and beat people up. How would you solve this kind of violence and complicity of the government?
https://wearechange.org/berkel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The irony is that your signature decries the forgotten rights in the BoR yet you want to get rid of one of those rights because you don't like it.
I will quote myself because I highlighted this in different comments:
"...A physical thing compared to an idea or virtue or process. Compare "they'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" versus when do you have a right of privacy online when using a private company server traversing public/international infrastructure. One is a little easier to understand with much less subtlety and nuance that do not overlap with another Right.
An interesting read is about the invention/propagation of telephone/telegraph and what the government did with that new technology to stop criminal activity. A lot of similarities to today. It took a while for the courts and the legislatures to apply the Bill of Rights to that new technology (privacy, searches and seizures, etc) but they got there and we formed some good protections to those technologies as I am sure we will eventually understand and apply to modern technologies. ...it is becoming harder to understand these rights in conjunction with the other rights we hold dear. (private property of the server, the public access to infrastructure, privacy of the individual, and impartiality of public accommodations) for just one example."
most irrelevant one: The second... . Do you think that means that you're by any stretch of imagination a threat to your government or that you can keep it "in check" that way? I hold your gun and raise you an army.
You have a very narrow view of what the 2nd is for if you think it is only for holding the government to account. To quote msyelf in a previous comment because lazy.
"The right of arms is a right of self defense. Guns are a tool to that enables the citizenry to protect themselves from rogue agitators to state aggression. It is a tool that equalizes the odds of any violent encounter regardless of the physical and fighting prowess you or the agitator may have.
Tyranny does not have to come from the government. A recent is example is the UC Berkly riots where the rioters were beating people up while the police stood idly by. Something thing to consider is when the government does not enforce law and order. An example being the black panthers in California storming the legislature armed to protest gun control measures and to protest the governments inaction in their communities that was plagued by violence and crime. Guns make any protest to be taken serious and forces the government to acknowledge or respond.
The right of arms means that even if rhetoric gets out of hand, those "protesters" have to understand fully that if they advocate violence ("this is a war" Berkly riots), that they will have to be willing to put their lives on the line instead of hiding behind group think, propaganda (narrative crafting from news/government), and a complicit government allowing such riots to occur by not breaking them up when they turned violent.
If you are the receiving end of those protests or rhetoric and the government is complicit with those aggressions, the right of arms gives individual citizens the ability to defend themselves from mob justice and police inaction. Every group has to think twice about making another group the scapegoat of their violence because everyone can defend themselves regardless what the government does."
You people are really the perfect people any dictator could want.
How is that different than any other people on earth?
deny the right to enjoy matrimony
There is no right of matrimony. It is a privilege that the government defines and just like other privileges there can be restrictions to certain citizens like affirmative action.
If the government (both state and federal) abolished all laws pertaining to marriage, would it be illegal for the government to do that? Would it violate an inalienable right that the people have as if they had de-funded/abolished the public defenders office? If so, what right is that? People could still couple with whoever they wanted. They could still "marry" whoever they wanted even if the state didn't recognize the status of "married". The major laws affected by this change would be family law and the tax code. Should there be restrictions on a citizens ability to define their family? Should I be able to declare an 8 year old to be my wife therefore not statutory rape.
If the tax code was simplified and citizens had an ability to define their family (whether restrictions apply or not is irrelevant) what right would be taken away by abolishing the status of "married"??? The issue that the courts dealt with (for DOMA) was federal employee family benefits were not recognized in states (where the federal employee resided) that had different definitions of marriage that IIRC. That doesn't mean that marriage is a right.
States rights has long been code for I want to discriminate against some minority
Voting was used to discriminate. Therefore voting is bad lets abolish it. With power comes tyranny and States rights is a balance to the federal governments power. As the left is discovering now, it is a very VERY useful thing when there is a federal government that does things you do not like.
There is a dangerous tendency in these latter days to enlarge the functions of the courts, by means of judicial interference with the will of the people as expressed by the legislature. Our institutions have the distinguishing characteristic that the three departments of government are co-ordinate and separate. Each must keep within the limits defined by the constitution. And the courts best discharge their duty by executing the will of the law-making power, constitutionally expressed, leaving the results of legislation to be dealt with by the people through their representatives. Statutes must always have a reasonable construction. Sometimes they are to be construed strictly, sometimes literally, in order to carry out the legislative will. But, however construed, the intent of the legislature is to be respected if the particular statute in question is valid, although the courts, looking at the public interests, may conceive the statute to be both unreasonable and impolitic. If the power exists to enact a statute, that ends the matter so far as the courts are concerned. The adjudged cases in which statutes have been held to be void, because unreasonable, are those in which the means employed by the legislature were not at all germane to the end to which the legislature was competent.
The institution of marriage is much older than Christianity and is also used by other contemporary religions and cultures. What do your parents think of that?
I would imagine they would say, so what. Just like the old testament had different rules compared to the new and most Christians follow the new. Different times for different laws were different. FYI, i don't follow their religion and only guessing as to what they would think for those questions.
And yes, they would be fine with male/female atheists/Buddhists/ w.e to marry. But their definition of marriage excludes gay marriage. I'll go more into detail below.
Once you link something to another thing that predates and exists more widely than the first then it starts to get tricky
Not necessarily. As I have alluded to before just like the Old testament and new testament. Seemingly contradictory laws to follow yet there is reconciliation between the two by recognizing that the Old testament was for a different time and a different people. Both came from god, yet order of operations makes the older obsolete. Same idea. They would say; "the most recent word of god"...
Now, I know the reason why the religion has this belief ( not going to say which because irrelevant) because there is a strong emphasis on family. As I understand now, even though their church doesn't like gay marriage they still accept it to support those families with gay couples (whether that be parents, siblings, w/e). The idea being that family is sacred and since marriage is used to create family it is therefore sacred as well. I think their policy now is; "we don't like gay marriage but family is what is important and we will do anything to preserve and protect the family.". Almost like choosing the lesser evil because they are also commanded to follow the laws of the land. In addition, procreation is a duty that is to happen when married. There is a lot of... beliefs around marriage and that is why they think the way they do.
Again, I don't follow it and I am only guessing as to their responses. Take with salt.
Honestly, there are plenty of attacks and restrictions on the 2nd. If I were to agree with you it would be because that it is the hardest Right to take away. A physical thing compared to an idea or virtue or process. Compare "they'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" versus when do you have a right of privacy online when using a private company server traversing public/international infrastructure. One is a little easier to understand with much less subtlety and nuance that do not overlap with another Right.
An interesting read is about the invention/propagation of telephone/telegraph and what the government did with that new technology to stop criminal activity. A lot of similarities to today. It took a while for the courts and the legislatures to apply the Bill of Rights to that new technology (privacy, searches and seizures, etc) but they got there and we formed some good protections to those technologies as I am sure we will eventually understand and apply to modern technologies.
I am an optimist. So long as the people understand that they have these rights and that they must defend them from all manner of attacks, the government will eventually capitulate because eventually it would be suicidal for a politician to platform degradation of those rights. Although it is becoming harder to understand these rights in conjunction with the other rights we hold dear. (private property of the server, the public access to infrastructure, privacy of the individual, and impartiality of public accommodations) for just one example.
Are all state privileges given to all citizens? If so then what is affirmative action if not restricted privileges to certain citizens?
It comes down to definitions and purpose. The definition and purpose of marriage is different across the nation. Can you get the secular purpose of marriage without a legal status or use a different status other than 'married' like common-law marriage thereby leaving 'marriage' to be a private thing? I think you can and even if you can't get all the states to agree on that, does it matter? Simplifying the tax code and giving people the ability to define their family is all that is needed. Should there be restrictions on peoples ability to define their family? If a state doesn't recognize a marriage but still allow you the privileges (hospital visitations, employer benefits, etc) does it really matter what that state uses for a definition of marriage?
IIRC, one the reasons the courts favored expanding the federal definition of marriage (striking down DOMA) was because federal workers in states that do not recognize the same definition caused issues. Is that really an issue with marriage or an issue with the federal government taking part in too many aspects of our lives.
FYI, I have nothing against gay marriage but I do have an issue with using the courts to achieve societal goals instead of using the legislatures.
No one cares about what you do in your home. You do understand that society is not one uniform blob with one idea, right? There are segments of society with a different definition. The society in Alabama is a different "society" than in New York.
The issue is the laws regarding marriage and how the law was changed. Namely through the courts and NOT through the elected representatives that write the damn laws. Do you understand this?
You are making judgements without knowing anything. What is the difference between doing things in life based on faith and based on the whims of popular sentiment that changes faster than a fart in the wind? If nihilism informs your laws, so what so long as the rights of your fellow citizens are maintained? I don't give a rats ass what your gender studies professor taught you in the real world you have to live with people that disagree with you on issues.
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege that should be carried out by the states and not the federal government. Unless you get a super majority of the country to change that idea. What is the point in having the federal government involved with marriage?
neither your parents nor their religion has any right to comment on that.
Listen you totalitarian little twat, every citizen has a right to comment on the laws that we all live by. That is the whole fucking point of democracy. Just because you don't like the reasons why someone decides something that you don't like does not mean they have no right to comment. If your idea is soooo good, convince enough people to get the legislature to act. Don't bypass the legislature and use the courts to push your ideological agenda.
Again, the issue is HOW gay marriage became legal. Namely, through the courts and not the legislature. IOW, an anti-democratic means. You can be gay and married and still find the WAY it was done wrong. Check out Dave Rubin for a prime example.
I find it ironic you "ridicule for love of guns" yet with a signature about the Bill of Rights (or lack thereof). Did it never occur to you that a love of guns can be synonymous with a love of the Bill of Rights? Hypocritical much, eh?
So, it's ok to get people fired and killed so long as there are enough "interested" cylons? Quite the forest you have. It would be a shame if the firetruck couldn't get here on time.
Sorry, but my parents do not like or support gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. They are not bigots. They are not homophobic. They have their religious beliefs. They treat lgbt just like every other person. They believe marriage is sacred; a belief informed by religion. They are not bad people for having that belief.
This is the point of States rights and the limits of the federal government. You will never get people to agree. Forcing people to accept things they do not want by the government is tyrannical. There are plenty of gays that think this. Dave Rubin who is gay and married understands that it shouldn't be forced on the nation by the courts.
It isn't just one issue. It's every issue that is pushed to the federal government because some other state does things differently or believes something differently. Eventually, one straw breaks the camels back.
We just want them to sign the fucking guest book on the way in, you know?
That's racist because the pen uses black ink.
Not only that, there are some positions that will never change. For example, the unborn fetus has certain rights being informed by faith. Anyone that firmly holds that belief will not relent no matter how convincing your argument may be. You will never have consensus on this issue. Ever. Not even science will have a firm hard fast definition of when a unborn fetus should be protected by law just like any vulnerable human life.
That issue should evolve into a discussion of State's rights and the role of the federal government. The whole point of limiting the federal government was because people rarely agree on anything. If and when that issue becomes common enough to convince a super majority to become the law of the federal government (amendment) then all the better. But that requires maturity of both sides to live and let live. Just because people in Montana have a different view of abortion does not mean that people in California should force the issue there.
A great recent example was free college. Because Sanders/Clinton lost the free college movement at the federal level died in many discussions (good). New York on the other hand decided to lead by example and passed comprehensive college funding. I have my doubts but wish them the best. They are not forcing me to pay for their college so I have no problems with a State doing that. If they do it right it can become the model for the other States to follow.
Yay, slacktivism. You didn't expect me to actually do something to feel smug, did you?
I'm all for protest but you are missing the context and what some of those bills are outlawing. Namely BLOCKING A HIGHWAY. Is your pet protest more important than the people that lose their job because they couldn't get to work? Or the emergency response team that was delayed because muh protest? Should you be liable because some protestor walked out in front of your car AT NIGHT on a highway when you going high way speeds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
All of those are in repose to the violence and extreme actions of "protestors" lately. I don't like limiting protest but holy shit do I understand why States are doing it.
You just proved WrongMonkey's point. What is the response supposed to be? How is anyone on the right supposed to respond? Instead of talking about the issues or providing the evidence to support your position you doubled down on the labels and dismissed any point of view to be had because a straw man is easy to burn.
This is the conversation:
WM: "There are concerns about illegal immigration and crime."
You: "You are either misinformed at best or at worst a racist xenophobic."
WM: "There is a concern about biological men using women's restroom."
You: "That's transphobic."
WM: "Some believe an unborn fetus has certain rights." ...
You: "Not saying it's because of misogyny but it's misogyny."
Where does the conversation go? You dismiss the concerns because of strawmen arguments and expect everyone else to play along with your virtue signaling.
He who articulated it particulated it.
You're simply not going to retrain people in their 40s+.
After first hand experience I find this false. It depends on the person, their motivation, talent, and most importantly the companies willingness to invest in people. I had to retrain a "programmer" in their 50's. While he is slower and makes rookie mistakes he has a good work ethic (much better than mine TBH). Initially, I didn't want to have anything to do with him because I felt it was a waste of my time to go over basic things but my boss told us "we invest in people and our people are our most valuable asset". After some time, he is making good progress and being productive where I don't have to question every decision he makes (only some). Besides his speed he is doing fine and contributing to the company and projects.
Yes, it was difficult and frustrating and there is nothing romantic or idealistic about retraining someone twice your age. But if the company values the people it employs a few years investment is nothing.
lol, you have very bad reading comprehension. Where have I said I hate anyone? In fact, I did say: "I don't hate people I disagree with.".
Are you going to name any specifics or are you continue to justify lambasting an entire race behind a vernacular of moral superiority? I think you should look in the mirror bud if you are willing to collectively shame a group based on race.
I pointed out that the quotes were out of context and it was specifically related to what people actually did,
Really? Because I don't hear any specific thing any white person did that results in them harming some minority that is summed up in social justice and white privileged. All I hear is collective guilt by association.
What specifically did any white person alive today do to deserve the contempt from Sally Brown? If she wasn't a racist why would she specify race?
How the hell does a white person not understand poverty according to Bernie Sanders?
What specific things are being done by a specific white person alive today that should result in this collective guilt?
Why are you and Brown and Sanders judging individuals by the actions of some other individuals who share an arbitrary trait?
How is denying the right of voting based on race going to solve anything?
shut down" people who deny that racism and white privilege exist
Yes, that means her job is to shut me or someone like me down in the political process of the democratic party because I deny white privilege. I would also disagree on their notions of racism because it has been thrown around so much the meaning has been watered down to mean 'disagreement'. She is shutting down people based on skin color and wrong think. She is specifying race. She is the one being racist. She only accepts her version of racism. Her race ruler of acceptable skin tone just has the darker shades as "the good shades".
All I see is a meaningless tirade based on what you imagine was said and judging from your behaviour, it seems like you are easily manipulated by sound bites.
Or I keep seeing the same type of behavior from all corners of the progressive/social justice camp across various academic, media, and government institutions and inform my opinion (rightly or wrongly) based on that. I am only human after all and if I keep getting exposed (whether intentionally or not) to the same type of crap from social justice it tends to change my perspective on social justice. Go figure, I am human.
I didn't see any mention of shaming white people for being white, or redefining justice, or any of the bogeymen that you seem to have conjured out of your race-obsessive imagination.
Social justice is a redefinition of justice. Justice is blind. Social justice is not. There are plenty of examples of SJW shaming people for being white or male or both.
Race obsessive imagination? I am not the one saying that race should be used in deciding justice. I am not the one saying that race should be used in shutting down access to a political institution. How am I obsessed with race if I am not the one always bringing it up?
You could try giving one good reason.
How many examples in history do you need where one group of people use another as a scapegoat to justify violence and tyranny? How is that different now with white people being used as the scapegoat to justify tyranny via Social Justice and violence via "punch a nazi"?? After all, only nazi's are against social justice... -.-
I never said taxes were bad but that there is always somebody to defend your legal rights regardless of taxes. You can defend your legal rights without the government or taxes because one of those legal rights is self defense. The point of self defense is that you do not have to have the government to protect you from would-be aggressors.
It isn't about who has the bigger gun or w/e in your hypothetical because I am not saying that taxes are bad and I didn't give a hypothetical. You also missed when I said; "Sure, certain rights have a monetary cost...".
Using a specific term (rights) in a general way (legal rights) is a great way to confuse a conversation.
The way you are using "legal right", it sounds like law in application to people or institutions. The Civil Rights Act is a law that defines some "concept of legal rights" for protected classes but those are not rights the defined classes have but codified standards of behavior from institutions in regards to those classes. It isn't a right that people hold, like self defense or fair trial, it is a behavior that we force on institutions.
A right cannot be taken away without due process of law. If the Civil Rights Act was repealed (and assuming no State equivalent) what legal right would be taken away from those protected classes? Compare that to what codified behavioral standard has been removed from institutions regarding those classes?
If I run an institution that is not categorized under the Civil Rights Act, can I take away the "legal rights" of those protected classes without breaking the law? Or more specifically, does the KKK take away the legal rights of individuals because they don't allow blacks in their organization?