So you think that, until Congress gets around to approving net neutrality laws, that instead of being regulated by the body designed to do just that...
There is no body designed to regulate Net Neutrality. That's the point.
It seems to me that if you're concerned about civil rights, your argument hands your nose over to Comcast, just to spite your face.
It seems to me that you would have the law violated just to get what you want.
If the FCC determines that internet access is a telecom service - which they have the authority to do - then it can enforce net neutrality using its normal common carriage authority. No new laws from Congress required.
That's unlikely. It would cause a lot of practical problems (which is the reason it changed in the first place... to change it back just for Net Neutrality is short-sighted), and the change itself could be challenged on various grounds.
And why bother? We have a process for doing this: it's called "Congress.":-)
You are either uninformed or choosing to ignore the facts
Identify such a fact. (You didn't. You added more to what I didn't say, but nothing you said contradicted or argued against anything I said.)
they have the power to classify the services how they see fit.
False. They have to do it within the standards set by the law. But they do have significant latitude, yes.
And -- at the very least -- since the FCC did change the classification, they have to abide by the laws governing that classification until it changes again. And I can't see them changing it again any time soon, but, you never know.
and by definition since they are local monopolies you don't have a choice to go elsewhere.
Yes, again, this is why I said -- in the comment you replied to -- I am in favor of at least SOME Net Neutrality regulations, especially for de facto monopolies, where they exist (which is probably in most places). But it has to be done, you know, legally.
The problem the FCC had wasn't that the law said they can't enforce net neutrality.
It's that the law says the FCC can't write new laws, and this was, in effect, a new law. From the ruling:
... notwithstanding the "difficult regulatory problem of rapid technological change" posed by the communications industry, "the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer... Commission authority."... Because the Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast's Internet service to any "statutorily mandated responsibility,"... we grant the petition for review and vacate the Order.
The FCC must be able to point where in a law, passed by Congress, they have the authority to do this. They failed to do so. They can't make up a new law on their own. It's basically that simple.
Allowing Congress to write the Net neutrality laws is a recipe for red-tape and a sure fire way to disaster, especially with a partisan atmosphere and the-party-of-NO-GO republicans.
Irrelevant.
At least with the tyranny of FCC...
It is NOT LEGAL. It VIOLATES OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. You're not getting it. This is simply unacceptable. Unelected bureaucrats have no right to make laws to tell us what to do. Period.
Let the FCC come up with a framework and guidelines and have it be voted upon by the representatives via a quick simple procedure.
The FCC can writes laws any time it wants to, and give them to someone in Congress to submit as proper legislation.
Our representatives are too vulnerable to be swayed by ISPs and their lobbyists
No moreso than the members of the FCC.
And you forgot to mention "and other special interests" (which includes groups like the EFF) If you make this government-vs-ISP then you're already setting it up to fail. It's about doing what is best for everyone, not for going against the ISPs.
The FCC could just, you know, respect the fact that we live in a representative democracy and that as unelected bureaucrats that don't get to invent new laws restricting the free behavior of the people. The FCC could lobby Congress to write a law implementing what they want, instead of trying to tyrannically decide for us what they think is best.
I am mostly in favor of Net Neutrality (especially in cases where there's a de facto monopoly for a particular broadband provider). But I am not in favor of the FCC making up its own rules. I am in favor of elected representatives voting so we can hold them accountable in the end.
Um. No, the judges correctly noted that it was the FCC that was saying "fuck the law," by making up their own laws.
Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't? That's scary stuff.
Simply put: why is it that we assume an "advanced" civilization means that it is militarily advanced and not ethically advanced?
On Earth, we can survive through trade and so on with other nations, and through learning to get along.
If they have massive weapons and a strong need for our raw materials in order to survive, they MAY decide to trade with us... or they may have needs beyond our ability to trade and just take what we have, killing us in the process.
ALL security is effectively through obscurity. Because it's impossible to prove any security method to be secure, any and all security measures are put in place with the hope that any adversary doesn't know how to defeat those measures.
Not true. Take the game of chess, for example. Everything in chess is right out in the open. There may be some misdirection involved, but nothing is actually hidden from the adversary. Yet you still have security measures in place.
You don't put armed guards outside a military outpost in the hope that the enemy won't know HOW to defeat them; you just hope they won't try, because it's too difficult or costly. And if they do try, you will defeat them mostly with brute force, not with anything hidden or secretive.
Sure. And good. When people get pissed off to the extent that they threaten the liberty of others, then they should be actively pissed off until such time as liberty is no longer threatened.
South Park did this with the word "shit," for example. By the time they were done, no one cared. It was brilliant. They should do the same now: show Mohammed in a bear suit as much as they can, all the time, until people stop caring. And if Comedy Central allows it, show him outside of the bear suit.
Why conflate a philosophical issue (whether we should ban political parties) with a legal issue (what the current embodiment of law allows us to do)?
It's explicit that I am saying I agree with the Constitution. I did say it was, after all, "anti-liberty."
Just because something is in the Constitution does not mean that it is just, right, or supports liberty.
Correct.
There is an argument to be made that the existence of a two-party system suppresses the liberty of individuals.
But there is NOT a case to be made that OUTLAWING parties, or forcing there to be more than two parties, is NOT anti-liberty. To say otherwise means that I can either be banned from associating myself with a political group, or I can be forced to associate myself with a political group. Either way is absolutely anti-liberty.
I hope you don't disagree, because that's damned scary that anyone would be that hateful of liberty.
I just want to ask that you stick to the topic and not introduce other issues.
I didn't introduce other issues. You just don't understand how they are inextricably linked.
you attempted to shoehorn a fact that does not agree with your opinion into a classification in which it does not belong
False, on both counts: it does belong there, and I never implied I didn't agree with it.
I have laid out repeatedly parts of the gay marriage argument that are beyond "equal protection" issues.
False. You have not done this.
Why don't you learn what equal protection is? Honestly.
I can show you the argument
I doubt it.
Again, it is unfortunate that you cannot discern between your opinion and reality.
... says the person who, not knowing what equal protection is, continually asserts what it isn't.
your assertion that it is somehow "tangential" to the discussion itself
... is obviously true.
But then again, it is also obviously true that a person not getting the same recognition of rights and so on from government is an equal protection issue, and you keep denying that, too.
Any literate person could read back through this dialogue between us and find several topics that you either discarded completely (such as your baseless "tangential" claim) or omitted response from.
False.
And if we count the times where you offered only one-word responses, the list grows even longer.
But that would be dishonest of you, since one-word responses are perfectly sufficient much of the time. If you say things without basis, a one-word response generally suffices.
You claimed before that "forcing creationism" is the same as "forcing evolution".
In terms of its effect on liberty, yes, that is what I said.
I countered by giving you several examples where evolution is not forced.
Correct. And that has nothing to do with what I said, obviously.
Your hangup on whether either is ever "forced" is beside the point (a stupid point neither of us brought up in the first place, but that you are irrationally fixated on, even though you don't even understand it).
Pudge, you are lying on that one, and you know it.
I did. In terms of each one's effect on liberty. Nothing more. I said nothing about whether one is forced more than another, or under what circumstances, etc.
So since you made the claim before I entered the discussion, can you just answer the question? Do you agree that neither evolution nor creation are currently truly forced as part of the curriculum?
As it is completely irrelevant to any point I was involved with discussing, no, I will not answer that question.
The other person said that the "right" engages in such anti-liberty things as "forcing creationism." I replied, "that is no different, in terms of liberty, from forcing evolutionism." That's all. I had no other point. Your fixation on something bigger than that is irrational and baseless, just like your claim that equal protection claims are not equal protection claims.
That, in itself, is anti-liberty. You can't ban parties, because people have a First Amendment right to combine into groups and to act politically within those groups.
You can ban special treatment for the "major parties," which I am all in favor of. And you can even go so far as to ban party affiliations from government-sponsored election materials (other than the candidate's own written text in the election pamphlet). But that's as far as you can go without attacking the First Amendment.
Uh, who do you think runs non-democratic nations? Hint: It ain't 200 IQ scientists who only do what is best for Gaia!
Yes, but that's a point in FAVOR of his idea!
But, to your point, as Bastiat said 160 years ago:
The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.
I'd be happy to. Start by reading back to your earlier comment where you responded to my pointing out that there is more to the gay marriage issue than just what you outlined, to which you replied
Oh, I see. You're just reaffirming that you don't know what "equal protection" is. Gotcha.
I have since outlined specific issues that go beyond 14th amendment protections
In fact, you didn't. You talked about rights that normal couples have that gay couples don't, which IS an equal protection issue.
yet you repeatedly reject them out of hand without considering the argument at all.
You're lying. I read them, considered them, and pointed out the fact that they are an equal protection issue.
You are on a very high horse
False. I simply know what "equal protection" is, and you do not. Pointing out a germaine fact is not being on a "high horse."
[you] re-asserted that a discussion topic directly in line with something you said earlier was for no obvious reason "a tangent"
False.
And on another matter that you either omitted or chosen to discard in your most recent reply
False.
do you agree that students are indeed free to not learn evolution?
That is completely irrelevant to anything I was talking about. The issue is whether an example of the "right" denying liberty of others is when they "force creationism." That's the issue. What you're talking about is unrelated.
I don't know why this is so hard for you. It's not about whether students are free. It's whether "forcing creationism" is more or less free than "forcing evolution." Your hangup on whether either is ever "forced" is beside the point (a stupid point neither of us brought up in the first place, but that you are irrationally fixated on, even though you don't even understand it).
So you don't believe that publishers have no responsibility...
We were not discussing "responsibility." Please pull your head out KTHX. You were talking about who had direct "control" over what articles were published, not who was "responsible" for them.
Not even in your first response did you argue anything but straw men.
You keep saying that, and yet you've refused to offer a single example of a straw man argument I made, either through direct quotation, or even indirect reference.
No, that is not what you said.
You're a liar.
Really, your fuzzy English...
... is only "fuzzy" to someone who doesn't know what a "straw man" is, because otherwise the context made it perfectly clear.
I'm done here.
You were done a long time ago.
I hope someday you find whatever it is your missing in life that makes you so unbearable online.
Both media companies I've worked for exercised editorial control over content, both in terms of what is published, and in terms of the writing style and slant.
Then you probably didn't work for a large daily newspaper, or you are overstating the level of control. Certainly publishers get involved on occasion, especially when there's political endorsements and so on, but usually the publisher's control is mostly limited to who they hire.
Have you?
Yes.
For what organizations?
Several, including, but not limited to, the Alameda Newspaper Group, as a reporter, mostly for the Tri-Valley Herald, but also having pieces published in the Oakland Tribune and other papers in the group.
You establish that my argument is different from what it is
No. That is not it. A straw man is making up an argument you didn't make. Often people try to pretend that if they make an argument, but it's not their MAIN POINT, then me attacking that argument is a straw man. But that's false. If you make an argument, my attacking that argument is not a straw man.
It could be a red herring, but if so, that's your fault, as you introduced the argument.
It's only a straw man if it is an argument you never made, and there's not a single thing I said is your argument, that is not.
You continue to do so in every post.
False. In fact, I never did it at all. And you cannot give a single example of it.
A straw man argument is one that attempts to discredit a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
... that's what I said. I said it is attacking an argument that is not yours, while pretending it IS yours. That is another way of saying "discrediting" (attacking) a "misrepresentation of your position" (an argument that is not your argument, that I pretend is your argument).
And you cannot show a single example of me doing so.
Perhaps you should really consider educating yourself before trying to have a conversation with people who actually know what they are talking about.
That's my line to you.
But, I expect another line-item response from you...
You appear to be either unable or unwilling to accept the fact that your own opinion is not the full and ultimate reality of the situation.
I have no idea what you're talking about; could you explain? If you're talking about equal protection, then that can only mean you still don't even know what equal protection IS, and I therefore have nothing more to say to you.
Feel free to describe what you were talking about if it was something else.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. A holy Constitutionalist. Except probably for the parts of the Constitution you don't like.
You're a liar. You cannot give an example of me disfavoring something in the Constitution just because I don't like it.
So you think that, until Congress gets around to approving net neutrality laws, that instead of being regulated by the body designed to do just that ...
There is no body designed to regulate Net Neutrality. That's the point.
It seems to me that if you're concerned about civil rights, your argument hands your nose over to Comcast, just to spite your face.
It seems to me that you would have the law violated just to get what you want.
If the FCC determines that internet access is a telecom service - which they have the authority to do - then it can enforce net neutrality using its normal common carriage authority. No new laws from Congress required.
That's unlikely. It would cause a lot of practical problems (which is the reason it changed in the first place ... to change it back just for Net Neutrality is short-sighted), and the change itself could be challenged on various grounds.
And why bother? We have a process for doing this: it's called "Congress." :-)
the reason it is constitutional
It's not. That's why the FCC lost the case 3-0.
You are either uninformed or choosing to ignore the facts
Identify such a fact. (You didn't. You added more to what I didn't say, but nothing you said contradicted or argued against anything I said.)
they have the power to classify the services how they see fit.
False. They have to do it within the standards set by the law. But they do have significant latitude, yes.
And -- at the very least -- since the FCC did change the classification, they have to abide by the laws governing that classification until it changes again. And I can't see them changing it again any time soon, but, you never know.
and by definition since they are local monopolies you don't have a choice to go elsewhere.
Yes, again, this is why I said -- in the comment you replied to -- I am in favor of at least SOME Net Neutrality regulations, especially for de facto monopolies, where they exist (which is probably in most places). But it has to be done, you know, legally.
The problem the FCC had wasn't that the law said they can't enforce net neutrality.
It's that the law says the FCC can't write new laws, and this was, in effect, a new law. From the ruling:
The FCC must be able to point where in a law, passed by Congress, they have the authority to do this. They failed to do so. They can't make up a new law on their own. It's basically that simple.
Allowing Congress to write the Net neutrality laws is a recipe for red-tape and a sure fire way to disaster, especially with a partisan atmosphere and the-party-of-NO-GO republicans.
Irrelevant.
At least with the tyranny of FCC ...
It is NOT LEGAL. It VIOLATES OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. You're not getting it. This is simply unacceptable. Unelected bureaucrats have no right to make laws to tell us what to do. Period.
Let the FCC come up with a framework and guidelines and have it be voted upon by the representatives via a quick simple procedure.
The FCC can writes laws any time it wants to, and give them to someone in Congress to submit as proper legislation.
Our representatives are too vulnerable to be swayed by ISPs and their lobbyists
No moreso than the members of the FCC.
And you forgot to mention "and other special interests" (which includes groups like the EFF) If you make this government-vs-ISP then you're already setting it up to fail. It's about doing what is best for everyone, not for going against the ISPs.
The FCC could just, you know, respect the fact that we live in a representative democracy and that as unelected bureaucrats that don't get to invent new laws restricting the free behavior of the people. The FCC could lobby Congress to write a law implementing what they want, instead of trying to tyrannically decide for us what they think is best.
I am mostly in favor of Net Neutrality (especially in cases where there's a de facto monopoly for a particular broadband provider). But I am not in favor of the FCC making up its own rules. I am in favor of elected representatives voting so we can hold them accountable in the end.
Um. No, the judges correctly noted that it was the FCC that was saying "fuck the law," by making up their own laws.
Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't? That's scary stuff.
Simply put: why is it that we assume an "advanced" civilization means that it is militarily advanced and not ethically advanced?
On Earth, we can survive through trade and so on with other nations, and through learning to get along.
If they have massive weapons and a strong need for our raw materials in order to survive, they MAY decide to trade with us ... or they may have needs beyond our ability to trade and just take what we have, killing us in the process.
ALL security is effectively through obscurity. Because it's impossible to prove any security method to be secure, any and all security measures are put in place with the hope that any adversary doesn't know how to defeat those measures.
Not true. Take the game of chess, for example. Everything in chess is right out in the open. There may be some misdirection involved, but nothing is actually hidden from the adversary. Yet you still have security measures in place.
You don't put armed guards outside a military outpost in the hope that the enemy won't know HOW to defeat them; you just hope they won't try, because it's too difficult or costly. And if they do try, you will defeat them mostly with brute force, not with anything hidden or secretive.
That's OK, apparently, Comedy Central somehow skipped seeing Mohammed in the opening credits all these years.
Sure. And good. When people get pissed off to the extent that they threaten the liberty of others, then they should be actively pissed off until such time as liberty is no longer threatened.
South Park did this with the word "shit," for example. By the time they were done, no one cared. It was brilliant. They should do the same now: show Mohammed in a bear suit as much as they can, all the time, until people stop caring. And if Comedy Central allows it, show him outside of the bear suit.
You're looking at yourself.
$ host RevolutionMuslim.com
RevolutionMuslim.com has address 127.0.0.1
Someone took it down. We can only guess why ...
I mean in the bear suit.
I call on South Park, and all animated shows, to have a depiction of Mohammed in a bear suit in every episode they make from now on.
Why conflate a philosophical issue (whether we should ban political parties) with a legal issue (what the current embodiment of law allows us to do)?
It's explicit that I am saying I agree with the Constitution. I did say it was, after all, "anti-liberty."
Just because something is in the Constitution does not mean that it is just, right, or supports liberty.
Correct.
There is an argument to be made that the existence of a two-party system suppresses the liberty of individuals.
But there is NOT a case to be made that OUTLAWING parties, or forcing there to be more than two parties, is NOT anti-liberty. To say otherwise means that I can either be banned from associating myself with a political group, or I can be forced to associate myself with a political group. Either way is absolutely anti-liberty.
I hope you don't disagree, because that's damned scary that anyone would be that hateful of liberty.
I just want to ask that you stick to the topic and not introduce other issues.
I didn't introduce other issues. You just don't understand how they are inextricably linked.
Pudge in this case you are wrong.
False.
you attempted to shoehorn a fact that does not agree with your opinion into a classification in which it does not belong
False, on both counts: it does belong there, and I never implied I didn't agree with it.
I have laid out repeatedly parts of the gay marriage argument that are beyond "equal protection" issues.
False. You have not done this.
Why don't you learn what equal protection is? Honestly.
I can show you the argument
I doubt it.
Again, it is unfortunate that you cannot discern between your opinion and reality.
... says the person who, not knowing what equal protection is, continually asserts what it isn't.
your assertion that it is somehow "tangential" to the discussion itself
... is obviously true.
But then again, it is also obviously true that a person not getting the same recognition of rights and so on from government is an equal protection issue, and you keep denying that, too.
Any literate person could read back through this dialogue between us and find several topics that you either discarded completely (such as your baseless "tangential" claim) or omitted response from.
False.
And if we count the times where you offered only one-word responses, the list grows even longer.
But that would be dishonest of you, since one-word responses are perfectly sufficient much of the time. If you say things without basis, a one-word response generally suffices.
You claimed before that "forcing creationism" is the same as "forcing evolution".
In terms of its effect on liberty, yes, that is what I said.
I countered by giving you several examples where evolution is not forced.
Correct. And that has nothing to do with what I said, obviously.
Your hangup on whether either is ever "forced" is beside the point (a stupid point neither of us brought up in the first place, but that you are irrationally fixated on, even though you don't even understand it).
Pudge, you are lying on that one, and you know it.
False.
You mentioned forcing evolution and forcing creationism earlier.
I did. In terms of each one's effect on liberty. Nothing more. I said nothing about whether one is forced more than another, or under what circumstances, etc.
So since you made the claim before I entered the discussion, can you just answer the question? Do you agree that neither evolution nor creation are currently truly forced as part of the curriculum?
As it is completely irrelevant to any point I was involved with discussing, no, I will not answer that question.
The other person said that the "right" engages in such anti-liberty things as "forcing creationism." I replied, "that is no different, in terms of liberty, from forcing evolutionism." That's all. I had no other point. Your fixation on something bigger than that is irrational and baseless, just like your claim that equal protection claims are not equal protection claims.
Ban the party system
That, in itself, is anti-liberty. You can't ban parties, because people have a First Amendment right to combine into groups and to act politically within those groups.
You can ban special treatment for the "major parties," which I am all in favor of. And you can even go so far as to ban party affiliations from government-sponsored election materials (other than the candidate's own written text in the election pamphlet). But that's as far as you can go without attacking the First Amendment.
Uh, who do you think runs non-democratic nations? Hint: It ain't 200 IQ scientists who only do what is best for Gaia!
Yes, but that's a point in FAVOR of his idea!
But, to your point, as Bastiat said 160 years ago:
I'd go see it. And I rarely "go see" movies.
I'd be happy to. Start by reading back to your earlier comment where you responded to my pointing out that there is more to the gay marriage issue than just what you outlined, to which you replied
Oh, I see. You're just reaffirming that you don't know what "equal protection" is. Gotcha.
I have since outlined specific issues that go beyond 14th amendment protections
In fact, you didn't. You talked about rights that normal couples have that gay couples don't, which IS an equal protection issue.
yet you repeatedly reject them out of hand without considering the argument at all.
You're lying. I read them, considered them, and pointed out the fact that they are an equal protection issue.
You are on a very high horse
False. I simply know what "equal protection" is, and you do not. Pointing out a germaine fact is not being on a "high horse."
[you] re-asserted that a discussion topic directly in line with something you said earlier was for no obvious reason "a tangent"
False.
And on another matter that you either omitted or chosen to discard in your most recent reply
False.
do you agree that students are indeed free to not learn evolution?
That is completely irrelevant to anything I was talking about. The issue is whether an example of the "right" denying liberty of others is when they "force creationism." That's the issue. What you're talking about is unrelated.
I don't know why this is so hard for you. It's not about whether students are free. It's whether "forcing creationism" is more or less free than "forcing evolution." Your hangup on whether either is ever "forced" is beside the point (a stupid point neither of us brought up in the first place, but that you are irrationally fixated on, even though you don't even understand it).
Or will you instead opt to re-reverse your stance
You're a liar. I never reversed my stance.
No, not an ad hominem.
False.
So you don't believe that publishers have no responsibility ...
We were not discussing "responsibility." Please pull your head out KTHX. You were talking about who had direct "control" over what articles were published, not who was "responsible" for them.
Not even in your first response did you argue anything but straw men.
You keep saying that, and yet you've refused to offer a single example of a straw man argument I made, either through direct quotation, or even indirect reference.
No, that is not what you said.
You're a liar.
Really, your fuzzy English ...
... is only "fuzzy" to someone who doesn't know what a "straw man" is, because otherwise the context made it perfectly clear.
I'm done here.
You were done a long time ago.
I hope someday you find whatever it is your missing in life that makes you so unbearable online.
Ad hominem.
Speaking from experience
Yes.
Both media companies I've worked for exercised editorial control over content, both in terms of what is published, and in terms of the writing style and slant.
Then you probably didn't work for a large daily newspaper, or you are overstating the level of control. Certainly publishers get involved on occasion, especially when there's political endorsements and so on, but usually the publisher's control is mostly limited to who they hire.
Have you?
Yes.
For what organizations?
Several, including, but not limited to, the Alameda Newspaper Group, as a reporter, mostly for the Tri-Valley Herald, but also having pieces published in the Oakland Tribune and other papers in the group.
You establish that my argument is different from what it is
No. That is not it. A straw man is making up an argument you didn't make. Often people try to pretend that if they make an argument, but it's not their MAIN POINT, then me attacking that argument is a straw man. But that's false. If you make an argument, my attacking that argument is not a straw man.
It could be a red herring, but if so, that's your fault, as you introduced the argument.
It's only a straw man if it is an argument you never made, and there's not a single thing I said is your argument, that is not.
You continue to do so in every post.
False. In fact, I never did it at all. And you cannot give a single example of it.
A straw man argument is one that attempts to discredit a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
... that's what I said. I said it is attacking an argument that is not yours, while pretending it IS yours. That is another way of saying "discrediting" (attacking) a "misrepresentation of your position" (an argument that is not your argument, that I pretend is your argument).
And you cannot show a single example of me doing so.
Perhaps you should really consider educating yourself before trying to have a conversation with people who actually know what they are talking about.
That's my line to you.
But, I expect another line-item response from you ...
Ad hominem.
You appear to be either unable or unwilling to accept the fact that your own opinion is not the full and ultimate reality of the situation.
I have no idea what you're talking about; could you explain? If you're talking about equal protection, then that can only mean you still don't even know what equal protection IS, and I therefore have nothing more to say to you.
Feel free to describe what you were talking about if it was something else.