SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Vyor]

@Abhorsen is a smort.

 

[King Arts]

Stack up and try then. See how that goes.

I mean it could be done. Just import people from Africa or the middle east or other religious nations and give them fast tracked citizenship.

 

[Abhorsen]

I mean it could be done. Just import people from Africa or the middle east or other religious nations and give them fast tracked citizenship.

Oh, so you are fine importing enough immigrants into America to impose basically sharia law, all to own the libs. Wow, what success. I never want to hear you complaining about immigration again at this point, or any freedoms, or complaining about the surveillance state you'd need to maintain to do this.

And still, stack up and try. But you confess you are too cowardly to do it yourself, needing to import people to do it for you.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

BUT, BUT, BUT....MUH FEMINISM!!!!!! 😱😱😱😱😱😱

just in case it wasn't clear...

Even in men divisions, they don't stack a five-nothing 100-lb boy against a 6'8 350-450 lb mastodon. It's called a weight division for a reason. If feminist want to hang out with the heavyweights and the superheavyweights, they are going to have to encourage women to lift and bulk up on actual nourishing food, especially protein. physics don't care about your sex.

 

[King Arts]

Oh, so you are fine importing enough immigrants into America to impose basically sharia law, all to own the libs. Wow, what success. I never want to hear you complaining about immigration again at this point, or any freedoms, or complaining about the surveillance state you'd need to maintain to do this.

And still, stack up and try. But you confess you are too cowardly to do it yourself, needing to import people to do it for you.

First off I don't really complain about immigration in America, and this has nothing to do with freedoms or surveillance states.

Also too cowardly to do it myself lol, it's just realizing that local Americans of the current generations would not support such actions.

 

[ATP]

What you've done isn't even legal reasoning. The legal reason is the government is recognizing a series of benefits that exist for opposite sex couples that don't exist for same sex couples. This discriminates based on sex, as the legality of a person's marriage to a woman depends completely on the sex of that person (this argument is basically straight from Bostock). Sex discrimination hits the Equal protection clause (as stated in Reed v Reed). And marriage (the name for the set of benefits) is one of the rights granted by it in Loving v Virginia.

It being called marriage barely matters at all, legally speaking. It's that it's government recognized. It shouldn't have been, but it was. And it being government recognized means that the government rules that control how marriage works and who can be married have to obey the constitution, whether or not that's traditional or according to a certain religion.

It is not tradition of certain religion.Nobody,even cultures where pederast have rights,like ancient Greeks,never named that as marriage.
It is leftist war on worlds,to replace meaning of them.Just like in 1984.If you agree to that,next you would be in Ministry of Love.

 

[Captain X]

I do not wish to live in either commieland or Jesusland, thank you.

 

[Cherico]

I do not wish to live in either commieland or Jesusland, thank you.

my advice if things go to shit make peace with Jesus.

Because only one of those sides believes in forgiveness.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I do not wish to live in either commieland or Jesusland, thank you.

I'm OK with Jesus' land as long as it's actually Jesus, not some scheister claiming divinity for self-aggrandizement.

 

[King Arts]

I do not wish to live in either commieland or Jesusland, thank you.

So you and Abhorsen think pre 2003 U.S. was Jesusland?

"Yes for most of America's history it was an oppressive racist, theocratic, supremacist state.
The 1950's was a theocracy!"

 

[Abhorsen]

First off I don't really complain about immigration in America, and this has nothing to do with freedoms or surveillance states.

Also too cowardly to do it myself lol, it's just realizing that local Americans of the current generations would not support such actions.

Doesn't have to do with freedom or surveillance my ass. How do you think this law would be enforced?

And yeah, you not willing to stack up shows the world for either your beliefs being hollow, or you being a coward. If you are willing to send cops to die in order to kill civilians for the audacity to have sex in the privacy of their own home (and make no mistake, every law sends cops to die in order to kill civilians), then a) you are a scumbag (nothing new) and b) you are not willing to do it yourself, hence a coward. Your argument that not enough people want to do it just exposes you as a cowardly bully who's only willing to try to hurt someone when you massively outnumber them.

So you and Abhorsen think pre 2003 U.S. was Jesusland?

"Yes for most of America's history it was an oppressive racist, theocratic, supremacist state.
The 1950's was a theocracy!"

Given that in the 1950s they were throwing gays in jail and giving them the option between sterilization or lobotomization, way too close to Jesusland for my liking.

It is not tradition of certain religion.Nobody,even cultures where pederast have rights,like ancient Greeks,never named that as marriage.
It is leftist war on worlds,to replace meaning of them.Just like in 1984.If you agree to that,next you would be in Ministry of Love.

Blah, blah, blah, completely ignoring my post as usual. Spoilers, the only definition my post talks about is the legal definition, as constrained by the constitution.

 

[Captain X]

So you and Abhorsen think pre 2003 U.S. was Jesusland?

There were repeated attempts to make it that, yes.

 

[ATP]

Doesn't have to do with freedom or surveillance my ass. How do you think this law would be enforced?

And yeah, you not willing to stack up shows the world for either your beliefs being hollow, or you being a coward. If you are willing to send cops to die in order to kill civilians for the audacity to have sex in the privacy of their own home (and make no mistake, every law sends cops to die in order to kill civilians), then a) you are a scumbag (nothing new) and b) you are not willing to do it yourself, hence a coward. Your argument that not enough people want to do it just exposes you as a cowardly bully who's only willing to try to hurt someone when you massively outnumber them.



Given that in the 1950s they were throwing gays in jail and giving them the option between sterilization or lobotomization, way too close to Jesusland for my liking.


Blah, blah, blah, completely ignoring my post as usual. Spoilers, the only definition my post talks about is the legal definition, as constrained by the constitution.

And where exactly Constitution say that pederast could marry each other?

 

[King Arts]

Doesn't have to do with freedom or surveillance my ass. How do you think this law would be enforced?

And yeah, you not willing to stack up shows the world for either your beliefs being hollow, or you being a coward. If you are willing to send cops to die in order to kill civilians for the audacity to have sex in the privacy of their own home (and make no mistake, every law sends cops to die in order to kill civilians), then a) you are a scumbag (nothing new) and b) you are not willing to do it yourself, hence a coward. Your argument that not enough people want to do it just exposes you as a cowardly bully who's only willing to try to hurt someone when you massively outnumber them.

This is the same stupid argument that abortion people use. Something that is done is private like drug use is against the law. That doesen't mean the government will put cameras in your house to catch you fucking men up the ass. But if you confess to it, or if there is some sort of proof they could catch you. That is not a surveillance state.

What are you saying? You've kept repeating stack up 3 times? I don't know what that term means? Are you saying I should go kill random gay people? I can believe that the government should criminalize certain actions, but not do those actions if the government does not have it legal yet. For example how do you feel about pedos? If it was turned legal because of trannies and they became a protected class would you just go randomly shooting them, even if it's against the law? There is nothing hypocritical about thinking that the act should be punished with death, but not going to kill people when it's against the law.
So yes I believe that police should arrest those who perform the act of sodomy, those who do the disgusting act of putting a penis inside of a butthole. That is what we are discussing here. As for me doing it myself, are you telling me to be a cop? If I was a cop I would arrest someone for sodomy if it was against the law, and I caught them, or had probable cause.

Given that in the 1950s they were throwing gays in jail and giving them the option between sterilization or lobotomization, way too close to Jesusland for my liking.

There were repeated attempts to make it that, yes.

Got it 1777 until 2003 America was Jesusland, a theocracy similar to modern Iran.
Why is everyone against Iran then? LOL.

 

[Abhorsen]

This is the same stupid argument that abortion people use. Something that is done is private like drug use is against the law. That doesen't mean the government will put cameras in your house to catch you fucking men up the ass. But if you confess to it, or if there is some sort of proof they could catch you. That is not a surveillance state.

... Someone hasn't paid attention to history. The drug war massively expanded the surveillance state as cops got ever greater powers to search and raid people's houses for drugs. This includes warrentlessly using infrared cameras on houses, to swat raids for drugs, to constant use of CIs, and I could go on.

What are you saying? You've kept repeating stack up 3 times? I don't know what that term means? Are you saying I should go kill random gay people? I can believe that the government should criminalize certain actions, but not do those actions if the government does not have it legal yet. For example how do you feel about pedos? If it was turned legal because of trannies and they became a protected class would you just go randomly shooting them, even if it's against the law?

Yes, I would kill pedos if the law made them raping children legal. That you wouldn't makes you even more contemptable and cowardly than I thought. Innocent children being harmed, and you stick by and do nothing? Yeah, I call you scum. Specifically, I'm not advocating that you do violence, instead I'm promising that if you try and impose your morality on me in particular, you'd better stack up, as I'm quite willing to oppose that with force.

Obviously, I think you should stay a coward (or better yet, grow as a person and learn an actual moral system) rather than going to kill people. But you not willing to impose your principles without help shows you as what you are: a coward who only pretends at disgusting principles.

And where exactly Constitution say that pederast could marry each other?

The Constitution says gays can marry each other the same place it says blacks can marry whites: the Equal Protection clause. Maybe read my posts next time?

Unfortunately, the second marriage became a legal thing instead of just a religious thing, it became subject to the constitution, and the equal protection clause, which means that legally recognizing only opposite sex marriages is unconstitutional.

 

[King Arts]

... Someone hasn't paid attention to history. The drug war massively expanded the surveillance state as cops got ever greater powers to search and raid people's houses for drugs. This includes warrentlessly using infrared cameras on houses, to swat raids for drugs, to constant use of CIs, and I could go on.

You call yourself a libertarian? So you are against people being killed by a tyrannical government? Anyway those problems should have been fixed if you had a government that was willing to rein in police.

Yes, I would kill pedos if the law made them raping children legal. That you wouldn't makes you even more contemptable and cowardly than I thought. Innocent children being harmed, and you stick by and do nothing? Yeah, I call you scum. Specifically, I'm not advocating that you do violence, instead I'm promising that if you try and impose your morality on me in particular, you'd better stack up, as I'm quite willing to oppose that with force.

Obviously, I think you should stay a coward (or better yet, grow as a person and learn an actual moral system) rather than going to kill people. But you not willing to impose your principles without help shows you as what you are: a coward who only pretends at disgusting principles.

Ok, now I know you are an ITG. What bullshit, why haven't you tried killing the president's son. Or go shooting through your sex offender registry. Please your just as much of a pussy, only worse because you pretend to not be. If the government lowered the age of consent, or abolished it like many on the far left want, you'd do nothing. As for me, if someone went for MY child or family or friends then yes I would kill them damn the consequences. But I'm not willing to go to jail, or get executed on behalf of people I don't know. Same reason I don't bomb abortion clinics.

As for coming stacked, you better believe if I was a government enforcement agent I'd come armed and prepared to kill anyone who resists state power. And you probably wouldn't have the guts to actually fight and die, you libertarians would just meekly give up rights and lose.

And my morals based on historical tradition and faith are better than your hack job libertarian half assed NAP.

 

[ATP]

... Someone hasn't paid attention to history. The drug war massively expanded the surveillance state as cops got ever greater powers to search and raid people's houses for drugs. This includes warrentlessly using infrared cameras on houses, to swat raids for drugs, to constant use of CIs, and I could go on.


Yes, I would kill pedos if the law made them raping children legal. That you wouldn't makes you even more contemptable and cowardly than I thought. Innocent children being harmed, and you stick by and do nothing? Yeah, I call you scum. Specifically, I'm not advocating that you do violence, instead I'm promising that if you try and impose your morality on me in particular, you'd better stack up, as I'm quite willing to oppose that with force.

Obviously, I think you should stay a coward (or better yet, grow as a person and learn an actual moral system) rather than going to kill people. But you not willing to impose your principles without help shows you as what you are: a coward who only pretends at disgusting principles.

The Constitution says gays can marry each other the same place it says blacks can marry whites: the Equal Protection clause. Maybe read my posts next time?

Blacks could marry whites as long as one of them is man,and other woman.Not two pederast or lesbians.
And pererast could fuck each other,but it is not marriage.

 

[bintananth]

Even in men divisions, they don't stack a five-nothing 100-lb boy against a 6'8 350-450 lb mastodon. It's called a weight division for a reason. If feminist want to hang out with the heavyweights and the superheavyweights, they are going to have to encourage women to lift and bulk up on actual nourishing food, especially protein. physics don't care about your sex.

The only sports where men and women regularly compete side-by-side as teammates or against each other as opponents are the ones where the gender differences in athletic ability are irrelevant.

 

[Abhorsen]

You call yourself a libertarian? So you are against people being killed by a tyrannical government?

Yes. Unlike you, who wants to be the tyrannical government killing people, but is to cowardly to do it themselves.

Anyway those problems should have been fixed if you had a government that was willing to rein in police.

No, because of the laws, the government felt the need to let the cops run wild. That you can't see the link between these two would be shocking, if it wasn't you.

Ok, now I know you are an ITG. What bullshit, why haven't you tried killing the president's son. Or go shooting through your sex offender registry.

The sex offender registry by its very nature consists of a list of people that... already got punished. Meanwhile, the situation you previously proposed was a world where there is zero recourse to the system in order to get justice (in which case yes, I'd take it into my own hands). But the US, while by no means perfect, does currently punish child rapists that it finds, despite them hiding through a variety of means (including yes, hiding behind Daddy in Hunter's case). But overall, the system works much more than it doesn't. So the situation you proposed previously is not the current situation.

If the situation changed to such a drastic extent, it would become my (and everyone else's) duty to protect kids. So no duh I'd do it to protect anyone's kids. That you wouldn't tells us all what you are.

See, there comes a point at which you must damn the consequences and do what's right, and that's before allowing mass child rape. Apparently that point doesn't exist for you, as you said you are willing to stand by and watch a kid get raped if you don't know them. But this isn't internet tough guy position, this is basic human decency that I think nearly everyone would do given the opportunity. Except you, apparently.

As for coming stacked, you better believe if I was a government enforcement agent I'd come armed and prepared to kill anyone who resists state power.

The if I was a government agent is why I know you're full of shit. Because you are never going to make that if a true statement. You'll just send others to die and kill in order to fulfill your authoritarian fantasies.

Meanwhile, my if? My if's a threat about what other people might do. Don't make it a true statement, and we're all good. Hence why I advised you to stack up and try, but good on you for knowing when you are out matched. First piece of sense I've ever seen from you. Now maybe you could call this ITG. Try me and find out.

And you probably wouldn't have the guts to actually fight and die, you libertarians would just meekly give up rights and lose.

Come and find out.

And my morals based on historical tradition and faith are better than your hack job libertarian half assed NAP.

No, given your morals are fine watching kids you don't know get raped if it's 'legal', I don't believe they are actually based on historical tradition or faith. Last I checked, just standing by while a kid was raped would be called a sin.

Blacks could marry whites

And why is this legal under the constitution? The Equal protection clause. Which also applies to sex, which means that equal recognition of same sex marriage is also demanded by the constitution. That's where it is in the constitution.

 

[Vyor]

Even in men divisions, they don't stack a five-nothing 100-lb boy against a 6'8 350-450 lb mastodon. It's called a weight division for a reason. If feminist want to hang out with the heavyweights and the superheavyweights, they are going to have to encourage women to lift and bulk up on actual nourishing food, especially protein. physics don't care about your sex.

No weight divisions in football.