Hodad

You're welcome to your opinion, but those interventions were legal. What Haim did was illegal--and an indefensible violation of trust and a gross abuse of his privilege as a physician. He broke the law to hurt people with whom he disagreed. If it wasn't worth the consequence he should have made a different choice. Not surprised to see you defending the criminal though.

He stole the medical records of minors and gave them to a journalist, in a severe violation of patient privacy laws.

Jeebus, now you think stealing and sharing people's medical records is okay? You're getting crazier by the minute.

You really should be embarrassed by your inability to grasp this simple concept. Just don't buckle your seatbelt, Dummy. Automotive fatalities have gone up every single year since the shoulder belt became mandatory.

Now you're doubling-down on the dumb again. Try some logic. If they are "only the same in that they are both illegal," you have acknowledged that they are different in many other ways. Thanks for conceding that. You've simultaneously expanded your argument to "All illegal things are illegal and therefore merit the same reactions and the same consequences. Which, again, is pretty stupid. So let's rewind to before you went there. Even identical outcomes are evaluated differently based on circumstance. is why I keep pointing out the significant stratification of illegal acts with identical outcomes. There are at least 6 tiers of homicide in most jurisdictions. All are characterized by the fact that one person killed another, but our legal system (and common sense) takes into account circumstance, motive, intention etc. But again, you position is that as long as someone killed someone else, it's "all the same." Which is pretty stupid. Of course, people should react to things differently based on the distinctions between scenarios. You didn't "get me" at all. You just made yourself look like a fool who can't recognize and understand the differences between scenarios.

The point of saying it is to snuff out the objection that women shouldn't register because "certain people" don't believe them capable, the same way they try to exclude women from first responder work. -- It simply doesn't matter for selective service registration. It's not relevant. You haven't presented any cogent argument for your "nuh-uh" opposition, but you kind of tipped your hand when you brought up physical strength. The DoD approved women for combat roles a decade ago, but here you are on an internet forum telling us--by all implications--that women aren't strong enough. What do you know that they don't? I don't see any reason not to do this. Perhaps that's why you haven't presented one?

Lol. Nice try, but you did pretend they are the same and continue to do so, in service of a very stupid game of "gotcha." I react to things differently when they are different. By pretending that there is something wrong in my doing so, you must necessarily pretend that the examples are not different, but rather the same. That's the only way I can be called out as inconsistent or hypocritical. Which is the entire premise of this conversation, no? But that's just not how reason works, nor how our law is structured in this society. If you can't understand the distinctions after they are pointed out multiple times, I'm probably not going to be able to help you. And if you CAN understand them, then maybe drop this line of conversation and move on to something more useful and less, well, stupid.

A. I did not exclude combat roles for women? WTF do you get that? B. Thank goodness you're here to armchair quarterback the DoD. You should send them a letter with your counterpoints: "Nuh-uh!"

Eh, it might not be me, but you clearly need somebody to help you out. You pretended as if a protest that spills into the streets and generally slows traffic is somehow directly analogous to targeted harassment of people trying to access clinics and churches. In your mind, someone was "blocked" from going somewhere, so they must be the same. Well, no, they're not the same for multiple reasons that should be pretty easy to grasp. If you can't understand the reasons, you definitely need some help. The rest of society does understand, and those differences are reflected in our legal system. Nuance is why we have so many different flavors of homicide in our laws. Sure, in every case someone killed someone else, but they motive, intent and manner create different crimes. Sometimes I really can't help but pity you. The amount of the world you can't understand is just staggering.

Sorry, but you're in the same boat. The differences between the Biden/Pence document situations and the Trump document situation aren't even nuanced. Night and day. Apples and watermelons. Eh, I can give you the definitions, but I can't upgrade your processor. 🤷‍♂️

Nah, the only point that has been proven is that you're not good at nuanced thinking. Luckily, our legal framework and jurisprudence are considerably more sophisticated, having long ago rejected simplistic consequentialism in favor of a more nuanced understanding of the world. The difference between a crime of passion that results in death is meaningfully different from an act of terrorism that results in death. But apparently it's all the same to you. 🤷‍♂️

Unless one is interested in basic equity, fairness, and doubling a potential draft pool.

Blocking traffic is not ideal, but protests (or celebrations) of all sorts do happen (both permitted and unpermitted) and people occupy space so that's just sort of the reality that occasionally things spill into streets. But those general inconveniences are very different from targeting individuals to prevent them from accessing a specific destination. That's decidedly more personal with a very different intent and different outcomes. When protests and celebrations spill into the streets, people just take a different route.

It's 2024. We can wage war by wire--partially if not wholly--in most scenarios. Most service personnel are not assigned to combat roles anyway. No reason not to do this.

More likely mischaracterization than mistake. Don't forget that FACE also protects people going into places of worship. You're simply fabricating this claim from whole cloth--lying. If anyone is sick in this scenario, it's you.

No, she wasn't. That's absurd. There are literally millions of people who share her kooky beliefs but didn't show up at clinics to harass the patients. None of them were arrested. Because in America, you're allowed to be stupid and wrong all you like. We only care when your beliefs are expressed as actions that harm others.

You'd better watch out then. Any minute now someone will annoy you by coupling ignorance with intransigence, then repeating trite aphorisms ad nauseum.

You are a liar. Obviously, she was not arrested for her beliefs. She is welcome to believe whatever absurd shit she wants. She was arrested for her actions--actions taken against other people in violation of their rights.

You are factually incorrect. Trump's attorneys told Bannon's explicitly that executive privilege would not apply. Bannon didn't even work for the WH during the events that he was subpoenaed to testify about. Care to try again?

I swear, I don't know how people like you even function in life. You don't know anything, and even if someone gives you the information, you can't absorb it. And the spelling is just icing on the stupid cake. You talking politics is like a dog watching TV; you're in the room, but you don't understand what's actually happening.

Garland didn't break the law, goofus. Once it's claimed, executive privilege is presumptive. You'd need a court to reverse it. Nothing illegal. I'm sure you'll change your opinion now and retract your vitriolic remarks. Because you're a person motivated by facts, not someone just randomly spewing crap to justify your biases, right? 🤣

Yes, everyone knows that when you turn 70 laws don't apply anymore.🙄 It's a free pass. You should try it.

As Republicans are so fond of saying (when it's convenient) "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." I have zero sympathy for zealots who go out of their way to harass women seeking health care. This is functionally the same principle as violating a restraining order. The only thing you have to do to follow this law is to be a decent person and leave the poor women alone. It's not an accidental slip-up. You have to go out of your way to deliberately break this law. Well, she got what she wanted. Probably should have thought about her husband's feelings before she made that choice.

Exactly. My concern with whatever weird stuff strangers believe is zero--until it starts hurting other people. After there is a question of harm it becomes a negotiation.

Children are independent entities. A fetus is not, in any circumstance, but it's rather more obvious earlier in gestation. Terminating a pregnancy is very obviously different from killing a child. That you would claim the two situations are "no different" shows a shocking lack of thought. Meaningful differences include: Children do not compromise the physical sovereignty of the parent Children, as a category, do not take blood and tissue from a host Children can be cared for by any and several caregivers Children can be surrendered to other individuals or civic entities This is not a comprehensive list, but sufficient to demonstrate meaningful differences. In short, if you don't want your kids, you have options. If you don't want to be pregnant, the only option is to terminate the pregnancy. You can't even articulate the distinction between sex and gender, so you really aren't in any position to be the arbiter of "truth" regarding someone's gender. I don't think it's beyond your capacity to learn and understand that distinction, but that's not compatible with your politics, so you've refused. Oh, it's absolutely a silly analogy. A parent CAN get out of child support by terminating parental rights. The legal procedures to do so vary by jurisdiction, but even at a broad level, all 50 states allow for infant surrender under safe haven laws. A parent can simply stop making money. And, conversely, a parent who wishes to keep a child can get help from other sources to care for it. Again, if you can't spot the difference between children and fetuses, refer to the list above. But it all comes back to the fact that children are an independent entity and even those which need help to survive can accept assistance from any other entity.