Hodad

Country western music, I assume?🤷‍♂️

The vast majority of kids access online pornography. If you don't want to allow schools to counterprogram and provide materials that model healthy and safe sexual relationships, then you are simply condemning kids to a dangerous ignorance. But that feels more comfortable for a lot of you. Feels like the "abstinence only" idiocy recycled. And yes, we may be worlds apart. I live on Earth in 2024. What reality are you posting from? The nihilists delight: "Tolerance means tolerating the intolerant!" Nope. That's not what it means, and it never had. It means live and let live. It means giving tolerance of whatever personal weirdness you exhibit, and expecting the same in return. The entirety of western philosophical exploration of liberty is based on this simple principle. Non-harm liberties do not affect you, so don't try to curtail them and we'll all get along. Nonsense. Pure nonsense. I am 100% tolerant of you not wanting an abortion. More power to you. But when you're abusive to others and seek to curtail their liberty we have a problem. I don't respect or tolerate that in the least. MYOB. Sex and gender are different. Always have been. That they've been recently-and incorrectly-conflated is a shame. If a biological male wants to live as a woman, what's the harm to you? What's the harm to anyone? Why the need force them to do otherwise, and to what end? Nobody is asking more of you than basic courtesy. Does it cost you anything to treat the follically challenged with courtesy and decency, to indulge their presented state? Same question for a trans person? Does it cost you anything? Nope. The truth is you juts think it's weird and "icky" and that the "otherness" gives you license to antagonize them. There are always some people who get off on picking on marginalized groups, when it takes a lot less time and energy to just be courteous to everyone. Yo, it's the pride flag. Pride in one's self, comfort with one's self, tolerance. That's all that's in it. No negative message for anyone. You may think that gay people are icky, but unless you are represented by one of those stripes of color, that flag says nothing to or about you. Again, that's a stark contrast to a flag that explicitly represents dominance. A. Autism is very often a different ability, but not a disability. Sometimes it's a goddamn superpower. B. Nobody asked you to pretend that someone with autism doesn't have autism. Nobody asked you to pretend that gay people are not gay or trans people are not trans. The only thing you were asked to do in either case is to tolerate their expression of personal pride in their diverse status. If you wouldn't rip down the autism poster, you shouldn't be ripping down the pride flag. Neither of them have any negative impact on you. Let them be proud. Treat them with courtesy. Easy peasy. This is not a serious argument. Completely disingenuous. The flag of the pro-life movement represents... the pro-life movement. We know what those values. We know the hostility and the oppression--even the violence that sometimes comes with it. It's alarming that you can't distinguish between matters of non-harm liberty (Pride) and matters explicitly focused on taking someone else's liberty (pro-life). That's just a straight up lie. The cake that was requested was a simple wedding cake, no different than any other cake he makes. The cake requested was not a special “cake celebrating same-sex marriage.” It was simply a wedding cake—one that (like other standard wedding cakes) is suitable for use at same-sex and opposite-sex weddings alike. See ante, at 4 (majority opinion) (recounting that Phillips did not so much as discuss the cake’s design before he refused to make it). The proprietor refused them service because they were gay, not because they asked him to do anything he wouldn't do for another customer. Its wrong. In exactly the same way that refusing to sell a cake to an interracial couple because the proprietor is an anti-miscegenist. It's no different than the gas stations in the south that would turn away blacks. If he operates a business of public accommodation he should not be allowed to discriminate against protected minorities. And the fact that you would use this example is further evidence that you don't understand the concept of tolerance at all. I'm fine tolerating someone with his bigoted beliefs. He's welcome to use any place of public accommodation. That's what tolerance is. But when he manifests those beliefs in illegal ways to hurt others there is no reason to respect or accept that. Tolerance doesn't mean "tolerating" intolerance. It doesn't mean condoning his cruel and abusive actions.

What about heterosexual literature? Probably best to just avoid anything with human relationships. Orrrr, we could go the other way and allow the full spectrum of human relationships, because that's the world we live in.

Lol. Sure you do. Everybody forget about the "freedom convoy" and, oh, some little thing that happened on Jan, 6. Nothing says "respect for the rule of law" like a howling mob smashing through the capitol, assaulting police officers and pursuing our lawmakers through buildings and barricades until a LEO finally had to pull the trigger.

Yeah, it's usually Alex Jones-quality analysis. All protestors are paid. The bad ones are false-flag plants. Ray Epps works for the government and all the dead kids and grieving parents from Sandy Hook are "crisis actors." In other words, nutball conspiracy nonsense.

Sure. No big deal. "Hey, Clarence, here's a quarter of a million dollars. But remember to vote your conscience in court!" "Okay, but I won't disclose this massive gift, just because it's so casual, you know?" Who could have a problem with that?!?🤪

My favorite part about this lunacy is that she taught and encouraged a predator to hunt birds, and then got pissed off when the pup caught birds. Off with its head! What a loon.

Oh, yeah. I'm definitely pro school choice. Send your kid wherever you want. Just don't ask me to pay for it. A fetus is not a person with a right to anything, but even if we stipulate that they are for the sake of debate, their rights cannot reasonably supersede the rights of the women. There is no logical argument to make the unborn a special class of citizen--and certainly none within our constitution, which does not recognize the unborn as citizens. Can I ask just a basic logic question? When I say that the movement is almost entirely driven by evangelicals and Catholics, you have TWICE now listed the involvement of men and women as a counterpoint. Why are you doing this? Are you under the impression that evangelicals and Catholics are not men and women? WTF is going on here?

Lol. So what you're saying now is that anything the government does is inherently democratic because people voted on representatives who were somehow involved at some stage of the process. Okay. 🙄I'll hold you to that.

Wait a second, let's check the replay. 🙄 You said, "My point here is that neither of us should be pushing our values regarding what is or is not a healthy sexual relationship onto children outside of basics like consent, safety, and consequences." So, like I said, you don't want to push your views on children, as long as the teachers teach your views. If they teach something else you'll be up in arms. Oh, what a tangled web you weave... Tolerance doesn't mean that I don't have thoughts or opinions. It means I don't try to punish people for holding different opinions or force them to live according to my values. Whether it's Christian mythology, Greek mythology, Jewish mythology, Scientology or whatever deranged nonsense people think is true, I'm fine with it. Right up until they try to codify their fantasy into law that affects others. That's what tolerance means. You do you, just don't force it on me. If "pro-life" meant a personal choice not to abort, great, I support that. If it means stripping rights from others, GTFO. Gender is and always has been a social construct. People can't change their DNA, but they can and do change the social signals they send through dress, speech, behavior, etc. How about this. If you see a man or woman with a toupee or hairpiece, do you refuse to play "a role in some kind of fantastical delusion"? They don't have hair, but they pretend to. Do you climb right up on your soapbox and denounce them? Shout them down for pretending? Belittle them? -- Or do you just politely let them go about their day? See, it is basic courtesy. People make all kinds of allowances for one another and the public faces we present. Okay, then try applying some reason to support your claim. What does "pride" in one's self take from anyone else? Is there any implication of superiority? Is there anyone on the losing side of the equation? I saw an employee with a poster the other day that said "Autism is not a disability." By your reading, an expression of pride in his own neurodiverse identity is hostile to the neurotypical. It's a political statement, browbeating people into accepting him. Which is all pretty silly. Just like the Pride flag, there is zero harm in that message of self worth and tolerance. But you want to make it into something ugly for the sake of politics. This is completely new territory. lol Gay thugs forcing "compliance" on people? Jeebus. Compliance with what? Compliance with equal rights? Compliance with not bullying gays? Compliance with live and let live? 🙄

In this nonsensical ramble you've managed to get just about everything wrong. Likely because you know nothing about our constitution and don't much care about democracy. But even at a basic level you should understand that the SCOTUS making an unpopular decision that allows states to deny women basic privacy and physical autonomy has nothing to do with democracy. And my "personal beliefs" are that these decisions should be between a woman and her health care provider. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. But don't force your views on others. That's what it means to be pro choice.

Pro-life? Nah, they're not out protesting capitol punishment and they don't really care much what happens after birth. Anti-choice is more apt. "Spread across" sure. As in, it's not exclusively evangelicals and Catholics. But, again, it is a "movement" almost entirely driven by first Catholics and then later joined by evangelicals. That's not a controversial fact. You don't need to "debate" it. So you still don't have an argument to make? Fair enough.

She used to have 4 kids, but one of them had ADHD. Something had to be done... That's just life in the country. 🤷‍♂️

1. I explained the clear and obvious difference to you. 2. You may wish that you had done that, but you certainly haven't. (We pull the plug on vegetables all the time, BTW.) 3. Neither of those topics is relevant to the fact that this notion of fetal supremacy creates a supercitizen class while turning women into second-class citizens. Again, if you needed a transfusion to survive, would you support the state strapping your mother down and taking her blood against her will? Does the fact that she's female and furnished half of your DNA give you a greater claim on her body than she herself has?

Actually, it's pretty well documented that he accepts A LOT of lavish gifts from people with business before the court--and then neglects to even disclose it. Not to mention the entanglement with his wife's business. Here's a lighter look at it.

Lol. Come on. You know that's nonsense. The anti-choice movement has been driven almost entirely by evangelicals and Catholics. It's not some wonderfully diverse cross section of American life. I really don't care a whit about religious beliefs--until people start trying to turn their beliefs into legislation that affects me. Their fantasies don't hurt me until they try to inject them into my reality. Bad news for them politically though, in that non-religious people are even more invested in the outcome of the abortion debate and more pissed off about Roe. Hence why Trumps candidates in hostile states have been punished. 538 Unaffiliated Americans are today overwhelmingly in agreement on abortion — even more so than white evangelicals. A new survey conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that 60 percent of white evangelical Christians believe that abortion becoming less available is a good thing for society — but a much larger percentage (78 percent) of unaffiliated Americans say this has been a negative development. And a Pew survey found last year that religiously unaffiliated Americans are much more united in support for legal abortion than white evangelicals are in opposition (84 percent vs. 74 percent, respectively). Recent polling also found that 65 percent of nonreligious Americans say the term “pro-choice” describes them very well, a jump from 54 percent roughly a decade earlier.

I'd have to see a specific legislative proposal to comment on whether I support it or not, but I don't have any problem with excluding the underage if it's done in a way that respects the privacy of others. Lol. At least you're consistent in that you don't like colorful examples to illustrate the point in a practical way. Which, again, is my beef with your argument. If you're not talking about these things in a practical, relevant--and compelling--way, then your message doesn't much matter. You know, funny as it is, I've NEVER tried to tell educators how to do their jobs. I've never pushed my views on anyone, nor tried to communicate any information to any children outside of my own. You, on the other hand, intend to do exactly that. You look at the decisions that these educators have made locally -- these people who have both the pedagogical expertise and the relationship with real teens--and you wag your finger and say "I know better. Get those books out of there." You've thoroughly confused our roles here. I simply asked you to examine the merits of alternative approaches amid a changing social landscape. But your response is that we should both stay out of teachers business--as long as the teachers teach the way you want them to.🙄 But you can't muster the courtesy to refer to people as they view themselves? If some biological male wants to be a woman, or vice versa, how does that harm you? Is it a power thing? They have to see and refer to themselves as you see them rather than how they see themselves? Can't manage an alternative pronoun if it makes someone else feel more comfortable? Yes, that's a pretty good example of intolerance. If you can't tolerate the harmless little differences between individuals and groups, you are intolerant. My "political ideology" is tolerance. It's basic kindness. It's the core lesson in every kindergarten class, until society teaches some kids how to be cruel, and discriminate and bully (in their tiny MAGA hats, I presume). Noooooope. You're being wildly disingenuous. Nobody anywhere is going to be persuaded that the "pro-life flag" isn't hostile to pro-choice people. There are two sides to that debate, and you know full well which side is lined up outside of reproductive medicine clinics to heckle women and shout "baby killer!" at the doctors. The pride flag has no such connotation. There are no throngs of gay people hectoring passersby trying to turn them gay. There's simply gay people finding the courage to be proud of who they are in an often hostile society. Apples and watermelons. As before, if the message of self acceptance and tolerance is a problem for you, the flag isn't the problem.

That's nonsense. But note, that you can't make the successful argument even if I stipulate that lumps of cells--without formed bodies, brains or any indication of sentience-- are people.

I absolutely reject the idea that a developing fetus is a human being, let alone a "distinct" human being. But again, even if we stipulate that that is the case you are--quite literally now--saying that it's okay if the states want to make women 2nd class citizens, condemned to serve fetal citizens against their will.

Let's get real. The 50 years of political strife and churn had NOTHING to do with the quality of Roe. The bible thumpers just can't abide a woman's right to choose. They believe they are on a divine mission, so they won't take no for an answer. If the right to abortion had been added as a crystal clear amendment it would have been challenged over and over again in the exact same way.

Yes, we all know cases have been overturned by later cases. Alito says as much to brush right past any obligation to stare decisis. But if you look at this list you should notice a few things. The first is the most of those cases are overturned fairly soon after, rather than upending longstanding decisions around which American life is built. And most of those cases are not affecting fundamental rights on a broad scale. Whether this court liked or disliked the holding in Roe, they have a responsibility to account for all the rest. Stare decisis isn't a binding rule, but it sure as hell is a reminder to the court why it should act deliberately and with due caution for it's role in American life. A reminder that something as fundamental as our constitution doesn't change every time a new ass lands on the SCOTUS bench. Roe had been in place for 50+ years. Roe involves the rights to one's own body, the most private of private decisions. Roe directly affects over half of all American citizens. Roe--and the rights it protected--were VERY popular among the governed. Roe was integral to American life and it would surely create meaningful chaos to overturn it. If ever there were a case where stare decisis should have been given extra weight, Roe was it. And if it was to be overturned, it deserved a rationale more complete and compelling that Alito's dog's breakfast of an opinion. Instead this court rushed headlong to overturn longstanding law against that will of the people and in a manner that would be both disruptive and meaningly harmful to Americans. The Federalist Society delivered as promised, but the irony should not be lost that an organization literally named for and grounded in judicial restraint has become the most activist court in living memory.

^^ I like Billy Joel's version better. 😁

Correct. If the state want's to support and sustain the elderly, it's welcome to do so. But it also is not compelling individuals to do so. When granny is on dialysis, the state doesn't show up at your door to steal your kidney. When granny gets in a car accident and needs a transfusion the state doesn't show up with a syringe and drain your blood. You'd probably find that an outrageous idea, but it's essentially what you're arguing that states should be empowered to do to women: that they should be compelled to surrender their own bodily sovereignty in order to sustain another body.

Yes, the person responsible for the child cannot neglect the child. The difference is that the responsibility is transferrable. The state won't compel a mother to support a living child--she may legally transfer that dependent to another. <--yet another example of how you would elevate the fetus to a supercitizen status with rights to other people's resources far beyond those of born citizens.

No worries. 👍