I'd like an objective, inarguable federal law cited, please. Not a court ruling, since my entire point is that courts get involved when the law is up to interpretation.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
"If you're not playing along with my pedantry, then I guess you're backing off!"
You said it, and this is frankly a pretty pathetic attempt to pretend you didn't.
Again, you're nitpicking the part I didn't say.
Here's a question for you: if I "back off" and rephrase the point with softer, more precise language than Bill Maher, does that change the argument at all? Are you going to suddenly agree that acting like abortion isn't killing is dishonest, and that the honest arguments in favor of abortion are all about the willingness to accept that bad thing in pursuit of other priorities?
If your point of contention is that I used the word murder (I didn't), are you implying that had nobody said murder you'd agree with me?
If someone points to something and says "I believe this", is it then fair to pretend they didn't express a belief in that view because they didn't literally originally voice the words?
"Killing" has obviously a very different meaning from "murder", so yes, it does substantially change the argument. The uprooting of a weed, or destruction of a cell culture, constitute killing.
Pro-choice people acknowledge that killing in certain circumstances is acceptable, yes. As does everyone-- except for those small religious groups that use brooms to ensure they do not step on insect life, and eat only fruits and vegetables that have already fallen from the branch.
Not on the moral questions, no. But if you hadn't applied the word "murder" to your opponents (you did), I also wouldn't be here objecting to your moral arrogance.
That's simply how the priority of laws work. Federal supersedes state law. Since you'd love a federal law for abortion, what's would be the point of it if states could interpret it any way they wanted?
Just because a ruling is appealed doesn't mean it's because it's a grey area and up for interpretation. A lower court can just make the wrong ruling and a higher court can overrule it saying as much. Much like the baseball example, the umpire can make the wrong call and it can be challenged and overturned.
....I know. This doesn't answer my question or contradict anything I said or asked. You said something was objectively true according to federal law, so I asked you to point to the federal law that lays it out objectively and unambiguously.
Are we just going to be in another situation where you say you can provide something, then refuse/fail to do so for 40+ posts until it becomes blindingly obvious that you were just bullshitting?
Federal law and the supreme court gets stuff wrong/make stuff up all the time, a chief example would be Hans v. Louisiana. A case that concludes that the eleventh amendment prohibits someone from suing the state they live in.
For clarity, this is the 11th amendment
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Now, the court arrives at the conclusion that if someone is prohibited from bringing suit against a state they don't live in then they certainly don't have the right to bring suit against the state they do live in. Because that is obvious and made clear by the amendment, or something like that.
And just because even the highest court in the land can make mistakes doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer when there is a correct answer. And just like baseball, the umpires are in essence political appointees and they can purposefully make the wrong call if they want (and not get fired) and same with the umpire that decides the challenge (if there is one). When the challenge systems in baseball and football were new, the umpire that looks over the play in a game tended to be very biased about not changing the call to not make the original umpire look bad.
The supremacy clause merely establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law, a fact that nobody here ever disputed.
Supremacy Clause
www.law.cornell.edu
You said it was objectively the case that federal law prevents states from barring candidates in state primaries. Where's that law?
Nope, because your smear went significantly further than that. "Murder" =/= "killing, as with a weed or cell culture".
Last edited:
Ah, but you agreed that it's "a bad thing", significantly further than alike to killing a weed.
Presumably this is in reference to this post, where you used the term 'bad thing' in a much wider point, and I said 'yes' in reply to that wider point. I also assume the intent here is to prompt me to concede that if someone responds to someone else's word choices, those word choices don't necessarily reflect what the responder believes.
...except of course, when you made that point about murder, the term 'murder' was central to the post to which you responded. It was the point. And further, when I said 'yes', I also prefaced it with a specific self-written description of what I was agreeing to, which didn't include that term.
But anyway, that's a bit besides the point, because... as far as I'm concerned, killing a plant is also a 'bad thing' in a sense. It has harms and downsides, which are often vastly outweighed by the benefits (gardening, sustenance).
So, I take it you know that I'm right about everything at this point, and understand that not a word you've said has had any meaningful impact.
I know, that's why I asked the question, because federal laws would be pointless if states can just interpret them any way they want to.
Tell @Silvanus that
They cannot. It's a whole profession in interpreting the law, hardly "any way they want to".