Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,117
6,393
118
Country
United Kingdom
Because English law and American law have 0 similarities...
Buddy, if you have so little knowledge of 19th-20th Century American law-- the area you're trying to discuss-- then just say so. You don't need to make vague, nonsense appeals to completely different countries and time periods. It just makes you sound like a clown.

Joint filing is less than 70 years old, people hardly went to hospitals until recently (most babies were born at home 100 years ago for example) hence visitation wasn't important, people didn't get divorced so what is the point of custodial rights. Modern times are very different than just 100 years ago.
FUCKING LOL

Even by your standards, that passage is absolute gold. I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain how wrong all this is.

I said the constitution protects rights we don't know they protected, not specifically gay marriage. I said that until you ask if something is protected you can't b!tch about it not being protected. Then you said it (gay marriage) was asked in the 70s IIRC.
Yes. I showed that the constitution didn't protect same-sex marriage, when the SCOTUS said it didn't, even when it was asked before. That's when you tried to shift the conversation from "it was always protected" to "it wasn't always protected but that doesn't matter".
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,647
830
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Buddy, if you have so little knowledge of 19th-20th Century American law-- the area you're trying to discuss-- then just say so. You don't need to make vague, nonsense appeals to completely different countries and time periods. It just makes you sound like a clown.



FUCKING LOL

Even by your standards, that passage is absolute gold. I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain how wrong all this is.



Yes. I showed that the constitution didn't protect same-sex marriage, when the SCOTUS said it didn't, even when it was asked before. That's when you tried to shift the conversation from "it was always protected" to "it wasn't always protected but that doesn't matter".
So what are 2-3 very major things that married couples got that 2 guys/gals living together didn't get in say 1850-1900? Funny how you can't provide answers to simple questions.

Again, I said the constitution protects things we don't know about, that wasn't specifically referring to gay marriage. You can't say something isn't protected until you ask if it is; gay marriage was asked in the 70s and thus you can THEN say it wasn't protected.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,122
1,251
118
Country
United States
So what are 2-3 very major things that married couples got that 2 guys/gals living together didn't get in say 1850-1900? Funny how you can't provide answers to simple questions.

Again, I said the constitution protects things we don't know about, that wasn't specifically referring to gay marriage. You can't say something isn't protected until you ask if it is; gay marriage was asked in the 70s and thus you can THEN say it wasn't protected.
Here's 1138 examples:

 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,117
6,393
118
Country
United Kingdom
So what are 2-3 very major things that married couples got that 2 guys/gals living together didn't get in say 1850-1900? Funny how you can't provide answers to simple questions.
Buddy, I've already answered this fucking question, and you just spouted some historically-ignorant waffle to dismiss it all.

Again, I said the constitution protects things we don't know about, that wasn't specifically referring to gay marriage. You can't say something isn't protected until you ask if it is; gay marriage was asked in the 70s and thus you can THEN say it wasn't protected.
And since it was asked, we can now say with confirmation that IT. WASN'T. PROTECTED. Constitution did nothing to stop the SCOTUS keeping it illegal. Has the constitution sprouted new sections that didn't exist in the 70s? Or did the SCOTUS just reinterpret it in 2015 as they could do again?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,647
830
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Not answering the question...

Buddy, I've already answered this fucking question, and you just spouted some historically-ignorant waffle to dismiss it all.



And since it was asked, we can now say with confirmation that IT. WASN'T. PROTECTED. Constitution did nothing to stop the SCOTUS keeping it illegal. Has the constitution sprouted new sections that didn't exist in the 70s? Or did the SCOTUS just reinterpret it in 2015 as they could do again?
No you didn't, you gave me stuff like filing taxes jointly, which wasn't a thing for even 100 years.

Dude, I've said this so many fucking times. For some things, protections are discovered, for others it's reinterpretations.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,117
6,393
118
Country
United Kingdom
No you didn't, you gave me stuff like filing taxes jointly, which wasn't a thing for even 100 years.
Yet again: literally all I need to prove is that such benefits existed before 2015. Your attempts to introduce arbitrary time limits on the answers you'll accept are a waste of time.

Dude, I've said this so many fucking times. For some things, protections are discovered, for others it's reinterpretations.
....and you brought it up and argued it was "discovered" for something that turned out to be a straightforward "reinterpretation". Showing clearly how the SCOTUS could just... reinterpret again.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,949
866
118
Country
United States

Unless newts are somehow the key to radical life extension, I wouldn't want to hear it. Put a few in a lab, and the zoos. Remember/capture their biology/DNA, and bulldoze their land to make more homes so that people who matter more than animals almost all of the time get homes.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,647
830
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Yet again: literally all I need to prove is that such benefits existed before 2015. Your attempts to introduce arbitrary time limits on the answers you'll accept are a waste of time.



....and you brought it up and argued it was "discovered" for something that turned out to be a straightforward "reinterpretation". Showing clearly how the SCOTUS could just... reinterpret again.
I said most of American history people wouldn't have cared to even ask for gay marriage rights because they wouldn't get anything out of it.

But they won't...
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,117
6,393
118
Country
United Kingdom
I said most of American history people wouldn't have cared to even ask for gay marriage rights because they wouldn't get anything out of it.
Yes, you tried to introduce arbitrary time limits to the discussion, and I pointed out how irrelevant they were.

But they won't...
Says you. Several sitting Supreme Court Justices themselves disagree with you.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,473
12,257
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
YouTube actually doing their jobs for once and punishing people for acting like racist and sexist assholes. Remove all of his shit while you're at it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluegate

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,949
866
118
Country
United States

There is a way it's human cloning/creating humans in pods.

Or the policymakers could, in theory

Make everyone poor and bored and go to rural places to live.

This is why we need more human cloning.

Edit: Also fuck the Earth; I would rather we have 1 trillion humans and 1 Earth vs. 1 trillion Earths and no humans. Humans are the capstone project for Earth, not the other way around.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,231
6,504
118
There is a way it's human cloning/creating humans in pods.
There's no point cloning unless someone's willing to parent them. I don't fancy the chances of a healthy society from bringing up a huge percentage of the population in orphanages subjected to the usual pressures of capitalist lowest-bidder economics and private equity money-grabbing.

* * *

But the sorts of money and assistance provided for child raising is pitiful. Six months paid leave? Yeah, okay, what about the other 17.5 years? Studies suggest that the cost to raise a child is (UK) ~£150-200k. So, £10k a year per child in benefits, then? Anyone up for the tax hikes to pay for that?

It's not just the money of course, it's the time and effort. Maybe parents who both work feel they don't have the time and energy, so where's the childcare and other support systems to help them out? Are there ways we can maybe not disadvantage women's careers if they decide to have a child in their early 20s?

The problem is that all the cunts telling us we should have more children are actually the same people doing everything in their power to make having children even more difficult. Kemi Badenoch, British Tory party contender, thinks maternity leave is an outrage and mothers should be back at the coalface a few weeks after popping one out. They want to cut the child benefits because of all those poverty-stricken scroungers who drop out a swarm of feral, crotch goblins so they can hoover up the extra cash from honest, hard working families. And god forbid better childcare, because the wealthy have got their third mansion to buy so can't spare any to help the disadvantaged look after their kids. (Of course, the rich don't look after their own kids, that's what nannies are for. If everyone had a nanny, they wouldn't feel so privileged anymore.) Even maybe - gasp - find some way to increase sub-average wages to make kids more affordable? Christ no. Entrepreneurship will be dead if they have to give the proles a living wage.

Of course, sorry, there is one way some of these people want to encourage more children in a way consistent with their other beliefs, except it's even worse: basically, roll back women's rights about 70 or more years. Once women can't do things like work or vote anymore and are safely dependent on their husbands again, they'll either be desperate to have a child so they have something to do or the husband can beat them until they're appropriately obedient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jarrito3002

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,142
3,886
118
Edit: Also fuck the Earth; I would rather we have 1 trillion humans and 1 Earth vs. 1 trillion Earths and no humans. Humans are the capstone project for Earth, not the other way around.
Well...in that there are untold numbers of planets without people we don't really care about, that has a certain logic.


There is a way it's human cloning/creating humans in pods.
How is cloning going to help? Now, I guess you don't have people putting up with being pregnant, but then you have to raise the kids for significantly longer than the pregnancy duration anyway.

As it stands, though, there are plenty of people wanting to immigrate to countries with lower birth rates, so they can get their babies overseas like they do everything else.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,206
969
118
Country
USA
There is decidedly a sickness in a society that is discussing cloning as a potential step to stop the population from crashing because we're killing all the natural babies in the womb.

Just stop killing babies.
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,384
985
118
There is decidedly a sickness in a society that is discussing cloning as a potential step to stop the population from crashing because we're killing all the natural babies in the womb.

Just stop killing babies.
No one is killing babies, fuck-knuckle.

The problem with society is that it isn't willing to look after its children and young parents. Can't fault people for not wanting to be pregnant if they have to work two jobs just to survive, and that's without there being a baby around.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,446
5,704
118
Australia
There is decidedly a sickness in a society that is discussing cloning as a potential step to stop the population from crashing because we're killing all the natural babies in the womb.

Just stop killing babies.
The only person discussing cloning is Gergar12 and I'm half convinced he's a rogue AI that's been trained on nothing except Command and Conquer fanfiction and Harry Turtledove novels. Cloning human beings is still currently the sort of shit that makes up plots in science fiction. Dolly was a big step, but we've not touched cloning a human being with a ten foot clown pole.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,206
969
118
Country
USA
No one is killing babies, fuck-knuckle.

The problem with society is that it isn't willing to look after its children and young parents. Can't fault people for not wanting to be pregnant if they have to work two jobs just to survive, and that's without there being a baby around.
Society is absolutely willing to look after children and young parents. People think they can't afford kids because are trying to wait until they won't need help, but even the poorest people manage to raise kids with the help of their community.

And yes, they're killing babies. Stop killing babies.