Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,117
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Yes, this is the only adequate response to someone who promises sources they then won't provide, isn't it?

I've got over 9 sources saying I'm right. More than you. Trust me bud.
These conversations were beforehand and you can't concede to being wrong. Why should I concede to you when you won't admit when I'm right?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,280
5,906
118
Country
United Kingdom
Why should I concede to you when you won't admit when I'm right?
Ahh, you see, it's quite simple-- I don't think you are.

I'm not even asking you to concede anything. You explicitly said you had sources. I'm just asking you to provide what you literally said you could provide.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,280
5,906
118
Country
United Kingdom
Your sources can't trump Supreme Court justices.
Of course. SCOTUS justices' opinions are certainly true, which is why we all accept the outcome of Roe v. Wade and it hasn't been overturned.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,207
118
Of course. SCOTUS justices' opinions are certainly true, which is why we all accept the outcome of Roe v. Wade and it hasn't been overturned.
In a sense, SCOTUS justices' opinions are automatically "true" (or at least, the majority opinion).

The law is not a reflection of an external reality. It's an artificial, self-referential construction. Whatever the highest legal power in the land says is true is legally true. SCOTUS could rule on a law in a way plainly contradictory to what is written in law or the Constitution or evident in external reality, and that is law. There would undoubtedly be a cost for SCOTUS to do so - ramifications in terms of loss of trust in SCOTUS and potentially even impeachment of justices should it offend the government - but as far as the law is concerned the matter is now settled. The only mechanism to overturn that is send a law back to SCOTUS to be reviewed.

This is the point of stacking courts and why authoritarian regimes do it - because even authoritarian regimes like to present the image that they are doing things fairly and by the book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,944
654
118
So Moviebob (and others on Twitter) are pissed off at A24 now because something about Tim Pool and the film Civil War because the film doesn't come out and go "republicans & Orange man bad" and instead chooses to not explicitly tell the audience about either sides ideology in the this modern day Civil War but instead frame the story as following journalists trying to cover the events as one side has citizen journalists on the streets while the other has control of the major media networks.

 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,117
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Of course. SCOTUS justices' opinions are certainly true, which is why we all accept the outcome of Roe v. Wade and it hasn't been overturned.
When all the judge give a unanimous decision on something, it means more than if they didn't. Funny how you love your scientific consensuses when they actually aren't a consensus but when a judicial decision is a consensus, you don't like it.


In a sense, SCOTUS justices' opinions are automatically "true" (or at least, the majority opinion).

The law is not a reflection of an external reality. It's an artificial, self-referential construction. Whatever the highest legal power in the land says is true is legally true. SCOTUS could rule on a law in a way plainly contradictory to what is written in law or the Constitution or evident in external reality, and that is law. There would undoubtedly be a cost for SCOTUS to do so - ramifications in terms of loss of trust in SCOTUS and potentially even impeachment of justices should it offend the government - but as far as the law is concerned the matter is now settled. The only mechanism to overturn that is send a law back to SCOTUS to be reviewed.

This is the point of stacking courts and why authoritarian regimes do it - because even authoritarian regimes like to present the image that they are doing things fairly and by the book.
It wasn't a majority opinion, it was a consensus.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,280
5,906
118
Country
United Kingdom
You just pick and choose what authority matters based on whether they agree with your preconceived notions.
Well, I tend to value the research of scientific experts over the opinions of political appointees.

Of course, on the medical topic we were actually discussing, you were incapable of providing any source at all. So that's a bit moot. I would side with six agreeing expert sources over.... zero contesting ones.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,072
1,367
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear
Never stops being hilarious seeing another fool proudly stand upon the same old lifeless ragged strawman body convinced they did anything of any value to anyone outside their own imagination 🤌👌