So you say. But this is not 'objective', and you're just calling it that because you like the outcome. In truth, the SCOTUS comes to politically convenient conclusions regardless.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
That's right, you're halfway there. And no pro-choicers talk about how great murder is, but you're happy to disregard what they do say to demonise their position in those terms.
Have a go at understanding your opponents, and you might receive an answer! My point from the start of this is that there's no point in you asking these questions if when your opponents reply, you insist they must just be wilful murderers lying about what they believe.
Nope, that's how you objectively interpret the law. The reason I used baseball is because an umpire on just a routine play like that can call the play anyway they want. They are basically political appointees and actually can't get fired if they suck at their job (see Angel Hernandez). However, based on the rules of baseball, there is a correct objective way every play should be called.
Yes. Would you care to reconsider your original point of contention?
The point Maher was making is that abortion is killing and he knows it, and he finds that to be an acceptable loss. I'm not saying anyone talks about how great murder is, you are exaggerating the point into a strawman. Pro choice arguments aren't pro-killing, they just see the killing as an acceptable loss, if they're being honest.
The dishonest people just pretend there's nothing alive to kill.
The SNP is full of clowns.
Edit: On social policy.
" Biological sex, however, is not included. The government says this is because it intends to put a separate bill criminalizing misogyny before the Scottish parliament at a later date. "
But not for misandry. You one-sided clowns.
You cannot 'objectively' interpret a law which does not directly and unambiguously provide the answer to the question. If it were direct and unambiguous, there would be no call for interpretation at all, and no case to consider.
There is nothing that unambiguously says states cannot exclude candidates for their Presidential state primaries. There are factors that point in that direction.
I've literally never seen anybody argue that there isn't life in some form. What's happened here is that people have made other arguments (it's not 'a human life'; its not an independent organism; its not alive in a meaningful sense that warrants protection) and you've reduced and simplified that.
Because it helps to characterise opponents as uncaring killers rather than engaging with the arguments they've made, which was my point.
You're making exceptionally huge interpretive leaps here.
Edit cause you're not going to see it: being ok with something is not the same as not caring about it, nor is it the same as performing it.
Some spectacular hair-splitting. You said they were fine with murder. The moral smear, and the assumption that the target must share your own moral framework ("murder"), are clear.
Last edited:
So please tell me which federal law objectively and unambiguously lays out that states cannot exclude candidates from state primaries.
You are nitpicking the words I replied to as if I personally and carefully phrased them that way.
You chose to respond to them and to express that, in your opinion, your opponents must either believe that or be dishonest. You chose to make that accusation. If you want to back off it now, feel free.
They can't exclude candidates based on interpretation of a federal law...
"The court ruled that only Congress, rather than the states, had that power."
If states could just interpret any federal law any way they wanted, then what's the actual point of federal laws when they can just be overruled willy-nilly?
They cannot. It's a whole profession in interpreting the law, hardly willy-nilly. Try reading Wikipedia if you are curious about the subject.