Rape
F_cking
Sex
Making Love
A crime
mutual masturbation involving parts insertion. No involvement other than scratching an itch
Fun
The ultimate. Sharing body and soul
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
F_cking
Sex
Making Love
A crime
mutual masturbation involving parts insertion. No involvement other than scratching an itch
Fun
The ultimate. Sharing body and soul
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Married and unmarried couples of all kinds have engaged in at least 3/4.
Married and unmarried couples of all kinds have engaged in at least 3/4.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Duh. I know that already. What part of "a person can understand someone else's concern without agreeing with it" was so hard for you to comprehend? It sounds like you didn't even comprehend it at all in the slightest!
and gee, we have laws on the books that are not being obeyed. so even if "that's not how the law [is supposed to] work" does that necessarily mean that people are always scrupulously following the precise letter of the law at all times?
I guess you just solved all the world's problems by passing good laws! who needs law enforcement, or courts, or judges and lawyers and juries! We can just tell people how the law is supposed to work and we would have no more problems in society!
I see what you mean when you say that certain posts just cry out for snark in reply
Duh. I know that already. What part of "a person can understand someone else's concern without agreeing with it" was so hard for you to comprehend? It sounds like you didn't even comprehend it at all in the slightest!
and gee, we have laws on the books that are not being obeyed. so even if "that's not how the law [is supposed to] work" does that necessarily mean that people are always scrupulously following the precise letter of the law at all times?
I guess you just solved all the world's problems by passing good laws! who needs law enforcement, or courts, or judges and lawyers and juries! We can just tell people how the law is supposed to work and we would have no more problems in society!
I see what you mean when you say that certain posts just cry out for snark in reply
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
That's right. you are really on fire tonight!
I guess I have to avoid metaphor when talking with you, except you cannot stand literalism either.
Sometimes I think that, no matter what I post, you would automatically disagree with it, merely because I'm the one who posts it.
That's right. you are really on fire tonight!
I guess I have to avoid metaphor when talking with you, except you cannot stand literalism either.
Sometimes I think that, no matter what I post, you would automatically disagree with it, merely because I'm the one who posts it.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Uno is probably the most knowledgeable contributor here on legal matters. You certainly don't have go agree with him, but if you are going to engage him, try to bring an articulable thought to the table.
Uno is probably the most knowledgeable contributor here on legal matters. You certainly don't have go agree with him, but if you are going to engage him, try to bring an articulable thought to the table.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
You wrote:
This is a completely wrong interpretation of the law that you stated. Not someone else, you. You can't claim to be straight one day, and trans the next, and switch back and forth, which is exactly what you're insinuating.
You're the one who brought up some guy snooping around Target. You tell me what that has to do with whether or not someone is transgender? Being a pervert in a public restroom is illegal regardless of your sexual orientation or sexual identity.
What's not illegal is going into a restroom, doing your business, and leaving.
You wrote:
This is a completely wrong interpretation of the law that you stated. Not someone else, you. You can't claim to be straight one day, and trans the next, and switch back and forth, which is exactly what you're insinuating.
You're the one who brought up some guy snooping around Target. You tell me what that has to do with whether or not someone is transgender? Being a pervert in a public restroom is illegal regardless of your sexual orientation or sexual identity.
What's not illegal is going into a restroom, doing your business, and leaving.
FadeToBlack&Gold
No Quarter for Fascists
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
And that should be the end of the story, right there. If you're F-T-M and you're concerned that your Cpt. Winkie looks a bit "constructed", there are stalls for a reason. And even if you aren't - who cares?!?! Why are you looking?
We all know the men's room urinal "rules" - straight ahead or straight down, 3 shakes max.
And that should be the end of the story, right there. If you're F-T-M and you're concerned that your Cpt. Winkie looks a bit "constructed", there are stalls for a reason. And even if you aren't - who cares?!?! Why are you looking?
We all know the men's room urinal "rules" - straight ahead or straight down, 3 shakes max.FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Welp, time for governor homo to ban New Yorkers from Virginia... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ourt-transgender-bathrooms-virginia/88037966/
Welp, time for governor homo to ban New Yorkers from Virginia... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ourt-transgender-bathrooms-virginia/88037966/
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
It would be cool if all the students in the school just switched bathrooms in a show of solidarity. All the boys use the girls room, all the girls use the boys room, Gavin, being forced to use the girls room, is joined by all his fellow boys.
So whaddya gonna do, Haters? Put every student in jail?
The kids could show the adults what maturity looks like.
It would be cool if all the students in the school just switched bathrooms in a show of solidarity. All the boys use the girls room, all the girls use the boys room, Gavin, being forced to use the girls room, is joined by all his fellow boys.
So whaddya gonna do, Haters? Put every student in jail?
The kids could show the adults what maturity looks like.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
.... as part of a discussion that very clearly stated "while I don't agree with it, I can understand another person's point of view," which is what was represented in the excerpt you cited.
The fear is emotional, not rational. The law does state about people who "self-identify" which by definition means we only have their word for it, no? and some people are not always truthful, right? so other people have a concern that a person might claim to "self-identify" in a way that is not necessarily truthful.
The best way to reinforce an emotional concern is to ridicule its lack of logic. If you really cared about persuading people, you might start by saying, "I can understand how you might be concerned by that scenario, when you put it that way. Here, let me give you some information that you might find reassuring...."
Again, I know that the fear is not necessarily rational, so you don't need to talk down to me about it any more. the original question was, "why do people care so much about it?" and it is because they are afraid that there is potential for abuse given the way the situation stands. Sometimes people lie.
.... as part of a discussion that very clearly stated "while I don't agree with it, I can understand another person's point of view," which is what was represented in the excerpt you cited.
The fear is emotional, not rational. The law does state about people who "self-identify" which by definition means we only have their word for it, no? and some people are not always truthful, right? so other people have a concern that a person might claim to "self-identify" in a way that is not necessarily truthful.
The best way to reinforce an emotional concern is to ridicule its lack of logic. If you really cared about persuading people, you might start by saying, "I can understand how you might be concerned by that scenario, when you put it that way. Here, let me give you some information that you might find reassuring...."
because that person claimed that he was "self-identifying" as a woman, and the store manager said that, because of that statement, he couldn't force the guy to leave. You can reply that the store manager was wrong in his interpretation of the law, which is fine, but the actual fact of that actual situation was that it started with a claim of self-identification.
Again, I know that the fear is not necessarily rational, so you don't need to talk down to me about it any more. the original question was, "why do people care so much about it?" and it is because they are afraid that there is potential for abuse given the way the situation stands. Sometimes people lie.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Here's the issue I have with that- it implies the following....
If there was a guy lingering around the men's bathroom or a women doing the same around the women's bathroom, clearly loitering for other reasons than using the facilities- that there would be no way to remove them.
Does that make any sense at all?
Here's the issue I have with that- it implies the following....
If there was a guy lingering around the men's bathroom or a women doing the same around the women's bathroom, clearly loitering for other reasons than using the facilities- that there would be no way to remove them.
Does that make any sense at all?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
It's entirely possible, given students these days are quite pacified.
It's entirely possible, given students these days are quite pacified.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Rebelling against their school rules would be the very antithesis of pacific. Or are you saying it's entirely possible they'd jail the students? Because if they elect the sheriff in that town it aint gonna happen.
Rebelling against their school rules would be the very antithesis of pacific. Or are you saying it's entirely possible they'd jail the students? Because if they elect the sheriff in that town it aint gonna happen.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Assuming it isn't spun as "wild unruly teenagers", which will certainly motivate the crowd that doesn't have children, along with the uber-strict (of course, the children of the uber-strict parents wouldn't be pulling stuff like that anyway).
Assuming it isn't spun as "wild unruly teenagers", which will certainly motivate the crowd that doesn't have children, along with the uber-strict (of course, the children of the uber-strict parents wouldn't be pulling stuff like that anyway).
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
It used to be that the fundy kids were a sort of ballast that prevented any kind of mass action by students. (True story: the first Creationist I ever knew was a girl I grew up with, went to Cotillion with, then lost touch with until high school when she (1) had hit about 6' even, and (2) announced her, uh peculiar intuition one day and completely blew my 17-year old mind. I have never been rocked back on my heels with that much force. It was like meeting a real life Flat Earther. I didn't even know that this was a "thing" with fundies until much later in life. But anyway.) But now that the Thumpers are homeschooling their brood to keep them from the dangers of secular humanism and Negroes, it might just work.
It used to be that the fundy kids were a sort of ballast that prevented any kind of mass action by students. (True story: the first Creationist I ever knew was a girl I grew up with, went to Cotillion with, then lost touch with until high school when she (1) had hit about 6' even, and (2) announced her, uh peculiar intuition one day and completely blew my 17-year old mind. I have never been rocked back on my heels with that much force. It was like meeting a real life Flat Earther. I didn't even know that this was a "thing" with fundies until much later in life. But anyway.) But now that the Thumpers are homeschooling their brood to keep them from the dangers of secular humanism and Negroes, it might just work.
FadeToBlack&Gold
No Quarter for Fascists
It's entirely possible, given that students these days aren't complete ******nozzles like you.
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold
No Quarter for Fascists
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
OK, so I know Hugh Hewitt isn't exactly a mental giant, but this "think" piece really took me aback. The premise is that all Good Thinking People must drop everything and vote for Trump, because if not hordes of wild-eyed liberal fanatics will pack the Court and enact a far left agenda so vicious that Lenin would blush.
But then the cases he cites that will be reversed are all far, far right decisions. The Court has had a majority of GOP appointees for forty years. On many issues (economic most prominently) it has been more conservative than at any time in its history. This is not a rush to the left, it is a re-centering after a wild aberration of far right partisan jurisprudence. Hewitt thinks that's the baseline, but it's not at all.
Privilege lost feels like oppression.
OK, so I know Hugh Hewitt isn't exactly a mental giant, but this "think" piece really took me aback. The premise is that all Good Thinking People must drop everything and vote for Trump, because if not hordes of wild-eyed liberal fanatics will pack the Court and enact a far left agenda so vicious that Lenin would blush.
But then the cases he cites that will be reversed are all far, far right decisions. The Court has had a majority of GOP appointees for forty years. On many issues (economic most prominently) it has been more conservative than at any time in its history. This is not a rush to the left, it is a re-centering after a wild aberration of far right partisan jurisprudence. Hewitt thinks that's the baseline, but it's not at all.
Privilege lost feels like oppression.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
They don't even believe Roberts is a conservative.
They don't even believe Roberts is a conservative.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Well, from a righty's perspective I'm sure a lot of this is going to feel like a missed opportunity. In reality its only been since Bush Sr that the knucks' had a majority of the justices. Even in Ronbo's time you still had Blackmun-Brennan-Powell-Stevens-Marshall. I think corporate cons took over when the court became O'Connor-Kennedy-White-Scalia-Rehnquist. Thomas replacing Marshall furthered that, but Ginsberg replacing White maybe brought it back to where it was before.
The problem always has been that fundies don't have 5 justices. O'Connor and now Kennedy were always fuzzy on making Evangelical Christianity the law of the land. If Hill gets to make a pick, plus Kennedy's increasingly socially liberal bent, then its all over for a long, long time. Kinda explains how the religious right is completely on board with a guy on his 3rd marriage who sired one child out of wedlock
Well, from a righty's perspective I'm sure a lot of this is going to feel like a missed opportunity. In reality its only been since Bush Sr that the knucks' had a majority of the justices. Even in Ronbo's time you still had Blackmun-Brennan-Powell-Stevens-Marshall. I think corporate cons took over when the court became O'Connor-Kennedy-White-Scalia-Rehnquist. Thomas replacing Marshall furthered that, but Ginsberg replacing White maybe brought it back to where it was before.
The problem always has been that fundies don't have 5 justices. O'Connor and now Kennedy were always fuzzy on making Evangelical Christianity the law of the land. If Hill gets to make a pick, plus Kennedy's increasingly socially liberal bent, then its all over for a long, long time. Kinda explains how the religious right is completely on board with a guy on his 3rd marriage who sired one child out of wedlock
- Status