• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Kavanaugh sworn in

JGrimez said:
opposed civil rights how exactly?
and you can oppose baby-murder without repealing Roe v Wade
Click to expand...
It's not baby-murder (virtue signal much bro?), in fact no one even knew or thought that unborn fetuses were people really until the 20th century when they invented the ultra-sound and all of a sudden you could see the primitive form of a developing human who hadn't quite achieved either sentience or the ability to survive outside a womb (therefore, not alive in the sense a person is).

Not to mention the fact that banning abortion leads to botched back alley procedures which often irreparably harm the woman or even kill her, but who cares about the lives of immoral women right? A fetus is worth ten women's lives, since they were really only created for us men to breed right?

Terminating a fetus is not murder.

Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
treezy z said:
A supreme Court Justice is supposed to uphold the Constitution, I see no evidence Kavanaugh is an activist judge (he will not be writing new law.)
Click to expand...
treezy z said:
Much of the leftist agenda has been achieved by activist judges, which is why there is so much fear of a court that respects the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The CONSTITUTION? OMG the most important document in all of history! It can never be changed! Black folks are worth only 3/5ths of white folks guys! It's in the Constitution! We can't change it, sorry. Well black folks, looks like your voting power just got even more gerrymandered. Sucks for y'all, shoulda just been born white, right guys?
 
Last edited:
treezy z said:
Cream Gravy it is great how you quote me in a thread where I didn't say a single word about race and claim I don't think black people are human.
Click to expand...
I never claimed as such. I'm simply highlighting the foolishness of saying that the Constitution is somehow always morally supreme. It's an aged document, and if we take the unmodified original and look at it today, we can see that there are moral discrepancies and things that were good to change, even things as simple as the number of terms a president or senator can serve. So how is it logical to support someone who believes that it should never be changed? Blind belief in the inherent good of the constitution is simply misguided.
 
invegauser said:
what i can say is i think she set a bad example for those women who are not in the spotlight and are taken advantage of. if she did call him out sooner it wouldn't have gotten to this point
Click to expand...


To be honest mate, I dont think anyone who has been sexually assaulted or raped would give a shit about what she went through enough to be Inspired to do their "civic duty". Its not civic duty to name a bloke going for any public role or any job to air this at the last moment, or even at all .

If there had been a case or some record of this and dealt with already then that would be different, there was no need to go public, she could have been advised better and take him to court .

I dunno the judicial system though

Changed my mind on this as theres another thread somewhere re reporting sexual assault. It's a common thing to pressure someone Into filing a report as it "saves future victims" etc.

That might be the case with serial predators especially but not really with a drunken teenage kid and it isn't at all anyone's decision to go to police except the victims. The police decide if theres a case to charge for, not the victim.

She was drunk u deranged at a party, a pretty small party apparently, something like that I would not have reported personally, wouldn't have run away either but possibly smashed his house up a bit .

Doing her civic duty sounds rehearsed, she just a pawn now.

The timing, the wording, just being used.

Pretty sad I gotta say.
 
Last edited:
Technically you didn't, if you want to get all sophist about it.

But you quoted ME, followed by a emotional meltdown "blacks are 3/5ths of whites!"

This style of debate is very convincing to less thoughtful, emotional minded folks, but not those who like rational debate.

I know what you are doing. I'll leave it at that
 
And NO I don't think the Constitution should be changed by the courts, who are unelected.

If legislators want to amend the Constitution (such as 14th amendment) that is the proper avenue.
 
I think his argument was soundly made in his follow-up post. The original Constitution contained things that were later changed, because it became clear they should be changed. One of them was about black people only getting 3/5 of a vote... another was about women voting. There have been many amendments over the years. To say that now we have it 100% right and it should never be changed, even though we DO think the previous changed should have been made, is kind of silly.

Though if you believe it can be changed and that's okay, then I'm not sure where that particular argument got started anyway... but some people do believe that so it's still worth making the point.
 
treezy z said:
And NO I don't think the Constitution should be changed by the courts, who are unelected.

If legislators want to amend the Constitution (such as 14th amendment) that is the proper avenue.
Click to expand...
Legislators didn't want to, they were essentially forced at gunpoint. Which is to say, that many moral flaws with the constitution would never be remedied if it weren't for routes outside amendment.

And you're right, I was mocking you (tho it wasn't a 'meltdown', no tears were shed on my end lol). It wasn't very civil, and I apologize.

But seriously, think about something like Dred vs Scott. Courts ruled that A.A.s were not citizens, following the constitution's precedent. Obviously, that was wrong. So is following the constitution to the letter always morally correct?

Further, I do believe it's the job of 'activist' judges as you say, to correct flaws with interpretation of our laws. I'm happy Roe vs Wade happened. I'm happy gay marriage was legalized. Those things never would have been corrected if left up to strict interpretations of the constitution (or up to the states to amend), so in such cases, it's the jobs of the courts to right what's wrong when there are no other avenues of change.


Also, thanks for using the word sophist, didn't know what it meant. Learned something new today. I don't think your use of it was accurate, but these things are subjective. I don't believe my argument was fallacious, but perhaps you do, though I'm not gonna change my mind. My argument was apt.
 
Last edited:
@zephyr: wasn't disagreeing at all. i came to the same conclusions (i would've done the same hypo as you if i was a woman ;)). was just trying to end it on a positive note seeing as i'm a man talking about a woman getting raped (sorry, allegedly. not pointing fingers at either side as verdict isn't in yet) and getting the message out there. like i said, wishful thinking and again i don't want to give treezy z any support in this thread and that means fodder either so i'm going to leave it here.
 
Roe vs Wade - Abortion is not in the Constitution. It should have had to be enacted by Congress and signed by the president.

Bush vs Gore - No recount in Florida. GWB president.
Bush and Obama were the same in many ways (despite rhetoric) but fuck Bush

Citizens United - Takes "corporations are people too" to it's most extreme level.
 
the roe vs. wade decision affirmed that a woman's decision to have an abortion was a right to privacy, protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. it did not change the constitution. it confirmed its protection of a right.

how did bush vs. gore change the constitution? while i think that whole thing was a cluster, the court ruled that using different standards of counting violated the 14th amendment and there was not enough time to put in place an alternative under the us code. again, you could argue that it upheld the constitution, not change it.

alasdair
 
Cream Gravy? said:
Interesting read about false rape accusations and their frequency/profile:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
Click to expand...

Ridiculous argument. 2-10% of rape accusations are fake. Therefore Kavanaugh is guilty. Therefore this transparent attempt at sabatoging his nomination is true.

Let me break that down logically.

2-10% of rape accusations are fake.
-Ok sure, I will grant this although I haven't seen all the statistics. I don't have any reason to doubt this.

After this the logic breaks down. This statement does not make the following true.

"Therefore Kavanaugh is guilty."

When you look at the situation as a whole it is even less of an argument.
 
No one (not the article nor I) claimed that these statistics are a verification of his guilt. I'm simply pointing out that the accuser, Ford, bears none of the typical characteristics of false accusers.

Not to mention the fact that many actual rapes go unpunished. A girl I used to date was raped by one of my best friends many years ago. She took him to court and everything, and he was cleared of the charges. I know he did it, because he told me about his time with her (tho I think alcohol and its involvement mired the situation), and she told me her side, and they seemed to line up... so my good friend, definitely a rapist, got off with no penalties for his actions.

I am certain that many crimes like this go unpunished, from both experience and reading statistics, and as such I think the likelihood of Brett's guilt is very high, especially considering his character and the profile of the accuser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top