Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2022, 10:31 AM)Dill Wrote: No more time for you, until you hold yourself to the standards you demand others meet.

Tell you what, Dill.  I thought about it and I'll be the adult and answer your question despite your ignoring mine.  I know as an honorable man you will then respond to my query about Muhammed in return.

I would not choose any of those three options as I don't believe any of them even begin to encapsulate my position.  There are numerous factors to consider, not the least of which is that slavery was a human institution until very recently, and unfortunately still goes on in parts of Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.  Additionally, attitudes towards women were typical of the time, and in fact strongly persist in many of the aforementioned regions of the world.  When examining historical figures and events we must always be careful not to view them through the lens of modern thought and belief.  Those people existed, and those events occurred, in their own period of time, a period that shaped those people and events just as the current time shapes ours.  I would say it was likely that there were good men, bad men and men with a bit of both in them among the Framers.  

I think we can all agree that what they created was remarkable and extremely forward thinking for this time, despite obvious blemishes such as the 3/5's compromise (which actually existed to dilute the political power of the slave owning states) and the obvious lack of regard for women, and basically anyone who wasn't a white man.  At the end of the day we should be able to admit what is an obvious truth, that the Framers were human beings just like us, with flaws and strengths. They were shaped by their time as inexorably as we are shaped by ours.  I do not think their flaws, none of which were unusual for their time, negate or taints their accomplishments in any way.  It's a bit like meeting your favorite actor, comedian or athlete and finding out they're a dick.  Does that negate the enjoyment you've gotten from their films, comedy or athletic feats?  For some it would, at least initially.  But at the end of the day the product of your labor should be judged on its own merits.  If Hitler had carved the Pietà would that maker it any less of a beautiful masterwork of art?  An extreme example to be sure, but I think it illustrates the point.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2022, 10:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see.  So you get to ignore my question and demand an answer of me?  But if I ask you to please answer my question before I respond to yours I'm ducking the issue?  Double standard much?


Dill, we all know why you won't answer my question about Muhammed being a well documented slave owner, just be a man and say why.

Muhammed, and your question, has nothing to do with abortion or the constitution.  Just be a man and discuss the topic at hand instead of your pet project of trying to get Dill to say Muslims are bad.

[Sled21]

(06-30-2022, 10:05 AM)pally Wrote: A monster "out of control" only through the very narrow lens of the right-wing perspective. Tucker throws around that word like it's an insult and you all dutifully follow along like parrots. The rest of the world laughs at you every time you all use the term because it is only an insult in your insular world.  I care about my fellow man and his circumstances.  If that makes me woke, then I proudly claim the title.
 You both acknowledge that Columbus didn't discover America and claim that he did.  Why can't we just teach the bloody truth? If that means Columbus no longer gets credit, get over it. Others were here first.  Why do you approve of their history being erased?  Because it doesn't fit the fantasy narrative of yesteryear? We can acknowledge Confederate generals' military expertise without glorifying them. They committed treason against the United States. They fought to keep people in chains. No amount of whitewashing will ever change that reality.  Every single state in the Confederacy listed the right to own slaves as the reason for their succession, but all that has been taught in many places was "state's rights" ignoring the right they wanted was slaves.  No statues, no hero status for these people...they were neither.  If you are properly teaching Abraham Lincoln, you teach his evolving views.  Again you teach his reality not some fantasy. 
If you want to talk about erasing history, look no further than all these new laws that forbid the teaching of "divisive" issues.  Real American history is divisive. Very little of it is actually happy happy joy joy. Much of it is very ugly. You cannot teach American History without talking about division because that division has existed since Day 1 and has driven events since then. The Constitution was a compromise that failed to include anybody but white males. Women, Blacks. Hispanics,  and Native Americans all exist and have had to fight for every right they have. Why is their reality and history not considered part of our collective history?  Why don't conservatives want it taught? Conservatives refuse to acknowledge that. 
I ask again...why are conservatives so afraid of reality? 

A) I don't watch Tucker
B) Columbus did discover America. The fact Vikings were here before that and did not permanently settle it does not mean he didn't discover it for the European nations that did. Remember, at the time most people thought he would fall off the face of the flat Earth.
C) Your "treason against the United States" shows a total lack of understanding of the 1800s, and where people, both north and south place their loyalty. In those days a person's loyalty was to the state they lived in, not in the Federal Government. Different time, different mindset. 
D) American history IS divisive, and should be taught as it was, not how people wanted it to be or how they think it should have been. If that means great men did great things, but were flawed individuals, then so be it. 

[Dill]

(06-29-2022, 05:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Are you talking about the filibuster?  If you are, please don't pretend Democrats haven't championed it for its entire history until now.  

Actually, Mike, I've discussed the history of the filibuster in some detail already, on several threads, arguing that it evolved first to protect the "minority rights" of slave holders (e.g., Calhoun), and then to protect segregation. And I have argued, citing Founders like Jefferson, that their emphatic support of majority rule was a response to the failed Articles of Confederation, in which minorities could paralyze government for years. Congress was not "designed" for superminority control.

 E.g., on one thread I repeatedly asked SSF whether the Founders designed Congress so that legislation could be passed by minority rule. The straightforward and historically accurate answer is "yes." But he has never answered that question with a "yes." Instead he's repeated obfuscations like "the Senate works as designed" or simply gone silent.  He did not want to talk about that history you now presume to remind me of because it made discussion of the filibuster too "emotional." 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Gov-Pedro-Pierluisi-%E2%80%98Puerto-Rico-will-be-the-first-truly-Hispanic-state%E2%80%99?page=7&highlight=filibuster  #s 132, 134, 139.

So my question to SSF, to which you responded, was prompted by his claim that Dino would "dodge" and "obfuscate" rather than answer a question directly, accusing Dino unfairly of behavior SSF himself regularly engages in, while also claiming that he prizes consistency. My point wasn't about Republicans or Democrats or even the filibuster, but to suggest SSF either stop dodging and obfuscating himself or, if he cannot, then at least stop projecting that behavior on others.

As he is doing now: when I answered in some detail his question "Does owning slaves make one a horrible person?" then asked him for his answer to his own question too.  He's refused until I also explain how "Muhammed" would respond to the question. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2022, 11:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Muhammed, and your question, has nothing to do with abortion or the constitution.  Just be a man and discuss the topic at hand instead of your pet project of trying to get Dill to say Muslims are bad.

Silly, silly GM do try and keep up.  The question at hand is whether being a slave owner makes inherently you a bad person and taints your works or accomplishments, as some have asserted in this thread.  Consequently it is more than fair, and certainly on topic, to ask of those people what they think about other historical slave owners and how that taints them.  Also, would Muhammed being a bad person for owning slaves automatically make all Muslims bad?  I certainly don't think so, but it's a shame a "progressive" like yourself would have such a regressive opinion.  I honestly thought better of you than that.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2022, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Silly, silly GM do try and keep up.  The question at hand is whether being a slave owner makes inherently you a bad person and taints your works or accomplishments, as some have asserted in this thread.  Consequently it is more than fair, and certainly on topic, to ask of those people what they think about other historical slave owners and how that taints them.  Also, would Muhammed being a bad person for owning slaves automatically make all Muslims bad?  I certainly don't think so, but it's a shame a "progressive" like yourself would have such a regressive opinion.  I honestly thought better of you than that.

Sure thing dude.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2022, 11:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure thing dude.

Really brilliant repartee from you, sincerely. 

[Dill]

(06-30-2022, 11:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Tell you what, Dill.  I thought about it and I'll be the adult and answer your question despite your ignoring mine.  I know as an honorable man you will then respond to my query about Muhammed in return.

I would not choose any of those three options as I don't believe any of them even begin to encapsulate my position.  There are numerous factors to consider, not the least of which is that slavery was a human institution until very recently, and unfortunately still goes on in parts of Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.  Additionally, attitudes towards women were typical of the time, and in fact strongly persist in many of the aforementioned regions of the world.  When examining historical figures and events we must always be careful not to view them through the lens of modern thought and belief.  Those people existed, and those events occurred, in their own period of time, a period that shaped those people and events just as the current time shapes ours.  I would say it was likely that there were good men, bad men and men with a bit of both in them among the Framers.  

I think we can all agree that what they created was remarkable and extremely forward thinking for this time, despite obvious blemishes such as the 3/5's compromise (which actually existed to dilute the political power of the slave owning states) and the obvious lack of regard for women, and basically anyone who wasn't a white man.  At the end of the day we should be able to admit what is an obvious truth, that the Framers were human beings just like us, with flaws and strengths. They were shaped by their time as inexorably as we are shaped by ours.  I do not think their flaws, none of which were unusual for their time, negate or taints their accomplishments in any way.  It's a bit like meeting your favorite actor, comedian or athlete and finding out they're a dick.  Does that negate the enjoyment you've gotten from their films, comedy or athletic feats?  For some it would, at least initially.  But at the end of the day the product of your labor should be judged on its own merits.  If Hitler had carved the Pietà would that maker it any less of a beautiful masterwork of art?  An extreme example to be sure, but I think it illustrates the point.

I'm about to head out to the airport, and won't be able to get back to this until tomorrow or the day after.

A  couple of comments though--

Thanks for the more detailed "adult" response. You've chosen option #2, which was my option for the founders as well, though mine has a materialist inflection. E.g., can't follow the Pieta analogy here, since that was literally set in stone to remain as it was. The constitution is more like piece of Beuys performance art which the community participates in making and judging. And I differ in that I do think the "flaws" of some do taint their accomplishment. That's why extra amendments and a civil war were required, among other things. 

#2 was also my option for Mohammad, a man shaped by his time as inexorably as we are shaped by ours.

[Dill]

(06-30-2022, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Silly, silly GM do try and keep up.  The question at hand is whether being a slave owner makes inherently you a bad person and taints your works or accomplishments, as some have asserted in this thread.  Consequently it is more than fair, and certainly on topic, to ask of those people what they think about other hs)istorical slave owners and how that taints them.  Also, would Muhammed being a bad person for owning slaves automatically make all Muslims bad?  I certainly don't think so, but it's a shame a "progressive" like yourself would have such a regressive opinion.  I honestly thought better of you than that.

Let's stop the silly back and forth, and keep on the argument.

I missed the post(s) where someone said being a slave owner makes you an inherently bad person and taints your works or accomplishments.

Did Dino say that? which post? Did someone else? 

I'd guess if the accomplishment in question was a Constitution based upon natural rights, but which nevertheless reflected one's slave-owning priorities, then one could say slave-owning did taint one's accomplishments.

[Lucidus]

(06-30-2022, 10:13 AM)pally Wrote: I know this was a joke...but it really should be infuriating everyone.  If one group loses rights everyone's are at risk

As noted in the dissenting opinion and by various constitutional scholars / lawyers, the Court -- for the first time in history -- rescinded an "individual right" in it's entirety, conferring the power over that once protected right to the states. 

[Bengalfan4life27c]

How does everyone feel about Biden making a secret agreement with Mcconnell to nominate a prolife judge for a lifetime appointment. MSM is dropping the ball not asking Biden about this.

[Lucidus]

(06-30-2022, 02:06 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: How does everyone feel about Biden making a secret agreement with Mcconnell to nominate a prolife judge for a lifetime appointment. MSM is dropping the ball not asking Biden about this.

The White House and Mr. McConnell's office have both been contacted. Neither has responded as far as I'm aware.

I haven't seen anything outside Mr. Yarmuth's conjecture to confirm this. I'm not saying it isn't true, just waiting for more elaboration and some type of confirmation / denial.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2022, 12:55 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm about to head out to the airport, and won't be able to get back to this until tomorrow or the day after.

A  couple of comments though--

Thanks for the more detailed "adult" response. You've chosen option #2, which was my option for the founders as well, though mine has a materialist inflection. E.g., can't follow the Pieta analogy here, since that was literally set in stone to remain as it was. The constitution is more like piece of Beuys performance art which the community participates in making and judging. And I differ in that I do think the "flaws" of some do taint their accomplishment. That's why extra amendments and a civil war were required, among other things. 

#2 was also my option for Mohammad, a man shaped by his time as inexorably as we are shaped by ours.

I'll go back and reread #2, but my initial impression was that it did not wholly represent my position. Thank you for your response as well.

[Belsnickel]

I can't keep up with y'alls stupid personal vendettas on here. I swear, this is just getting ridiculous.

[KillerGoose]

A horribly unfortunate case here. A 10 year old girl in Ohio was denied in abortion, as she was six weeks and three days pregnant. Aside from life endangerment and severely compromised health, Ohio has banned all abortions at six weeks. This includes rape and incest. This 10 year old girl is traveling to Indiana in order to obtain an abortion and was referred by a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

It is my understanding that if an individual aids a women in obtaining an abortion, it is a misdemeanor on your first violation and then a felony on the second. I wonder if this doctor is going be found and charged. I understand that cases like this are rare, but this makes me very angry. I really hope that Ohio amends their law.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-02-2022, 12:38 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: A horribly unfortunate case here. A 10 year old girl in Ohio was denied in abortion, as she was six weeks and three days pregnant. Aside from life endangerment and severely compromised health, Ohio has banned all abortions at six weeks. This includes rape and incest. This 10 year old girl is traveling to Indiana in order to obtain an abortion and was referred by a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

It is my understanding that if an individual aids a women in obtaining an abortion, it is a misdemeanor on your first violation and then a felony on the second. I wonder if this doctor is going be found and charged. I understand that cases like this are rare, but this makes me very angry. I really hope that Ohio amends their law.

Ohio GOP rep says pregnancies acquired from rape should be looked at 'as an opportunity'.

Magic 8-Ball says it's unlikely they'll overturn it.

[StoneTheCrow]

(07-02-2022, 12:54 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Ohio GOP rep says pregnancies acquired from rape should be looked at 'as an opportunity'.

Magic 8-Ball says it's unlikely they'll overturn it.

Uhhhh an opportunity for what? The pregnant person? If so, absolute POS that rep is.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-02-2022, 02:40 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Uhhhh an opportunity for what? The pregnant person? If so, absolute POS that rep is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/04/29/ohio-rape-bill-opportunity/

[StoneTheCrow]

(07-02-2022, 03:43 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/04/29/ohio-rape-bill-opportunity/

After further review, the POS call on the field is confirmed.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-02-2022, 04:02 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: After further review, the POS call on the field is confirmed.

Honestly at this point I'm waiting for someone to come in here and say it's 'left wing media nonsense edited to make them look bad' or some other brain rot inducing comment along those lines.