You clearly couldn't respond to what I said. That was applying the definition. My beliefs have nothing to do with Jim Crow Laws. If part of the Jim Crow laws is someone's right to choose to be a racist, yes bring those parts back. But those aren't 'laws', those are choices. And I give every race equal rights to choose. :wave:
Alright let it die. No, the the whole body is a vessel for both of them. Can you take out an embryo without killing it in the process? Or even injuring it? Well that depends on how you look at a body. Yes I made that mistake. Let the fetus die if it is evicted. But let it be evicted without any injury or harm. Do you even have the right to touch it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You've just spent umpteen pages energetically arguing against the Federal Laws that ended Jim Crow. You also favor the part where people are empowered to subject others to racist discrimination in hiring, restaurants, hotels, gas stations, etc. And you have explicitly endorsed the large-scale segregation that would result. You're advocating Jim Crow minus school segregation and miscegenation laws, basically. That's racist. But not equal rights to avoid being subjected to racist discrimination. Hence the racism.
Doesn't matter if there is a suit or not. There has been no decision on Section 3 yet either. According to your understanding of Article 4 Section 2, defense of section 2 is unconstitutional. 'proper identification' is subject to laws that recognize them to be 'proper identification'. You just changed the subject from marriage to id. When you basically asked the same question about marriage and I gave you statutory law that specifically says it recognizes marriages from other states (thus they are recognized). Secondly I provided you with an ACTUAL example where certain types of marriages in Rhode Island WOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED in 49 other states. Please stick that that. I don't care how many 'arguments' you can make, and then make me find laws for them. But the specific topic of marriage I have already provided you with statutory law and and example where a marriage from one state would not be recognized in another. Don't pose another hypothetical.
Right, then, so abortion is totally fine according to libertarian fundamentalism. At least, as long as you don't actively kill the fetus in the process of extracting it. It's a life like any other, and so can provide for itself like any other, without imposing any obligation on anyone. If that's true, and they each have an equal claim on a single body, then why the imbalance in privileges? Why is the fetus allowed to drain the mother's food and energy, but the mother isn't allowed to remove the fetus? If they aren't fundamentally separate, then how can you claim that a fetus is an individual with a right to life like any other? Sure, although it would involve more damage and risk to the mother than alternative approaches. Which would be pretty stupid, practically, considering that the fetus is simply going to be left to die on the street once the procedure is over. But, hey, the point is your theory, so... I think you'll find that personal subjective opinion on what is "a body" and how it relates to "a life" is a very poor basis for abortion legislation. Which is a big component of why Roe v. Wade turned out the way it did. Maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with all of the Constitutional precedents that consider all these issues in detail, before launching into such advocacy? If you don't have the right to touch the fetus, then it doesn't have the right to touch you either - it's an equal life with the same rights and obligations as anyone, right? And so the very fact that it is touching the mother, is a trespass against her rights, and she is therefor clearly entitled to forcefully remove the fetus from her body and leave it to its own individual fate.
No that was you accusing me of doing that. I don't even want to touch the Civil Rights Act. I only care about freedom, not the CRA or the JCL. You brought them up, because you linked them up. To me they are irrelevant. Because rights and freedoms is what matters. I am also allowing any other race doing the same to the others if they so choose. Now again go back to your definition. Do I believe any race is less than the other? No. Because I give them all the same rights. If you're saying I'm racist against Blacks because Whites can segregate against them, then I'm also allowing Blacks to segregate against Whites, so I don't give any 'superiority' to any other race. So your definition fails to apply. Yes equal rights Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Liar. You've just spent several days arguing vociferously that big portions of the Civil Rights Act are unacceptable and must be scrapped. And you hold major portions of the Civil Rights Act to be unacceptable transgressions against freedom (of rich white dudes to impose segregation on their communities, that is), and have just written many paragraphs energetically advocating such a position. It's all right there in black and white, so I don't know who you think you're fooling. You asked why white supremacists support Ron Paul, and I told you - it's because he favors getting rid of the laws that restrict their efforts to reimpose racial segregation and generally oppress black people and other minorities. And you openly, energetically support the scrapping of such laws, exactly because you endorse the freedom of white supremacists to do as such. That's why Ron Paul is racist, and that's why you are racist. /facepalm While knowing as well as anyone in America that there is zero chance of that happening - and every likelihood of a return to Jim Crow-style segregation. That defense is facile to the point of offensiveness. Nobody is stupid enough to buy it. You only get to that point by redefining "rights" down to the ones that happen to favor exactly white supremacists, and victimize minorities. That's racist, and extremely cheap besides. At least own up to your racist program like an adult. No, you aren't, not in any meaningful sense. The premise that a marginalized minority could, at least according to the law, oppress the empowered majority, is nothing but a cheap excuse. You know as well as anyone that the reality would be an empowered majority victimizing marginalized minorities, and you endorse this outcome in the name of "freedom." That is racist. You are valuing the freedom of white supremacists to oppress minorities, over the right of minorities to live in dignity and freedom. No: racist oppression and segregation. That's what you're advocating, and it's racist.
Go ahead. Show me when I said it. And you brought up the topic, I never cared for it. How emotional, I answered all this bullshit already. And I said they can have other reason to support it. Simply the fact they would have freedom. So you'll turn into a racist the soon as it is allowed? Majority of this country will turn racist? As soon as pot is allowed you'll start smoking it. Keep avoiding your definition. And keep appealing to emotional bullshit to avoid proving how your definition is applicable to what I believe, not how my policies will be used by OTHERS. lmao. Again your definition, you seem to NOT understand is, that I would have to personally believe in the superiority of one race over the other. You are telling me OTHERS would do this and that if my policies were allowed.. How blind do you have to be to not see this difference. Your definition of racist requires ME, PERSONALLY, to believe one race is superior over the other. I don't believe that. OTHERS might. But OTHERS is NOT ME! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Forget it.
Then you have no problem with abortion, as such, despite your conviction that life begins at conception. This puts you in direct disagreement with Ron Paul's stated policy preferences. If this entity can't make the choice to stop violating the rights of others, then in what sense is it a "life" endowed with rights and responsibilities? Sounds more like an unthinking aspect of nature to be controlled and prevented from interfering in the rights of actual human lives. Including other people's bodies and energies, apparently. This isn't sounding like it fits into the easy framework of "a life is a life and has the same rights as any life." So this right to life, then - how does it relate to the body, if the body is separate from the life? I thought that messing with someone's body amounted to messing with their right to life, but apparently there's some distinction? Why is the one life entitled to impose on the other, but not the other way around? Shouldn't the situation be symmetric and equal, if these are simply full-fledged lives with equal rights and freedoms? Reflecting an indefinite reality. In point of fact, "viability" depends very much on the state of technology and any number of other factors not innate to the biology in question. Because at some point it's unequivocably a separate body, obviously. But late-term abortions have no bearing on Ron Paul's "life begins at conception" position. We can stick to first-trimester abortions, for the present subject. Although we already note that you disagree with Paul's actual legislative preferences, which would make all abortion illegal as such. You claim to have no problem with abortion at any point in pregnancy, provided the fetus isn't actively, intentionally killed in the process of extracting it. Paul, meanwhile, has expressed open, extreme disgust at the prospect of extracting a living fetus and then leaving it to fend for itself (i.e., die in short order). You two are not on the same page regarding what libertarian ideology says about this subject. How is a fetus not touching its mother? So what? I thought the point was that said being was a life like any other, with all the same rights and responsibilities? But now it gets a license to live off of other people, because such is its "natural place?" The natural place of a pack of starving wolves, is to devour you and your family. Does that mean you can't kill a pack of starving wolves that attacks your family? After all, they have the right to life, and are doing what nature insisted they do to survive, so... And when the fetus chooses not to leave the womb of its own accord, that is its own action, and not something by nature itself. So what? The fetus has a choice, right? That's why we can consider it to be a full-fledged life with rights equal to that of the mother, right? If not - if a fetus is a determinstic product of nature with no agency of its own - then how can you insist that it had equivalent rights to a full-fledged human being?
Why should I choose a christian scholar over a muslim one? :roflmao: You label yourself Libertarian, you say you would vote for Ron Paul because of his libertarian policies and then come out with this? Stop it, my sides hurt, you're killing me. No you don't, because you do not support even support their 13th amendment right to be free from involuntary servitude, or their 14th ammendment rights to liberty (in this case the liberty to be treated as an equal). Or how about their fifth ammendment rights, which although ostensibly dealing with answering to crimes states "No person shall be... ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." but what you're saying is that it's okay for a person to not have the liberty of equality, even though (irrespective of what might have been intended at the time). But then again, what is it that your declaration of independence says? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So if we follow your logic where does that lead us? That the Declaration of Independence is unconstituional? If that's the case, then I demand you swear your fealty to the Queen of the United Kingdom immeadiately! No, I'm confused about nothing.
I have not read much of this thread, but I'll assume you are correct bout 786; however, after listening to RP for 40 minutes at the link someone gave earlier, I would need to hear RP say something like your now bold text to believe that is accurate. Do you have such a link or a quote of his stating that from a reputable source? Basically you seem to be saying RP wants more liberties for a select few, not all. My position is that it is a right to discriminate all have PROVIDED they do so completely privately. I.e. police can not selectively stop and search cars driven by blacks (As blacks pay taxes for the roads, the police salaries, and in the gasoline, etc.) Likewise the restaurant owner can not refuse to serve blacks because their skin is dark and still expect the public fire department to come and put out his kitchen fire, etc. (I spent a summer in Baltimore making so much economic damage* to about 25 restaurants doing that that by the end of the summer the Restaurant Association joined us in asking the MD legislature to make that illegal and all benefited when law was changed.) Modern society is so complex, it is hard to think of areas where discrimination is OK. I guess if you are a white male, you can give a white hitch-hiking female a lift and drive past a black female doing the same (or conversely if you wish). It might be interesting to try to construct other examples where it is one's right to discriminate and see if all agree there are a few times it is. * Peacefully encouraging many to exercise their liberty not to eat in restaurants discriminating against blacks.
Again, it's all catalogued explicitly right here in this thread. Anyone can go read through it, including you. Not sure what you think you'll accomplish by beating your chest in defiance of plain facts. It's just making you look petty and belligerent. Again, dig the hole as deep as you like, for all I care. Freedom to oppress minorities without the government interfering, specifically. Which is not a different reason, than racism. No, although such an allowance would implicate me in an unacceptable system of racism. Majority of this country has always been racist. That's why we needed a Civil Rights Act in the first place. Try learning some history. I already do smoke it. Keep pretending there's some sort of distinction there. There's nothing "emotional" about holding you accountable for the obvious, expected consequences of policies that you advocate. The only way that a person can approve of resurrecting segregation, is if they are racist. Since you energetically approve of such a resurrection, it follows that you are racist. The fact that you don't want to admit as much to yourself, doesn't impress me, nor disqualify you from racism. If you valued minorities equally to the white majority, then you would not be able to advocate the policies that you do. Thus, you value minorities less than the white majority. That directly, exactly fulfills the definition of racism. That you'd try to pull some cheap parlour trick to disguise this - define "rights" down to approve of racial segregation, and then blithely insist that you're only in favor of "rights" and not "segregation" - doesn't help your case. It just makes you look craven and foolish. If you don't want to keep hearing about how racist you are, then all you have to do is stop advocating racism around here. The choice is yours. If what you want is to continue advocating racism without being called on such, then you're going to continue to be frustrated. The adult thing to do, would be to choose one or the other, and then accept the consequences.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...uld-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/ And in point of fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly allows such discrimination. If you want to only make friends with white people, or only go to dinner parties at the homes of white people, or stuff like that, then the Civil Rights Act has nothing to say about it. In practice, the difference seems to come down to how noticeable the discrimination is, and whether anyone feels harmed by it and objects. To the extent that the discrimination can be kept out of sight, or the activities are truly in some exclusively private sphere, it doesn't come up in practice. But let's note that this is not enough for Paul or 786 - they want businesses to be allowed to openly discriminate in hiring, lunch counters to be allowed to openly discriminate in which races they'll serve, etc. You yourself attended some lunch-counter sit-ins, if I'm not mistaken? Well, 786 sees you as a subversive who unjustly attacked the rights of restauranteers to racially discriminate. Although, as you can see in the link above, Paul has somewhat backed away from this position due to political pressure (but without actually recanting his assertion that he'd have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if he'd been in Congress at the time - meaning he'd rather have kept the explicit Jim Crow segregation laws he claims to oppose, than restrict the practice of segregated lunch counters, hiring, etc.). 786, however, has not backed away from the original Paul position - he still openly endorses segregated lunch-counters and the like.
And so? I never said I 'follow' someone. That is creating the question does life requires the existence of choice. Even a born baby can't choose. Human 'life' yes, but what just entered into place was another life. Who's interfering with who's life? It was your body that created that life. Well Humans like to protect their lives first before others. The problem is the body is both's life. One life can not do to the body that would take the other's life. I don't care about Ron Paul. I'm the one discussing here. If the woman's body is woman's, she should have the right to abort at any time. Why should we stick to first-trimester since its to your advantage. Wrong. Ron Paul is against any Federal legislation against abortion. Shows how much you know about him. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And so? I would simply disagree with him. Is that a taboo? They're one in the same but with 2 life's in it. What other people? It's living off itself. You consider the mother's body separate. I don't. It the moment that the body ejects it that they are separated. Stick to humans Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the fact is that the body within the body is a creation of the body and is thus itself part of that body, not something 'foreign'. Everyone know fetus doesn't have the capacity to act, so its a natural failure of the process. Why must it choose? It certainly has a right to life.
Because the definition of 'parasitic' does not draw that distinction - infact a fetus must actively supress the mothers immune system in order to remain viable.
Even if a fetus suppresses the mother's immune system it does not have to be considered parasitic being the same species.
Apparently he doesn't understand just how violent and forceful a blastocysts impregnation of the endometrium actually is, let alone the cancerous aspects of fetal growth - to the point where a fetus can be carried to full term in an ectopic pregnancy if the implantation occurs outside the womb (the large intestine, for example, has sufficient blood flow).
