Oh, the debate has impacted my thoughts, too. I was speaking specifically about the futility of trying to force people to debate in the manner I prefer, in response to this:
so long as no one actually thinks that trying to play “Post Police” is going to affect what or how I post.
I wasn’t speaking to the merit of debate in general or this debate specifically, which I’ve found interesting. I’m a big believer in debate. Less so undeserved disrespect. But I understand that others’ behavior is not within my control, nor is it a battle I wish to engage.
You don’t think women were forced into obedience by their smaller size and complete economic dependence? Are you aware that they were regularly traded for property? In fact, the word “chattel” described both women and livestock not so long ago - I think in 1840 or so it began to change.
Technically relativity is true for all momentum frames, not just at or near the speed of light.
And it isn’t an assumption. An assumption implies that that what is being assumed is correct, when what is being done here is a deliberate falsification with the assumption (correctly) that the it doesn’t really matter.
The scientific truth thing comes from ED, who was the one that was claiming engineering was the bastion of scientific purity and analytical truth.
No crap you have to simplify, I’ve been pointing out this whole time the all engineers do it including myself. That’s my whole point.
Um, no, you aren’t reading anything I’m writing. I in no way have argued that anything engineering does is wrong. Nor have I argued for the use of modern physics is things like structural loading. You are entirely making this up. Though this is beside the point, I believe quite the opposite. The theoretical physics side that actually seeks absolute scientific truth has produced little in the past 100 or so years that means anything in the real world besides maybe some uses in space travel and the A-bomb. Meanwhile it’s the engineers with 1600’s physics equations getting all the real stuff done.
Again, ED using engineering as a bastion of the latest and greatest of modern scientific truth when most of use a system of physics 3+ generations old and falsified by Einstein 100 years ago is disingenuous. Engineers don’t care about the quantum tunneling, time dilation, and calabi-yau shapes because we are too busy getting stuff built.
Basically, engineers ignore the shit out of the latest and greatest of modern theoretical science.
All functional societies have tried to put limits on power when it became so dominating that it could rip a society apart.
That includes economic and Military power, what if the attempt of reigning in female sexuality was an attempt to put Limits on sexual power that is mostly Held by young women who lack the experience to wield it responsibly?
It just might be possible and unchecked female sexual power is usually a sign of decay and I am afraid that we will learn this the hard way.
This theory would be more appealing (in an explanatory, not moral sense) if the historical subjugation of women were limited to matters related to the expression of sexuality. Very difficult to explain economic and political subjugation on this basis, however.
Gorillas - excellent example of strength without economic power. Which leads us to a then-and-now comparison. Women in the western world are no longer subjugated by men because physical strength does not automatically equal economic superiority in the modern world.
So, in your opinion the legislative assault on gun rights is as aggressive and effective as that being waged upon abortion rights? If that is the case, can you provide examples of recent successful gun-rights-restriction legislation that is the equivalent of those states which, via TRAP laws, have legislated their way down to ONE abortion clinic for an entire state? (In my mind, the equivalent would be a state that had legislated out of existence all gun stores save one.)
On a similar note, can you discuss recent legislation concerning concealed- (and open) carry laws, waiting periods, background checks, restrictions on firearm classes, etc, that are consistent with your implication that gun rights are currently under significant threat in America? Finally, would you also comment on how the recent Heller SCOTUS decision represents a threat to firearm ownership?
Dumb logic is dumb. Okay, let me ask you the reverse questions. Do you have to get fingerprinted, have a background check, take classes, and pay money to the state then wait months to receive an ID that lets you have an abortion? In some states do you also have to prove you have a valid state approved reason for the abortion while the state reserves the right to arbitrarily approve or deny your request for the procedure? Are you required to hide the fact from the public that you’ve had an abortion in some states? Do states make it public knowledge and list the names and addresses of people who’ve applied for abortions for all to see?
So if those same restrictions were on abortion, you wouldn’t call those an attack on abortion “rights”?
All of this besides the irrationality of comparing a negative and a positive right on equal footing.
First off, abortion isn’t a right. It’s a medical service. Self determination is a right. Just so happens, legally in our country the right of self determination is withheld until an arbitrary point in the human development timeline for different activities. The right of self determination currently trumps the right to life as long as the human losing their life is still in the womb and the female is (obviously) post pubescent. Prior to that, neither the pre-natal child, whether male or female, or pre-pubescent female has the “right” to an abortion.
So…
Whoa is me… There is only one abortion clinic in an entire state! Gasp, the horror.
Anyway, you may want to look into the following states re: gun legislation
California
New Jersey
New York
Connecticut
You can look at any major urban area for the mast part as well.
As for the bolded part, you can’t cherry pick data and stomp around and claim victory. The fact is over the last 100+ years, up until Heller really, the 2nd amendment has been trampled on over and over again, and to this day, people must petition their government in order to exercise their right of self defense.
You’ve put silly limitations on the topic in order to narrow down the data set to fit your biased world view. Which is my entire point. You aren’t, at all, being intellectually honest here. You’re cherry picking in order to confirm your bias.
In your mind is all well and good. In reality, that is ridiculous.
OMG you mean some States are actually allowing people to exercise rights clearly codified as protected under the governing document of our nation?
And are you implying that this somehow erases the last century (more if we’re being honest) of restrictions on those rights?
So you mean that people have pushed back and won (in some states) back their constitutionally protected rights that the states were it has been eroded further, blatant media attacks that were admitted to be dubiously edited, and constant calls for bans in both submitted congressional bills and politico speeches suddenly means that everything is well and good and the left doesn’t talk about Heller like the right talks about Wade?
Finally, can you comment on how someone has their “abortion rights” protected if they are aborted and no longer alive?
Assuming you’re an American, I suspect you’re familiar with the term ‘abortion rights’ and what it means in this context.
I dare say you wouldn’t be so cavalier if, say, Connecticut passed legislation the result of which was there was only one gun store in the entire state.
I asked you to support your assertion by providing citations of recent significant rollbacks of gun rights (ie, comparable to those placed on abortion rights). It’s your argument to make, if you want to make it.
That is a completely inaccurate assertion. Heller represents a radical re-interpretation of the 2A. You can’t look backwards through Heller-colored glasses and claim that previous gun-related legislation ‘trampled the 2A.’
A fact entirely consistent with Heller.
No, I’ve put very reasonable limitations on the topic in order to keep it relevant to the here and now.
I’m saying–and you appear to be agreeing with me–that gun rights are in fact ascendant right now. Thus (and here we get back to my original point), comparisons between the status of abortion rights (which are clearly not ascendant of late) and gun rights are not apt.
I clearly outlined what it means in context. Don’t dodge.
Abortions aren’t a right, they are a medical service. Currently, select female members upon reaching a certain age have a legal choice on whether or not to carry and birth their children, based on the right of self determination.
Abortion’s legality is based on the right of self determination. It isn’t equally applied by any stretch of the imagination, but a medical procedure isn’t a right in any instance. It’s an action.
Probably because they can’t, seeing as it infringes on rights codified and protected in plain English in our governing document.
Last I checked Madison left out the whole “removal of living humans from the womb” part.
And I did. I listed 4 states that have, sense Heller trampled the living shit out of the 2nd. Do you need specific links, or can I assume you’re aware enough of a topic’s (gun rights) hottest major issues to make the assertions you’ve made on them?
I could also link to some dead bans on congressional floors and the upcoming gun-pokalysp in CA if you’d like. Or are you unaware of what the hell you’re talking about when you made your original statement?
Can I have some of what you are smoking please?
NFA
Hughes Amendment
There are two that are without question trampling of rights.
Hilarious that you have the gaul to claim world history here starts will Heller, and insist that is reasonable in any way, and refuse to even notice that the only reason you are doing so is because your entire bias gets blown the fuck out if you don’t. “relevant to the hear and now”. lmao what a joke.
No, they aren’t. In some states they are, and in some they are stepping backwards, most are stagnant, outside of some court victories hear and there.
You can’t say “of late” and think that wins the day for you. But whatever. You don’t want to be intellectually honest, I don’t care
ZOMG he made a vagina reference, he wins the internet.
lol
EDIT:
Because someone will whine I’m not being a “nice guy” like you and employing shit debate tactics politely on the sly:
Do I agree that some areas of the country are making abortion mills a wee bit harder to operate? Sure.
But the fact you refuse to acknowledge that an actual codified and clearly expressed right hasn’t faced much worse was too much for this asshole to sit by and let slide, even if it was the internet. You’ve cherry picked the shit out of your timeline, and what is or isn’t a right in order to wedge in some confirmation bias. That people kissed your ass for your tone only makes it worse.