ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags constitution issues , Equal Rights Amendment , era

Reply
Old Yesterday, 07:17 PM   #321
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,889
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It ISN'T an argument at all.

Someone could shout just as loud that FOETUSES ARE HUMAN BEIGNS and that LIFE TRUMPS CONVENIENCE, and you wouldn't have a leg to stand on anymore than they would.

In order to make an argument for something you have to at least establish a sort of common ground. You can't just argue that anyone else's values are wrong and yours are right and that's just that. You're not convincing anyone this way, and presumably, since this isn't a blog but a discussion forum, having an actual discussion where you can try to convince people is the whole point.

Ironic.
Common ground? Are you serious? I get you think that everyone was raised with a silver spoon and those people relate to the disadvantaged. But I assure you they don't. My experience is they are uninterested in the challenges faced by others.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; Yesterday at 07:39 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:38 PM   #322
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,973
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Intermediate scrutiny and rational basis are *also* legal terms used when the courts decide whether a policy violates constitutional rights.
Ok. I didn't remember who had mentioned these things, so sorry that I din't know you knew that.

The courts choose strict, or intermediate, or rational basis, depending on what sort of claim about rights is being made. If it is something specifically mentioned in the constitution, then strict scrutiny is the appropriate category. The constitution, in the 14th amendment, says everyone has to have equal protection under the law, but it's ok to have a certain amount of discrimination as long as there is a rational basis for that discrimination. However, if you want to restrict free speech, there has to be strict scrutiny involved, because it is mentioned in the constitution. Racial discrimination isn't explicitly mentioned, but it is the specific reason for the 14th amendment in the first place, so modern courts have said strict scrutiny applies. Sexual discrimination, though, isn't in there, so a rational basis is good enough, until you explicitly make it part of the constitution, then strict scrutiny is the only logical standard they could apply.

Well, ok, do we know they'll keep doing that? AFter all, courts aren't required to do the same thing their predecessors did. Maybe they'll decide that an all girls robotics competition fits through some loophole. It's true, we can't know exactly what will happen.

However, what we do know is that if they follow precedence, discrimination by sex would end up being treated exactly like discrimination by race. Do you think a public school could get away with funding an all black competition? Or an all Catholic competition? Then if you ratify the ERA, why would they get away with funding an all girls competition?

In general, every single place where any government entity disciminates between men and women, or boys and girls, could be the target of a lawsuit, and in every one of those lawsuits, the defendant would have to convince the judge that the discrimination is acceptable, even after the highest law of the land was amended with the specific intent of ending that sort of discrimination. I don't see how to get around it. I can't imagine the argument that would be convincing for a high school actiity restricted to girls, when the sex of the competitors plays no actual role in the competition.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:10 PM   #323
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,320
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Like you know how it works.
Yes, I know how rational argumentation works.

Quote:
The position that is crap is the one of privilege who have no idea what it's like to go without.
Of course. Got to have that "privilege" to go along with that white male patriarchy.

Quote:
The one who thinks they have some innate right to tell others how to live.
Pretty much everyone, including you, thinks that. For example, you're telling me not to involve myself in the abortion decisions of others. I'm sure you'd also tell me not to murder people. Oh sure, we vary in the scope and details of what we think we can tell people to do or not do, but we all still think we can. And it's true, we can, and we should. There is no alternative in a democracy.

Quote:
But it's a hell of a lot easier to preach than to help. I mean that requires caring. MAGA!
...he said while preaching. And this thread isn't about Trump. It's about the ERA. And you still haven't gotten around to telling us what the hell abortion has to do with the ERA.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:20 PM   #324
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,889
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, I know how rational argumentation works.

Of course. Got to have that "privilege" to go along with that white male patriarchy.

Pretty much everyone, including you, thinks that. For example, you're telling me not to involve myself in the abortion decisions of others. I'm sure you'd also tell me not to murder people. Oh sure, we vary in the scope and details of what we think we can tell people to do or not do, but we all still think we can. And it's true, we can, and we should. There is no alternative in a democracy.
You keep saying "everybody". Who the hell is "everybody"? You need to escape that Trumpian right wing echo chamber. And given the endless support you give Dur Fuhrer, I know you don't give a damn about "democracy".
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:51 PM   #325
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,320
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You keep saying "everybody". Who the hell is "everybody"?
Everyone.

Quote:
You need to escape that Trumpian right wing echo chamber.
Should murder be outlawed? Yes? You're imposing your morals on others. Should theft be outlawed? Yes? You're imposing your morals on others.

I feel quite confident that the vast majority of Americans, on both the left and the right, want murder and theft to be illegal. Are you really claiming otherwise? Are you really saying that only Trump supporters think that?

Quote:
And given the endless support you give Dur Fuhrer, I know you don't give a damn about "democracy".
And... there's the Godwin. Inevitably. It's the only place to go when you've already spent your racism and sexism accusations.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:23 PM   #326
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,889
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Everyone.
Give it to a Trumpian to make up **** and spread it around.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Should murder be outlawed? Yes? You're imposing your morals on others. Should theft be outlawed? Yes? You're imposing your morals on others.
Brought to you by Dumb Donald with another false analogy. We are discussing prenatal issues.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I feel quite confident that the vast majority of Americans, on both the left and the right, want murder and theft to be illegal. Are you really claiming otherwise? Are you really saying that only Trump supporters think that?
No, I think only Trump supporters would make such a diversionary stupid argument.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

And... there's the Godwin. Inevitably. It's the only place to go when you've already spent your racism and sexism accusations.
If the shoe fits. That you spend endless hours defending the most dishonest, sexist racist lump of fecal matter says a great deal about your ideas on morality don't you think? Or is lying incessantly, cheating on all your wives, defrauding students, donors, veterans, contractors etc moral where you come from?

At least I'm consistent about my morality.
.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:32 PM   #327
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,320
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Brought to you by Dumb Donald with another false analogy. We are discussing prenatal issues.
It's not a false analogy. In fact, it's not an analogy at all. You made a claim about your principles. Principles apply to more than one situation, that's what makes them principles. And your claim was transparently false.

Quote:
At least I'm consistent about my morality.
That's precisely my point: you aren't. Not even a little.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:37 AM   #328
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,722
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Common ground? Are you serious?
Yes, and that doesn't mean we'll agree to your axioms, but they need to be made clear.

Quote:
I get you think that everyone was raised with a silver spoon and those people relate to the disadvantaged.
...what? Where the hell did that come from? Dude, I'm not your enemy, here.

It seems to me that you're not aware that telling people they can't interfere with women's reproductive rights IS imposing your morals on them. There's nothing wrong with the thought, but I don't know why you're so adamant about denying it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; Today at 03:40 AM.
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.