|
I understand completely Joe. But as written children have constitutional rights that are being violated.
So the question here is do you believe children should be protected under the Constitution or not? Either choice opens up dangerous cans of worms. |
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1597013)
So the question here is do you believe children should be protected under the Constitution or not?
Essentially the same concept here applies as to a prisoner. They are protected under the constitution, with limitations. It is not coincidental that the term "custody" is used in both contexts, and with roughly the same meaning. |
That goes against the idea that rights are inherent, as well as the actual wording in the Constitution.
|
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1597017)
That goes against the idea that rights are inherent,
If you disagree with this, then try explaining to a bear that it is violating your right to life by mauling you. Or to a hurricane that it is violating your property rights. Nature does not recognize the concept of rights.
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1597017)
as well as the actual wording in the Constitution.
If you mean the parts where it refers to "persons" and "people," those terms have never referred to all hiving humans. Their scope has been growing over the centuries (blacks and women now count as "persons" for instance,) but there is no precedent at all for the Constitution being read so as to apply uniformly to every living human. |
No rights are inherent, the protection of them is made by people.
|
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1597017)
That goes against the idea that rights are inherent,
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1597019)
No rights are inherent,
Ok, now you're just making shit up as you go along, ala Braineack. :giggle: |
Ha ha I missed a comma.
No, rights are inherent. That better? |
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1597021)
No, rights are inherent. That better?
The fundamental concept of "rights" did not exist until after humankind evolved and developed language and civilization. Rights are man-made. That's about the limit of my desire to argue the matter, so whatever you post next will be the last word on the subject. |
Children: no rights under the Constitution, but can chose their gender. :dunno:
|
Originally Posted by chiefmg
(Post 1597023)
Children: no rights under the Constitution, but can chose their gender. :dunno:
According to the "woke" philosophy, nobody is choosing their gender. Rather, they are being afforded the opportunity to inform people of what their gender is, once they discover this for themselves. I'm not saying that this isn't complete bullshit, because it is. But that's how those living in clown-world perceive it. And if you want to even attempt to reason with these people, it's helpful to be aware of how they perceive the matter. |
Originally Posted by chiefmg
(Post 1597023)
Children: no rights under the Constitution, but can chose their gender. :dunno:
|
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...e7c80f35ac.jpg
it all makes sense now |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1597032)
today, when I was getting my 5g upgrade, they asked what gender I identified as. I said loudly: I'm a man.
|
|
|
Did you know that liberals used to hate corporations, until corporations started to care less about profits, and more about discrimination?
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...af&oe=60938392 |
So how do they not get sued for discrimination when they post shit like that?
|
Originally Posted by Bajingo
(Post 1597146)
So how do they not get sued for discrimination when they post shit like that?
|
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1597083)
I'm genuinely curious as to why your wireless provider needs to know your gender.
best comment, from a liberal none-the-less: https://media.patriots.win/post/Yeu053T3.jpeg |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 AM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands