Opinion Do you think women will ever lose right to vote ? Or are Interracial marriage bans are possible?

[Jack V Savage]

Tbh, I would have said that to your face if you told me you thought they would ban interacial marriage soon. Its like finding a flat earther you know

Also you need to grow thicker skin if a small friendly jab on a karate forum makes your panties twist up.

It's not about that (and come on, there's no way you're still alive if you're that obnoxious in person). I took your question to be a genuine request for clarification, as you really didn't seem to understand the point. Didn't realize you just see yourself as an unpaid propagandist or whatever. Anyway, ignoring you now.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What you are actually saying is, some issues should be removed from the normal political process- or if they are not, that is tyranny. And if other, different issues are removed from the normal political process- that is also tyranny. In fact, tyranny is just things I don't like.

I think this is a common enough fallacy that it should have a name. The form is "simple logic rules don't answer all questions one might have about this issue, therefore we should throw our hands up and declare that reality doesn't exist." No. Just requires a little thinking. Outlawing rape and outlawing talking are not the same thing, for example.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To be fair, conservatives are guilty of calling everything tyranny as well. I think if we are going to use that term, it ought to mean what it was originally intended to mean: one who rules for private gain, and by personal fiat, without the benefit of law or regular process.

I think SCOTUS justices lying to get on the court and then taking people's rights away fits the definition pretty well.

 

[Denter]

I think this is a common enough fallacy that it should have a name. The form is "simple logic rules don't answer all questions one might have about this issue, therefore we should throw our hands up and declare that reality doesn't exist." No. Just requires a little thinking. Outlawing rape and outlawing talking are not the same thing, for example.

Hmm it seems like one of these things is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition and the other one isn't.

 

[Denter]

I think SCOTUS justices lying to get on the court and then taking people's rights away fits the definition pretty well.

I disagree.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hmm it seems like one of these things is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition and the other one isn't.

Does that sound like a reasonable standard?

I disagree.

I don't think you would if you didn't agree with the action.

 

[kenetics]

Nope . And it shouldn't.

 

[Denter]

Does that sound like a reasonable standard?



I don't think you would if you didn't agree with the action.

We were talking about tyranny. You're conflating two different things. If all liars were tyrants, well, there would be a lot more tyranny.

 

[Karl_Hungus]

Women used to be considered chattel. The country would be much better off if the justices took us back to that. Who knows what they will do? It isn't like they care about the Constitution, etc.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We were talking about tyranny. You're conflating two different things. If all liars were tyrants, well, there would be a lot more tyranny.

I think that lying to get on the court delegitimizes it because they're subverting the process, and they're doing that specifically to take people's rights away.

 

[King Joffery]

Unfortunately the only way women's vote is being taken away is if we became a majority Muslim country.

 

[skold]

Unfortunately the only way women's vote is being taken away is if we became a majority Muslim country.