Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[hntnhole]

12 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

Could the Republican Party, be out of touch with the majority of Republicans/Republican voters about Roe vs. Wade

Oh .... maaaaaybe ..... ask the folks over to Kansas 😁

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Will you make sure that this rule applies to members of both political parties? I've seen plenty of false information posted by democrats on here as well. If the goal is to ensure that only factual information is posted, the the rule should be applied equally to both sides.

I think if you (a) spot something demonstrably untrue (b) posted by a Democrat and (c) link to evidence that it's clearly not true, then I believe that person should be (and would be) sanctioned as well.

Especially if (as in this case) the poster in question was corrected, with citations to prove he was wrong, and he doubled down on his demonstrably false statement, thus proving it wasn't simply an error.

I, for one, make mistakes, When an error of mine is pointed out, I try very hard to acknowledge that; and moreover, I concede any "but for" conclusions I drew as well. By which, I mean that if I post Factoid A, and a conclusion that is in turn based wholly on Factoid A, then if Factoid A is disproven, I also withdraw the conclusion I drew from it. ("But for Factoid A, I would not have made this conclusion.")

That said, sometimes Factoid A is only one element of several things supporting a conclusion, which means not everything based in part on A will be withdrawn - just those things that depend on A for their truthfulness.

[ErosWired]

9 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

If the goal is to ensure that only factual information is posted, the the rule should be applied equally to both sides.

Factual information. There continues to be this absurd notion that “alternate facts” should be given equal weight with actual facts. Where you can document a fact with credible evidence, quoted matter in context, and other objective, empirical proof, then make a case and claim a fact. Disagreeing with a fact doesn’t make it not a fact. Disliking a fact doesn’t make it not a fact.

Likewise, having a wild-ass conspiracy theory based on “proof” that isn’t provable, logic that isn’t logical, and “evidence” that isn’t evident doesn’t make what the conspiracy theorist pulls out of his ass a fact.

There is an evidentiary basis for truth, and for fact, often solidly grounded in scientific method. If you want to make your case for some fact or other (one assumes it will be a “Republican fact”, since you draw the distinction) be sure you’ve got your evidence solid. To be candid, the standard-bearer for the Republican Party has painted the party with a ve-e-e-ry broad brush to resemble himself, and he is a proven habitual liar (30,573 documented public falsehoods in office), so you can’t be terribly surprised if people don’t take Republicans’ word on much of anything anymore and expect a bit more evidence.

[Close2MyBro]

46 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

Factual information. There continues to be this absurd notion that “alternate facts” should be given equal weight with actual facts. Where you can document a fact with credible evidence, quoted matter in context, and other objective, empirical proof, then make a case and claim a fact. Disagreeing with a fact doesn’t make it not a fact. Disliking a fact doesn’t make it not a fact.

Likewise, having a wild-ass conspiracy theory based on “proof” that isn’t provable, logic that isn’t logical, and “evidence” that isn’t evident doesn’t make what the conspiracy theorist pulls out of his ass a fact.

There is an evidentiary basis for truth, and for fact, often solidly grounded in scientific method. If you want to make your case for some fact or other (one assumes it will be a “Republican fact”, since you draw the distinction) be sure you’ve got your evidence solid. To be candid, the standard-bearer for the Republican Party has painted the party with a ve-e-e-ry broad brush to resemble himself, and he is a proven habitual liar (30,573 documented public falsehoods in office), so you can’t be terribly surprised if people don’t take Republicans’ word on much of anything anymore and expect a bit more evidence.

Oh, I see. You operate under a dual-standard, with "Republican Facts" bearing no weight and "Democrat facts" always being correct and accurate. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Republicans feel the same way about your set of "facts" that you do about theirs? And as to facts, what I see on here is mostly opinion, completely lacking of factual support. I'd love to see more provable facts on here before people voice their opinions or echo back what they've been told without doing any of their own investigation.

[ErosWired]

4 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Did you ever stop to think that maybe Republicans feel the same way about your set of "facts" that you do about theirs?

Are you even listening? There are no equivalent “sets of facts” that are subject to opinion. There are only the facts, and they don’t belong to a political party. This is exactly my point. How you “feel” about a fact is irrelevant. Feelings are not facts. Our nation is suffering mightily right now because so many people have substituted feeling for thinking. Butthurt does not make something magically true.

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Oh, I see. You operate under a dual-standard, with "Republican Facts" bearing no weight and "Democrat facts" always being correct and accurate. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Republicans feel the same way about your set of "facts" that you do about theirs? And as to facts, what I see on here is mostly opinion, completely lacking of factual support. I'd love to see more provable facts on here before people voice their opinions or echo back what they've been told without doing any of their own investigation.

Sure, there's plenty of opinion on here. Most of it isn't mislabeled as facts - it's clearly what one person (the poster) thinks.

I might post, for instance, that I think the Supreme Court has a good shot at overturning its previous decisions on same-sex marriage. That's an opinion. But I present that opinion with supporting facts: for instance, the legal theories that Clarence Thomas has expressed clearly in writing, including that there is no basis for protecting a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution and that it should be overturned. Or, for instance, the fact that Justices Alito and Roberts have also expressed a hostility to same-sex marriage in their dissenting opinion in Obergefell. Or that Kavanaugh, more recently, has written that he does not believe the Civil Rights Act protects people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (while even Gorsuch and Roberts conceded it does).

It's a FACT that Thomas has written this - in Supreme Court concurring opinions, no less. That's not my opinion. It's a FACT that Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in Bostock (Civil Rights Act protects gays/transgender persons) specifically rejecting the idea that the law covers us. That's not my opinion.

Likewise with the case that is under discussion. The facts (yes, facts) are clear: the death rate of pregnant women from having an abortion in the U.S. is a fraction of the death rate of pregnant women who carry to term (or until they die of pregnancy complications along the way). I'd argue - and this is an OPINION - that this discrepancy reflects the absolutely awful state of health care in this country, where so many poorer pregnant women have little to no access to prenatal care. I can't prove that - there might well be other factors involved - but that's my OPINION, backed up by FACTS such as the much higher death rate of pregnant women who are poor compared with those who are middle and upper class. 

In other words, maybe you need to read more carefully to determine what's presented as fact (and whether it's backed up by evidence) and what's presented as opinion (which can be backed by evidence or not, but which is personal to the poster).

One final note: There's a famous quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late senator from New York: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts." But just because someone is free to have an opinion does not mean he's free from having that opinion mocked, especially if there's no factual basis for that opinion. I could, for instance, have the opinion that the moon is, in fact, made of green cheese, and that all known evidence to the contrary is, in fact, "fake news". My right to that opinion does not somehow render it worthy of respect.

[BootmanLA]

And again with respect to the abortion issue: Of course one is free to have the opinion that abortion is morally wrong or that it ought to be illegal. That's an opinion. My opinion may be otherwise, and it's also just an opinion. It's also my opinion that the current Supreme Court got things right in Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood*, but again, that's an opinion. I'm not stating that as a fact.

But you can't defend that opinion with a falsehood (like lying about the relative safety of abortion vs. pregnancy to term for women) and not expect to be called on it. 

*For the non-legal minds here: Roe held there was a right to privacy that extended over the decision to have an abortion and established the trimester system for regulating it: for the first three months, when science at the time made it statistically safer to abort than to continue pregnancy, the state could not interfere with abortion other than basic sanitary-type regulations applicable to all health care providers. For the second three months, which was the remainder of the pre-viability period, states could regulate abortion narrowly, only insofar as to ensure that it was safely done to protect the health and safety of the pregnant woman. In the third trimester, which coincided with the then viability period (the time after which a prematurely delivered fetus could survive, with medical care, outside the uterus), states could prohibit abortion unless it was necessary to protect the pregnant woman's life or health.

Casey, coming 19 years later, affirmed the central holding of Roe (that there was a constitutional right to abortion) but changed the calculus, in part because science had advanced in making later abortions safer and also in being able to save increasingly less developed fetuses. The Court's new framework was that prior to viability (by then, back to about 23 weeks at the absolute outside), states could regulate abortion so long as it did not impose an "undue burden" on the woman seeking an abortion. After viability states could prohibit abortion, as before, with the exceptions for life or health of the pregnant woman. While Casey was intended to clarify the abortion right, the question of "What is an undue burden and how do we determine that?" caused an even greater increase in abortion litigation, as states increasingly tried to impose draconian regulations on abortion while claiming they were not an undue burden. All the issues that have been fought over in the last 30 years - waiting periods, forced listening to fetal "heartbeats", provision of (often disingenuous or downright mendacious) literature about "options", increasingly shorter time periods in which to seek an abortion, requiring abortion providers to be fully licensed outpatient surgical centers - all of those stem from the "undue burden" language, which became a constantly shifting goalpost.

Edited August 4, 2022 by BootmanLA

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

I'd love to see more provable facts on here before people voice their opinions or echo back what they've been told without doing any of their own investigation.

You're welcome; I posted links to the entire ruling, including Justice Thomas's Post Scriptium earlier.

 

6 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Oh, I see. You operate under a dual-standard, with "Republican Facts" bearing no weight and "Democrat facts" always being correct and accurate. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Republicans feel the same way about your set of "facts" that you do about theirs?

Could you tell me why you respond defensively to our friend @ErosWired's dishing 'alternative facts'?
Linguistically and humourisly the label is a brilliant find, coined by former President Trump's former Counselor Conway. 

Everyone of sound mind will agree that facts are facts.
When someone says something is an 'alternative fact' one would think, they mean it's an alternative to (a) fact(s).
And an alternative to a fact, is a falsehood.

Telling a falsehood that one knows is false, is called lying.

Please correct me if I'm wrong because although I'm an Anglophile and consider myself a friend to the US of A, English (or American if you'd like) is not my native tongue.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Oh .... maaaaaybe ..... ask the folks over to Kansas 😁

Yay Toto.

 

 

[barefootboy]

9 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Oh, I see. You operate under a dual-standard, with "Republican Facts" bearing no weight and "Democrat facts" always being correct and accurate. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Republicans feel the same way about your set of "facts" that you do about theirs? Ad d as to facts, what I see on here is mostly opinion, completely lacking of factual support. I'd love to see more provable facts on here before people voice their opinions or echo back what they've been told without doing any of their own investigation.

But what you just described is exactly what Fox News does to fire-up its Republican base. Fox News has been spewing lies that, as you say, "lack factual support" for years (Example: the great election steal). All those lies have culminated a base of hate not just to minorities and gays, but to Democrats in general.

Yesterday I was driving from Georgia to Florida and when I crossed the State line into Florida, I saw two Billboards in close succession. The first read "DON'T BE A DEMOCRAT".  The second read "DEMOCRATS ARE RUINING AMERICA. Go to www.americanaffliction.com".  I checked out the website and found it repulsive, but I encourage everyone to check it out. 

Anyone that thinks that the Republican base is not coming after us has their head in the sand.

I respect your opinion, Close2MyBro, but I think you are out to lunch on this one. 

[Close2MyBro]

17 minutes ago, barefootboy said:

But what you just described is exactly what Fox News does to fire-up its Republican base. Fox News has been spewing lies that, as you say, "lack factual support" for years (Example: the great election steal). All those lies have culminated a base of hate not just to minorities and gays, but to Democrats in general.

Yesterday I was driving from Georgia to Florida and when I crossed the State line into Florida, I saw two Billboards in close succession. The first read "DON'T BE A DEMOCRAT".  The second read "DEMOCRATS ARE RUINING AMERICA. Go to www.americanaffliction.com".  I checked out the website and found it repulsive, but I encourage everyone to check it out. 

Anyone that thinks that the Republican base is not coming after us has their head in the sand.

I respect your opinion, Close2MyBro, but I think you are out to lunch on this one. 

Do you ever get tired of feeling like a victim? Do you think that's accidental, or possibly intentional? For years now the democratic party has been sounding alarms for all of its followers to keep them in a constant despair and an agitated state. From a psychological standpoint, the fastest way to unite people is to get them to hate someone or something, and that's what the party has been doing for years. Do you ever wonder why many of the problems you face every day never get solved, even during the numerous instances in which the democrats had a majority in the house and senate and the presidency, but yet these simple issues, which could be solved quickly by an act of congress, never get solved?? My believe is it is intentional, because they need to keep these issues alive to keep you angry and to get you to donate money. If you really want to see how little the democrats have solved, watch the 1960's television show "All In The Family" and see how little has been solved in the last 50 years and the things that actually got worse in the last 50 years. Back in the 60's and 70's, the black community has a mentality of "we shall overcome". Advance 50 years and now they, along with many other minorities, have become "victims" of everyone and everything and have been trained to become dependent on the government to solve their problems, which we all know will never happen. White people are encouraged to "hate themselves because of their privilege". Critical race theory further induces people to believe the odds are already stacked against them, thus making them further dependent on the government for assistance. I think it's sad so many democrats choose to wake up every morning, run to their liberal news sources such as CNN and MSNBC (which, by the way, are falling faster in the ratings than a penny dropped from the Eiffel tower, while Fox news soars - that alone should tell you something) and find something new to be angry about that day.

If you want to live your life in a continuous spiral of misery and victim-hood, that's your choice. Keep tuning into CNN and keep finding new reasons to be angry and miserable and keep believing the propaganda you're being fed, and keep hoping the democrats will solve your problems. Or, you can choose to get off that roller coaster and start living a more happy and productive life.

[NEDenver]

You poor thing.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Do you ever get tired of feeling like a victim? Do you think that's accidental, or possibly intentional? For years now the democratic party has been sounding alarms for all of its followers to keep them in a constant despair and an agitated state. From a psychological standpoint, the fastest way to unite people is to get them to hate someone or something, and that's what the party has been doing for years. Do you ever wonder why many of the problems you face every day never get solved, even during the numerous instances in which the democrats had a majority in the house and senate and the presidency, but yet these simple issues, which could be solved quickly by an act of congress, never get solved?? My believe is it is intentional, because they need to keep these issues alive to keep you angry and to get you to donate money. If you really want to see how little the democrats have solved, watch the 1960's television show "All In The Family" and see how little has been solved in the last 50 years and the things that actually got worse in the last 50 years. Back in the 60's and 70's, the black community has a mentality of "we shall overcome". Advance 50 years and now they, along with many other minorities, have become "victims" of everyone and everything and have been trained to become dependent on the government to solve their problems, which we all know will never happen. White people are encouraged to "hate themselves because of their privilege". Critical race theory further induces people to believe the odds are already stacked against them, thus making them further dependent on the government for assistance. I think it's sad so many democrats choose to wake up every morning, run to their liberal news sources such as CNN and MSNBC (which, by the way, are falling faster in the ratings than a penny dropped from the Eiffel tower, while Fox news soars - that alone should tell you something) and find something new to be angry about that day.

If you want to live your life in a continuous spiral of misery and victim-hood, that's your choice. Keep tuning into CNN and keep finding new reasons to be angry and miserable and keep believing the propaganda you're being fed, and keep hoping the democrats will solve your problems. Or, you can choose to get off that roller coaster and start living a more happy and productive life.

Forgive me for intruding in your conversation but I think it's swell you've changed tactics from defensive, to offensive in at least one meaning of the word and perhaps two.

Might I suggest you read Justice Thomas' opinion iso of watching reruns of that delightful tv show "All in The Family"?

- The SCOTUS ruling has given your US states the unlimited power to forbid abortions in all cases within their borders.
- Justice Thomas added to the ruling that in his judgment, the right to marry someone of your own sex and the right to fuck with someone of your own sex are likewise not protected by the US Constitution c.q. the Bill of Rights.
- This means as far as Justice Thomas is concerned, States should be allowed to forbid your sex life, and hunt you down like a criminal for doing something that harms no one.

Those are facts, dear Archie.
Not alternative ones but the kind you can read yourself if you look at the ruling on the website of your Supreme Court.

And this the subject of this thread. 

 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with being depended on the government but being protected from your government - be it the the State-government or the Federal - interfering in your personal lives.

This has also nothing to do - if you'll allow me to speak in defence of @barefootboy - with claiming victimhood.

It is about knowing our own history as gay and bisexual men and to lesser extant women.

 

There's an interesting post elsewhere about research into cruising for sex. (A loan-word by the way from the Dutch word 'kruyssen' I'm proud to say). But do you realise the source material for historians to study the phenomenon, are often criminal convictions that are on record from the 18th century on?
(I hope the sociological research @on2thenxt87 is currently doing, will also cover the history and legality of seeking and having gay sex).

Please realise that it was only as recently as 1952 that the great WWII hero Alan Turing - who helped us as allies to defeat the Nazi's sooner by working to break the Enigma-encryption-code they used - was sentenced to chemical castration for having gay sex.

 

Yes I know your United States were still our colonies back in 1713, and some of us here on BZ have the historical recollection of a small species of dragon-fly but if one is really curious about how life is when sex among men is barred one might try to live in or just visit a country like Saudi Arabia.

Please don't allow my American friends to suffer the same experiences as our forefathers had to, and too many people still have to in our world.

 

What this is about is that Human Rights are and should be universal.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Guest

[Close2MyBro]

3 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Forgive me for intruding in your conversation but I think it's swell you've changed tactics from defensive, to offensive in at least one meaning of the word and perhaps two.

Might I suggest you read Justice Thomas' opinion iso of watching reruns that delightful tv show "All in The Family"?

- The SCOTUS ruling has given your US states the unlimited power to forbid abortions in all cases within their borders.
- Justice Thomas added to the ruling that in his judgment, the right to marry someone of your own sex and the right to fuck with someone of your own sex are likewise not protected by the US Constitution c.q. the Bill of Rights.
- This means as far as Justice Thomas is concerned, States should be allowed to forbid your sex life, and hunt you down like a criminal for doing that harms none and is in your nature.

Those are facts, dear Archie.
Not alternative ones but the kind you can read yourself if you look at the ruling on the website of your Supreme Court.

And this the subject of this thread. 

 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with being depended on the government but being protected from your government - be it the the State-government or the Federal - interfering in your personal lives.

This has also nothing to do - if you'll allow me to speak in defence of @barefootboy - with claiming victimhood.

It is about knowing our own history as gay and bisexual men and to lesser extant women.

 

There's an interesting post elsewhere about research into cruising for sex. (A loan-word by the way from the Dutch word 'kruyssen' I'm proud to say). But do you realise the source material for historians to study the phenomenon, are often criminal convictions that are on record from the 18th century on? 

Please realise that it was only as recently as 1952 that the great WWII hero Alan Turing - who helped us as allies to defeat the Nazi's sooner by working to break the Enigma-encryption-code they used - was sentenced to chemical castration for having gay sex.

 

Yes I know your United States where still our colonies back in 1713, and some of us here on BZ have the historical recollection of a small species of dragon-fly but if one is really curious about how life is when sex among men is barred one might try to live in or just visit a country like Saudi Arabia.

Please don't allow my American friends to suffer the same experiences as our forefathers had to, and too many people still have to in our world.

 

What this is about is that Human Rights are and should be universal.

How well do you know your "gay history"? Are you aware that the first person to ban gay marriage on the federal level was none other than democrat Bill Clinton, when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996? This after  he heavily lobbied the gay community for his re-election and promised them gay marriage and then turned his back on the gay community. Joining him in voting for the ban on gay marriage was also then-senator Joe Biden. The law stood until 2015, when the Supreme Court struck it down altogether. This means that democrat Barack Obama and his democract super majority did nothing to overturn the Defense of Marriage act when they could have.

So may people seem to think that the democratic party is the solution to all problems. Then things like this happen and you can see the true colors come to the surface.

As a minority myself, I refuse to allow the democrats to exploit me for votes or sympathy. I don't need the government to "prop me up", I'm capable of doing just fine by myself, thank you.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

How well do you know your "gay history"? Are you aware that the first person to ban gay marriage on the federal level was none other than democrat Bill Clinton, when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996? This after  he heavily lobbied the gay community for his re-election and promised them gay marriage and then turned his back on the gay community. Joining him in voting for the ban on gay marriage was also then-senator Joe Biden. The law stood until 2015, when the Supreme Court struck it down altogether. This means that democrat Barack Obama and his democract super majority did nothing to overturn the Defense of Marriage act when they could have.

So may people seem to think that the democratic party is the solution to all problems. Then things like this happen and you can see the true colors come to the surface.

As a minority myself, I refuse to allow the democrats to exploit me for votes or sympathy. I don't need the government to "prop me up", I'm capable of doing just fine by myself, thank you.

Yes.
And besides not being a US citizen or resident, I'm also neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

I am against idiotic religious and political fanatics that want to or endorse trespassing on our human rights. The fight to keep and get those rights is something that is much broader than democrats vs republicans.

This is not entirely unrelated though as the GOP has put a majority in the Supreme Court that has ruled as it has.