02 May 23
@KellyJay
But ultra right folks like you LOVE the politicalization of SCOTUS, where they now think they can make better medical decisions than actual medical professionals.
They don't care about the welfare of humans, the goal is to go back 200 years to control the lives of women.
So SCOTUS is not even close to being an actual independent body, now they are owned by Christian Nationalists who want the US to turn into a Christian version of the Taliban or Iran and it comes out quite clearly in the zeal to ruin the lives of women in the US.
03 May 23
@sonhouse saidWhew. Get some sleep.
@KellyJay
But ultra right folks like you LOVE the politicalization of SCOTUS, where they now think they can make better medical decisions than actual medical professionals.
They don't care about the welfare of humans, the goal is to go back 200 years to control the lives of women.
So SCOTUS is not even close to being an actual independent body, now they are owned by Chri ...[text shortened]... the Taliban or Iran and it comes out quite clearly in the zeal to ruin the lives of women in the US.
03 May 23
@sonhouse said"Scotus is owned by the Christian Nationalists!!!!"
@KellyJay
But ultra right folks like you LOVE the politicalization of SCOTUS, where they now think they can make better medical decisions than actual medical professionals.
They don't care about the welfare of humans, the goal is to go back 200 years to control the lives of women.
So SCOTUS is not even close to being an actual independent body, now they are owned by Chri ...[text shortened]... the Taliban or Iran and it comes out quite clearly in the zeal to ruin the lives of women in the US.
Well, well, Sonhouse. You are a Union guy. Check this out, ,,,,the City of Chicago is owned by a union. If the Union can own Chicago, they why cannot Christian Nationalists own SCOTUS?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/the-chicago-teachers-union-now-runs-the-mayors-office/
Confused, are you? Me too.
@athousandyoung said@KellyJay “ Your question presupposes rights. You ask about righteousness. Ask yourself what you mean by rights.”
Our self-evident inalienable rights. The ones referenced in the Declaration of Independence. Among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Your question presupposes rights. You ask about righteousness. Ask yourself what you mean by rights.
He means the righteousness of evangelical extreme Christian’s and their right to force you to adhere to the ramblings of 2000 yr old desert dwellers.
The question has nothing to do with what most sane people would describe as right or wrong in the real world or anyone’s individual right of self expression or lifestyle choice.
@kevcvs57 saidI mean right from right and wrong, what ought to happen that is (just) for everyone. I agree that in our modern life, that word hasn't a meaning you can describe because no matter where you draw the line today, you offend. The word right has lost meaning, it's been trumped by feelings, not righteousness.
@KellyJay “ Your question presupposes rights. You ask about righteousness. Ask yourself what you mean by rights.”
He means the righteousness of evangelical extreme Christian’s and their right to force you to adhere to the ramblings of 2000 yr old desert dwellers.
The question has nothing to do with what most sane people would describe as right or wrong in the real world or anyone’s individual right of self expression or lifestyle choice.
03 May 23
@kellyjay saidThen why are you choosing to use a term like ‘righteous’ which has obvious connotations which go beyond our innate comprehension of natural right and wrong.
I mean right from right and wrong, what ought to happen that is (just) for everyone. I agree that in our modern life, that word hasn't a meaning you can describe because no matter where you draw the line today, you offend. The word right has lost meaning, it's been trumped by feelings, not righteousness.
People who consider themselves to be righteous are usually claiming a level of adherence to some religious text or another.
The Iranian regime is claiming to be righteous by forcing women to wear headscarf’s but by every civilised standard they are psychotic monsters.
03 May 23
@kellyjay saidWhat’s wrong with abiding by the ‘feelings’ of the majority in a democracy, what you term as ‘feelings’ can also be, and usually are the result of rational thought applied with empathy.
I mean right from right and wrong, what ought to happen that is (just) for everyone. I agree that in our modern life, that word hasn't a meaning you can describe because no matter where you draw the line today, you offend. The word right has lost meaning, it's been trumped by feelings, not righteousness.
There are lot of people on this forum who have ‘feelings’ about lgbtq+ rights that are irrational and totally devoid of empathy but still believe themselves to be righteous.
03 May 23
@kevcvs57 saidFeelings can change with the wind nothing particularly substantive there that is consistent, strong feelings can be had on both sides of any topic.
What’s wrong with abiding by the ‘feelings’ of the majority in a democracy, what you term as ‘feelings’ can also be, and usually are the result of rational thought applied with empathy.
There are lot of people on this forum who have ‘feelings’ about lgbtq+ rights that are irrational and totally devoid of empathy but still believe themselves to be righteous.
How we define one’s sex is either biology or ideology, and strong passionate feelings are both sides of that discussion. So the answer if found in feelings means there isn’t one answer acceptable to all, both sides have feelings. This isn’t so with biology there is no debate, that gets settled even before birth.
03 May 23
@kellyjay saidAll we need to do is allow the individual the freedom to define themselves, what has society got to do with one’s own personal perception of oneself.
Feelings can change with the wind nothing particularly substantive there that is consistent, strong feelings can be had on both sides of any topic.
How we define one’s sex is either biology or ideology, and strong passionate feelings are both sides of that discussion. So the answer if found in feelings means there isn’t one answer acceptable to all, both sides have feelings. This isn’t so with biology there is no debate, that gets settled even before birth.
Important ‘feelings’ do not change with the wind they may sometimes be coerced and twisted by a totalitarian socialisation process.
We have laws to prohibit us from causing harm to others and to protect ownership rights, that’s all we need, everyone is autonomous in regard to what happens to and what they do with their own bodies.
03 May 23
@kevcvs57 saidSo you are okay with biological males following young females anywhere even when it could detrimental to the female? Cast all modesty out the window the male feelings supersedes any complaining a female may have, ideology is more important than biology!?
All we need to do is allow the individual the freedom to define themselves, what has society got to do with one’s own personal perception of oneself.
Important ‘feelings’ do not change with the wind they may sometimes be coerced and twisted by a totalitarian socialisation process.
We have laws to prohibit us from causing harm to others and to protect ownership rights, that ...[text shortened]... we need, everyone is autonomous in regard to what happens to and what they do with their own bodies.
03 May 23
@AverageJoe1
This has something to do with a corrupt SCOTUS how?
But that is your MO, distract when you don't want to admit something like Thomas getting literally hundreds of thousands in gifts and not files as required.
Pretty blatant corruption but for you, no big deal.
03 May 23
@kellyjay said“ We have laws to prohibit us from causing harm to others ”
So you are okay with biological males following young females anywhere even when it could detrimental to the female? Cast all modesty out the window the male feelings supersedes any complaining a female may have, ideology is more important than biology!?
What you’re talking about is a heterosexual predator, that’s the main irony of this anti trans argument people using examples of straight predators to pillory trans people.
You’re not going to stop straight cis men from being predatory, unfortunately too many of us have it ingrained in our nature, probably by a socialisation process not fit for purpose.
But obviously safe spaces for women and girls need to be in place to safeguard them against straight cis men parading as trans women but not by oppressing trans women or demonising them
03 May 23
@kevcvs57 saidYes, the laws against murder have stopped that from occurring everywhere. Unless you can tell me how to tell the difference when someone who wants to be a woman, and someone who wants a woman if they both dress as women why would you put females at risk for ideology?
“ We have laws to prohibit us from causing harm to others ”
What you’re talking about is a heterosexual predator, that’s the main irony of this anti trans argument people using examples of straight predators to pillory trans people.
You’re not going to stop straight cis men from being predatory, unfortunately too many of us have it ingrained in our nature, probably by a ...[text shortened]... gainst straight cis men parading as trans women but not by oppressing trans women or demonising them
