Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

#3,053
#3,053
Orange_Crush said:
What's the standard that makes the distinction?

If some division is good, and some isn't, that is. I mean, the definition of division includes differences of opinion. Whose opinion makes one acceptable and another evil?
Click to expand...
You tell me.
We can start with you answering your own question.....if you can.
Segregation is inappropriate and invalid? (I'll even make it multiple choice)
A. Always
B. Never
C. Sometimes (it kind of lies on that continuum thing)
 
#3,054
#3,054
EiigrlzUwAA-s8R
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40, VolStrom and 1 other person
#3,057
#3,057
luthervol said:
You tell me.
We can start with you answering your own question.....if you can.
Segregation is inappropriate and invalid? (I'll even make it multiple choice)
A. Always
B. Never
C. Sometimes (it kind of lies on that continuum thing)
Click to expand...


By the truest since of the term based on Webster's dictionary, separation of church and state would be considered segregation.

It would also fall under separate but equal.

So in the truest since, I believe Luther would be pro segregation in certain aspects.

So most would say sometimes then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#3,058
#3,058
luthervol said:
No it's not.
Not if one party wishes to be integrated.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. We are founded on the principle of free association and forcing someone to associate with another is a violation of that right just as forcibly preventing association.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,060
#3,060
NEO said:
By the truest since of the term based on Webster's dictionary, separation of church and state would be considered segregation.

It would also fall under separate but equal.

So in the truest since, I believe Luther would be pro segregation in certain aspects.

So most would say sometimes then.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Continuum wins again.
 
#3,061
#3,061
luthervol said:
You tell me.
We can start with you answering your own question.....if you can.
Segregation is inappropriate and invalid? (I'll even make it multiple choice)
A. Always
B. Never
C. Sometimes (it kind of lies on that continuum thing)
Click to expand...

Not always bad. I believe that because I believe the Bible is the word of God--the source of objective moral truth, which exists and can be known--and because of a holistic view of its teachings. I believe the description of "ethics" and "morality" to be basically a judgment of alignment to God's designed purposes for creation.

Now, your turn. I also answered the question you sidestepped.

What's the standard that makes the distinction?

If some division is good, and some isn't, that is. I mean, the definition of division includes differences of opinion. Whose opinion makes one acceptable and another evil?
Click to expand...

From previous conversations, you believe that "moral" is a purely relative concept, and is defined by social agreement, no?

You've defined Trump as evil for "dividing" the country.

In your definitions (if you're to be consistent), "division" is merely the description of differences of opinion within our American society.

Thus, by your belief system, Trump and his Trumpsters aren't actually "evil", or even "wrong". But they are evil for allowing a social acceptance that you disagree with.

At the end of the day, if you're being honest and consistent to your beliefs, you're merely demonizing people for having different opinions than you.

Correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#3,064
#3,064
MontyPython said:
Unlikely, I agree. But, he always relishes playing the spoiler. An abstention would count as a 'no' vote in this instance.
Click to expand...

He's a vocal supporter of Pres Trump. Most GOP Senators are quiet supporters such as my Senator here in Ohio, Rob Portman. Sen Paul is particularly in sync with Trump in regards to closing bases in Europe and the Middle East. He'd be one of the last guys I'd pick to defect here.

One thing is pretty certain. The Dems won't be able to pound her with sexual assault crap.
 
#3,066
#3,066
Sea Ray said:
He's a vocal supporter of Pres Trump. Most GOP Senators are quiet supporters such as my Senator here in Ohio, Rob Portman. Sen Paul is particularly in sync with Trump in regards to closing bases in Europe and the Middle East. He'd be one of the last guys I'd pick to defect here.

One thing is pretty certain. The Dems won't be able to pound her with sexual assault crap.
Click to expand...
Looks like they're going the other direction--attacking her religion. They're painting her as the harbinger of some kind of "handmaiden" regression of women's rights that will take them back to the days of Salem Puritanism.
 
#3,067
#3,067
RockyTop85 said:
The only real public statement she has made about abortion is that she doesn’t think Roe will ever be overturned.

In June Medical Services, Clarence Thomas dissented calling to overturn Roe. 0 justices joined his dissent. So even if she is for abrogating then case, Trump needs 3
more votes to get there.

I think it’s likely that, based on what Republicans have done here, a states ability to limit abortion does grow. But the idea that “they” are going to do away with Roe altogether is unsupported.

Idk what Barrett would say about abortion. I’m sure she’s personally against it. I’m sure, as an originalist and a Scalia disciple she believes it has been grafted into the constitution. It’s hard to evaluate a judge’s views on Stare Decisis until they get to the point that they have the final say. Kagan, for instance, has sided with conservatives out of adherence to decided law, probably as often as Roberts has used the same logic to side with the liberals. That’s where overturning Roe is an issue.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but nonetheless that is the boogeyman that will be used to oppose her nomination.
 
#3,068
#3,068
37L1 said:
I agree with you but nonetheless that is the boogeyman that will be used to oppose her nomination.
Click to expand...
So far, the focus is on ACA and the hypocrisy. Seems like a smarter play, to me. I’m sure they’ll get around to bash the Catholic before too long.
 
#3,070
#3,070
Orange_Crush said:
Looks like they're going the other direction--attacking her religion. They're painting her as the harbinger of some kind of "handmaiden" regression of women's rights that will take them back to the days of Salem Puritanism.
Click to expand...

Yep they can’t use the ole standby ( racism ) so they will now ignore how they pray for Trump (Pelosi ) and make her out to be a religious cult member . Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Rickyvol77
#3,074
#3,074
volinbham said:
We've all tried to point out the obvious but Team Blue just can't fathom that they are no different than Team Red on this issue.
Click to expand...
They're actually worse. I understand the politics on both sides when it comes to election year SC appointments. What makes them worse is the politics they showed during the Kavanaugh process. They were willing to frame a decent human being for political gain. Liberals are evil, subhumans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Rickyvol77 and MWR
#3,075
#3,075
InVOLuntary said:
They're actually worse. I understand the politics on both sides when it comes to election year SC appointments. What makes them worse is the politics they showed during the Kavanaugh process. They were willing to frame a decent human being for political gain. Liberals are evil, subhumans.
Click to expand...
They are shameless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Rickyvol77 and InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top