Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - TheCause

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 27
51
General Off-Topic Board / Re: We must return to traditional values.
« on: March 24, 2009, 12:19:22 AM »
Can we go back to stoning people to death and wearing two different kinds of fabric at the same time as being an abomination in the eyes of god. Ah the good old days when women were property and men got goats for marrying one of your daughters.

I believe this is what is called a strawman argument, only it is disguised as a witty sarcastic reply.

Yea I learned how to do it from Rush Limbah, rail against drugs and drug abusers while you send your undocumented housekeeper out to fill fake prescriptions for drugs to support your habit. Or Congressmen Mark Foley advocating legislation to protect minors from sexual exploitation by adults while asking under age page boys to email him naked pictures of themselves. Or the Reverend Ted Haggert, pastor of a 14,000 member church, leader in the anti-gay marriage campaign, president of the evangelical congress and advisor to President Bush on “family values” all the while carrying on a three year meth fueled sexual relationship with a male prostitute. I’ve been a republican for all my life, I’ve gotten pretty dame good at the party line of telling other people and judging them on what is moral and what they should do while ignoring all of that if it severs my personal interest.

So is there something on my list that you have a problem with?

52
General Off-Topic Board / Re: We must return to traditional values.
« on: March 24, 2009, 12:17:29 AM »
Leading by example is important, but how does that help with issues like preserving a LIMITED federal government and stopping socialism?  


53
General Off-Topic Board / Re: We must return to traditional values.
« on: March 24, 2009, 12:11:27 AM »
Can we go back to stoning people to death and wearing two different kinds of fabric at the same time as being an abomination in the eyes of god. Ah the good old days when women were property and men got goats for marrying one of your daughters.

I believe this is what is called a strawman argument, only it is disguised as a witty sarcastic reply.

The point is valid though: how do you decide what falls into your list of "traditional values?"

I just gave you a list of things that will help America prosper.  Do you have a problem with any of them in particular?

You can try to steer me into an argument about the definition of traditional values, but I'm not interested in participating.

That's probably a good idea.  :)

As for your list, it may help your vision of America prosper.  I may not be interested in that vision.

Care to share your vision?



54
General Off-Topic Board / Re: We must return to traditional values.
« on: March 24, 2009, 12:08:16 AM »
Can we go back to stoning people to death and wearing two different kinds of fabric at the same time as being an abomination in the eyes of god. Ah the good old days when women were property and men got goats for marrying one of your daughters.

I believe this is what is called a strawman argument, only it is disguised as a witty sarcastic reply.

The point is valid though: how do you decide what falls into your list of "traditional values?"

I just gave you a list of things that will help America prosper.  Do you have a problem with any of them in particular?

You can try to steer me into an argument about the definition of traditional values, but I'm not interested in participating.

55
General Off-Topic Board / Re: We must return to traditional values.
« on: March 24, 2009, 12:02:14 AM »
Can we go back to stoning people to death and wearing two different kinds of fabric at the same time as being an abomination in the eyes of god. Ah the good old days when women were property and men got goats for marrying one of your daughters.

I believe this is what is called a strawman argument, only it is disguised as a witty sarcastic reply.

56
General Off-Topic Board / Re: We must return to traditional values.
« on: March 23, 2009, 11:48:13 PM »
Future Lawyers: Protect this country!
- Preserve the constitution.
- Maintain the limits on the federal government
- Teach your children to be patriotic and proud of this country.
- Stop the assault on religion.
- Protect traditional marriage.
- Encourage innovation through incentives and competition.
- Don't allow socialism to gain traction.
- Stop the endless flow of easily accessible pornography.
- Spend more time with your family and less time at work.

I think I agree with all of these in principle except the marriage one. Most heterosexuals these days can't even stay married for 5 years. I think it is safe to say, there's no such thing as a traditional marriage anymore.

That is more likely due to the selfishness of the "I-want-it-now" generation.

57
General Off-Topic Board / We must return to traditional values.
« on: March 23, 2009, 11:32:45 PM »
Future Lawyers: Protect this country!
- Preserve the constitution.
- Maintain the limits on the federal government
- Teach your children to be patriotic and proud of this country.
- Stop the assault on religion.
- Protect traditional marriage.
- Encourage innovation through incentives and competition.
- Don't allow socialism to gain traction.
- Stop the endless flow of easily accessible pornography.
- Spend more time with your family and less time at work.

58
General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 17, 2008, 12:36:05 PM »
Here's a section from an Opinion article in the L.A. Times.

How do you feel about this?

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stern17-2008jun17,0,5628051.story

In the same-sex marriage decision, the state Supreme Court suggests that all will be well and good as long as the "official" activities of the clergy aren't affected. But that excludes religion entirely from a broad range of social welfare and other activities, despite the fact that the California Constitution declares: "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed."

Evidence from previous and pending cases indicates that the court tends to take an extremely narrow view of people's "free exercise and enjoyment of religion" when they clash with another group's need for equal protection. This would seem particularly true following the In re Marriage Cases ruling, in which the majority equated the ban on same-sex marriage to the now discredited (and unconstitutional) ban on interracial marriages.

Religious liberty claims rarely, if ever, have prevailed in the face of complaints about racial discrimination. Conflicts about the rights of gays and those of religious believers demonstrate that these are not hypothetical fears. Consider the following:

* A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor's defense during oral arguments last month.

* Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient.

* A Lutheran school in Riverside County was sued in 2005 under California's Unruh Act (which forbids discrimination by businesses) for expelling two students who allegedly were having a lesbian relationship, in contravention of the religious views of the school. The case was thrown out in Superior Court in January, but the students have appealed.

* Public school officials in Poway, Calif., so far have successfully barred students from wearing T-shirts that register their opposition to homosexuality on campus. One lawsuit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being dismissed (as moot, because the students had graduated), but another federal lawsuit is pending.

In each of these cases, and other similar ones, the government has acted in some way to forbid gays and lesbians from being demeaned. But allowing same-sex couples to force religious individuals or organizations to act out of accord with their faith is not cost-free either. Their dignity is no less affected. Unless claims rooted in equal protection under the law are to sweep away claims rooted in freedom of religion, a more sensitive balancing approach is essential.

59
General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 13, 2008, 06:16:48 PM »
"They're opposed because they're selfish, scared or just plain bigoted (or a combination of any of those three)."

Oh wow, so if I actually do believe that God wants marriage to be between a man and a woman, that doesn't count as a reason?

60
General Off-Topic Board / Re: California Gay Marriage
« on: June 13, 2008, 05:52:40 PM »
Also, we dumb right wingers don't much like it when you use the word "cling".

Don't forget your guns!  and your bitterness*!


* PA residents only.


You'd better get our guns before you go after our religion.  ;)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 27