It is a good thing the posters here love you,TH. Because I wonder if you would take this stand as a member of society in reality...
I'm a lawyer, rainee. Our job, for those of us who take it seriously, is to defend the Constitution by safeguarding the law.
Do you mean do I or don't I support Neo-Nazi Marches?
No. I mean exactly what I said. Law abiding Americans have the right to march in support of their ideas. That's true for liberal Democrats, the Knights of Columbus, the Tea Party, the Girl Scouts of America or the Klan.
You gave out neg red reps here on the board to someone over an issue of white supremacy when you could have supported their right
without you being a lover of things white or cracker.
I did indeed give out neg reps to a racist here. That's a form of speech as well.
Well isn't that the issue here?
No. My right to object to what a racist speaks is also covered under speech. I simply don't have the right to take his right to offend me.
But here's the larger greatness of the law that I'm arguing for--it protects us from our own impulse to tyranny. I'm not free of that impulse any more than you are. I have a profoundly negative response to people who seek to dehumanize others. That probably comes from being brought up in the South and seeing some of that effort first hand, the impact it had on decent people (white and black).
Wait please, I didn't mean to give too much credence to the "equality" claims.
That's too bad. It made you seem rational for a moment. But I suspect you're about to take care of that, aren't you?
Seeking equality under the law was for people who looked different on the surface but underneath the skin were the same.
If by "the same" you meant were human beings, sure.
Women seeking equality couldn't change the fact they were women, but they are part of mankind, same for people of color.
So you're saying that if there had been an operation that would have allowed them to change their pigmentation you would have denied them right? And given women can have an operation to alter their sex we should abolish those laws that protect them? Because that desperate "choice" business you're attempting to slip under the radar here as controlling can turn on you.
People who want to have sex with whatever or whoever are not of any concern to me - they need no laws to go off in corners or whatever.
This isn't about the right to have sex in corners. This is about whether you should have the right to demand blacks either give up the rights you enjoy or have themselves chemically altered. It's about whether or not the right falls to us by virtue of our humanity or by some litmus test that allows us to measure out that right by preference.
Men and women who bear the burden of building the future generations and also being part of the network of today's society as married couples - they need all the help they can get.
No one is arguing they don't or against them or abridging their rights in any form or fashion. Thanks.
I have one word for you Town (and you AB)
Just one? Wouldn't that be lovely.
No thanks. And bless your heart. :e4e:
EDIT: if you want to, you should create a thread on this or any other problem you have with me. Maybe a thread about all of them and I'll be happy to address them, but I don't think this is what AB had in mind and I'm not going to use it as a place for us to have that sort of ongoing conversation.
