The Family - a very interesting and disturbing series.

[yobnoc 142]

I'm simply at a loss of how to respond here.  There's so many problematic things. 

As far as I'm aware, nobody in SPL takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, so they can do whatever they want to.  I don't know how their membership structure works - maybe they have an internal process for impeachment; either way I don't really care.

I don't think it falls under the umbrella of bigotry to criticize religion.  Bad epistemology should be called out regardless of the number of adherents, or how "sacred" those ideas are considered.  I'd be content to leave religion alone if they did so in return.  You have the right to believe whatever you want, as long as it does no harm to anyone else! 

I notice you haven't addressed the myriad laws that allow for discrimination against LGBT people (the aforementioned harm that religion is doing to people in our country currently).  That's a lot harder to defend and is an actual example of bigotry, so I don't blame you for dodging it.  I'm pretty sure the abortion argument will continue to go on but we can boil it down to my favorite line from Jeff Lebowski: "Well that's just like, your opinion, man."

Don't worry: I've got way too many skeletons in my closet to ever consider even running for "dog catcher," so you'll never have to make the painful choice of voting against me. :-P

EDIT: I accidentally deleted the quote here, but I meant to reply to Coreece, in case that wasn't clear.

Edited August 25, 2019 by yobnoc

[Coreece 190]

53 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

As far as I'm aware, nobody in SPL takes an oath to uphold the Constitution

You were talking about impeaching people in office that propose legislation on behalf or their constituents.  We call them representatives, which is why I specifically used that term.   I mean, do you even remember what your initial argument even was?

 

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

I don't think it falls under the umbrella of bigotry to criticize religion. 

I'm not talking about your criticism of religion.  I'm talking about your apparent double standard and ignorance of how legal arguments for anti-abortion legislation are actually justified.

You said that they're solely justified by religious faith and that no one can even attempt to justify it on secular terms.  I demonstrated how you were dead wrong.   So I'll ask again:

It's OK for representatives of people in groups like Secular Pro-Life to propose anti-abortion legislation based on secular justifications but representatives for religious groups using similar justifications should be charged with treachery and subsequently impeached?

 

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

I notice you haven't addressed the myriad laws that allow for discrimination

Why would I possibly want to go through all that with you when it has already been this agonizing just to get you to focus and answer simple questions about inconsistencies with the first issue in your gish-gallop that you're still trying to weasel out of.

And I've already told you that I support the separation of Church and State.  Just because I disagree with you on one issue doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree with you on everything else, or that my level of disagreement/knowledge on those issues is even worth having to hash it out with someone as evasive as you.

As for impeaching people for proposing legislation that might be unconstitutional, I'll just simply disagree -  let the courts handle it. 

[yobnoc 142]

3 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You were talking about impeaching people in office that propose legislation on behalf or their constituents.  We call them representatives, which is why I specifically used that term.   I mean, do you even remember what your initial argument even was?

 

I'm not talking about your criticism of religion.  I'm talking about your apparent double standard and ignorance of how legal arguments for anti-abortion legislation are actually justified.

You said that they're solely justified by religious faith and that no one can even attempt to justify it on secular terms.  I demonstrated how you were dead wrong.   So I'll ask again:

It's OK for representatives of people in groups like Secular Pro-Life to propose anti-abortion legislation based on secular justifications but representatives for religious groups using similar justifications should be charged with treachery and subsequently impeached?

 

Why would I possibly want to go through all that with you when it has already been this agonizing just to get you to focus and answer simple questions about inconsistencies with the first issue in your gish-gallop that you're still trying to weasel out of.

And I've already told you that I support the separation of Church and State.  Just because I disagree with you on one issue doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree with you on everything else, or that my level of disagreement/knowledge on those issues is even worth having to hash it out with someone as evasive as you.

As for impeaching people for proposing legislation that might be unconstitutional, I'll just simply disagree -  let the courts handle it. 

It's obvious now that there's a huge miscommunication that might be at the root of this misunderstanding.  Lobbyists are gonna lobby, no doubt.  But members of congress (the ones who actually turn proposed legislation into bills which then have the chance of becoming laws), should absolutely be impeached for gross negligence of their constitutional duty to leave their religious tenets at home or church where they belong. 

I'll freely admit that I might be to blame for this miscommunication, but in no way did I intend to convey that I think that lobbyist groups should be subject to some sort of impeachment.  I can't even see how that would make sense. 

It's up to our lawmakers to represent their constituents as long as it is legally justified and constitutionally appropriate.  In the case of abortion laws, it is unconstitutional (Roe) to make laws that knowingly violate the constitution.  Yet here we are, watching state after state put laws they know to be unconstitutional on the books in hopes that the religious activist justices currently on the SC throw away judicial precedence and inflict their religious views on the entire country. 

Anywhoooo, you can insult all you want; you still haven't (and probably won't) address the overarching theme here because you're sooooo focused on right to life, but I'll be waiting for your justification of the elephant in the room that is LGBT inequality laws.  What's the secular argument there?

(jeopardy theme)

[yobnoc 142]

16 minutes ago, Coreece said:

  I mean, do you even remember what your initial argument even was?

 

I just re-read to be sure, but yeah.  I specifically called out lawmakers (not lobbyists) who enact legislation based solely on their religious beliefs.  Definitely didn't limit this to a talk about abortion rights, which I know is a hot-button issue for you. 

Soooooo...how bout them anti-gay laws? X-D

[Coreece 190]

41 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

59 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I mean, do you even remember what your initial argument even was?

 

I just re-read to be sure, but yeah.  I specifically called out lawmakers (not lobbyists) who enact legislation based solely on their religious beliefs.

Who said anything about lobbyists enacting legislation?   And you didn't say enact, you said submit/propose - and you still haven't shown how abortion is based solely on religious beliefs, so good luck with your treachery impeachments.

 

41 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Soooooo...how bout them anti-gay laws?

I wouldn't even know where to begin.

As I said, why would I possibly want to go through all the details of that with you when it has already been so agonizing just to get you to focus and answer simple questions about inconsistencies with the first issue listed in your gish-gallop that you're still trying to weasel your way out of.

And I've already told you that I support the separation of Church and State.  Just because I disagree with you on one issue doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree with you on everything else, or that my level of disagreement/knowledge on those issues is even worth having to hash it out with someone as evasive as you've shown to be in this thread.

As for impeaching people for proposing legislation that might be unconstitutional, I'll just simply disagree -  let the courts handle it. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Coreece

[yobnoc 142]

11 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Who said anything about lobbyists enacting legislation?   And you didn't say enact, you said submit/propose - and you still haven't shown how abortion is based solely on religious beliefs, so good luck with your treachery impeachments.

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin.

As I said, why would I possibly want to go through all the details of that with you when it has already been so agonizing just to get you to focus and answer simple questions about inconsistencies with the first issue listed in your gish-gallop that you're still trying to weasel your way out of.

And I've already told you that I support the separation of Church and State.  Just because I disagree with you on one issue doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree with you on everything else, or that my level of disagreement/knowledge on those issues is even worth having to hash it out with someone as evasive as you've shown to be in this thread.

As for impeaching people for proposing legislation that might be unconstitutional, I'll just simply disagree -  let the courts handle it. 

I haven't heard any compelling argument from you that there is actually a legal basis to ban abortion, actually.  All you've done is presented that there is a lobbying group that claims to be secular that opposes abortion.  The point of disagreement is "when does personhood begin?" 

Also, on the "gish-gallop" accusation: can you point out the overwhelming amount of argument topics I employed without regard for the accuracy or strength of each argument? 

I know from previous posts that we agree on some issues.  But you're projecting with the "weaseling out" part of your argument.  In one breath you say you support church/state separation, but in the next you claim you don't have time to address the more difficult topic.  Yet, I can scroll back through pages of long commentary from you just tonight that proves you do indeed have plenty of time.  I won't even respond back, how about that?  You just lay out your best case for secular reasons to enact laws that allow for legal discrimination against the gay community, and I'll be content to just let the words speak for themselves.  Pinky swear! 

Don't be evasive, now...

;-)

[Coreece 190]

14 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I haven't heard any compelling argument from you that there is actually a legal basis to ban abortion

Because that's not what we're talking about.  I'm asking you to back up your claim with legal documentation citing that anti-abortion legislation is solely based on religious faith. 

And one of the issues is that even if there is a legitimate legal basis to ban abortion in one way or another, the high courts wouldn't even get a chance to hear it because you'd just throw it out and begin impeachment proceedings. 

 

53 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Also, on the "gish-gallop" accusation: can you point out the overwhelming amount of argument topics I employed without regard for the accuracy or strength of each argument? 

You're the one responsible for the strength and accuracy of your arguments.  You failed miserably to make it over the first oxer that you assembled for yourself and fell face first into the mud, perhaps you'll try harder on the rest - the burden is all yours bud, good luck!

[JoeWeber 2,329]

12 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Because that's not what we're talking about.  I'm asking you to back up your claim with legal documentation citing that anti-abortion legislation is solely based on religious faith. 

And one of the issues is that even if there is a legitimate legal basis to ban abortion in one way or another, the high courts wouldn't even get a chance to hear it because you'd just throw it out and begin impeachment proceedings. 

 

You're the one responsible for the strength and accuracy of your arguments.  You failed miserably to make it over the first oxer that you assembled for yourself and fell face first into the mud, perhaps you'll try harder on the rest - the burden is all yours bud, good luck!

 

[yobnoc 142]

25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Because that's not what we're talking about.  I'm asking you to back up your claim with legal documentation citing that anti-abortion legislation is solely based on religious faith. 

And one of the issues is that even if there is a legitimate legal basis to ban abortion in one way or another, the high courts wouldn't even get a chance to hear it because you'd just throw it out and begin impeachment proceedings. 

 

You're the one responsible for the strength and accuracy of your arguments.  You failed miserably to make it over the first oxer that you assembled for yourself and fell face first into the mud, perhaps you'll try harder on the rest - the burden is all yours bud, good luck!

Speaking of weasels...

[Coreece 190]

12 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Speaking of weasels...

Ahhh, you got me.  Good one guy.

Well now that we're all equally entrenched, it's time for a night cap.