Vibin’ in my Lost River habitat.
What you described as ideal is what the US is supposed to be, and what you described evangelicals as doing is what evangelicals are actually doing, and doesn’t really rise above the level of annoying. Maybe they are mentally ill, but that doesn’t make them anything beyond annoying.
But people do have a first amendment right to preach. They don’t have a claim to a captive audience, though.
That wasn’t “evangelicals,” alone. That was a lot of different kinds of people, most of whom were women. Roe vs. Wade was bad precedent. If you think women should have the freedom to abort pregnancies without interference, get it enshrined in actual law, not dubious interpretation of constitutional law.
Evangelicals are, at best, annoying. I say this as a Christian conservative. There are other (and better) ways of fulfilling the Great Commission besides arsing people into your favorite flavor of dogma.
That would be a good way to bring about the end of the state.
My own Git server.
Computer vision was just popping off five years after that, so I would say that it is prescient.
Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.
I didn’t say it was “empty words,” I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.
I’ve seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, “No, it doesn’t.” Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that “it does not mean that.”
The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.
Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.
Low-effort and incorrect.
As does “well-regulated,” especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.
Let me be very clear here:
There is nothing that comes from the doctrine of feminism that is true or grounded in reality. All of it is false, from the wage gap to its stupid cousin the pink tax, supposed rape culture, the glass ceiling, and toxic masculinity — all of it. Every single item in the feminist list of grievances is false. It’s completely ungrounded in reality. It’s nothing but a fabrication from whole cloth spun from a place of hatred towards men and disdain and jealousy of normal women who are living their best lives.
But the biggest lie — the foundational lie that underpins every other lie and the entirety of the feminism movement is their “Patriarchy Theory,” so it is sometimes called. (It’s not a threory, it’s just completely untested conjecture.) This is the idea that men have organized society (alone) to benefit themselves, and themselves alone, at the expense of the women in their own society. This abominable lie is the common thread that runs through every wave and variant of feminism. It is not true, and it has never been true. It has never been demonstrated, and nobody who purports it has ever bothered to subject it to nullification. It has merely been granted axiomatically.
None of the feminist doctrine has ever been supported by any real academia, but instead is supported by a beachhead of nearly-unassailable woozles in their own self-referential journals and articles. But we have gone for so long without challenging it because it’s perceived to be in the interest of women (although, ultimately, it is not). In actuality, it comes at the expense of all of society and amounts to nothing but a misanthropic power- and money-grab.
Women have never, ever, not once been oppressed by the men in their own society. This lie, and every other one that derives from it, amounts to the entirety of feminist doctrine. It doesn’t hold up to even casual scrutiny, much less any real fact-checking or consideration of historical context.
means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment’s notice
Not at all. I’m as serious as a heart attack. We’ve had three generations of people subjected to intense radicalization by feminists who have been in power and influence, particularly over children, for over a century, which is why everybody just accepts it as gospel and few have questioned it for decades.
But the truth is we have been heavily propagandized for generations by feminists who take advantage of the male and societal instinct to protect women in order to inject their doctrine into society and law without proper scrutiny.
People think feminists are the plucky underdogs who popped up in the '60s and finally convinced men to “share some of the power” that only men ever had, but the truth is that feminists (whether in that name) have been around at least since the 1850s and have been spreading radical lies about men and society since then. You can read the “Declaration of Sentiments” of Seneca Falls in, something like 1857 and the criticism of E. Belford Bax if you want to dive further into it. You can also read the crazy blatherings of Charles Fourier, who actually coined the term “feminism.” He posited that a society should be judged according to how it treats its women.
I guess I just have a problem with your phrasing. You make it sound like if we worked to increase the number of sexual assaults that happen to men by women, this would be a solution to the problem.
A “playing field” is an analogy for a field of opportunities, like the job market or access to services like education.
There is no systemic oppression of women and there never has been.
Fearing for your safety from relational aggression from women is completely rational. Women are just as aggressive as men — it just takes a different form.
Evangelicals don’t think that gay people should not exist, they think people shouldn’t do gay stuff. I don’t know what it is with the left, and especially the alphabet mafia, but you guys have a habit of characterizing the slightest disagreement as “they are trying to erase our existence.” That’s not what’s happening. Lighten up a bit. It’s a conversation.
Nobody is trying to strip you of any fundamental civil rights. Perhaps you’re trying to characterize the violation of other people’s fundamental civil rights as your own civil rights, and what you’re sensing is the civil rights of the innocent being protected, which sometimes necessitates not letting you do what you want to do.
Yes, evangelicals, by definition, do not leave people alone. Yes, they are given to harassment, and they need to be checked against it. But what you see at planned parenthood isn’t your typical evangelical, those are activists. And yes, they can be violent, and that needs to be checked. People are free to hold signs, advocate, and form picket lines, but they are not free to interfere with people’s movement, hit people, or project bodily fluids on them. But again, that’s not evangelicals.
Religion doesn’t inflict damage and pain — people do. Conversely, you don’t seem to be able to look at religion and see the structures and advancement it has enabled. It’s not that you can’t know, it’s that you don’t want to.