I understand completely Joe. But as written children have constitutional rights that are being violated.

So the question here is do you believe children should be protected under the Constitution or not? Either choice opens up dangerous cans of worms.

 

With limitations, given with the understanding that the child is in the custody of an adult who is empowered to act on the child's behalf.

Essentially the same concept here applies as to a prisoner. They are protected under the constitution, with limitations. It is not coincidental that the term "custody" is used in both contexts, and with roughly the same meaning.

 

That goes against the idea that rights are inherent, as well as the actual wording in the Constitution.

 

I agree. Rights are a fiction created by humans, and implemented via a legal framework. Without a system of laws, and the means to enforce those laws, rights do not exist.

If you disagree with this, then try explaining to a bear that it is violating your right to life by mauling you. Or to a hurricane that it is violating your property rights.

Nature does not recognize the concept of rights.


Which part?

If you mean the parts where it refers to "persons" and "people," those terms have never referred to all hiving humans. Their scope has been growing over the centuries (blacks and women now count as "persons" for instance,) but there is no precedent at all for the Constitution being read so as to apply uniformly to every living human.

 

No rights are inherent, the protection of them is made by people.

 

Ok, now you're just making **** up as you go along, ala Braineack.

 

Ha ha I missed a comma.

No, rights are inherent. That better?

 

Not really, but that's a philosophical issue, rather than a practical one. And I'm not sufficiently impassioned about the Philosophy of Liberty to make a strident argument there.

The fundamental concept of "rights" did not exist until after humankind evolved and developed language and civilization. Rights are man-made. That's about the limit of my desire to argue the matter, so whatever you post next will be the last word on the subject.

 

Children: no rights under the Constitution, but can chose their gender.

 

Now that's an interesting analogy.

According to the "woke" philosophy, nobody is choosing their gender. Rather, they are being afforded the opportunity to inform people of what their gender is, once they discover this for themselves.

I'm not saying that this isn't complete bullshit, because it is. But that's how those living in clown-world perceive it. And if you want to even attempt to reason with these people, it's helpful to be aware of how they perceive the matter.

 

today, when I was getting my 5g upgrade, they asked what gender I identified as. I said loudly: I'm a man.

 

it all makes sense now

 

I'm genuinely curious as to why your wireless provider needs to know your gender.

 

 

 

Did you know that liberals used to hate corporations, until corporations started to care less about profits, and more about discrimination?

 

So how do they not get sued for discrimination when they post **** like that?

 

That is an excellent question. A strict reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that discriminating against white males still counts as discrimination, even though the act is very rarely invoked in this context.

 

We have a entire list of precedent

https://web.uri.edu/affirmativeactio...ction-history/

 

Bill Gates has weird fetishes, and your health professionals don't really care about science much anymore.



best comment, from a liberal none-the-less: