The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
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.
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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,038
Total Cats: 6,604
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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,038
Total Cats: 6,604
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.
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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,038
Total Cats: 6,604
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.
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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,038
Total Cats: 6,604
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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,038
Total Cats: 6,604