The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[kevmicsmi]

You're right. It is a stupid and hardly qualifies as a "debate" if we cannot come up with meaningful definitions for concepts that we use to defend our views.

.

I said

Legislating from the bench is probably a poor way to explain myself. I see the light!

My problem is with justices who rule or give opinions based on what they think SHOULD be in the constitution, or what they think is good public policy, instead of what is actually in the document/

That was my "meaningful definition" and YOU are right it is extremely stupid and hardly qualifies as debate when we refuse to read what the other posts!

 

[kevmicsmi]

That's irrelevant.

EDIT: You can't give a meaningful definition to "legislating from the bench" so it is irrelevant that you were referring to THE ORIGINAL ROE V WADE DECISION.

I already did.

You cant give meaning to the sun rising either then.

You cant give meaning to the phrase "i gotta run" if you are really driving

you cant give meaning to the phrase "i feel like crap" if you dont either a)have the texture of poop or b) have complete numbness, because poop cant feel things.

etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc

AE i dont want to dance with you ok?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes.

You said:

Legislating from the bench is probably a poor way to explain myself. I see the light!

And defined your problem, which you did not associate clearly with any new term.

justices who rule or give opinions based on what they think SHOULD be in the constitution, or what they think is good public policy, instead of what is actually in the document/

And yet appeared to continue to defend usage of the same term that you appeared to have abandoned with a logical fallacy.

That's why the phrase "legislate from the bench" is an inappropriate phrase.

Rising sun is an inappropriate phrase too, but commonly used

If this is your problem, it cannot be "legislating from the bench," because that is impossible. It is a propaganda tool and nothing more.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I already did.

You cant give meaning to the sun rising either then.

You cant give meaning to the phrase "i gotta run" if you are really driving

you cant give meaning to the phrase "i feel like crap" if you dont either a)have the texture of poop or b) have complete numbness, because poop cant feel things.

etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc

The examples that you give above are a logical fallacy explained in the wiki article "ad hominim. I'm not accusing you of attacking me, but you are detracting from the argument a good deal.

AE i dont want to dance with you ok?

Fair enough. I just love arguing points that I know I have won, and I never tire of it.

EDIT: But I'm so damn good looking. How can you resist?

 

[dawny0826]

jamaesi,

What happened to you was despicable and regardless of how you may (or may not) view me because of my stance on abortion...sincerely...my heart goes out to you. Despite our differences...I truly have a lot of respect for you. We may voice different opinions...I still respect your voice. I know that rape is a very sensitive issue...so please know in advance, that my intentions are not to flame you or to hurt you in any way. I'm not trying to hurt you for the sake of debate.

And I don't expect you to agree with me or to even understand where I'm coming from as truthfully, I've had nightmares about rape and thank God...that hasn't been a reality for me. I realize that no woman is immune to disaster and conflict in her life. And as a woman...a mother, a daughter and a sister...rape is one of those fears that is always there in the back of my mind.

Also, I acknowledge that if my circumstances were different in life, perhaps my views on things such as abortion and religion and politics and so on and so forth would be different. But as I am...

I cannot accept (and I've tried) that a rape is justification to end life.

The morning after pill is not available over the counter just as the birth control pill isn't available over the counter. They're still available to those who seek them.

I'm not stating that I understand the horrors of rape and I'm not discounting your experiences at all. Please know that.You're right. Not every woman reports her rape and seeks medical care.

I just don't understand why a woman...wouldn't want the (insert curse word of choice) who raped her behind bars. And to do so...you have to file a police report and you have to submit evidence via a rape kit. I'm sure that's absolutely horrifying. I personally would subject myself to it if it meant that the (insert curse word of choice) behind my rape would be placed where he/she belongs.

I'm not attacking you, personally. What happened to you is personal and I'm not asking you to expound about your personal situation...so please don't read that in this post. I'm airing my questions...I'm asking questions because I truly don't understand the logic behind not doing certain things.

Further, with an option available...such as the morning after pill...which is 75% effective if taken within the first 72 hours after sex...I don't know why a woman would subject herself to a possible unwanted pregnancy when the odds are in her favor that with treatment...the pregnancy can be avoided all together.

I don't understand how a woman can find any logic in believing that an abortion...ending a life...is the better alternative to preventing a pregnancy altogether.

 

[kevmicsmi]

The examples that you give above are a logical fallacy explained in the wiki article "ad hominim. I'm not accusing you of attacking me, but you are detracting from the argument a good deal.


Fair enough. I just love arguing points that I know I have won, and I never tire of it.

EDIT: But I'm so damn good looking. How can you resist?

Ok one small jig, then back to the topic please!

How are those examples logical fallacy?

you said

If this is your problem, it cannot be "legislating from the bench," because that is impossible

so is poopie having feelings, but i can still say I feel like crap!

My point is, why get stuck on a winding road far off topic when you clearly are just arguing minor semantical points?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok one small jig, then back to the topic please!

How are those examples logical fallacy?

you said


so is poopie having feelings, but i can still say I feel like crap!

It's a logical fallacy because the examples that you have given cannot justify the use of the phrase "legislate from the bench."

Example from wikipedia's article "ad hominim":
Inconsistency version

This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false (or is dismissed).

====
In your version of the fallacy...

My claim "P" is that the phrase "legislate from the bench" cannot be used because it is technically false.
My inconsistent claim is that I do not protest similar silly sayings that are actually false (or so you say - I never said that the sun rises).
Therefore, P is dismissed.

My point is, why get stuck on a winding road far off topic when you clearly are just arguing minor semantical points?

Because the rhetoric is powerful but the words do not carry their appropriate definitions.

 

[kevmicsmi]

It's a logical fallacy because the examples that you have given cannot justify the use of the phrase "legislate from the bench."

Example from wikipedia's article "ad hominim":
Inconsistency version

This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false (or is dismissed).

You implied I shouldnt use the term "legislating from the bench"
But you accept other phrases incosistent with the correction you gave me
Therefore your implication is hypocritical
and a correction especially after i elaborated on my feelings was a waste of thread space.

btw this is logical, I actually emailed Dr Spock on planet vulcan and he said he would bet his pointy ears on it

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You implied I shouldnt use the term "legislating from the bench"
But you accept other phrases incosistent with the correction you gave me
Therefore your implication is hypocritical
and a correction especially after i elaborated on my feelings was a waste of thread space.

btw this is logical, I actually emailed Dr Spock on planet vulcan and he said he would bet his pointy ears on it

Here's another fallacy that I tried to keep you from continuing to commit. EDIT: see above, post 87

(or so you say - I never said that the sun rises).

Who's not reading who?

You have no evidence whatsoever to conclude that I use those terms!

Why would you insolently continue in a fallacy that has been clearly pointed out to you? You've just demonstrated the original fallacy even more clearly than I did.

 

[jamaesi]

Are you in favor of limiting abortion except in rape or life of the mother?

I'm in favour of abortion on demand and without apology.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Here's another fallacy that I tried to keep you from continuing to commit.

You have no evidence whatsoever to conclude that I use those terms!

Why would you insolently continue in a fallacy that has been clearly pointed out to you? You've just demonstrated the original fallacy even more clearly than I did.

Im glad you brought that up because originally I had in my proof to Spock the line that you use those terms. But Spock said "dude, thats illogical" so I changed it before I posted here to read "You ACCEPT those terms, which you havent denied by the way.

Unless you would argue with people over those phrases, in which case I better let you get on with you endless life of debate

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Unless you would argue with people over those phrases, in which case I better let you get on with you endless life of debate

It could not pertain to the debate or the argument at all, but...

Do you really think that I am the type of guy who lets people get away with saying stuff like that?

 

[kevmicsmi]

It could not pertain to the debate or the argument at all, but...

Do you really think that I am the type of guy who lets people get away with saying stuff like that?

:biglaugh: no, unfortunately I dont

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:biglaugh: no, unfortunately I dont

It takes two to tango, baby! :dan:

 

[jamaesi]

I cannot accept (and I've tried) that a rape is justification to end life.

Rape already ends lives.

The morning after pill is not available over the counter just as the birth control pill isn't available over the counter. They're still available to those who seek them.

People who have just been raped do not think rationally.

I just don't understand why a woman...wouldn't want the (insert curse word of choice) who raped her behind bars. And to do so...you have to file a police report and you have to submit evidence via a rape kit. I'm sure that's absolutely horrifying. I personally would subject myself to it if it meant that the (insert curse word of choice) behind my rape would be placed where he/she belongs.

I was molested and raped when I was much younger. I didn't know what to do but to internalise it. And because it was done to me by family members (who are no longer a part of my life for other reason) I know the complete and utter drama it would create.

Other people don't because they are too scared, just want it to go away, just want to forget it. To report it- it means possibly being blamed for your own rape, ignored, mocked by authourities, forced to go to court over it and tell complete strangers what happened and relive it just so the rapist can get a slap on the wrist.
(Which is why I am so against this Blame the Victim mentality that seems to be oh so popular anymore. I don't care if the woman was butt-naked and drunk out of her mind and alone in some back alley, IT DOESN'T GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO RAPE HER.)

Most rapes are commited by people the victim KNOWS. That makes the situation even more difficult.

I'm not attacking you, personally. What happened to you is personal and I'm not asking you to expound about your personal situation...so please don't read that in this post. I'm airing my questions...I'm asking questions because I truly don't understand the logic behind not doing certain things.

Further, with an option available...such as the morning after pill...which is 75% effective if taken within the first 72 hours after sex...I don't know why a woman would subject herself to a possible unwanted pregnancy when the odds are in her favor that with treatment...the pregnancy can be avoided all together.

I don't understand how a woman can find any logic in believing that an abortion...ending a life...is the better alternative to preventing a pregnancy altogether.

When you've just been through a violating tramautic experience- you don't think properly or logically or rationally.

This is another reason I want the Morning After Pill OTC. To go to a doctor means questions- something a lot of rape victims just aren't prepared to go through or want to go through.


It isn't a black and white issue. :/ There are so many things that factor into this.

 

[BUDDY]

We know that the value of a child, a living breathing, post-natal child is such that killing a child is the same as killing an adult. What penalty would that get in civil court? tens or hundreds of thousands? millions? The bill however values the pre-born child, as you term it, at less value than $1000 dollars damage from an act of vandalism. You don't begin to comprehend the dichotamy, do you? The bill gives scant rights to the pre-born. Those "good" Christians that fashioned and/or supported the bill have very little ground to question any rights of a child, pre- or post-partum.

Are you still in favor of the bill?

I don't know where this misinformation came from, but the maximum penalty is actually much, much higher.

"Under HB1215, performing an abortion would be a class 5 felony, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine."
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/03/15/legislature/2006/news/news720.txt

 

[BUDDY]

I'm in favour of abortion on demand and without apology.

Good grief. If their killing the kid, it is common courtousy to say I'm sorry.

 

[BUDDY]

"Legislating from the bench" is a catch phrase that has come out of a long history of mostly federal judges who interpret the constitution in such a way as to legislate their ideology when interpreting the Constitution. "Originalist" judges are usually conservative and try to interpret law based upon the original intention of the constitutional writters. When Roe v. Wade is overturned, and it will be overturned, it will not outlaw abortion, but will simply state that the right to privacy is not found in the Constitution, which will throw the question back onto state legislatures to decide whether to allow or not allow abortion in their particular state, or to put certain restrictions upon it. "Legislating from the bench" is a perfectly acceptable terminology for the way that some judges have acted in recent years, as some have seemed to not stick strictly to what the constitution says, but to what they would like for it to mean.

 

[Pah]

I don't know where this misinformation came from, but the maximum penalty is actually much, much higher.

"Under HB1215, performing an abortion would be a class 5 felony, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine."
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/03/15/legislature/2006/news/news720.txt

Some of my posts subsequent to the one you quote talked about a class 4 felony for vandalism. It was a mistake and I regret reading my web reference wrongly

However, the dispsrity between a fetus and a person is amply demontrated by comparing the punishmnet for the first commission of rape (not even murder) of a child less than 10 years of age. Rape carries punishment for a Class 1 felony - 10 years - 20 years for subsequent offenses. If a fetus or embryo is termed a child by virtue of conception. wouldn't you say that ending that "persons" life should be a greater crime? http://www.sdjudicial.com/index.asp?category=opinions&nav=5347&year=1999&month=7&record=459

Sooooo... a post-natal child is worth more than a prenatal "child". There is still a compromise of either faith or law - or both.

 

[Pah]

"Legislating from the bench" is a catch phrase that has come out of a long history of mostly federal judges who interpret the constitution in such a way as to legislate their ideology when interpreting the Constitution. "Originalist" judges are usually conservative and try to interpret law based upon the original intention of the constitutional writters. When Roe v. Wade is overturned, and it will be overturned, it will not outlaw abortion, but will simply state that the right to privacy is not found in the Constitution, which will throw the question back onto state legislatures to decide whether to allow or not allow abortion in their particular state, or to put certain restrictions upon it. "Legislating from the bench" is a perfectly acceptable terminology for the way that some judges have acted in recent years, as some have seemed to not stick strictly to what the constitution says, but to what they would like for it to mean.

"Origional intention" is seldom used today not because the courts have been "liberal", but because there is a tremendous body of precedent.

Overthowing a right to privacy will mean the state can enter your bedroom and arrest you for oral sex. It will limit or eliminate a right of association. It will eliminate a distinction between public nudity and nudity in your own home. Contraception will now be illegal. Each one of the precedents that supported reproductive rights will be overthrown. It will usher in a police state.

But I'm not worried about it going back to the states. For if it does, it brings into play the protection of equaily for US citizens in the 14th Amendment. A woman in one state may not be denied what is legal in another state or vice versa. The 9th Amendment must also be nulified for it too was a basis, along with the penumbra, of Roe v Wade.

Your idea is untenable and quite foolish.