Bias Against Transgenders

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by gaffo »

-1- wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:52 am
gaffo wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:45 am

Alito - a well known SC (Supreme Court) justice that ruled akin to Tanny prior - affirm a bad rulling over a right one.

Roberts - another SC (supreme court) ruled with him, though since Roberts unlike Alito, shows some hope.

Citzen's united - SC (supreme court) ruling is the worst one in a century, as was Dead Scott in the prior century.

thus the parallel - bad rulings - i made.
So what you said, in to me incomprehensible terms, "the supreme court sucks, and they make bad decisions." Check.

From what I perceive, however, your country (The USA, I assume you live there)
yes I am an American.

no, the SC does not suck, most of thier rulings are good ones, sometimes they are bad/horrid - per my example.

sometimes great Justices Homles, make horrid rulings - sedition ruling of 1918? - limiting free speech.

world is gray Sir. that include the SC, generally the SC rules properly - with is good and bad justices,

sometimes - less times (but Citizens United is a HUGE ex of a bad ruling! - they fail.

-1- wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:52 am is split fifty-fifty on the political demarcation line between "bad decisions" and "good decisions", that is, between Democraps and Republicants. So one man's bad is his neighbour's good.

yes -per small minds that seem to rule today (folks that champion Party/party idealogy over common sense centrism

those not under control of mind control if cult partisanship are able to think for themselves, and affirm parts from the left and rigfht (there is good in both), and also value Nation over party, affiriming the bigger picture. ie.. the nation good/unity/supporting the concepts in my Constitution over any political party.


-1- wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:52 am Is that theory correct?
per cultists that value their Party over my constitution, yes of them - which sadly seems to be the majority today - your theory is correct.

-1- wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:52 am If it is, then let democracy rule.

no fan of majority rule myself, that is the same a mob rule.

my Constitution (bill of rights more aptly) was written to defend the right of the minority.

i affirm that mindset, and as a minority (not of race or sex - I'm a white male) - but as an Atheist am in the same boat as women or blacks/indians/ect....as a minority.

my concern is with my Constiuition affirming liberty of the minority over the majority.


the 9th amendment is my fav BTW, and is the "spirit" of my Constitution IMO.



-1- wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:52 am If you don't like a decision, or a ruling party, vote against them, that's all you ought to do.
agreed, and why i voted for Ron Paul in 88 - all 2 percent of us.


-1- wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:52 am Let the People vs the People decide on the course of your country's future. That's what America is fundamentally about.

nope. that is not what America following our Constitution is about.

what it is ideally (if she followed the Constition - she no longer does BTW) - is affirming the Will of the Majority, until that will inferferse with the minority, then the minority's will is affirmed and the majority is negated.

9 times out of 10 the will of the majority affirms that of the minority, so all is good, what make my Constitution (wish it was still valid ;-( ) great is the 1 out of 10 times the majority's view is wrong, and my constitution defends the 10 percenters.


thanks for reply Sir, you have a thinking mind, and one that is similar to mine, and so value your reply,
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by -1- »

gaffo wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:25 amaffirming the Will of the Majority, until that will inferferse with the minority, then the minority's will is affirmed and the majority is negated.
???

This is the antithesis of democracy. The minority rules.

Whether you are talking constitution, reality, or spirit, I am gaffled. I mean, buffled. How can this be?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy

Post by henry quirk »

-1-

The way it's supposed to work (in the American system): majority rules within the confines of the constitution (and laws extending out of the constitution). That is: the majority calls the shots but can't abuse the minority in the process.

Example: no one may like bald, scrawny, one-eyed bastids but no legislation can be crafted that hobble such bastids. Best anyone can do is avoid the bastids...you don't get to jail 'em cuz you dislike 'em.

Now, let's say in the delightful burg of Shit, the Shitburgians pass a law sayin' bald, scrawny, one-eyed bastids can't be out and about between the hours of 8am and 5pm. The bastids say 'fuck that noise!' and take Shitburg to court. The court rules (as it should in the American system) that Shitburg has no 'right' to hobble the bastids. The court strikes down the law and mebbe makes Shitburg pay the bastids some cash.

"(T)he minority's will is affirmed" in the sense the minority is 'made whole' and the (unjust) expression of the majority's will is blunted.

That's how it's supposed to work.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by gaffo »

-1- wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:21 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:25 amaffirming the Will of the Majority, until that will inferferse with the minority, then the minority's will is affirmed and the majority is negated.
???

This is the antithesis of democracy. The minority rules.

Whether you are talking constitution, reality, or spirit, I am gaffled. I mean, buffled. How can this be?
you need to re-read my nations Bill of Rights then. it was made to defend the minority against the majority.

a proper Democracy affirms the will of the majority, until that will turns to "mob rule" and ignores the rights of the minority, then the courts strike down the will the majority, and all is restored,

or the courts fail and that democracy turns into a tyranny for the minorities (at first, then for the majority too latter)

not to be pedantic, and it does not matter to me - i understand your term Democracy means Republic - but to be pedantic we both live in Republics. with some forms of Democracy - StateProvential Reforenda.
Last edited by gaffo on Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:30 am -1-

The way it's supposed to work (in the American system): majority rules within the confines of the constitution (and laws extending out of the constitution). That is: the majority calls the shots but can't abuse the minority in the process.

Example: no one may like bald, scrawny, one-eyed bastids but no legislation can be crafted that hobble such bastids. Best anyone can do is avoid the bastids...you don't get to jail 'em cuz you dislike 'em.

Now, let's say in the delightful burg of Shit, the Shitburgians pass a law sayin' bald, scrawny, one-eyed bastids can't be out and about between the hours of 8am and 5pm. The bastids say 'fuck that noise!' and take Shitburg to court. The court rules (as it should in the American system) that Shitburg has no 'right' to hobble the bastids. The court strikes down the law and mebbe makes Shitburg pay the bastids some cash.

"(T)he minority's will is affirmed" in the sense the minority is 'made whole' and the (unjust) expression of the majority's will is blunted.

That's how it's supposed to work.

correct, as it should work in all Republics around the world.

this assumes their Courts are not corrupt. after Citizen's United, i no longer have faith in America's Courts.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"i no longer have faith in America's Courts."

Post by henry quirk »

That's wise.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: "i no longer have faith in America's Courts."

Post by -1- »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:21 am
Henry and Gaffo, I still don't get it.

If mob A (a majority) gangs up on group B (a minority) and government C stops mob A from doing so, then in effect government C stops any mob from ganging up on any group, and therefore (since every person can be slotted into a group) the law protects ALL.

Not just a minority.

Protecting a minority would be like protecting all red-headed women, but letting anyone abuse their brown-haired uncles. THIS would be an example of protecting a minority.

But once you protect ALL minorities, then you protect ALL and therefore you don't protect a minority but the entire majority.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Henry and Gaffo, I still don't get it."

Post by henry quirk »

Seems to me: you got a pretty good handle on it.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: "i no longer have faith in America's Courts."

Post by gaffo »

-1- wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:17 am
henry quirk wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:21 am
Henry and Gaffo,

gaffo here,
-1- wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:17 amI still don't get it.
ok by me, this forum is here for expanding understantanding. i dislike narrow minds, but value history - including my nation's Bill of Rights.

ask away, and i will do my best per my limitied understanding of my BoR documents.

again, I'm fine with discussion and dissagrements - and a learned discussion as to why the dissagreements. and why i like this forum and the net in general.

so ask away! - I'm not an lawyer, so my understanding of my BoR is limited to one that knows of it and history in general , but not with one with a law degree (so take my lack of formal degree per law (i have a degree in an other field) as you will in determining if i know about my BoR or not (google is your friend in otherswords) - if mytreply is full of shit, googliing will show it.



-1- wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:17 am If mob A (a majority) gangs up on group B (a minority) and government C stops mob A from doing so, then in effect government C stops any mob from ganging up on any group,
yes, noting A,B and C.


-1- wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:17 am and therefore (since every person can be slotted into a group) the law protects ALL.
yes, assuming C stops A from oppressing B.

if C (gov. decides to side with A) - then B is fucked.



-1- wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:17 am Not just a minority..

???

-1- wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:17 am Protecting a minority would be like protecting all red-headed women,
yes, i prefer Raven haired (black haired) gals myself.

but yes.


-1- wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:17 am but letting anyone abuse their brown-haired uncles. THIS would be an example of protecting a minority.

I reject your Either/or mentality - B/W.....................as if to protect the majority the minority (or vise versa) is needed.

only thing needed is a mind, and appreciation of the mindset of the BoR, that affirms libery for all . the majority with minds are no threat and so not relevent to the BoR.

only the majority of thuggish mind were of concern for the authors of my Constitution.







-1- wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:17 am But once you protect ALL minorities, then you protect ALL and therefore you don't protect a minority but the entire majority.

yes, but i think you posted the above to make a point i may have missed, clarify please.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: "i no longer have faith in America's Courts."

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:21 am That's wise.
i thank for the complement, not wise in a long shot,but God willing more wise than 30 yrs ago.........etc......... i strive to become more wise than i am today.

not "wise" yet (fear that will take longer than my lifespan) - but moving toward, so ok with it.

thanks for your kind words - though to be frank do think your view is heartless/judgmental/petty from your posts here since joining this forum.

but thank you for your reply, and i do try to strive for wisdom in this realm.

i thank you in your reply in this particular Sir.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"your view is heartless"

Post by henry quirk »

yeah, I know
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: "your view is heartless"

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:34 am yeah, I know
noted your relabling (dyslexic - you are not a dick - i thank you for not being one of those) of thread to "heartless" per my view of you - of you are not so, my appoligies to you (as noted i know and appeciate you not being a dick).

if you are hearless why are you? of not, how did i missconsrtue you?

we are here to disscuss, - and unlike Veg (who politically is align to me - but not in spirit or intent (I value learning others views counter to mine - esp ignore politics (I'm political fully, but value persons over politics, so Veg is not me, walker is me (former is me politically, latter is me in other more important realms).

youve been here longer than me - we are both libertarians, but unlike you i'm also a Libaral, so noting your posts i do see you as heartless.

if you are not, welcome why not, do you have wisdom to offer for me growth? - i hope so. I'm not into dissparaging, and i think i did so in my prior post.

i did myself bad in that ;-(.

i hope you can offer better understanding of your views - beyond "get off my lawn" mentality.

or not?

sorry for my dissparagement, it was beneth me...i fall sometimes. strive to not do so, and so...........
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

I'm 'heartless' cuz my compassion is finite (and most folks don't deserve compassion anyway...they deserve, instead, a swift *kick in the keister).

And: yeah, I can be a real dick from time to time.









*sometimes several, in quick succession
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re:

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:22 am I'm 'heartless' cuz my compassion is finite (and most folks don't deserve compassion anyway...they deserve, instead, a swift *kick in the keister).

And: yeah, I can be a real dick from time to time.









*sometimes several, in quick succession
yes, my compassion is limited too, i'm not a bleeding heart liberal, just a libertarian liberal.

thanks for reply, would welcome more about your limited compassion - its nature and why so/etc.

surely there is more than "get off my lawn".

or maybe not? - on worse days i too think not, but if you;d like to talk more i'd welcome it Sir.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"would welcome more about your limited compassion - its nature and why so/etc"

Post by henry quirk »

It's not complicated: I'm not complicated.

I'm a finite resource dedicated to takin' care of me and mine.

The other guy can do the same (take care of him and his).

And: of course I'm also a mean-spirited misanthrope, so the other guy can go fuck himself.
Post Reply