Yeah...I'm curious as to how this is going to go. It'll be interesting, that's for sure.
Lookin4GoodArgs
Am I totally misunderstanding what is being said here?
You are not.
So, I know where you're coming from because I've read stuff by Edmund Burke and other conservatives. But, unless the conservative you're talking with is the intellectual type, they probably haven't. They've probably just internalized some version of social conservatism but would also be appalled that you'd accuse them of supporting social stratification even as they support it.
I learned some time ago that this particular argumentative strategy is incredibly pointless. They don't care that you know the historical and philosophical foundation of their beliefs. For them, that foundation isn't there for them. They probably don't know it! Their life experiences inform them more than anything else.
Noncitizens aren’t totally barred from voting in San Francisco. In 2016, after multiple attempts in previous years to pass a similar measure, voters approved Proposition N, which allowed San Francisco noncitizens to vote in school board elections if they had a child who went to school in the district.
What's wrong with voting in school board elections?
Momo: Violation of rule #1 and #3.
This isn't merely disagreeing with someone. Telling someone to "shove this gun grabber shit" up their ass is just disrespectful.
Fartington:
Warning for violation of rule #1.
Captain Kirk never backed down from a challenge, no matter how many red shirt guys had to die.
Idk about your preferred leadership qualities, but mine don't include a lack of disregard for my life to look like a real man.
Next time just don't respond.
PrincessEli: Warning for violation of rule #1 and #3.
Don't automatically assume something is beyond someone's mental capability, and provide reasons for your disagreement.
(I'm gonna have to start putting names in my warning so I know how I've warned previously...)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan:
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Jesus is too liberal for y'all. Definitely don't go and do likewise.
Originalism strikes again!
By using the Bruen ruling, the judge can ignore that very real safety issues of drug users getting guns, and just say "Well, drug tests weren't historically required for getting a gun. And today is the same as the era of the Thirteen Colonies, so, they should still have fun! I mean, guns!"
Originalism as a legal doctrine is incredibly stupid. It basically boils down to 'We can have everything nice they had in early American history and no more! Don't like them apples? Probably shouldn't have been born in...modern America, where embryos are children, which wasn't true in early American history!"