Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

 

Poll

Do you agree with the ruling?

Yes70%70% - 42
No20%20% - 12
No opinion10%10% - 6
Total: 60
2010-08-06 16:46:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

OrangeHound wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

For example, why can't all adults drink alcohol legally in the United States.  Age discrimination.
To a point, but considering that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents as a proportion to age group happens within the 16-21 year old age bracket, the law is in place not to discriminate, but to protect the rest of us from them.
Couldn't this logic be applied to other things as well?

In America, crime as a proportion to race happens more with blacks than hispanics or whites ... so, racial laws against blacks are proper?

In America, aids as a proportion to sexual behavior is 50 times more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals ... so, shouldn't we be passing discriminatory laws to protect people from such behavior?  Such as re-enacting sodomy laws?  I mean, it costs all of us ....




Again ... there are always current trends of discrimination based on public opinion, more than some notion of logic or fairness.
Meh, I don't disagree with you. I think the drinking age should be 18 to buy and lower to consume with parents permission. Point is that the law is logical based on probabilities. Doesn't make it right though.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-06 17:30:06
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6689|The Land of Scott Walker
Same sex couples with civil unions already had all the "rights" they wanted, what's the point of pushing for marriage?  Guess we have rights to equal words in the constitution, too.
2010-08-06 17:51:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6649|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

And, who really knows how Kagan will rule since we have absolutely no precedence with her.  But, I think everyone in Washington would be surprised if she isn't just as left as her predecessor, Stevens.
I'm not sure what the big deal about Kagan is.   Rehnquist was only a jurist before he became a Justice.
Because she's closely associated with the Harvard administration that has over the years spawned communists, has spied for foreigners, and other things 'unamerican'.
https://www.funnypictureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/NotSureIfSerious.jpg
2010-08-06 19:26:47
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I'm not sure what the big deal about Kagan is.   Rehnquist was only a jurist before he became a Justice.
Because she's closely associated with the Harvard administration that has over the years spawned communists, has spied for foreigners, and other things 'unamerican'.
http://www.funnypictureblog.com/wp-cont … erious.jpg
Only partly. Harvard has a really bad reputation among conservatives for brainwashing its students. In goes bright eyed student, out comes leftist community organizer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-07 00:18:19
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6374|North Tonawanda, NY

JohnG@lt wrote:

Meh, I don't disagree with you. I think the drinking age should be 18 to buy and lower to consume with parents permission. Point is that the law is logical based on probabilities. Doesn't make it right though.
We discussed this awhile back in another thread, and you fully supported the 21 year age restriction on alcohol...  What made you change your mind?
2010-08-07 08:14:03
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5601|London, England

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Meh, I don't disagree with you. I think the drinking age should be 18 to buy and lower to consume with parents permission. Point is that the law is logical based on probabilities. Doesn't make it right though.
We discussed this awhile back in another thread, and you fully supported the 21 year age restriction on alcohol...  What made you change your mind?
I was being inconsistent
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-07 14:44:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6649|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Meh, I don't disagree with you. I think the drinking age should be 18 to buy and lower to consume with parents permission. Point is that the law is logical based on probabilities. Doesn't make it right though.
We discussed this awhile back in another thread, and you fully supported the 21 year age restriction on alcohol...  What made you change your mind?
In practicality regarding accidents, 21 works as the minimum age.  With regard to the age you can sign up for the selective service and vote, it makes no sense whatsoever.

For the record, I'm still against it.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard