But the “reality & fact” is that the Supreme Court is made up of political ideologues appointed by political ideologues of the same flavor and confirmed by political ideologues. Some of the court’s decisions are so blatantly preposterously politically ideologically partisan and having little to nothing to do with the Constitution and that is perfectly evident to any honest citizen with remedial reading ability. The Supreme Court so very often doesn’t uphold the Constitution, but rater simply ”legalizes” unconstitutional law.
Okay, so now you also have a problem with the SCOTUS not interpreting the Constitution as you do? Why don't we just say that our Founding Fathers intended on us listening to Classic Liberal, and for him to tell us what the Constitution means? Or in the event Classic Liberal isn't around, we can consult any Libertarian for the real meaning of the Constitution. Obviously, no one else is qualified, because they don't agree with your interpretation. This might come as a shocker to you, but there have been times in history where men disagreed on what the Constitution said, according to the SCOTUS. The glorious thing about our system is, there is something we can do about this as well. Whenever the SCOTUS has gotten it wrong, we can seek to have legislation passed to change this interpretation or make it more clear to the Supreme Court. So we can appeal to the court, and if we still think the court has gotten it wrong, we can go through Congress and pass legislation, and even in the event that doesn't work, we can actually amend the Constitution entirely. The beauty of this system, as compared to your idea, is it allows the Constitution to be interpreted by the people it effects, and not some rogue libertarian on a message board. I think we'll stick with the system we have, although it's not perfect, it has worked.
What evidence? What have I not successfully refuted? What arguments of mine have you successfully rejected? Your entire argument is based in emotional right-wing prejudices and fallacious concepts of libertarianism.
The evidence you are an insane libertarian blowhard who thinks like a tin-horn dictator. I've rejected nearly all your ideas. There is no emotional prejudice, or fallacious contempt, just me stating facts that you can't refute. Now you have proven that you can BOAST about refuting or not being refuted, and you can insult people, but you've not proven much else here in this thread.
What fool bothers with rigged Kangaroo Courts? True change only comes by way of informed public opinion. I’m here to “INFORM.” Pay attention! Look in the mirror! Search your soul! Become informed! Read the Constitution! Accept the truth!
Well what good does an "informed public" do, if there is no court? Oh, I see... we are to all just accept your view as the correct view, and forget everything else? It's like I said at the beginning of this argument, Libertarians live in a fucked up fantasy world, where they believe the rest of us are suddenly going to wake up and find ourselves 'libertarians' one day! If only we could all see the libertarian light! Never mind that it always seems to be 2% or less who actually see the light, in election after election, that's not important.
On the contrary! You’ve argued that libertarianism is immoral and ignorant and dismissive of the age of consent proving that you know not what the fuck you’re talking about.
I didn't argue ANYTHING regarding libertarian views on age of consent or homosexual marriage. I actually think your pro-gay-marriage position is in diametric contradiction to some libertarian principles. Just like how you don't think the government should be involved with our personal life by prohibiting gay marriage, other libertarians don't believe government should be involved in our personal life by endorsing gay marriage, or any other kind of marriage. Libertarians who strongly speak out in demands for gay marriage, are not actual libertarians. You are LINOs! You are political activists with much in common with Liberals, not the stewards of personal liberty and freedom, as you claim. You don't want people to be free to decide if they believe as you, it's more about imposing your will and making them live by it. You'll lie, insult, denigrate, refuse to accept reality or fact, and insist you are a true libertarian, but what you are, is an extremist ideologue. A social liberal who can't get any traction being a democrat, since most of them have rejected your crusade.
On the contrary! Marriage contracts with a child below the age of consent is a violation of the child’s rights while agreeing men making marriage contracts with agreeable men above the age of consent violates “NOBODY’S” rights, or agreeing women making agreeable marriage contracts with other agreeable women and I never knew a woman who wanted to marry a dog, did you? And if you did, what fucking business was it of yours, and how did she determine how she would get the dog to sign the contract?
Why do you keep running to the safety of your morally-determined and guided understanding under the law as it currently stands? I'm not refuting what is the law of the land at this time, the arguments aren't about what is currently legal or illegal. We have a long tradition of establishing laws based on moralistic determination. "child below the age of consent" is nothing more than a moral constraint we have arbitrarily established as a parameter. Does it effect you personally, to change it?
How does she get the dog to sign a contract? How did we get blacks and women to sign contracts? Seems these same excuses have been used before, for not allowing something people weren't comfortable with. Hell, forget about women and dogs, I never met a man who wanted to marry a man, until a few years ago! I didn't think such a thing were possible, since marriage is something between a man and woman. But you've told us we have to redefine our understanding of 'marriage' to include something else. Well, if that's how we do things, then don't we have to open our minds to redefining what 'child' means? Or 'age of consent?' As I said, from the 'sexual naturalist' view, this label is a misnomer, humans who have reached puberty can procreate, and if they were any other life form, would be considered 'adult' members of the species, because of their ability to procreate. I may not like or agree with this argument, but devoid of the 'moral determination' element, I can't find an argument against it... not using the "if it's not harming anyone" template. Feels like I am making a moral judgement on others, trying to dictate how they enjoy their sex lives, when it shouldn't be any of my business. If a woman and her dog have some special arrangement, it doesn't bother me, it's not harming me, and as long as the dog doesn't show signs of being abused or harmed, why should I care?
The consensus here seems to be correct! You are delusional and have a never ending desire to see yourself as some kind of victim. You need to find some medication for that illness.
LOL... Victim? That's too funny. I think of myself as a person who thinks, even outside the box sometimes. There is not a 'consensus' here, except among the pinheads whom I routinely PWN. The consensus is, it's best not to try and actually "argue" with me, because it results in a rather humiliating slicing and dicing and handing over of your ass on a platter, so it's best to hurl incessant insults and put downs, bring up some ancient 'myth' about me, chortle to your buddies about my 'mental state' and pretend that you have 'defeated' me in the arena of ideas. That is your best bet for coming out of this looking good... just don't turn around and look for your ass!
