Legal/scotus thread

sturg33 said:
Wow we finally found a.word that has no definition!!

Feminists have been so effective they have effectively erased women from our vocabulary.

They are birthing people now. Bleeders. Etc

TLHLIM
Click to expand...

What is a woman to you? Someone with a vagina? So someone who has sex organ surgery that gives them a vagina is a woman? Someone with tits? Well you're on the record talking about IPAs giving people tits. SO does that mean all IPA drinkers are women? What about people who are born intersex?

We're talking about legal definitions here. You're over here raging in the alt-tight twittersphere.
 
sturg33 said:
Her entire argument is that sentencing should be lighter on internet child porn because it makes it easier to do.

You know, like treating murder lighter if they use a gun because guns are easier to kill something with

imagine defending the child porn team.. the left always is

[TW]1506669821194387464[/TW]
Click to expand...

This is a willfully ignorant way of interpreting this argument. It’s not pro-child porn to acknowledge that technological advances have changed the landscape of this crime. It doesn’t and shouldn’t change the fact that people involved both in the production and consumption of this evil should be punished for their crimes. However, the point being made was that the sentencing guidelines were formed with the understanding that anybody engaged in mass distribution of these images were likely deeply connected to the abuse of the children. If someone distributed the amount of images that led to those harsher sentences, you were likely taking out a key contributor to the problem. That isn’t necessarily the case any more, and the point seems to be that we should differentiate between those heavily involved with the abuse of the children and those that weren’t. It’s fair to disagree, but it’s not fair to to mischaracterize the argument as pro-child abuse.
 
mqt said:
This is a willfully ignorant way of interpreting this argument. It’s not pro-child porn to acknowledge that technological advances have changed the landscape of this crime. It doesn’t and shouldn’t change the fact that people involved both in the production and consumption of this evil should be punished for their crimes. However, the point being made was that the sentencing guidelines were formed with the understanding that anybody engaged in mass distribution of these images were likely deeply connected to the abuse of the children. If someone distributed the amount of images that led to those harsher sentences, you were likely taking out a key contributor to the problem. That isn’t necessarily the case any more, and the point seems to be that we should differentiate between those heavily involved with the abuse of the children and those that weren’t. It’s fair to disagree, but it’s not fair to to mischaracterize the argument as pro-child abuse.
Click to expand...

Her argument was that it's become easier to abuse children and thus the sentencing should not be as strict on those who got the images on the internet
 
The answer is basic.

Were you born with a Y chromosome? That is what tells you if you are a man or woman.

Case closed.
 
sturg33 said:
Her argument was that it's become easier to abuse children and thus the sentencing should not be as strict on those who got the images on the internet
Click to expand...

No, it’s that with the internet, the same child abuse has an easier path to more consumers. It’s all horrifying, and nobody is arguing there shouldn’t be laws against it or these people shouldn’t be put in prison. The argument is that the ease of access and distribution has led to sentencing guidelines not catching up with the times.
 
CBS News
@CBSNews
·
6m
BREAKING:

Copies of text messages obtained by CBS News and The Washington Post reveal
Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, exchanged texts with former
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows about efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

////////////////////////////

I have read somewhere (lost) the Jan 6 Committee has her phone records as well.
///////////////////////////////////////////


Please recall we had daily if not hourly updates on the condition of RBG
so,

Where is Justice Thomas ?
 
So, we now know why Thomas was the only vote against documents going to the 1/6 committee

He was protecting his wife and her sedition attempts


In a real republic, he would resign

But this is America and the part of it that he aligns with doesn’t care as long as they hold power
 
sturg33 said:
It's amazing how racist y'all are against justice Thomas. You would never have these accusations against a white person
Click to expand...

you try so hard

and i know it's a troll post from you, the fraud

but

yeah, i've never said someone that had to do with 1/6 should be investigated or held accountable for their actions that day


.......

checks board


.....


except the whole thread i started about it and the other thread laughing at your giving martyr status for a loser that died for her leader etc etc etc which obviously none of those people are white lol
 
I understand you hate the only black justice and celebrate the unarmed woman being gunned down from the state.

You are a very good seal
 
sturg33 said:
I understand you hate the only black justice and celebrate the unarmed woman being gunned down from the state.

You are a very good seal
Click to expand...


trying-too-hard-649x365.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top