nothing screams snowflake like posting shit like this. when is the last time you had to look up the definition of woman in the dictionary?
Example #4672 of a leftist twisting the meaning of a word to fit a bullshit narrative
you're suggesting you're not a fragile snowflake who can get offended at something that has nothing to do with them or any bearing on their life? ya know, like those liberals you despise?
I’m not offended by it. I’m calling it out for what it is, bullshit. Attempting to change reality affects everyone, so yes, it does or will at some point have bearing on my life. But more concerning it will have an affect on my child’s life
I think that was his whole point......no one ever had to, it was pretty self explanatory. Feels like it was something that didn't need to be updated, changed or altered but call me traditional I guess.
Something changed in a book you won't ever read and somehow you're upset. Why let people who you won't ever come into contact with get you upset? Isn't this the type of thing only the liberals do?
Something changed in a dictionary (pretty important book, no?) because 1% of the country decided it was time to redefine the definition of "woman".....and you're more concerned about those that question why it needed to be changed?
sure, i can accept that. afterall, i was a republican all my life until donald trump won the nomination in 2016.
In July of 21, the current admin DOJ formed a special task force to monitor and arrest those that harassed election officials over the results of the 2020 election. Totally justified in my opinion, we shouldn't tolerate it.
personally, i think that politicians and elected/appointed officials should be harassed if they enact policies that the public doesn't support. they should be heckled in restaurants, have protests outside their homes, and anything else short of actual violence.
Which policy are you referring to? Surely not Roe/Wade where half the country did in fact support it. It's quite possibly one of the most contested and equally split rulings the Nation has ever seen going back to the initial court battle.
idk looks like a majority actually supports upholding RvW. Also, i imagine many people are upset that kavanaugh, barrett, and others all blatantly lied about their stance on RvW during their interviews for appointment.
Nothing like a good ol' fashioned recursive definition to signal that we have abdicated ourselves of the responsibility to think....
SCOTUS justices are not and were never meant to be accountable to "the people" (i.e. popular sentiment; i.e. mob-rule). Otherwise they would not be appointed in this manner. Moreover, they most certainly were not meant to rule on cases in accordance with popular trends, but in accordance with the Constitution.
This is from Rousseau's famous treatise, Du Contrat Social (The Social Contract)...the same pulication that gave us this perhaps more famous quote--often wrongly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who clearly read a lot of Rousseau's work:
Meaning: I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.
We have 2 great boys. What a great blessing, and what great perspective it gives a person.
To be clear, I am not saying that supreme court justices should NOT be accountable to the public; I am actually somewhat conflicted on that point. What I am saying is that by virtue of the fact that they are 1) appointed, not elected, and 2) appointed for life, they essentially have to answer to no one. I am also saying that this was not an accident of oversight by the the Founding Fathers. It was quite deliberately set up this way. I will do a quick search through the Federalist Papers(*) to see this specific topic was broached. (Edit: And indeed it was broached by Madison in Federalist No. 10, as "...the means of preventing rule by majority faction..."; the emphases are mine). It may have also been broached by Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 where he laid out the doctrine of judicial review, but I'll need to read it in the context of 'public judicial accountability' to be sure.)
I have two boys as well. Most definitely a blessing.
One guy who admitted he wanted to kill a Supreme Coirt Justice.
I’m not a biologist but I do have an IQ above 10. I looked up the definition to see what was so confusing to a Supreme Court nominee. What an embarrassing answer.
A woman is an adult human female, no further definition or explanation is needed.
i direct you to the 1994 documentary, Junior, as evidence to the contrary tyvm.
Exactly what I was getting at,.. of course the loonies on the board point out menopause keeps women from getting pregnant onviously… this is accurate nothing more nothing less
