Thoughts Re: Protocols Inspired by the “Tennessee… “ Thread

[rode_kater]

That said, there are two critical counterarguments. One, the Founding Fathers* did not even try to list all of the freedoms implied in citizenship because they knew that someone in the future might try to argue that something that wasn't listed that common sense would say is a right could be abridged because it wasn't specifically enumerated.

That's bizarre. The argument for not writing down rights is because at some point someone might think anything not written down is not a right? The problem with common sense is that it's not as common as you think. It should have been a argument for making it easier to recognise new rights as they are thought of.

(Also freedom implied by citizenship? Another one of those odd US quirks: foreigners don't get the same rights).

But I agree with you that the argument around Roe vs Wade is terribly weak. Like you say, it assumes either a right to privacy or a right to bodily integrity, neither of which are mentioned in the constitution. I'm also of the opinion that these sorts of things shouldn't be decided by courts but by the legislature. But I'm aware that's not going to happen.

Which ties in with another thought: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Europeans Convention of Human Rights were never put to any kind of public vote. I think that's for a very simple reason: they would not pass. People like the idea of human rights for themselves but are wary of the idea of granting them to others. A proposal to add the right to privacy to the US constitution now would never pass because people would interpret it as a backdoor to allowing abortion.

tl;dr human beings are strange creatures

[Myopic Bookworm]

But I agree with you that the argument around Roe vs Wade is terribly weak. Like you say, it assumes either a right to privacy or a right to bodily integrity, neither of which are mentioned in the constitution.

I'd be very surprised if an alternative is not found. Even an originalist should surely concede that the constitution grants no rights to the unborn - they are not citizens until they are born - so it seems to me that a clash of rights between a woman and an embryo has to be resolved in favour of the woman, as an actual citizen over a merely potential future citizen. The only line of counter-argument that I can think of relies on asserting that US law must implicitly embody Christian moral values, but that contravenes the separation of church and state (as well as begging the question on whether Christian canon law, as distinct from popular Christian sentiment, recognizes the rights of the unborn).

[Fred in Skirts]

AND HOW DOES ALL OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WEARING SKIRTS????
Please take this to forums that are not about skirts and the wearing of them.
Thank you!

[crfriend]

AND HOW DOES ALL OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WEARING SKIRTS????

I have a sneaking suspicion it's because we're so immersed in that toxic stream that the wounds are getting raw and folks are starting to speak up about the matter. One can hardly blame them. The challenge is in keeping it reasonably civil.

[Uncle Al]

people, People, PEOPLE

PLEASE - - - - - The Changes at the Cafe' thread is for and about upcoming software
upgrades, problems getting access or someone making a 'suggestion' for a new 'sub-forum'
or process at Skirt Cafe'.

SOMEWHERE along these lines, people are forgetting about the "Guide lines"(rules)
for the Cafe', which were put into place August 27, 2007 and have served us quite well.

Every one on this forum, is guilty of political thread drift, in one form or another.
This covers ALL countries, not just the U.S.

Rule #2 was put into place for a reason and most all Cafe' members seem to forget
about Rule #2 and the rest of the 'Rules' governing conduct at Skirt Cafe'.

So, can we all act like adults here and not spoiled little children, throwing a tantrum,
because He/She/It didn't get their way

The Admin/Mod staff works diligently to keep a "laid-back" yet even hand on the
operations at Skirt Cafe'. Many-many discussions are held on what to do about
"this thread or that person", behind the scenes, sometimes on a daily basis.
(Even KP duty - this is a Cafe' after all.)

Now - - May we get this forum back on track, supporting Men In Skirts/Kilts
as a DAILY occurrence



Uncle Al

[denimini]

Yes, the initial post was correctly placed but the thread has strayed for a bit too long. The courteous thing to do is for a poster who wants to continue with the drift would be to start another topic, in the right area.
A good recent example is Faldaguy starting "Do you get more help when wearing a skirt?", and quoting from another thread.

[moonshadow]

People like the idea of human rights for themselves but are wary of the idea of granting them to others.

You just defined American politics in one simple statement.

And if I may, let's just shoot straight for a moment, the biggest reason for flame wars here is because someone eventually says something that triggers another, and rather than just letting it go, or at the very least engaging a simple debate about the matter, they pull rank and want to have the thread locked.

Abortion doesn't have anything to do at all with skirts, aside from perhaps sounding the alarm that if the SCOTUS is about to overturn Roe, other rights may be on the chopping block. The concern is certainly justified, make no mistake, we're toying with flat out fascism across the world and in the U.S., and it seems both sides are in on it. The left just wants to run the world their way, and the right wants to run the world theirs. Both sides seem equally opposed to personal liberty, each side wants to silence the other.

I don't see how the SCOTUS could rule that any governing body (local, state, or federal) could prohibit crossdressing (yes that legally applies to us), or just men wearing skirts in general because to do so would violate the 14th Amendments equal protection clause-- that is unless that governing body also legislated that women aren't allowed to wear skirts either. Now, that says nothing for private entities. The right to wear a skirt at the office comes down to a law (the Civil Rights Act of 1964), that can certainly be overturned or amended, and I've voiced this concern before on this website, to which Dave informed me that it's VERY unlikely for rights long since established to be overturned... Well, here we are, Roe is all but overturned.... Never say never Dave. It's a hell of a lot easier to overturn a law than to amend the constitution.

Of course, getting back to the 14th, while in theory (and text) you'd think that it would protect male skirt wearer's... not so fast... apparently though it doesn't say so in the text, "equal protection" does not apply to gender or sex. You'd think it would, but if so, then why can't women go around topless in certain areas that a man can?

It's hard to say where this will go. The Evangelical right is the American Taliban, make no mistake, and despite only making up for about 25% of the overall population, have an enormous amount of political sway, especially among red states, but even in moderate (purple) ones too. If the Evangelicals have their way, it will be illegal for a man to wear a skirt. I'm not saying that's what I predict, but I do know that's among the many things they want. They also want state enforced obedience towards their God, and they want the United States to be declared an official "Christian Nation". I'm not sure what they intend to do with all the non-Christians in this world they're trying to create. They want all children to be required to pray to the Christian God in public schools, they want mandatory teaching of biblical principles in schools, they reject theory of evolution and want creationism taught exclusively.

They. Want. OBEDIENCE, because in their view that's what God wants.

Thankfully most Christians in this country are not religious extremist, and realize that if one person's freedoms are trampled on, then all freedoms are at risk, and that true religious freedom can only be achieved when the state stays out of the personal convictions of the people's individual souls. This is where I'm at. Frankly I would imagine that God would want people to come to them under their own free will, not because national extremist forced them to.

Men wearing skirts is liberal. You couldn't do this [openly] in the 1950's, you know... that decade that many conservatives and evangelicals want us to return to?

Does abortion have anything do to with men in skirts? No. Is it a slippery slope to the nixing of other rights? Maybe... it's too early to tell.

As far as that idiotic McCarthy-era add to the "Pledge of Allegiance" (Does any other country have an analogue to that?) goes, I simply omit those words as being (1) irrelevant, (2) offensive, and (3) coercive.

They got us kids to recite it before we were really old enough to think about what we were saying. Thankfully in most circumstances a child can not enter into a legally binding contract. It's kind of odd that the Christian right would hold so much emphasis on the pledge of Allegiance. You'd think that a God fearing Christian would pledge Allegiance to Christ.. full stop. If one really believes in God in that way, then they'd have to agree that God is bigger than America, and so is Christ. No, modern right wing Christians square the pledge under some sort of Christian nationalism, which makes absolutely no sense. Why would Christ be a nationalist?? It's like the concept of a libertarian dictator, the two are in conflict!

I'm not alone with this line of thought. One of the main reasons we have the religious freedom we enjoy today is thanks in no small part to the Jehovah's Witnesses refusal to say the pledge. It would seem they truly place God before country (it seems as a proper Christian should) This is a matter that has went before the Supreme Court. [0] A fascinating read by the way... check out Justice Frankfurter's dissenting opinion....

"Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws.",

... and this man actually opposed a child's right to not recite the pledge... It's kind of ironic considering where we are at today with regards to people's desire to skirt law on the grounds of "religious freedom". It seems freedom... is always a double edged sword... oh the tangled web we weave!

[0] West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

[crfriend]

"Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws.",

What this guy failed to understand that laws are generally based on the consensus of those who are governed by them, and stupid laws that needlessly restrict behaviours (e.g. the 55 MPH speed limit) tend to be widely ignored. This is exemplified with the words, "government by the consent of the governed". We are in the process of moving away from that in the modern world, and it's not going to end well.

Also, what the SCOTUS does is beyond the reach of the citizenry [1], and the SCOTUS will do whatever it bloody well wants because it's (a) utterly unaccountable and (b) chock-full of ideologues. These are not the knowledgable and wizened minds envisioned when the thing was being set up. And, in a post-Constitutional country, what role does a Supreme Court play anyway? I'd posit none. If it wasn't a direct, clear, and present threat to civil liberties I'd simply ignore it as entirely irrelevant; we lost "government by the consent of the governed" in 1980 [2] and it's only gotten worse since.


[1] Using legal means, that is.
[2] Not just in the United States, either; the entire world took a violent turn to the hard right during that time-frame and we're all paying for that now. It may not have been possible to stop it.

[pelmut]

They. Want. OBEDIENCE, because in their view that's what God wants.

I think you've got that back-to-front.  They claim that's what their god wants so they can gain control over you.

[rode_kater]

This is exemplified with the words, "government by the consent of the governed". We are in the process of moving away from that in the modern world, and it's not going to end well.

It's interesting to reflect on what that statement means. It kind of requires that there exists a form of government that does have consent. It's not just the government that needs to play their part, it's the governed as well. I think in the current social media climate we could have the perfect government, and people would still be spouting on Twitter rants about all the bad things going on. If you get to the point where people don't even trust the democratic process, then you basically have to throw out democracy altogether (and replace it with what I wonder).

So I think over here the representation of government is pretty good. Voting patterns in parliament reasonably accurately reflect the public sentiment on a wide variety of topics. But everyone is on the minority side of some topic, so if you're expecting the government to cater to all your wishes, despite you being the minority on some topic, you're basically always going to be unhappy.

Did it work before only because people didn't have as much idea what was going on? As in "ignorance is bliss"? Have we lost the art of compromise?

It looks at least as if the free market ideologues have been handed a big blow for now, which hurts after having had the reins for so long. We'll see where we end up.

[crfriend]

Did it work before only because people didn't have as much idea what was going on? As in "ignorance is bliss"? Have we lost the art of compromise?

The latter is in force in the United States today. There's more to agree on and more common ground than differences, but everyone focuses LASER-like on the differences and glosses over the commonality -- and that's how the Republic that once was was overthrown.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

In the spirit of my original post, I am taking this thread to the “Off Topic” board.