SIgh. We're done here. My legitimate attempts at conversation are going nowhere.
We were done a long time ago.
You are not even close to as smart as you think you are,
Ohhh, is that what this was all about? Haha.. now it makes
a lot more sense. Now I get where all this hostility is coming from.
Considering I never said I was "smart" in this conversation, nor have I ever said that on RCF as far as I know, I'm guessing this is you over-compensating? You probably feel a bit deflated and your inferiority complex is kicking in.
It's alright. I understand now.. Life didn't go as planned, huh? You deserve more, right?
and your constant assumption that people with whom you disagree don't understand a subject shows a completely immature approach to conversation. It's like talking with a 17 year old who has the world figured out.
It's funny because I'm quite sure that's the impression that many have of you, to be quite honest "Nasty Nate." Like, how many times have other posters simply told you to shut the fuck up? How many times do you need to get shut down?
I remember your asinine back and forths in the Cavs threads... Like, is this guy serious?
And I kind of figured we were going down this road since you didn't actually rebut anything I've actually said. As in, not once.
But, if you want to know what I think, and this is just my
guess, but I'd venture to say that I am both older and more educated than you? Which makes the 17-year old comment a bit odd considering that would imply that I'd have been posting here since I was 10.
I'd also guess that I've quite a bit more life experience; I don't think you have any kids, or are married? I also think I've quite a bit more social experience as well as career experience than you do as well, just based on how you respond to criticism in these conversations.
I could be wrong though, it's just my impression.
How old are you btw? Just curious.
I get that you think you are the expert around here in every subject area under the sun,
I actually don't post on topics I know little about. You'll find my name in very few threads on the board.
So sorry, try again.
but working as a lackey for a few months on a campaign is not the ace in the hole you think it is.
But that's more than you can say for yourself, right? I mean, you have no political experience whatsoever, AFAIK. Not only that, you don't really seem to understand any of the candidates or their positions but feel inclined to assert arguments one way or another. Why post if you have no idea what you're talking about?
For example, you make comments like the last paragraph of your last post, referencing a historical context which doesn't exist. You say "prove me wrong," and when someone immediately does, this is how you respond.
You said earlier that Clinton hasn't really established her positions "yet." Which is one of the silliest things I've heard in awhile.
But again, instead of arguing on the merits, you obviously just get bent out of shape because you don't know how to simply man up and say "ok, I was wrong."
Think about this conversation for a second, I've asked you to do that several times -- what is it that you were arguing with me about? The use of the word "unimaginative?"
Are you kidding me?
With respect to my own personal career, I have never used that to bolster an argument because arguments from authority are inherently flawed. I've made arguments based on legitimate sourceable and credible information; and with respect to this "conversation," facts which in many cases you don't even dispute.
Yet, here we are, continuing down this rabbit hole of you falling apart at the seams post by post.
I'm still waiting for that beat down you were going to give me earlier in this thread and in the Indiana thread. Another one where you approached the subject like you were the one and only arbiter of truth and those who disagreed just didn't understand. Oh wait, they are not coming.
I'm not sure what you're talking about
"in this thread," but in the Indiana thread, remember exactly what we were discussing.
Let's revisit it briefly...
You argued that the Indiana RFRA was completely constitutional and that you were a legal scholar and you rested your argument on your authority. When I stated that others would disagree you doubled down.
So I did actually want to know what the truth was, and I didn't outright accept your opinion on the matter. I went and did my homework and found that your opinion seemed to be in the minority of legal scholars I queried.
I dropped it nonetheless since I agreed with your comment that
"we're on the same side of this," and didn't feel it necessary to prove you wrong.
However, I just found it odd that you said equivalent to
"she isn't a constitutional scholar, but I am."
And I guess that was supposed to end the conversation.
But since you've asked, if you remember I told you I would contact several legal scholars to get their opinions of this.
Here's some of their responses which completely contradict your position:
"The simplest answer is that the state rfras are constitutional. Any discrimination against same-sex people or couples is conducted by private parties, not the state. However, the simple answer isn't necessarily the correct one, in fact in this case it's likely the wrong one. I want to mention two theories under which the rfras could be (and likely are) unconstitutional: 1) if they shift burdens to others i violation of the establishment clause, see cutter v wilkinson, and 2) if state inaction is designed to facilitate private discrimination. James oleske has a new article exploring the second theory that is coming out later this year in Colorado law review."
"The question here is deep and important, and cannot be answered quickly. My short answer is that the law is not unconstitutional on its face, but in this instance is likely being applied in an unconstitutional way (e.g., permitting a religious defense for Mr. A in a case where A has caused harm -- say, by an assault -- to Ms. B.). It's a complicated issue, but anyone telling you it is certainly constitutional under any and all form of administration isn't really evaluating the issue correctly, I think."
"it certainly feels unconstitutional-ish under the authority of Romers v. Evans, as interpreted by my colleague Dale Carpenter in the attached article. He interprets Romer (invalidating Colorado's constitutional amendment prohibiting localities from enacting human rights ordinances to protect gay rights) as representing an "animus" strand of equal protection law. Some opponents of Indiana's RFRA see it as a shotgun approach to achieving the same end via a surgical strike in Romers."
"It isn't clear, but it does not seem likely that a court would have agreed that the law does protect people or organizations that discriminate against LGBTQ folks on religious grounds."
Here's a quote from a conversation I had while you and I were actually debating the issue. You stated that "there is no state action," or something to that effect. I literally just emailed her your post.
"A law is state action. Therefore, it is possible to bring a claim that a law (like RFRA) violates the Equal Protection Claim.
In order to make an argument that a law has a disparate impact on a group and therefore violates equal protection, it must be shown that
(1) the law has a discriminatory impact
(2) the law had a discriminatory intent i.e. the law was passed in order to disadvantage that group, not in spite of that effect.
Someone defending the law would argue that the intent was not to discriminate against LBGT people, but to protect religious people, and that the disc effect was incidental and not the point of the law.
Finally, even if both of those things are true, the law is not automatically unconstitutional.
Instead, assuming that the affected group is a protected group, it merely means that the law is subject to some kind of heightened scrutiny. Race classifications, as you say, trigger strict scrutiny. Sex classifications trigger intermediate. It is not clear what sexual orientation triggers.
So the law then must undergo whatever level of scrutiny applies. It may or may not survive that closer scrutiny. In fact, I highly doubt it would."
Of the several dozen scholars asked, the majority stated the law likely would not survive the courts and be deemed unconstitutional either due to how it's being administered, it's disparate impact, or for other aforementioned reasons. I only found 3 that would openly state the law was constitutional.
Now, could I have found more scholars that took the conservative side of this opinion? Of course. But the point is that neither of us are conservatives, and your argument that legal/constitutional scholars would essentially fall in line behind your position was wrong.
So see Nate? I do do my homework, and no, I'm not a legal expert, nor am I the sole arbiter of truth. If I were, I wouldn't have asked others, right?
I honestly just wanted to know what the truth was, and it seemed it was far more in-depth than what was being discussed in the thread by the supposed "legal scholars." I really didn't think it was that a big deal at that point and felt satisfied knowing and understanding the actual truth so I dropped it.
It felt petty to respond even though we disagreed since, again,
"we're on the same side." But apparently it bothered you, so now I've explained it to you.
I do think you were very likely wrong, but as you see, I let it go. Why? Because who gives a fuck if you were wrong? I didn't think you'd ultimately change your opinion, and the thread had lost steam anyway, so what would've been the point in posting that?
But again, kids wanna have internet wars so, here we are.
Notice how I can have a very friendly conversation with others, even those with whom I disagree with politically? With you, any point counter to yours is an affront to humanity and is followed by a torrent of words barely connected to the conversation that is only a projection of your hurt ego. You are an embarrassment to be a political ally.
As you said, projection.
You often say things that you simply can't back up. Here you did it again, get called on it, and I think you realized that you fucked up; so you lash out. It's frankly pathetic.
This can't be fun to read, so I will respect others around here and stop this conversation. I'll happily continue showing that you are a self deluded king who is wearing no clothes if people want.
Who crowned me king? You? Is that how small you feel that you see me, some anonymous dude on RCF, as a "king?" Is that how you look at life? That's
sad man... That's pathetic.
Seriously, you should think about why you feel the way you do. Maybe you can fix some larger issues in your personal life.
I've never once called myself a "king," claimed I was more knowledgeable than anyone else, or said I was the arbiter of truth. I do say that you should be able to articulate and debate your argument if you want it to stand up to scrutiny; and this is something you've failed at.
Outside of your inferiority complex though, just keep in mind, you've still not presented an argument. In fact, after all of this, all of it, you've continually reiterated the same nonsensical critique of the word "unimaginative," as if that's meaningful in anyway.
I find it hilarious that this is because you disliked the phrase "unimaginative." You don't disagree with the premise or even the conclusion of my argument; just how it's phrased, yet, here we are with you having some sort of breakdown.
