Court: Female Genital Mutilation Fine Because Men Not Protected

[DGUtley]

Nope, you're wrong. Here is the relevant excerpt:



This was the strongest, clearest, most obvious, pertinent, and applicable legal basis for this case, in my view, and accordingly the one I would be the most interested in seeing upheld.

No. You are mistaken. A treaty isn't the Constitution of the United States. The Treaty was held not relevant and cannot invoke jurisdiction in federal courts. This was a jurisdiction issue. Men and women have a constitutional right to equal protection in this country. Such rights are afforded for protection from the government. This was not governmental action, so the equal protection clause is inapplicable. This treaty thingy had absolutely no legal basis for this case. As laudable as their intentions (and yours) you and they are mistaken. The judge rightly decided this case.

[IMPress Polly]

No. You are mistaken. A treaty isn't the Constitution of the United States. The Treaty was held not relevant and cannot invoke jurisdiction in federal courts. This was a jurisdiction issue. Men and women have a constitutional right to equal protection in this country. Such rights are afforded for protection from the government. This was not governmental action, so the equal protection clause is inapplicable. This treaty thingy had absolutely no legal basis for this case. As laudable as their intentions (and yours) you and they are mistaken. The judge rightly decided this case.

That was neither the argument of the defense nor the conclusion of the court. In fact, the sweeping implication of your bolded claim suggests that perhaps those old "Whites Only" signs that used adorn various public restrooms and sections of your local for-profit restaurant should never have been ordered removed.

Frankly, I feel that you, and most members of this message board, are really just supportive of this ruling because it clearly discriminates against females and because I take the opposite position, to which you feel obliged to be pointlessly contrarian.

[Common]

That was neither the argument of the defense nor the conclusion of the court. In fact, the sweeping implication of your bolded claim suggests that perhaps those old "Whites Only" signs that used adorn various public restrooms and sections of your local for-profit restaurant should never have been ordered removed.

Frankly, I feel that you, and most members of this message board, are really just supportive of this ruling because it clearly discriminates against females and because I take the opposite position, to which you feel obliged to be pointlessly contrarian.

Dear Lord Polly of all the people to accuse that of you had to choose DGUtely ? he is absolutely NOT that type of person, he strictly follows the law whether he likes it or not or you like it or not.

I dont know of a single man thats for that goddamn disgusting genital mutilation. I know theres males FOR the judges decision because of constitutionality. I was NOT for that judgement and im still not, but to accuse DG of what you did, wow

[DGUtley]

That was neither the argument of the defense nor the conclusion of the court. In fact, the sweeping implication of your bolded claim suggests that perhaps those old "Whites Only" signs that used adorn various public restrooms and sections of your local for-profit restaurant should never have been ordered removed. Frankly, I feel that you, and most members of this message board, are really just supportive of this ruling because it clearly discriminates against females and because I take the opposite position, to which you feel obliged to be pointlessly contrarian.

No. You are wrong, again. That clearly was the basis of the decision.

There you go, making it personal. I am a constitutionalist. The equal protection clause only applies to governmental action -- which you should've known since high school. One citizen has no obligation under the constitution to treat people equally. It is that simple and you should've known this since high school. Thanks for playing the "race card" though. That is ridiculous. Totally ridiculous and merely demonstrates your bias and total lack of basic understanding of the constitution and the concepts of federal jurisdiction and defined powers. I support this ruling only because of its constitutional basis.

To suggest that I support discrimination or genital mutilation against females is one of the most disgusting and vile things you can say to me. I have two grown daughters, professional, independent strong-willed and well-educated women -- for whom, by the way, because I hate women so much rather than driver Mercedes or BMW's or travel all over the world, I paid 100% of every nickel of their education 7-years each, room, board, books, tuition, car, phone etc. Every nickel @IMPress Polly, now that's some Women-hating-Dave don't you think? I have women partners, women associates, women friends, have given a ton of money to women judicial candidates, donated money to women-based charities, walked for women's rights and championed women's equality. I am even married to a strong, independent, career-driven (now retired) woman.

Read the constitution before you disparage me.

[Hoosier8]

That was neither the argument of the defense nor the conclusion of the court. In fact, the sweeping implication of your bolded claim suggests that perhaps those old "Whites Only" signs that used adorn various public restrooms and sections of your local for-profit restaurant should never have been ordered removed.

Frankly, I feel that you, and most members of this message board, are really just supportive of this ruling because it clearly discriminates against females and because I take the opposite position, to which you feel obliged to be pointlessly contrarian.

As the court stipulated, other state laws apply and this is misapplied as a federal case. Get over your outrage and look at the facts.

[IMPress Polly]

In a rather threatening private message (for a mod to deliver, I mean) entitled "You owe me", DGUtley has demanded that I apologize in public for my opinion of his character, so I will simply repeat my reply here in public:

Is that a threat? Like you might use your authority as a moderator to ban me or something if I don't?

You are objectively defending female genital mutilation. I don't feel that I owe you an apology for finding that predictable of you and offensive on its face.

To elaborate beyond that private reply, people insult me here all the time for every reason one can possibly think of. I have been called an anti-Semite, I am labeled a misandrist on nearly every thread to which I contribute, I have been attacked for my outward appearance, attacked for being a teacher, attacked for being a lesbian (by Common, another mod, for example), and would assess that the three descriptors most commonly associated with me on this message board are probably "idiot", "stupid", and "crazy". People have made fun of my struggles with mental illness and my past willingness to try and end my own life and claimed that as much couldn't have been serious because I was female or else that it was somehow a form of millennial entitlement. I have been told by more than one forum member that I should just "get over" rape. And even that is not a comprehensive list. According to DGUtley's logic thus I conclude that pretty much this entire message board collectively owes me an apology for the general way in which I am so often treated. I don't go around demanding that people apologize, and such a demand on my part would not carry the weight of a position of authority even if I did. Neither have I ever seen any moderator demand that anyone apologize to me ever, for anything, or generally even penalize such personal attacks in any way.

DGUtley's character and credibility around the issue of women's rights is best surmised, in my view, by who he voted for, by his support for a certain Supreme Court nominee despite...and so on and so on. No, I am not just getting over that and moving on. That DOES leave me with an opinion of how someone views women, believe it or not. I feel that I should be allowed that opinion, being as other people are allowed to say literally whatever they want about me and do so all the time. I do believe that some of our conservative members here, and yes increasingly the courts as well, CHOOSE to interpret the Constitution in any way that advances their political agenda and harms people who belong to groups that they have a lower opinion of and view as less worthy of protection under the law.

[Hoosier8]

In a rather threatening private message (for a mod to deliver, I mean) entitled "You owe me", DGUtley has demanded that I apologize in public for my opinion of his character, so I will simply repeat my reply here in public:

Is that a threat? Like you might use your authority as a moderator to ban me or something if I don't?

You are objectively defending female genital mutilation. I don't feel that I owe you an apology for finding that predictable of you and offensive on its face.

To elaborate beyond that private reply, people insult me here all the time for every reason one can possibly think of. I have been called an anti-Semite, I am labeled a misandrist on nearly every thread to which I contribute, I have been attacked for my outward appearance, attacked for being a teacher, attacked for being a lesbian (by Common, another mod, for example), and would assess that the three descriptors most commonly associated with me on this message board are probably "idiot", "stupid", and "crazy". People have made fun of my struggles with mental illness and my past willingness to try and end my own life and claimed that as much couldn't have been serious because I was female or else that it was somehow a form of millennial entitlement. I have been told by more than one forum member that I should just "get over" rape. According to DGUtley's logic thus I conclude that pretty much this entire message board collectively owes me an apology for the general way in which I am so often treated. I don't go around demanding that people apologize, and such a demand on my part would not carry the weight of a position of authority even if I did. Neither have I ever seen any moderator demand that anyone apologize to me ever, for anything, or generally even penalize such personal attacks in any way.

DGUtley's character and credibility around the issue of women's rights is best surmised, in my view, by who he voted for, by his support for a certain Supreme Court nominee despite...and so on and so on. No, I am not just getting over that and moving on. That DOES leave me with an opinion of how someone views women, believe it or not. I feel that I should be allowed that opinion, being as other people are allowed to say literally whatever they want about me and do so all the time. I do believe that some of our conservative members here, and yes increasingly the courts, CHOOSE to interpret the Constitution in any way that advances their political agenda and harms people who belong to groups that they have a lower opinion of.

The fact that you are wrong doesn't impress you? DG never defended female genital mutilation. That is a false accusation on your part. Using the race card to back up your error did you no favor.

Again, get over your outrage and look at the facts. This is misapplied as a federal issue and other state laws apply, as the court stipulated. This is purely a constitutional issue that you wish to make into something else and disparaging other people that do not agree with your emotionally based error is wrong.

[stjames1_53]

In a rather threatening private message (for a mod to deliver, I mean) entitled "You owe me", DGUtley has demanded that I apologize in public for my opinion of his character, so I will simply repeat my reply here in public:

Is that a threat? Like you might use your authority as a moderator to ban me or something if I don't?

You are objectively defending female genital mutilation. I don't feel that I owe you an apology for finding that predictable of you and offensive on its face.

To elaborate beyond that private reply, people insult me here all the time for every reason one can possibly think of. I have been called an anti-Semite, I am labeled a misandrist on nearly every thread to which I contribute, I have been attacked for my outward appearance, attacked for being a teacher, attacked for being a lesbian (by Common, another mod, for example), and would assess that the three descriptors most commonly associated with me on this message board are probably "idiot", "stupid", and "crazy". People have made fun of my struggles with mental illness and my past willingness to try and end my own life and claimed that as much couldn't have been serious because I was female or else that it was somehow a form of millennial entitlement. I have been told by more than one forum member that I should just "get over" rape. According to DGUtley's logic thus I conclude that pretty much this entire message board collectively owes me an apology for the general way in which I am so often treated. I don't go around demanding that people apologize, and such a demand on my part would not carry the weight of a position of authority even if I did. Neither have I ever seen any moderator demand that anyone apologize to me ever, for anything, or generally even penalize such personal attacks in any way.

DGUtley's character and credibility around the issue of women's rights is best surmised, in my view, by who he voted for, by his support for a certain Supreme Court nominee despite...and so on and so on. No, I am not just getting over that and moving on. That DOES leave me with an opinion of how someone views women, believe it or not. I feel that I should be allowed that opinion, being as other people are allowed to say literally whatever they want about me and do so all the time. I do believe that some of our conservative members here, and yes increasingly the courts, CHOOSE to interpret the Constitution in any way that advances their political agenda and harms people who belong to groups that they have a lower opinion of.

Your attack on DG was completely unwarranted...........and it didn't take you all that long to make this a troll post and make it all about you, as usual

[nathanbforrest45]

Warning Warning Warning

Another person who does not know the meaning of the phrase "private message" has been identified. For your own safety do not send private messages to anyone who has demonstrated an inability to adhere to the concept of "private message".

[IMPress Polly]

Your attack on DG was completely unwarranted...........and it didn't take you all that long to make this a troll post and make it all about you, as usual

I have but proposed that there exists a double-standard in what people expect of me as compared to themselves and others who share their type of ideology. You, for example, have branded me a "man-hater" in countless threads to date (I would say the majority of ones that we have both participated on since the summer) without basis that I can and never apologized.