Court: Female Genital Mutilation Fine Because Men Not Protected

[Hoosier8]

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.

So does that excuse you from your false accusations against DG?

[IMPress Polly]

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".

The private message explicitly demanded a public response from me, opening with the line, quote: "You owe me a public apology for what you said." (Emphasis mine.) If that is not a direct invitation to a public response, I don't know what is.

[IMPress Polly]

So does that excuse you from your false accusations against DG?

I do not believe they are false. That is a sincerely-held opinion.

[Hoosier8]

I do not believe they are false. That is a sincerely-held opinion.

A demonstrably wrong opinion at that. I suppose you are someone that can never admit with they are wrong.

Not one person on this forum has defended female genital mutilation but tried to point out the constitutional issue at hand. You prefer to go on the attack based on your emotional response instead of your intellect.

[IMPress Polly]

A demonstrably wrong opinion at that. I suppose you are someone that can never admit with they are wrong.

What on Earth are you talking about? I admit to being wrong and correct myself all the time on the forums! When I accidentally misquote someone or an article or something...when I misunderstand someone...when I change my opinion in the light of additional information (yes, it most certainly does happen)...a lot.

That I don't always, or typically, feel that I am wrong about everything isn't symptomatic of arrogance, but of having opinions of my own.

Not one person on this forum has defended female genital mutilation but tried to point out the constitutional issue at hand. You prefer to go on the attack based on your emotional response instead of your intellect.

No one would explicitly defend female genital mutilation here, of course, but I mean no one would explicitly defend sexual assault or gun massacres either. That doesn't mean that people aren't implicitly doing so by the position they conveniently take consistently on these sorts of matters, in my view. People (including courts) can fabricate legal loopholes that justify anything if they really, really want to. When someone always always ALWAYS sides against the interests of women and girls in every position that they take on every issue, I am forced to conclude at some point that it might be because that individual has a low opinion of female human beings and not because they sincerely believe the highly technical arguments they are advancing.

[Hoosier8]

What on Earth are you talking about? I admit to being wrong and correct myself all the time on the forums! When I accidentally misquote someone or an article or something...when I misunderstand someone...when I change my opinion in the light of additional information (yes, it most certainly does happen)...a lot.

That I don't always, or typically, feel that I am wrong about everything isn't symptomatic of arrogance, but of having opinions of my own.



No one would explicitly defend female genital mutilation here, of course, but I mean no one would explicitly defend sexual assault or gun massacres either. That doesn't mean that people aren't implicitly doing so by the position they conveniently take consistently on these sorts of matters, in my view. People (including courts) can fabricate legal loopholes that justify anything if they really, really want to. When someone always always ALWAYS sides against the interests of women and girls in every position that they take on every issue, I am forced to conclude at some point that it might be because that individual has a low opinion of female human beings and not because they sincerely believe the highly technical arguments they are advancing.

The constitution is not a legal loophole. Again you bring your emotions instead of intellect to the table. It is still against other state laws and can be prosecuted as such. Trying to make it a federal case when there is no justification for it legally as a federal case is just a misapplication of federal law.

No one is implicitly advocating for female genital mutilation. That is just fantasy on your part.

[stjames1_53]

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.

man-hater is an apt description and it fits.........DG never attacked you, but merely pointed out that this was NOT an CONUS issue, but rather a states issue...you turned around and started leveling a host of accusations against him without addressing the legal status of your claim.
It was your intention of turning this into a troll thread with you leading the charge......Hell, Polly, you can't even stay on point with your own thread.
It's not a US Constitutional issue=claims of misogyny and abuse. That about right?

[Common]

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.

You have lost it, he clearly stated hes not for genital mutilation, he clearly stated that the judges decision was based on constitutional law. He said nothing or insinuated nothing that indicated he was for that procedure or hurting females.

You post these threads void of any facts then you get pissed off when someone disagrees with you, you have some serious male issues that keeps you from in any way being objective.

Its time to stop pampering you and tell you the truth.

You make DGs Pm public which is against the rules then you accuse him of threatening you

[IMPress Polly]

man-hater is an apt description and it fits.........DG never attacked you, but merely pointed out that this was NOT an CONUS issue, but rather a states issue...you turned around and started leveling a host of accusations against him without addressing the legal status of your claim.
It was your intention of turning this into a troll thread with you leading the charge......Hell, Polly, you can't even stay on point with your own thread.
It's not a US Constitutional issue=claims of misogyny and abuse. That about right?

It's fair enough to say that one unnecessary remark on my part has had the unfortunate effect of derailing this thread.

I also cannot really think of anything more to add this thread than the opinion I have already stated back in the OP because it stands.

All I'm doing right now is defending my right to have a low opinion of those who support this court decision because I feel that one can only do so cynically. People express low opinions of me all the time here. That's all I'm saying.

[Hoosier8]

It's fair enough to say that one unnecessary remark on my part has had the unfortunate effect of derailing this thread.

I also cannot really think of anything more to add this thread than the opinion I have already stated back in the OP because it stands.

I find it interesting that you post this in your OP yet none of the links you provide show that and the decision wasn't about religious freedom but criminal law, which the court found to be a State issue.

Sometimes the courts have to apply the constitutional test to federal legislation. That is what they do.

The justification wielded by the defense that this practice is justified because it is religious is a perfect example of a phenomenon we see becoming more commonplace in this country