Federal judge dismisses charges in female genital mutilation case in Detroit

[TU Curmudgeon]

iLOL I do not care how many issues you wish to complain about in your OP. I addressed what is the most relevant.

No, you addressed the one of the two issues that you say is the most relevant and absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there is any other issue.

The rest of your post confirms my impression that you wouldn't have any problem if the US passed a law mandating the extermination of __[fill in the blank]__ and then proceeded to implement that law and that you wouldn't have any problem with that because "That's what the law is.".

Mind you, I do suspect that you might change your stance if YOU were a member of the __[fill in the blank]__.

 

[Excon]

No, you addressed the one of the two issues that you say is the most relevant and absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there is any other issue.

Wrong as usual. I have addressed what you think is another issue; There is none. Not following the law would be unethical and immoral.
And the specif law being enforced has no immorality component like you want to absurdly argue.

Your bs has been addressed. That you do not understand is the problem here.

The rest of your post confirms my impression that you wouldn't have any problem if the US passed a law mandating the extermination of __[fill in the blank]__ and then proceeded to implement that law and that you wouldn't have any problem with that because "That's what the law is.".

Mind you, I do suspect that you might change your stance if YOU were a member of the __[fill in the blank]__.

Your comment is pure unadulterated delusional bs.
The fact that you try to make this personal instead of the argument tells everyone you have no valid argument to make in reply.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Wrong as usual. I have addressed what you think is another issue; There is none. Not following the law would be unethical and immoral.
And the specif law being enforced has no immorality component like you want to absurdly argue.

Your bs has been addressed. That you do not understand is the problem here.



Your comment is pure unadulterated delusional bs.
The fact that you try to make this personal instead of the argument tells everyone you have no valid argument to make in reply.

Thank you for maintaining your position of "What I don't want to talk about is irrelevant and morality has no place in society ONLY "The Law" is important.".

 

[Excon]

Thank you for maintaining your position of "What I don't want to talk about is irrelevant and morality has no place in society ONLY "The Law" is important.".

Your take on things is absurdly delusional.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Your take on things is absurdly delusional.

I'm sure that that is what you believe.

 

[Excon]

I'm sure that that is what you believe.

Of coarse it is.
When you are claiming there is a morality component that does not exist in realty, that claim is delusional.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of coarse it is.
When you are claiming there is a morality component that does not exist in realty, that claim is delusional.

I'm sure that that is what you believe.

 

[Excon]

I'm sure that that is what you believe.

Of coarse it is.
When you are claiming there is a morality component that does not exist in realty, your claim is delusional.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of coarse it is.
When you are claiming there is a morality component that does not exist in realty, your claim is delusional.

I'm sure that that is what you believe.

 

[Excon]

I'm sure that that is what you believe.

As all can see, you are just deflecting from being wrong.

The decision had not a damn thing to do with the morality of the act, but whether a specific law was constitutional. It wasn't.
If there is any morality in regards to the actual subject, it is in upholding the unconstitutionality of the law. But clearly you chose not to understand that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

As all can see, you are just deflecting from being wrong.

The decision had not a damn thing to do with the morality of the act, but whether a specific law was constitutional. It wasn't.
If there is any morality in regards to the actual subject, it is in upholding the unconstitutionality of the law. But clearly you chose not to understand that.

Your claim is two fold:

1. that the decision was legally correct - which is what I said in the first place; and
2. that there is no such thing as morality.

The only people who honestly believe that there is no such thing as morality are REALLY dangerous because they think that they have the right to do anything that they feel like doing.

Those people are known as "sociopaths".

So, do you REALLY believe that there is no such thing as morality or are you simply wasting bandwidth being silly?

 

[Excon]

Your claim is two fold:

1. that the decision was legally correct - which is what I said in the first place; and
2. that there is no such thing as morality.

The only people who honestly believe that there is no such thing as morality are REALLY dangerous because they think that they have the right to do anything that they feel like doing.

Those people are known as "sociopaths".

So, do you REALLY believe that there is no such thing as morality or are you simply wasting bandwidth being silly?

You have repeatedly shown you have no clue what is being said even though it has been laid out for you.

You again have just demonstrated that purposeful lack of understanding and are wasting time by deliberately being untruthful.
To #1. At no time have I intimated that you did not take that position.
What was that I previously said when you made **** up about that very thing?
Oh yeah, I know.

PS - Why do you keep on insisting that I'm saying that the decision was NOT "legally correct"?

At no point have I intimated that you have taken such a position.
That you do not understand that the decision being "legally correct" is all that matters here (in reference to the law), is the only problem.

I already made clear to you; "In other words; I don't give a **** about your personal opinion. The decision is legally correct. That is what matters."
But because you can not argue against that or support the absurdity of your position you make leaps in logic to make things up to believe about the person you are arguing with in an attempt to demean. You are engaged in bs and your arguments all fail.

To #2. Wrong as usual. What I argued in regards to your morality nonsense was the following which you clearly fail to grasp.

[SUP]1.[/SUP] Your morality argument being irrelevant to the decision being legally correct. (see post #43)
[SUP]2.[/SUP] That "the morality of the act has not a damn thing to do with the ruling".(see post #50)
[SUP]3.[/SUP] That "upholding the law is not morally repugnant", and " that "morally repugnant would be not following the law and falsely/wrongly convicting someone. (see post #50)​

So stop making things up.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You have repeatedly shown you have no clue what is being said even though it has been laid out for you.

You again have just demonstrated that purposeful lack of understanding and are wasting time by deliberately being untruthful.
To #1. At no time have I intimated that you did not take that position.
What was that I previously said when you made **** up about that very thing?
Oh yeah, I know.

​

I already made clear to you; "In other words; I don't give a **** about your personal opinion. The decision is legally correct. That is what matters."
But because you can not argue against that or support the absurdity of your position you make leaps in logic to make things up to believe about the person you are arguing with in an attempt to demean. You are engaged in bs and your arguments all fail.

To #2. Wrong as usual. What I argued in regards to your morality nonsense was the following which you clearly fail to grasp.

[SUP]1.[/SUP] Your morality argument being irrelevant to the decision being legally correct. (see post #43)
[SUP]2.[/SUP] That "the morality of the act has not a damn thing to do with the ruling".(see post #50)
[SUP]3.[/SUP] That "upholding the law is not morally repugnant", and " that "morally repugnant would be not following the law and falsely/wrongly convicting someone. (see post #50)​

So stop making things up.

OK have it your way - there IS such a thing as "morality" but that "morality" is totally irrelevant to the real world.

Have a good Christmas.

 

[Excon]

OK have it your way - there IS such a thing as "morality" but that "morality" is totally irrelevant to the real world.

Did you really not understand what you were already told?


Do you really not understand that the morality of the act being complained about has not a damn thing to do with with the ruling?
Really? You do not understand that? That is sad.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Did you really not understand what you were already told?


Do you really not understand that the morality of the act being complained about has not a damn thing to do with with the ruling?
Really? You do not understand that? That is sad.

Considering that that is what I said all along, thank you for informing me of it.

However, if you find that it turns your crank to believe that you have convinced me of what I said in the first place - please feel free to do so.

 

[Excon]

Considering that that is what I said all along, thank you for informing me of it.

However, if you find that it turns your crank to believe that you have convinced me of what I said in the first place - please feel free to do so.

Another dishonest reply, figures.

You were the one complaining that the decision was morally repugnant when it clearly isn't.
"The decision had not a damn thing to do with the morality of the act, but whether a specific law was constitutional. It wasn't. "
To be morally repugnant the decision would have had to ignore the unconstitutionality of it. Thankfully it didn't.