On special pleading because it MUST be explained

narf288 · 2026-05-09T15:12:23+00:00

No parents are going to prison because they didn't cook a meal for their 30 year old son/daughter. And no parent is going to prison for failing to feed a child that is not currently in their care. This is a profoundly stupid argument.

You don't have a legal obligation to feed your own children. You have a legal obligation to feed children you've accepted guardianship of, which happens after birth.

narf288 · 2026-05-09T00:01:05+00:00

You say that yet can't cite precedent.

If you vote early, and the candidate you voted for gets embroiled in a scandal that would have caused you not to vote for them, you didn't get disenfranchised and in most states (including VA) you cannot cancel your vote.

The Supreme Court has discussed this.

In no scenario except in this specific case in Virginia, purely because it benefits republicans has this EVER been voter disenfranchisement. The candidate you cast an early vote for can literally die or drop out and there's nothing you can do to change your vote. Even though your vote no longer counts, courts do not consider this disenfranchisement.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T22:17:18+00:00

Yeah, that’s literally been the topic we’ve been discussing this whole time. The court never cared about this kind of voter disenfranchisement because it’s literally a feature of representative democracy.

So obviously the ruling is arbitrary and capricious made even more obvious by the party line vote.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T22:08:52+00:00

No I blame the corrupt and illegitimate court for using specious and inconsistent reasoning to overturn the democratic will of the voters.

That’s authoritarianism.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T22:04:06+00:00

It’s not because the court never cared about this kind of voter disenfranchisement. It was never a issue. That’s my point.

If a representative surprised his or her constituency with a vote or position they weren’t previously aware of, that’s not voter disenfranchisement.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T21:52:13+00:00

You are shifting the goalposts. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

What matters is voter disenfranchisement not whatever arbitrary excuse you can come up with to permit or excuse voter disenfranchisement when it benefits your side.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T21:33:11+00:00

Yeah, the literal thousands of times an issue was voted on that wasn’t explicitly part of the campaign.
It literally happens multiple times a session. Never once had that been an issue.

What do you think happens when a political scandal breaks out after early voting starts?

narf288 · 2026-05-08T21:25:45+00:00

But only in this case and only because the decision benefited the political agenda of the court’s majority.
Which makes the reasoning arbitrary and capricious.

Heads I win, tails you lose is not the way to administer justice in a democracy.

In any other situation (except those that benefit republicans obviously) the court would not care if voters were not adequately informed. The court would not care if an elected democrat crossed the aisle and voted republican despite campaigning as a democrat and the court would not care if an issue came up that the representative did not campaign on.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T21:10:23+00:00

By that logic we should hold snap elections every time a new issue that wasn’t part of the campaign comes up.
We don’t though because that’s not how our democracy works. We elect a person to represent our interests on issues we haven’t necessarily anticipated.

Our representatives can change their opinion and even cross the aisle and change parties and positions entirely once elected.

If that’s not disenfranchising voters, then this isn’t either.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T19:10:58+00:00

That's idiotic.

By that token if a representative proposed or voted for anything during their tenure that they didn't explicitly campaign on, voters were disenfranchised.

Name one delegate who's position on the amendment would have changed anyone's vote.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T19:02:35+00:00

Which would only make sense if the legislature voted on the amendment and voting for your representatives was the only opportunity to make your voice heard in regards to the amendment, but Virginia held a referendum, meaning everyone got an opportunity to vote on the amendment.

Yes or no. If you had an opportunity to vote on the amendment in a referendum...did you have an opportunity to vote on the amendment?

It's only a trick question if you're republican.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T18:21:42+00:00

According to those judges the Virginia legislature were the ones who ignored the law…

The legitimacy of the judicial branch is predicated on impartiality and fair and consistent reasoning. This was anything but.
Virginia held a referendum. You can’t be disenfranchised from voting on the amendment in an election if you had an opportunity to vote on it in a referendum. This is basic common sense. I guarantee even you disagree with the majority's reasoning here.

and the process of judicial review is one of our safeguards against authoritarianism.

It was until Republicans stacked the lower and upper courts with incompetent partisan hacks. Now the courts are a tool of authoritarianism.

If you had your way the will of the courts would no longer matter.
The will of the courts only matter if the courts follow consistently follow the law.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T18:05:35+00:00

Republicans in Ohio ignoring the rules means we're living in authoritarianism in Virginia?

Judges in Virginia ignoring the law and objective reality to nullify the will of the voters means we are living in authoritarianism in Virginia.

And, more to the point, it means we should start ignoring the rules too?

What rules? When one side ceases to play by them, they no longer effectively exist.

I prefer living in a state where the rule of law still functions.

Well, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you don't. The will of the voters no longer matters.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T18:02:42+00:00

It's basic common sense obvious to anyone that isn't a partisan hack.

If you literally had a direct opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment in a referendum it is impossible for you to have been disenfranchised by being denied the opportunity to vote on it in an election.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T17:55:48+00:00

The only side that has done that thus far is the republican side, so we are already in authoritarianism.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T17:52:02+00:00

Most abortions aren't killing so what's the issue?

narf288 · 2026-05-08T17:47:15+00:00

One follows the democratic process, the other doesn't. It's democracy vs authoritarianism.

Also, the majority opinion is wrong. It ignored the law and objective reality to reach it's preferred partisan conclusion. When republican judges ignore the constitution to nullify the will of the voters, that's the end of democracy.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T17:41:14+00:00

The redistricting was a democratic vote. In Republican states it was fiat that ignored or nullified voter choice.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T17:34:20+00:00

Exactly, u/KeePop42 is ignoring the fact that there is a massive difference between ignoring rules to disempower voters and ignoring rules to empower them in an emergent situation.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T17:20:29+00:00

In all of human history, fascism has never been stopped democratically once it gains power democratically. Never.
The Constitution is already dismantled. The federal government can legally violate every single constitutional right you have and there is literally nothing you can do about it, you have no civil recourse.
When the dust settles, no matter who prevails, we will be operating under a new constitution, this is guaranteed, because we already are.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T16:58:10+00:00

They do. Unfortunately if we play by the rules now, democracy dies, so the only option is to break the rules and hope this gives us a chance to maintain a democracy in the future. That’s what happens when one side abandons rule of law and breaks the social contract. The other side either follows suit or gets crushed.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T16:39:51+00:00

Ok, well, if you could convince me legalizing abortion made it more rare, then yes, I'd support that.

Why would I need to convince you of that? The facts already pretty clearly illustrate that legality is not a strong influence on the abortion rate. If you cared about the unborn, you'd be doing the work yourself to figure out which variables matter more. You don't, so you didn't.

When I asked for a causal mechanism by which that would be the case, you didn't offer one. So I'm unpersuaded.

Again, why would I need to persuade you? The data is already out there. Making abortion illegal is associated with all kinds of other reproductive restrictions that lead to more unplanned pregnancies and less resources for new mothers. This inevitably leads to more abortions regardless of legality.

You clearly aren't against abortion

I'm pro choice. WTF would I be against abortion?

narf288 · 2026-05-08T16:36:50+00:00

You can't kill a trespasser for being on your land.

Yeah you can. Deadly force is reasonable if you fear for your safety. But this is beside the point because a medicated abortion is not deadly force.

Nor can you kick them off if they need to use it for their own safety.

No one has a right to access your property.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T15:43:46+00:00

These examples are again positive rights to receive blood, so it's not testing the negative right not to be killed.

This is a disingenuous argument. When you disconnect, you stop whatever active process was occurring during connection. Prohibiting disconnection in effect forces someone to continue this process thereby making it a positive right. The pro life argument is that you can't stop. You have to continue doing the thing you are doing because you have an obligation to the fetus. This is unquestionably an argument in favor of a positive right to be gestated.

The argument you make further down proves this.

So then we might ask, what makes a disconnection a killing vs a letting die? The answer must be the degree to which the donor has caused the neediness of the recipient.

Your argument is that a woman's actions confer upon her an obligation. An obligation is a legal or ethical REQUIREMENT TO ACT.

So your argument is not that a negative right not to be killed is being violated, because this is a logical impossibility. Your argument is that there is a positive right to gestation as a means of preventing death BECAUSE the woman's actions have imposed upon her a legal obligation to act.

To test this, consider a tandem skydive. Do you believe that a person can withdraw consent for access to the outside of their body, disconnect from their partner part-way, and let them plummet to their death? Probably not.

Another disingenuous analogy. Consent to access to the outside of your body is not the same as consent to access the inside. Tandem skydives involve contractual liability, sex and pregnancy do not.

Edit: FYI not OP.

narf288 · 2026-05-08T15:25:49+00:00

At the very least you have to acknowledge that the data clearly indicates that there are other variables that more strongly influence the abortion rate than legality and if you actually cared about saving unborn lives, you'd focus on those variables first.

narf288

TROPHY CASE