Quote:Ugh. The old lady. This is the sticking point of brilliance you wanted me to answer to? As you would have guessed.. I am not going to say a person can not "identify" as blind. This argument truly makes no sense. So a person who can really see has a psychological condition which tells them that the rods and cones in their eyes are not actually seeing the things their brain registers? I have never heard of such a thing. Would I pour Drano in their eyes to fulfill this impossible delusion? Probably not. Maybe I would take some action to make them flinch to prove that I know that they are not truly blind. Again, this is not something that I have ever heard of occurring in the real world unlike the millions of examples of people who identify as transgender or homosexual which I can reference. Based on your question, should I assume you think they are making up their sexual orientation or gender identification? Or is your argument that it is homosexuality and transgender is a mental sickness which is treatable? If your answer to either of these is yes, you would be wrong.


And it is also pretty scary that we can do this dance for weeks where post by post I prove that the intentions of the 14th Amendment alone were not adequate enough to provide the equal protection of minority classes, yet you keep going back to that dry well to claim it does.

 

No sir you didn't.  You regurgitated the same talking points.  I took the time to answer your posts in detail citing historical context and the legislative and judicial record.  All i got back was "well if it took 100 years" leaving out the role of government, the limitations of government, and the legal history of those 100 years.  

 

I asked for evidence to justify your anecdote about your friend.  In a discussion about legal protections details and court findings matter, specifically in an action of the state (eviction).   You didn't provide that.  I asked for court cases and citations to back up the idea that at current the mechanisms to enforce the 14th amendment are inadequate.  You cite the very court case i pointed out that demonstrates the judiciary has and has had (since the passing of the 14th amendment) the ability to void or amend any legal arrangement (with the exception of some collective bargaining agreements) or institution that doesn't comply with the equal protection clause or that of substantive due process.  

 

I find the fact that you can be so brazen yet demonstrate no in depth ability to explain or defend your position to be scary.  

 

As for the poor blind woman,  huh.  I am suprised that you are not touting the plight of the trans-abled community.  They are just disabled people trapped in healthy bodies.  

---