ssshhh. Adults are talking.

My takeaway is that if your only argument against the change is "Thor was a male", and you cannot come up with a real, valid, logical argument against the change, then most likely, you're misogynist.

If you consider everything else about the mythical Thor that Marvel ignored, one really has to wonder: Why would somebody be so concerned about the character's sex? Is this the very first time an "established character" was changed significantly? Is sex the only significant difference between the mythical Thor & the new (or old) Marvel character? Obviously the myth behind Thor is very significant to the poster since that is the only issue raised... But the myth is not significant enough for the poster to even notice the insanely long list of other discrepancies. Just sex.

So as Geekoid pointed out, there is no difference between the complaints about Thor changing to a girl, and the complaints about any other role that has an established male precedent. Soldiers can't be girls. The President can't be a girl. Thor can't be a girl.

So far, it looks like misogyny.

Hey be nice. In this day & age, PC drones serve a purpose too.

Like the "this is not a food" warnings on the back of spermicidal jelly, they help stupid people to not hurt themselves and others.

Lol, thanks for the "Stand up for your beliefs" tip, Anonymous Coward.

But instead they auctioned bitcoins, as an object. Now they claim they're money. All in the same case.

And takes us back to the age-old disagreement of which is more important: the benefits, or stopping the wrongs it can bring.

Imho, liberty requires you "do no harm", first.

You said slander. Different issue.

That is not a problem. Like I said, that is what SCOTUS is for. And once scotus makes a ruling, if the people don't like it, they can amend the Constitution to make it more palatable. If the government ignores the constitution, what is the people's remedy? There is none. The Constitution is the only remedy for all disputes with the government.

This is also where you're getting distracted from the actual issue. The point is, the people's rights never conflict for they are not involved in this or any other dispute with the government. This isn't a question of "who's rights are more important". This is a question of "Can the Federal government ignore the 4th Amendment (or any other section of the Constitution) because national security (or any other non-constitution based reason) is more important?". The Constitution very specifically states what rights the Government has. If the Feds ignore the 4th, they're ignoring the entire document.

Where does the Constitution give the Government the power, the right, or the authority to guarantee or pursue life, liberty and happiness? It doesn't. That is the goal of the document (as implied by the declaration of independence), not the how. The how is in the list of powers given to the feds. ALL other powers reside with the States or the People. The wording you're using still suggests that you believe the Constitution is defining our rights. But as I've said, it is there to define the government's rights. So if the Constitution doesn't say the feds have the power, then they don't. It is an open & shut case as long as you abide by the Constitution. The 4th Amendment MUST be upheld.

Its not a contradiction, it is just short-sighted. If you argue for "balance" in ways that allow the government to violate the Constitution, you nave no argument to stop them from doing it.

I already covered this.

Now you're talking about two conflicting Constitutional questions. Totally different issue because the Constitution tells exactly how to resolve that dispute: the courts.

It is not about the world or how I or you think it should be or is. It is about acknowledging that we will always disagree about what color the world is; and agreeing to some guidelines that both of us think is acceptable enough to make the world as awesome as possible. It is about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say; why it says it; and what happens if you ignore it. That document is the end-all-be-all of our entire system of government. It is supposed to sit there for those moments when there is doubt as to whether or not something the government is doing is acceptable by the people. It is supposed to answer whatever burning question you have as to whether or not the government has the right to do something. That is truly what the Constitution is: a definition of the government's rights, not ours; we KNOW our rights for they are inherent and inalienable. We collectively decided that we will "give up" some, specific, rights in the interest of obtaining all the benefits a central government has to offer. To make it absolutely clear which rights we were willing to give up, and what the government could do with them, the Constitution was written. It can only do its job if we always agree on what it says. Not what it should say, but what it actually says.

When somebody decides "Section {whatever} doesn't apply in situation X because I don't think it should" (and that is what any argument boils down to if you're not citing some other part of the Constitution), they change the Constitution. The moment somebody justifies violating the Constitution with a reason other than some other part of the Constitution, that justification has just been implicitly included in the document. As those other reasons are not codified in the Constitution, they are included arbitrarily and open to any interpretation the powers de jour feel like. And as the entire decision to include or exclude is without rules or bounds, that means the government's powers are likewise without rules or bounds.

By saying there are exceptions to the rules as specified in the Constitution, you are saying there is no limit to the government's power for any right, at any time, can be justified as being too important; or too minor; or not intended by the framers; or not applicable to the times; to deny to the government. That is why we're here today, in this situation. Because at some point in the past, somebody decided that Section XYZ didn't apply. So now anybody and their mother is using that same logic to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. The debate going on today is "when can the government violate citizen's rights?", but that question was already answered over 250 years ago with a detailed list!

If the President or Congress feels there is a situation where the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, they can damn well put it to a vote and have the Constitution changed legitimately; for that process is detailed clearly and has been used successfully many times. There is never a need, justification, or right for the government to violate the Constitution.

Never.

The problem with that argument is that your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats. Your right to not be slandered is not. The Constitution grants Congress various powers. None of which include violating the Constitution in any way, shape or form.

So from a true purist's point of view, there is never a valid reason to violate certain rights, because nobody has that right.

That is up to me to decide, not the Federal Government, because nobody ever gave them the right to decide.

I think it is. But I know I'm in the tiny minority that believes if you want an exception to the Constitution, you're supposed to pass an amendment.

Why do you think it is sudden? Congress, with the courts approval, have been infringing on Constitutional rights since the Constitution was written. They make exceptions all the time: when you can speak (no "fire" in a crowded theater); when you can assemble (Sorry "Occupy", move along... move along...); which guns you're allowed to buy (all without infringing on your right to keep & bear!); and when a warrant is required to execute you (Drone, zooooom, boom!).

The ends justify the means in each of those cases, so it does now too, and will again in the future.

Not funny at all. That is what happens when you attempt to apply individual thought processes to ever shifting groups.

Some progressives complain about worshiping only profit.
Some progressives demand it.
Some progressives stupidly do both.

Conservatives complain about government interference.
Conservatives demand the government stop gays from getting married.
Conservatives complain about welfare.
Conservatives get bailouts for their businesses.

See how that "works"?

I agree with you elsewhere so don't shoot me, but that is a horrible analogy... unless you include your choice to shoot the other person in the kidney.

Far more people choose pregnancy, or the action that obviously results in pregnancy, than kidney failure.

Improving privacy and increased monitoring do not go well in the same sentence.

I don't know any Japanese held in US internment camps during WWII either.
That was still unethical, deserves outrage, should never be repeated, and should be known.