Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Ever Wonder If Slashdot Interlocutors Are Sociopaths? 87
We'll just accept that you prefer for transgender kids to go ahead and take their own lives, rather than actually seek any form of treatment aside from someone they don't know yelling at them about what's in the bible. Got it, we can move on from that matter now. It's understood that you are indeed a fascist on that matter, even if you won't accept that term.
My preferences, in this context are as externally forced as genders on tender young victims, as far as I can tell. I have "yelled at" others of any age concerning Biblical content precisely zero (0) times. I should probably mention having taught Suday School for children in grades 3-6 for the last decade or better. They appear to be thriving.
You have no moral high ground here, when you are endorsing child rape and refusing child medical treatment.
I guess that inchoherent invective carpet bombing is a rhetorical tactic. Possibly implying surrender, here. d_r is already on my prayer list.
Show me a repeatable experiment where you move from the Periodic Table of Elements to Biochemistry, and I will be impressed.
That statement is so vague
Nope. Not at all vague.
What you asked for makes no sense whatsoever.
When all other arguments 'splode, pretend the perfectly simple, coherent statement (e.g. you were you when your genetic material was complete and initialized, at conception), "makes no sense whatsoever".
There is a beatiful passage in Job40 that silences all mortal tongues:
6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
10 Deck thyself now [with] majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one [that is] proud, and abase him.
12 Look on every one [that is] proud, [and] bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
13 Hide them in the dust together; [and] bind their faces in secret.
14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
When we can fully re-create reality from scratch, then we are equipped to compare notes with the Creator.
Short of that, we are well-advised to keep it humble.
Which brings us to Covid:
You own it. "Your Team" asserts those powers; makes those calls; eats the subsequent crap sandwich
So you had no better plan before Covid, and you have no better plan now.
The Pottery Barn Rule applies: "You broke it; you bought it." The need to point the finger externally is understood; "Your Team" is absolutely unaccountable for anything at any time under any circumstances. May the Lord have mercy on you.
absolutely unaccountable for anything at any time (Score:1)
Interesting... That's exactly what your Trump claims to be. Double standards galore
The immorality of trans momements are obvious (Score:1)
Being "born in the wrong body" is not a problem, it's the reaction to that situation that can be a problem. We wring our hands in fear and call it a genocide that people will kill themselves unless they get surgery to match their body with their ideas. Others can handle the dichotomy just fine. We have a large and diverse population of people at risk of suicide, trans people are hardly alone in this matter despite them acting like they are. With the money spent on surgery, like half a million dollars, h
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The solution to suicide is companionship, not affirming the person in the mental disease causing the depression to begin with.
Constant companionship and showing that your interests, though not bounded by what somebody thinks gender is, are still good.
It is loneliness that brings on gender dysphoria. Get your kid a cisgendered friend who will help them see the good things about being the biological sex that they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The "faithful" are amongst the most treacherous people on the planet... Burn the witch! is their most repeated motto.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You see the truth as "troll".. meh...
Re: (Score:2)
Burn the witch! is their most repeated motto.
...
You see the truth as "troll".. meh...
Please.
Re: (Score:1)
"Burn the witch! is their most repeated motto." Where's the "troll" in that? It's the plain truth. Your religions act in direct contradiction to the teachings they profess
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, so if you don't "repent", it's not a "sin"? Your entire argument is based on Roman propaganda. The "religious" are the biggest sinners, or not, because they write the doctrine and make the rules that don't apply to them. When the president does it, it's not illegal, by default
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so if you don't "repent", it's not a "sin"?
Jack around and find out.
The "religious" are the biggest sinners
Quite true, emphasis mine:
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. (1Tim1:15 [blueletterbible.org])
The challenge with the Word is that, the more one prayerfully understands it, the deeper the conviction.
Your "experiment" is vague. Please define better (Score:2)
Show me a repeatable experiment where you move from the Periodic Table of Elements to Biochemistry, and I will be impressed.
You're asking for a connection between a document and a discipline. I need more information to understand what you would accept to connect them. I offered a very specific question and some specific possible connections for you [slashdot.org] and you did not respond to them at all. Did you even have a coherent thought behind your request or did you just vomit it out through your keyboard in the hopes that it would bury the discussion in vagueness?
The periodic table is chemistry.
Re: (Score:1)
You can't seem to describe any situation where you would accept a connection between the two, which makes it impossible to point you towards a "repeatable experiment where you move from the periodic table of elements to biochemistry". Your request as written makes as much sense as asking an accountant to show how to connect Shakespeare's Hamlet to the current federal tax code. I've asked you to expand on what you meant by it, and you have declined repeatedly to do so.
Do it. Show how we go from the ingredients to the product. The results will explain themselves. This is akin to saying: "If we have a set of instructions defining a computer architecture, show a programming language built atop that architecture."
We can go ahead and let the question go, if you like.
I anticipate that you're going to huff, puff, quibble, distract, and use everything beside the simple truth--we're nowhere near understanding precisely how the Creator kick-started everything--to avoid looking
Re: (Score:2)
Show how we go from the ingredients to the product.
That is the first time you have stated that as the purpose of the "experiment" you have been so enthusiastically demanding me to create de novo. Whether you just rolled this out now after I showed you how chemistry intrinsically relates to biochemistry - and how elemental composition is hence elemental to the science - or this was your original goal is anything but clear.
how the Creator kick-started everything
No. There is no Creator. After all, where would the creator have come from? It would be the ultimate hand-wringing statement to clai
Re: (Score:2)
how the Creator kick-started everything
No. There is no Creator. After all, where would the creator have come from?
So, something came from nothing, but...
In reality there have been an abundance of experiments done that show how the simpler compounds that would have been present on early, cooling planet earth would have reacted in the early atmosphere to form the building blocks of life.
Great. These "simpler compounds" that emerged from nothing but "would have reacted to form building blocks of life". Trot out the repeatable experiment.
I fear that I lack your depth of faith in these conjectures. Let me hasten to agree that Genesis is equally incomprehensible, but is mercifully brief in comparison.
My "ACKSHUAL" opinion is that Genesis is about as much as the mortal mind is capable of grasping fully, and really all we need to manage the work-week a
Re: (Score:1)
Trot out the repeatable experiment.
To coin your phrase, "You're soaking in it." You are the "experiment". Survival, reproduction and domination are the goals. Nothing came from "nothing". There was always "something". You have been conditioned to call it "god", which the preacher has you trying to anthropomorphize into an authoritarian patriarch
Re: (Score:2)
Trot out the repeatable experiment.
To coin your phrase, "You're soaking in it." You are the "experiment".
How do you KNOW that I am the experiment? My favorite joy with you is the way you oscillate between being wise in one moment, simple in the next.
Re: (Score:1)
I am always simple. So is wisdom. Needless complexity is the devil's work
Re: (Score:2)
Needless complexity is the devil's work
So is ignoring the obvious existential truth that Dahmer was a monster.
Re: (Score:1)
I do not understand your obsession with Dahmer. He is totally and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Why do you insist on this distraction? (as if it isn't obvious)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dahmer bites down on hard on your silliness: you appear to argue a totally insular individuality, which abdicates any capacity to call a monster a monster.
What utter nonsense. He is completely irrelevant to anything I said. It only reflects desperation on your part to avoid the subject of motivation without religion
Re: (Score:2)
[Dahmer] is completely irrelevant to anything I said.
Dahmer is completely fungible with everything you have said, because you abdicate any context in which to conclude otherwise. No means of differentiation. Monster==saint.
Re: (Score:1)
because you abdicate any context in which to conclude otherwise. No means of differentiation. Monster==saint.
Now you're just blathering.. Read the written words
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I use a compass that actually works, not one that points to the pope
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"printed Gospel" is your Roman propaganda. You are following charlatans. The "pope" is just a literary agent I use generically to point at any religious "leader"
Re: (Score:2)
"printed Gospel" is your Roman propaganda.
Were it Roman, it should have been initially written in Latin, not Koine Greek. The Latin version is due to Jerome [wikipedia.org] at the end of the 4th century. Keep trying, Champ!
Re: (Score:1)
Flavius Josephus was a bit before that... the Edward Bernays of the time
Re: (Score:2)
"printed Gospel" is your Roman propaganda.
Were it Roman, it should have been initially written in Latin, not Koine Greek.
Flavius Josephus was a bit before that...
You're accusing Josephus of having authored one of the four Gospels? The liberal theologians posit that the three synoptic gospels may have had an antecedent called "Q", but you're positioning those goalposts on another planet at this point.
Re: (Score:1)
I already explained to you that he wrote that stuff to pacify the Hebrews while Jerusalem was being conquered and pillaged by the Romans. All propaganda. Of course I expect you to dig in your heels. Like I told d_r, nobody likes to admit they've been taken for a ride. You two definitely share the same "community of faith", politics/religion, a community of conmen and thieves
Re: (Score:2)
I already explained to you that he wrote that stuff to pacify the Hebrews while Jerusalem was being conquered and pillaged by the Romans
Josephus died ~100AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus [wikipedia.org] which was more than 30yrs ahead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba [wikipedia.org], which got the Jewish diaspora going in earnest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_wars#Aftermath [wikipedia.org].
And, if you've read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews [wikipedia.org] (and I own a copy)...Jesus does barely score a mention.
So, if you're doing anything other than trolling, offer some links to supporting ideas.
Re: (Score:1)
Jerusalem was being conquered in the 70s AD, during the height of Josephus's career
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What's to refute? You just choose to follow propaganda. I can't "refute" your faith. You just have to see for yourself. Maybe some day, you will
Re: (Score:2)
I can't "refute" your faith. You just have to see for yourself.
You seem to claim that rejecting knowledge will enable one to "see" for myself. Your argument sounds like Senator Collins towing the leaky tanker outside of the environment [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1)
So I'm a lousy salesman, but it's still true, everything is personal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not arguing about how people react to their surroundings, just that their choice is personal, and electro-chemical. It's all in their(our) heads, brain tells you what to do, and what to believe
Re: (Score:2)
choice is personal, and electro-chemical
Here we go again: were this choice purely electro-chemical, there should be no "choice is personal" abstraction layer from which to analyze an "electro-chemical" basis.
I guess that one can be coy and try to argue it both ways, but it's just hard to find any consistency to your argument. Let's just declare you "winner" and move on.
Re: (Score:1)
But I "win" nothing... But, yeah, we can move on. At least major league baseball hasn't been bought by the Saudis, as far as I know
Re: (Score:2)
Trot out the repeatable experiment.
I showed you The repeatable experiment [wikipedia.org] . You provided no response to it. You went back to name calling and grasping at your holy manifestos instead.
Re: (Score:2)
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in the genetic code. More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, but prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex compounds--such as cyanide--under varying conditions.
So, they got as far as Joe Biden toward being alive, you say?
Re: (Score:2)
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in the genetic code. More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, but prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex compounds--such as cyanide--under varying conditions.
... unrelated trolling comment ...
Since you don't have a background in biochemistry, I'll clarify what that later analysis actually means.
Using better analytical tools they found a wider variety of products from the reaction. Some were likely found in very minute amounts that Miller could not detect at the time. Others they weren't looking for. This does not in any way invalidate or diminish the value of the experiment. Proteins of most plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and viruses are composed of 20 amino acids. However we know the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To claim that Miller's discover constitutes a "repeatable experiment" is a leap of faith greater than theism.
Your lack of understanding of it does not prevent it from being repeatable. It indeed has been repeated. I've already laid out for you what the more recently found compounds from the experiment actually mean; you have allowed your willful ignorance on the matter to tell you to discard that information instead.
I accept that you have not studied biochemistry. That does not mean I need to sit back and let you pretend to be knowledgeable on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
the more recently found compounds from the experiment actually mean
Compounds. What have you actually managed to breed from these famous compounds?
Re: (Score:2)
the more recently found compounds from the experiment actually mean
Compounds. What have you actually managed to breed from these famous compounds?
Larger molecules, of course. They found those conditions gave rise to amino acids, which are the building blocks for proteins. In a reactive environment - which is a good description of the early earth - you'll give rise to other reactive molecules that will eventually lead to the RNA driven existence. Self replication comes from there.
Nobody ever claimed evolution was fast. Anyone who thought they heard otherwise was mistaken.
But the driving force of it all on the molecular level is charge bal
Re: (Score:2)
Compounds. What have you actually managed to breed from these famous compounds?
Larger molecules, of course. They found those conditions gave rise to amino acids, which are the building blocks for proteins.
Was this shown in an actual experiment? Where muh DNA, brah? I am in zero-faith mode here; science is skepticism first and foremost.
Nobody ever claimed evolution was fast. Anyone who thought they heard otherwise was mistaken.
So: faith.
But the driving force of it all on the molecular level is charge balancing. Reactive environments produce charged ions that will seek out opposite charges to balance their own charge. This is the case up to - and beyond - the famous DNA double helix.
Yuhv got tuh BUH-LEEV!
Possibly an alien race or time travel will come into view that clears up these details.
We can conjecture that you may prove correct, but we should also be honest (even as I have to admit, as an intellectual matter, that my faith in Ye Jewish Carpenter could be pure garbage) and confess that further space exploration may NOT yield any other w
Re: (Score:2)
Compounds. What have you actually managed to breed from these famous compounds?
Larger molecules, of course. They found those conditions gave rise to amino acids, which are the building blocks for proteins.
Was this shown in an actual experiment? Where muh DNA, brah? I am in zero-faith mode here; science is skepticism first and foremost.
I'm trying to keep up with your moving goalposts here, but your foot seems firmly locked down on the accelerator. At this point you're asking me to distill decades of biochemistry down to a single experiment; I cannot think of any other field that has ever been asked to meet such a strange challenge.
I recommend you start by looking at The Citric Acid Cycle [wikipedia.org] (sometimes called the Kreb's Cycle) as a starting point. The pathway map hear the middle of the entry gives a good overview of how different molec
Re: (Score:2)
Was this shown in an actual experiment? Where muh DNA, brah? I am in zero-faith mode here; science is skepticism first and foremost.
I'm trying to keep up with your moving goalposts here, but your foot seems firmly locked down on the accelerator. At this point you're asking me to distill decades of biochemistry down to a single experiment; I cannot think of any other field that has ever been asked to meet such a strange challenge.
Theology?
So: faith.
Not in the least. In fact the DNA that you keep blindly asking for shows the evolutionary processes and the biological chemistry at work as exquisitely as anything. It's no accident that 90% of our protein coding genes are shared with bananas (and even more with bonobos, of course).
Not in dispute. Chemically, the delta between humans and primates (and you know better than I) is vanishingly small.
What I want to see is the magic trick where one goes from some random amino acids to self-replicating DNA. If you want me to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and the Lord spake life into existence, I can follow you. But if you want to factor out the Lord and just say that the dirt somehow got smart, then I'm back to talking with fustakrakich, who just "feels stuff" without a
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to see is the magic trick where one goes from some random amino acids to self-replicating DNA.
Again, Kreb's cycle. The amino acids enter and can be converted into other molecules - including nucleic acids - through those reactions. It's not the end-all/be-all of biochemistry but it is at the center of every good graphic of biochemical reactions for a reason. The number of molecules that can come out of it is vast, and with a couple additional reactions on the periphery it expands even more quickly.
As for self-replicating DNA, the double helix is inherently set up to do that. If you read the
Re: (Score:2)
keep moving the goalposts
As with the climatistas and the covidians, you look increasingly a used car salesman. Deliver the goods, man.
Re: (Score:2)
So. Do. It. Go from Krebs to Watson and Crick. That has been the "repeatable experiment" point all along, despite your
That's not how science works. When you build on something you don't have to then incorporate everything that came before it as well. High energy physics doesn't need to explicitly account for Newtonian physics in LHC work. Psychology papers don't need to cite Freud and tie all their work back to him to be accepted for publication. Court rulings don't need to cite the Magna Carta.
Yet here your most recent goal post rearrangement is based on your claim that you are entitled to insist on any arbitrary
Re: (Score:1)
There is no "why".. Maybe you don't know much math either
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "why"
Why not?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how science works. When you build on something you don't have to then incorporate everything that came before it as well.
So, skip any inconveniences and paper over the gaps with Argument From Authority.
You're welcomed to look for the pieces you want all you want.
Shirley someone has collected the evidence into a single, readily understandable volume, a la Carl Sagan. If not, you should step up and write the definitive, soup-to-nuts explanation on how we got from inorganic to self-replicating organic chemistry. It will be your Nobel Prize. Your place in history is assured. Some day you will thank me for this suggestion. I'm waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how science works. When you build on something you don't have to then incorporate everything that came before it as well.
So, skip any inconveniences and paper over the gaps with Argument From Authority.
Then I look forward to you using that logic to assert that all future SCOTUS rulings are invalid unless they cite everything that came between that ruling and the Magna Carta.
In other words your moveable goalposts are absurd. I showed you where the fundamental building blocks of biochemistry can be created in the conditions of early earth. You then discarded everything else. I cannot force you to learn if you don't want to.
You're welcomed to look for the pieces you want all you want.
If not, you should step up and write the definitive, soup-to-nuts explanation on how we got from inorganic to self-replicating organic chemistry.
Why do I need to answer the questions you ask? When I ask you questions you
Re: (Score:1)
because... it's frivolous
Re: (Score:2)
I showed you where the fundamental building blocks of biochemistry can be created in the conditions of early earth. You then discarded everything else. I cannot force you to learn if you don't want to.
We're recreating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsU4styZ52Y [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What "challenge"? Ditch your crutches, and your blinders
Re: (Score:2)
Ditch your crutches, and your blinders
In favor of what seems a void? You seem to argue that I should scuttle the obvious knowledge that form follows function; life begins at conception and moves in a meaningful direction in favor of...some...amorphous...folly...? Wisdom brings far more joy, friend. One might suggest that you give it a try.
Re: (Score:2)
I showed you where the fundamental building blocks of biochemistry can be created in the conditions of early earth. You then discarded everything else. I cannot force you to learn if you don't want to.
We're recreating https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Not in the least. You asked for information, I provided you with well sourced information. You then discarded the information because it challenged you to think, and you moved the goalposts insisting that it did not have value because it didn't meet your increasingly convoluted requirements.
We're not recreating that scene from your conservative idol, if anything you are proudly building towards Idiocracy.
Re: (Score:1)
you moved the goalposts
Static at all points. But you're **very** much in character to claim otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
you moved the goalposts
Static at all points.
Aside from how you kept changing what you wanted in response to your question, sure. Your own posts plainly show how rapidly you moved the goalposts around.
Re: (Score:2)
you kept changing what you wanted in response to your question
A worked example going from the periodic table to replicating, biochemical life.
At a (perhaps chemically) high level of abstraction,
your rhetorical gymnastics about my request
for a repeatable experiment getting from single atoms
to self-replicating DNA almost allude to
a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree [wikipedia.org]
You're something of an artist, in your tendentious way.
Have a great weekend!
Re: (Score:1)
"seems' is the key word. You fill the "void" with whatever you want. You are doing it now
some...amorphous...folly...?
Yeah, a "god"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it will help us reach a détente, we can declare you the "winner". My point is made, stands, remains sufficient, and marks and end of this thread for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your pattern of claiming moved goalposts and delivered evidence evades the truth
Not in the least. Your original question was very different from your latest version of it. I provided you an answer to your original question as it was written and you then changed the question, even after I had asked you - before the original answer - for a more clear question.
experiment that goes from the periodic table of the elements to self-replicating DNA
It took you quite a while to come up with that rather obtuse question. I directed you to some fundamental work on both ends of that statement and you then said that was not enough. I pointed out that you are applying a fully d
Re: (Score:2)
It took you quite a while to come up with that rather obtuse question. I directed you to some fundamental work on both ends of that statement and you then said that was not enough. I pointed out that you are applying a fully different standard here to what you would apply to any other field of study and you saw no contradiction there.
You denigrate my simple question with 'obtuse'. That, and your omission of my responding to your quibble with a perfectly acceptable field, Theology, says all that any reasonable observer needs to know about the approach to the discussion on offer.
You are asking me to distill down a huge amount of basic science research on demand for you, when you haven't bothered to comprehend anything that I have already sent your way.
What I would like is an honest admission that there is an unknown amount of further work that will be necessary. When a question is asked, and the questioner is browbeaten rather than answered, that, too, is a tell.
learn anything?
You don't have the fully worked, repeatable exper
Re: (Score:2)
You denigrate my simple question with 'obtuse'.
Your original question didn't make sense. I asked you to clarify it and rather than offering any kind of clarification you insisted it made sense and so I took the best stab at it that I could. You then insisted it meant something else, and we began this latest round of "try to read smitty's brain". I'm really not interested in that game in the least. The fact that you could not phrase this question correctly the first three times tells me you yourself don't know what you're actually looking for.
You don't have the fully worked, repeatable experiment, and that's fine.
You'r
Re: (Score:2)
The fact though is that science and faith do not have to be at odds with each other. I've known people of strong faith who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
de-conflict faith/science
runs counter to your own writing. You are the one who inserted faith into this discussion. Faith and matters of creation are not important to the topic we were previously on.
Re: (Score:2)
You are using your faith to discard science
Showing how to resolve the tension between them is hardly discarding either faith or science.
As usual, you illiberally harm my position.
Re: (Score:2)
You are using your faith to discard science
Showing how to resolve the tension between them is hardly discarding either faith or science.
It is when you are aiming to "resolve the tension" by both overstating the tension and subsequently declaring one to be the victor without spending any time evaluating what the other is bringing to the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your team controls many states where minors can be married off to adults, some as young as 13. You know what happens when you allow an adult male to "marry" a 13 year old girl; she is pulled out of school to become his sex slave. Your team has had many opportunities to stop this and repeatedly refuses to do so.
So, you are capable of arguing in one breath that this hypothetical 13yo girl can decide she's a boy and have her flesh carved and sterilized, but is incapable of making an informed decision in favor of marriage?
Hilariously, it's "Your Team's" blue states "anchoring the bottom" https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/marriage-age-by-state/ [wisevoter.com] so to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Hilariously, it's "Your Team's" blue states "anchoring the bottom" https://wisevoter.com/state-ra... [wisevoter.com] so to speak.
Several cases exist of blue states attempting to raise the marriage age up to 18. Not a single case can I find of your team doing so. Every blue state where it did not pass was due to interference from your team.
Re: (Score:2)