Just musings.
Another thing that bugs the heck out of me is the general terms with ever changing definitions that the Dimowits use. What, exactly, is "social justice" and, better still, how is "social justice" defined by law and should, or even can, it be? Bet no one can answer that with any certainty since it is a constantly changing and moving target.
"Reproductive rights" is another one. That, by the very words, implies that reproduction is involved, IE having a baby. Turns out, it has been twisted around to mean eliminating a fetus at will, at any time, even after birth. Where does the line between aborting a fetus cross that line and become killing a human? Science now says it may be as early as three months into a human pregnancy since a fetus reacts to pain at that point implying that sentience has occurred. The Dimowits always say that "we must follow the science" but not with "reproductive rights".
When does the right to protest cross any lines? Apparently never since if there's a protest going on and someone sets fire to a building, occupied or not, loots a business or trashes an entire downtown area making it impossible for the general public to visit or businesses to operate, it's still just a "peaceful" protest. I will say that if there are any deaths involved that arrests are usually made and prosecutions may occur, but that seems to be a pretty lenient limit to me as it must to those who have lost everything they have worked for must feel.
ipcamtalk.com
