I've literally quoted back to you a sentence from the document you cited with a list of all the things I claim including a direct reference to contraceptives that you could've literally ctrl+f'd for. If I were being less charitable I would've pointed out that the legal underpinnings of those claims also mean that Justice Clarence Thomas opposes inter-racial marriage, something not within the text but clearly consistent with his concurrence.
I'll take you back to my original point in this thread - the arguments made by people like the Supreme Court Justices are contradictory and entirely driven by a decision to create pretexts for decisions they were going to make anyway. We know this. A manifestation of this, is people like you, coming out and saying that I've not read the judgement, and when I can directly point you to the section that contains what I claimed, you respond that I'm not being charitable to you.
I'm not here to be charitable to you - I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments that make no sense to engage with, because they have nothing to do with the conclusions you drew in the first place.
> I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments
disingenuous arguments, eh?
> Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to.
As I've pointed out already, it's a different sentence. Which means one of:
- you didn't read what I wrote properly (twice now)
- you're lying
- you don't understand your own mistake
> I'm not here to be charitable to you
You should be charitable to yourself and everyone here by leaving such arguments on Twitter where that kind of low quality nonsense is the norm, at least in part because people don't read what the other person has written properly.
I'll take you back to my original point in this thread - the arguments made by people like the Supreme Court Justices are contradictory and entirely driven by a decision to create pretexts for decisions they were going to make anyway. We know this. A manifestation of this, is people like you, coming out and saying that I've not read the judgement, and when I can directly point you to the section that contains what I claimed, you respond that I'm not being charitable to you.
I'm not here to be charitable to you - I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments that make no sense to engage with, because they have nothing to do with the conclusions you drew in the first place.