US EEOC and DOJ Sues to Protect Pilgrimage to Mecca.

[GreyICE]

"You said - "I agree with SCOTUS." -- What do you agree with SCOTUS about?"

I don't know. Maybe that was part of a paragraph. Maybe there would be a statement in the paragraph immediately after that one that would give you some small clue. Some minor hint. Some weird little inkling of an idea. It's like sentences in these paragraph thingies are all connected to one another.

Of course this becomes harder to realize when some jackass chops it in half, and then insists that what clearly alters the meaning does not alter the meaning.

This like some sort of fractal failure. The large failure upon closer examination has spiraling failures traveling outwards, each of which upon examination has even more failures. Could it continue on into infinity? Have you failed at every level of failure that can be examined?

I've sorta stopped caring.

[Coito ergo sum]

"You said - "I agree with SCOTUS." -- What do you agree with SCOTUS about?"

I don't know. Maybe that was part of a paragraph. Maybe there would be a statement in the paragraph immediately after that one that would give you some small clue. Some minor hint. Some weird little inkling of an idea. It's like sentences in these paragraph thingies are all connected to one another.

Of course this becomes harder to realize when some jackass chops it in half, and then insists that what clearly alters the meaning does not alter the meaning.

This like some sort of fractal failure. The large failure upon closer examination has spiraling failures traveling outwards, each of which upon examination has even more failures. Could it continue on into infinity? Have you failed at every level of failure that can be examined?

I've sorta stopped caring.

First of all, you should have made clear what you thought SCOTUS had decided that you agree with. Was the part immediately preceding "I agree with SCOTUS" -or was it the part afterward. The part about arguing hypotheticals simply doesn't appear to be anything related to a SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS doesn't "decide" hypotheticals because of its Article III requirement to decide only "cases and controversies." However, SCOTUS never said anything about "arguing about" hypotheticals. I thought you were likely agreeing with SCOTUS about something that had some applicability to this discussion or the DOJ suit. I should know by now that that's the last thing you want to talk about. What you want to do is feign offense and whine.

Anyway, nobody here, including me, was claiming that the case was hypothetical or that hypothetical cases should be decided by the SCOTUS.

Stop pissing your pants about this stupid "chopping paragraphs" garbage. You sound like a little girl. Christ on a bicycle man.

I'd love for you to even try to illustrate where I've failed. I've Pwned the shit out of you on this thread, dude. Come on man, admit when you've been destroyed. I listed several points above. Why do you keep dodging and ducking? All you can do is call me names, tell me "fuck you" and cry like a bitch about whether you're being addressed properly.