All about Serafina (Split)

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by The Dude » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:38 am

It's apology not apologize, the first is what your being asked to do, the second is the act itself.

"Serafina demanded an apologize of Kor_Dahar_Master", literally makes no sense.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:20 am

Thank you for the pointer. I corrected it.

And it is you are or you're and not your. The first is present continuous in a passive voice, the second is a possessive second-person personal pronoun.

"The first is what your being asked to do", literally makes no sense.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:54 am

This HE/SHE topic as it is going nowhere.

Ah.
So you are an intolerant retarded bigot who thinks that a transwoman is not female.
Actually you are wrong about that fella.
Given that you just admited that you think that i am male - yeah, fuck off, asshole.
I thought you were male pretending to be female, then you mentioned this transgender issue and if its true things make sense FELLA.
How about shoving it down my throat that you think that i am male all the bloody time?
Medicine, taste, own....
Yeah, and you still claim that you are tolerant?
Of your slurs regarding the mentally retarded?, no i have reached my limit of your use on mental illness slurs.
1. You thought that i was a biological female originally, and hence used the proper terms.
2. Then you thought that you could judge ones gender based on her posting behavior. That's already prejudicial, since your are judging while lacking proper knowledge. And guess what a prejudice is - it's premature judging.
3. When i gave you a good reason to stop (me being transsexual), you seized upon that opportunity - because you think that a transwoman is male! Thats one more prejudice.
4. You are still holding onto that prejudice - and you can no longer blame it on thinking that i am just pretending.
1. True but all i had to go on was your avatar and name initially.
2. I said your posts had a adolesant male vibe about them and said so and thought you were one initially as your transgender status was not known to me, if you wish to infer predjudice from that then do so but it only exists in your head.
3. True i did give you a taste of your own medicine and will continue to do so as long as you use mentally ill/retardation slurs. But you are wrong i do not consider a transitioned male still a male.
4. I will continue to call you a HE as long as you use your disgusting slurs regarding mental incapacities.
If i KNOW someone has a mental handicap, i act accordingly - by treating him with the respect he deserves.
If they read your prefered type of insults how do you think they would feel about you or of their family member saw your abuse how would they feel?...
You KNOW that i am a woman - and you do not do the same. On the contrary, that even reinforced your attacks!
YOU KNOW i am not suffering from mental retardation but YOU reinforced your attacks!!!!!!!!!.

Getting it yet bigot?.
Really?
Then why are you 1: seeing transwoman as males by default (which is a stereotype, and a bad one).
2: incapable of looking beyond that stereotype
3: and are even PROUD of it!?
1. Im not.....a fully transitiond transwoman is a womwn, a transwoman "partly through transition" i suppose i would say is a "transwoman not fully transitioned".
2. I am perfectly capable of looking past it.
3. medicine, taste, own.........
Yeah, because most woman have at most to deal with sexist bigots like you.
They do not have to defend their bloody identity against brainrotted bigots like you. Do you have ANY idea what this is like?
Do i know What it feels like to defend yourself against being told i am something i am not?.

Like me NOT suffering from mental retardation along with other mental disabilities that you actually use deliberatly and known predjudicial words to describe?...but you continuing to claim i am?.......yea i know FELLA.

Have i ever used any predjudicial slang words to describe your circumstances?, you do know you use a lot of those sort of words to describe mental illnesses right?...

Getting it yet?.
You are not mentally ill
You are right im not,.... so you call me mentally ill when you know im not to piss me off........so i call you a bloke when i know you are not to piss you off....

Getting it YET?.
Yeah, YOU are hurting me right now. So go fuck off, asshole.
Right so you are the only one allowed to be hurt by insults?...how many posts packed with mental illness slurs amoung other disgusting language did i have to SUFFER through of yours HEY?...

GETTING IT YET FELLA!.
Yeah, so you actually think that you have to fully transition - and then you might be merciful and perceive me as female.
I would honestly say that i would consider somebody "part way through transition" to be well "part way through transition". In fact the very word transition means "Passage from one form, state, style, or place to another" so by the very definition of the word they are moving towards being female.

And il stop calling you a HE as soon as you stop disrespecting the mentally handicapped by using predjudicial slurs regarding their illnesses or disabilities.

Oh, and nice stereotype about how every part of my emotional behaviour MUST BE female in order to be accepted as female. Do you apply that to biological woman to, you sexist bigot?
Noticing a decidedly adolesant male vibe in a few of your posts is not the same as saying you MUST BE anything....FELLA.
When you are ever harrased for being a white christian male
Unlikely considering im not a christian and my ethnic background is none of your business.
You have NO IDEA how much your insults hurt. Compared to that, calling someone stupid is nothing. Especially if the shoe does not fit - but your insults do.
Then we can agree to both stop using our prefered insults yes or no?....il find it easy as i am not a natural when it comes to it in fact i had to edit my post from female to male comments as i kept forgetting.
Oh, bullshit. You know nothing about me or SD.Net. You don't even know what tolerance is.
I know that if a member of a family containing a person with such a illness saw your posts and insults it would upset them to see some of the words you casually throw around, you even try to find creative phrases to use them in as "enhancments" to the insults for gods sake.
God, i can't imagine how someone can be so damn tasteless.
Look who is talking, go shout at a person using your normal insults near or in hearing range of a downschild or his/her parents family members and then get back to me ok?.

retarded, fuck off, asshole, you little twerp, shut the fuck up, you clueless imbecile, you little nazi, Fuck off, So go fuck off, hatemonger, bigoted Trektard, you imbecilic retarded hatmonging bigot, Fuck off. Just fuck off, Still bloody stupid, So go fuck off, asshole, you sexist bigot, Fuck off, Kor, unapologetic bigot
What a charmer you are....FELLA!!.
You are THE WORST person i have ever met on the internet, and i have met people who would love to see me rot in prison or to kill me outright.
You need to stop posting and speak to a psychologist.

ANYWAY

Now that is settled and a agreement can be reached where insults on both sides stop (as mentioned above) do you wanna go back to getting your butt kicked in regards to ST vs SW instead?.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:04 am

Serafina wrote:Your "observation" was "Serafina is male". This is not true, asshole.
Actually that was my first observation before you made me aware of your transgender status, after you made me aware of it i can clearly say that my observation was flawed due to being unaware of the process you are going through. Now i have more details your posts that were seemingly more in line with a adolesant male attitude make sense due to you being raised and treated as a male for most of your young life.

So to be clear YES i do consider you a woman not because of the law or any operations, physical attributes or for any other reason than simply because you CHOOSE to be one and my personal code says in regards to ones personal choices if such a choice harms nobody and makes you happy then physicallity, laws and or rules can kiss my ass.

However for as long as you use insults towards me i will use MALE terms in my replies to you NOT because i believe them but because i know they are pissing you off equally if not more than your insults are pissing me off. And if you wanna complain that in doing so my insults are better/more effective than yours........well GOOD because insults are supposed to be like that or were yours supposed to give me a warm happy feeling?.

Im not a bigot im just a guy who is sick of your abuse and who you were dumb enough to show exactly where to poke back.......more fool you for showing a person you are insulting and actively and constantly trying to hurt EXACTLY where you are most sensitive.



Stop your use of foul language towards me, insults as well as slurs that directly or indirectly disrespect those with mental disabilities and ill stop referring to you as HE ect and go back to SHE ect during any further discussions we have.

Your choice.
Last edited by Kor_Dahar_Master on Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:06 am

Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:Respecting the wish of Jedi Master Spock, I will treat Serafina as female - although I think that this is not correct.
So you still do not see me as female.
In other words, you are still intolerant.
According to each definition of female I know, you are not female. You have male primary and secondary genitals and a male genome. That's a fact that is not changed by your wishes or affliction. If you want to be treated as female, prove that you are female. Show that there is an accepted definition according to which you could be considered female.

If you think that tolerance has to go so far that I have to ignore objective facts, that's your problem.


Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:There is a reason for the requirements in the Transsexuellengesetz before her by the transsexuality imprinted gender is recognized as her only gender. Because many questions are not solved. What is e.g. with sports? Does a transwoman participates in sport as a woman or as a man? Or as what is a transwoman to be treated in changing rooms? Goes a transwoman with all her male genitals into the changing rooms for women or for men? Or as what is a transwoman to be treated in a prison, where genders have to be separated? Gets a transwoman a special ward?
All these questions are not so relevant when the requirements of the Transsexuellengesetz for the recognition of the by the transsexuality imprinted gender are fulfilled.
Fuck off with your legalese. None of this applies here.
And it's brilliant how you champion tolerance here /sarcasm
Ah, it is a legalese if I wonder if a transwoman with male genitals should be allowed to participate as a woman in sports and to use changing rooms for women. I think it is a practical problem that should not be ignored because you wish so.


Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:As soon as Serafina meets the requirements of the Transsexuellengesetz for the recognition of the by the transsexuality imprinted gender and has the necessary court decision, I would address her as female anyway. Because I have no problems with transsexuals and have no problems at all with tolerating them. But I'm the opinion that as long as a person is considered by law to be male, the person is not to be treated as a female and vice versa.
Fuck off.
I am living as a female, i am applying for work as female, everyone i know treats me as female, i AM female.
Wrong, that does not makes you female. What is that for a logic?


Searafina wrote:The law has absolutely no bearing on how a private person treats me.
And your wishes have absolutely no bearing on what is a fact.


Searafina wrote:But sheer decency calls for treating a person like she wishes to be treated.
Sheer decency calls for not insulting a person who wishes to be not insulted.


Searafina wrote:If all people would think like you, transitioning would be even harder. Luckily, most people are at least tolerant.
I have no problem to accept that you want to become a female. I have no problems with you attempting to become a female. I have no problems with you because you want to become a female or are attempting to become a female. I do not think that you are less worth because of your affliction. I have no interest in prosecuting transsexuals or in forbidding gender reassignments. I even think that there should be more research to make a real gender reassignment possible.
But as long as you are male, I will regard you as male. It is as easy as that.
If you think that's intolerant, that's your problem.


Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:By addressing Serafina accordingly to the by the law recognized gender, I may ignore Serafina's wishes, but I have no intention to insult Serafina.
The law has no fucking bearing here. The law never demands that you address me as female, since both you and me are private persons. At most, i could sue your for insulting me, with questionable outcomes.
The law has insofar bearing here as that without such a law I would regard you as long as a male as you have male primary and secondary genitals and a male genome.

A penectomy where not the whole penis is removed but part or all of the glans is kept and reshaped as a clitoris, while the skin of the penile shaft may also be inverted to form the vagina or the scrotum is used to form the vaginal walls and the skin of the penile shaft to form the labia majora and hormone replacement therapy may make you look like a female. But they can't really transform you into a female.


Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:But I wanted to quote something about the binding effects of court decisions in Germany:

[...]

1.2 The practice of precedent in a civil law jurisdiction: Germany

In civil law jurisdictions there is not such a system of precedent as it can be found in the English legal system. In Germany, for example, there is no precedent at all.
As a result of the German experiences with the legal system during the Third Reich, the judge of modern Germany has every freedom in his decisions. As long as his judgments are within the legal framework, especially the "Grundgesetz" (constitution), he is provided by the "Grundgesetz" (Articles 97 I and 20 III) with the biggest independence in his work, being bound only by statute and law, whilst previous decisions in other (similar) cases are not binding on the courts. Thus judicial decisions are not a binding formal source of law at all.
But, in fact, there are some decisions of the "Bundesgerichtshof (BGH)" or "Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG)" (Federal Constitutional Court), which in practice are almost binding, at least as far as the interpretation of the statutes is concerned. But, and I have to lay emphasis on this, the judges are completely free to interpret the statutes in a way different from the one the BGH proposes, as long as they obey the rules of interpretation and as long as they do it within the legal frame of statute and constitution. Here you can see, that the decisions of the highest German courts are not binding in the sense a precedent is binding; the situation a judge is in when he has to make a decision is a completely different one. At first he looks at the new case, then at the statutes and afterwards, if he wants to have a clear picture of how a particular part of a statute might be understood, he tries with the help of "Kommentaren" (commentaries) to discern the general trend of decisions on this particular point including the decisions of the highest courts, if there are any related to the statute in question. Of course, most of the courts in Germany follow those decisions in their way of interpreting certain unclear statutes or those, which contain "unbestimmte, auslegungsbeduerftige Rechtsbegriffe". These are paragraphs, which need a certain framework to be useable, and this framework consists of an interpretation, which is related to some kind of recent understanding of a certain word, the society as such has, a good example is paragraph 242 BGB (performance according to good faith). These "unbestimmte Rechtsbegriffe" make the statutes quite flexible, but they can be misused as well, as you can see in the fact that the "Buergerliches Gesetzbuch" is in use for 101 years now; it is not difficult to see, that this period includes the Third Reich with its inhuman ways of interpreting the law.
For all practical purposes, there IS legal precedent in Germany.
It's not absolutely binding as it is in anglistic law, but if we are talking about decisions by our supreme court or similarly high instances there is practically no difference. We have Grundsatzentscheidungen und Präzedenzfälle. A lawyer would know that, yet you said:
Who is like God arbour wrote:There seems to be a few court decisions who are saying that the change of the name is enough to be addressed accordingly to the name (e.g. Miss Erika Mustermann instead of Mister Erika Mustermann). But these decisions have no precedence. In Germany a court decision is effective only in the decided case. And considering that these decisions are not reconcilable with the law, I wouldn’t attach importance to them.
The bolded part is blatantly untrue - a Grundsatzentscheidung has more bearing than just on one case.
  1. Obviously you have not understood what was explained in the quoted article.
  2. I have not said that a decision of a higher court is totally irrelevant. I have said that it is only effective in the decided case. The decision is only effective inter partes and not inter omnes. Ever heard of so called Nichtanwendungserlasse?

Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:Serafina demanded an apology of Kor_Dahar_Master.

I wonder if I'll get one of her. After all, she was very determinate in her conclusions:
Searafina wrote:Bullshit. And you claim that you have studied law?
These decisions were made by the bloody BVerfG (supreme court again). You claim to be a lawyer and do not understand legal precedence? Or the significance of a Grundsatzentscheidung?
Searafina wrote:Fuck off, AVOCADO. If you actually are a lawyer, i hope someone fires your damn emotionless ass and revokes your license. You deserve it for not understanding legal precedence alone.
Yes, some of these insults are hurting - schnief.
You still do not see the difference between attacking someone for being who she is and attacking someone for doing something.
Oh, I see a big difference between a perceived insult and a slander.
If I address you as male because you are a male, it is no insult regardless if you like it or not. In any way, it is only able to hurt you but it is not able to give others a negative image of you. No one - including me - things bad of you because you are a male that wishes to be a female.
But to say that I am an incompetent lawyer is slander.
You can quess three times what I think is worse.


Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:And it continues:
Searafina wrote:Are you a scientist? You yourself claim to be a lawyer. Lawyers are NOT scientists.
Ever heard of legal science? In Germany it is called Rechtswissenschaften. And coincidentally that's exactly what I have studied. I feel insulted to not be considered a scientist.
Given that actual science studies natural phenomena, legal science is at best borderline science.
So much for tolerance. According to the Oxford dictionary, science is a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject and according to the Cambridge dictionary, science is a particular subject that is studied using scientific methods.
There is no reason to say that social sciences - and legal science is part of social sciences - are no science.


Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:We have thousands and thousands of laws in Germany. No lawyer can know all laws. That's an impossibility.
True. But every lawyer would recognize the potential significance of a decision by the supreme court. You did not and claimed that they have no bearing on other cases, which is just idiotic.
There are also thousands and thousands of court decisions in Germany and no lawyer can know all decisions.
I never said that a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has no significance and no no bearing on other cases. That is a strawman of what I have said.
Fact is that there is no universal binding effect as was also described in the already quoted article.


Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:I mean, get real: What to you think how much relevance the Transsexuellengesetz can have for a lawyer?

There are estimated to be 10.000 transsexuals in Germany and only 300 of them in a year are willing to do what is necessary to have the gender recognized by law as the be the transsexuality imprinted gender [O].
These statistics are blatantly outdated - they are based on extrapolations from 30 years ago.
And the two GRS-specialists in Munich together see more transsexual patients than 300 PER YEAR. You clearly falsified the statistics, or do not know how to read one, since the latter is clearly PER YEAR.
Yes, as I have even given the source of that statistic, a periodical. To accuse me to have falsified the statistics or do not be able to read it, shows only that you are too lazy to follow the given link.
Even if these statistics are blatantly outdated, I doubt that they have changed so much that it would make the Transsexuellengesetz suddenly important to most lawyers. There may be the one or other attorney who has specialised in that field. But I couldn't find any in a search machine for attorneys [O].


Searafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:Only if there would be a transsexual client who has a legal problem regarding that law, an attorney would start to read that law and look for commentaries and adjudication.

To find the law in the internet is easy.

But to find commentaries and adjudication is not so easy.

For this there are special databases or literature to which one has to have access.

Usually attorneys do not have these things at their home and usually such a research is not done in a few minutes. It is very extensive and very expensive work.

After all, the attorney is not knowing in advance what he is looking for at all. He does for example not know, before he has looked, if there are any court decisions or legal opinions already to this very small topic he has never dealt with before.

So excuse me if I'm not ready to do such research for free in my spare time.
I told you that it was about a decision of the supreme court about the first part of the TSG. Really not hard to find.
Yes, if you know that there is such a decision, to find it is not hard - if you invest the time to look for it. And finding a decision is only part of the work. Then you have to read it. And some decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany are long as novels. Why should I sacrifice my spare time with such an undertaking?

And if you remember, you referred to that decision in the same post in which you have already claimed that I have to be incompetent because I didn't found that decision:
        • Searafina wrote:Sorry, you are wrong. That's about changing my first name legally, and thanks to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (supreme court) that also changes how you have to address me. The gender is also changed in all papers but the birth certificate.

          [...]

          Bullshit. And you claim that you have studied law?
          These decisions were made by the bloody BVerfG (supreme court again). You claim to be a lawyer and do not understand legal precedence? Or the significance of a Grundsatzentscheidung?
But you have not provided a link to it or haye quoted out of it. You have not even given a file number.

And then you stated
        • Searafina wrote:If you actually are a lawyer, i hope someone fires your damn emotionless ass and revokes your license. You deserve it for not understanding legal precedence alone.
And only than have you provided a link to the decision, claiming that I should have known it all the time or at least should have sacrificed my spare time to look for it.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:25 am

Searafina wrote:Anyway, WILGA.
Thanks to another member of the board, i now have even more proof that you were blatantly wrong when claiming that there is no legal precedence in Germany, at least as far as the Bundesverfassungsgericht is concerned.

§31 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz:
§ 31

(1) Die Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts binden die Verfassungsorgane des Bundes und der Länder sowie alle Gerichte und Behörden.

(2) In den Fällen des § 13 Nr. 6, 6a, 11, 12 und 14 hat die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Gesetzeskraft. Das gilt auch in den Fällen des § 13 Nr. 8a, wenn das Bundesverfassungsgericht ein Gesetz als mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar oder unvereinbar oder für nichtig erklärt. Soweit ein Gesetz als mit dem Grundgesetz oder sonstigem Bundesrecht vereinbar oder unvereinbar oder für nichtig erklärt wird, ist die Entscheidungsformel durch das Bundesministerium der Justiz im Bundesgesetzblatt zu veröffentlichen. Entsprechendes gilt für die Entscheidungsformel in den Fällen des § 13 Nr. 12 und 14.
EVERY decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht is LEGALLY BINDING. A lawyer should really know that.

They can even count as a law:
§ 13
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht entscheidet
....
6. bei Meinungsverschiedenheiten oder Zweifeln über die förmliche oder sachliche Vereinbarkeit von Bundesrecht oder Landesrecht mit dem Grundgesetz oder die Vereinbarkeit von Landesrecht mit sonstigem Bundesrecht auf Antrag der Bundesregierung, einer Landesregierung oder eines Viertels der Mitglieder des Bundestages (Artikel 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 des Grundgesetzes),
6a.
bei Meinungsverschiedenheiten, ob ein Gesetz den Voraussetzungen des Artikels 72 Abs. 2 des Grundgesetzes entspricht, auf Antrag des Bundesrates, einer Landesregierung oder der Volksvertretung eines Landes (Artikel 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 2a des Grundgesetzes),
11. über die Vereinbarkeit eines Bundesgesetzes oder eines Landesgesetzes mit dem Grundgesetz oder die Vereinbarkeit eines Landesgesetzes oder sonstigen Landesrechts mit einem Bundesgesetz auf Antrag eines Gerichts (Artikel 100 Abs. 1 des Grundgesetzes),
12. bei Zweifeln darüber, ob eine Regel des Völkerrechts Bestandteil des Bundesrechts ist und ob sie unmittelbar Rechte und Pflichten für den einzelnen erzeugt, auf Antrag des Gerichts (Artikel 100 Abs. 2 des Grundgesetzes),
14. bei Meinungsverschiedenheiten über das Fortgelten von Recht als Bundesrecht (Artikel 126 des Grundgesetzes)
You are technically right when talking about every court BUT the BVerfG. Given that we were explicitly talking about a decision by the BVerfG, you were WRONG.
You stupid stupid person.

Each decision of a court is LEGALLY BINDING in Germany. But only inter partes and not inter omnes. You think you are so clever. But as it seems you can't understand that simple difference.

Only a few decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court have a force of law. And even that only so far as the tenor of the decision goes. The decision you have linked to [O] has no force of law. It is not a case of § 13 Nr. 6, 6a, 11, 12 und 14 BVerfG and it is not a case of § 13 Nr. 8a BVerfG in which the Federal Constitutional Court declares that a law violates the constitution.

The tenor of the decision is:
        • 1. Der Beschluß des OLG Karlsruhe vom 12. Juli 1995 - 3 Ws 294/94 - und der Beschluß des LG Mannheim vom 9. November 1994 - StVK 18 -B- 431/94 - verletzen die Beschwerdeführerin in ihrem Grundrecht aus Art. 2 Abs. 1 in Verbindung mit Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG. Sie werden ausgehoben.

          Die Sache wird an das LG Mannheim zurückverwiesen.

          2. Das Land Ba-Wü hat der Beschwerdeführerin ihre notwendigen Auslagen zu erstatten. Damit erledigt sich der Antrag auf Gewährung von PKH.
No law was declared to violate the constitution and therefore to be be null and void. The case was merely remanded.

Try it. It is not so difficult to understand.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:21 am

To not have to repeat what I would say each time you have answered with calling me a bigot and claimed that gender is defined by the brain, I say it only once:

Provide evidence that gender is determined by someone's brain. I do not know a scientifical definition who says such a thing.

Does that mean that I have to do a psycho-analysis of an animal to determine its gender?

Or are humans no animals that there are special rules for them?

And what with plants. There are male and female plants [O]. But they do not have a brain. Is our scientifical understanding suddenly devaluated? If they have no brain, but the gender is determined by the brain, they can't have a gender. Or am I mistaken?




And yes, you could try to sue me for sexual discrimination. You can try many things. But you would fail. What I'm doing is neither sexual discrimination nor sexual harassment.

I merely stating my opinion. It is allowed to discuss how genders are determined and if a transwoman with male primary and secondary genitals and a male genome is female.

On the other side, slander/libel is not allowed and even amerciable.




Concerning my knowledge about "how the fucking supreme court works, at least in principle", trust me that I do know it better than you. My last post shows, where your mistake is. Try to understand the difference between inter partes and inter omnes. It is not so difficult.




Concerning Maria Sabine Augstein: You have found her at http://www.anwaltssuche.de?
Or did you know her name because you have - unlike me - given attention to that matter for a long time?



And concerning the search for any decisions: I think I have made my opinion clear. I'm not going on a wild-goose chase to look for decisions in my spare time, from which I do not even know if they are existing at all and even if they are existing, I may have to read through a whole novel.

As you have already given attention to that matter, I expect from you to provide the evidence you should provide anyway. Do not demand that I do your work only because I could do it.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:32 am

Bindungswirkung und Gesetzeskraft von Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts wrote:Die besondere Bedeutung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts kommt in § 31 Abs. 1 BVerfGG zum Ausdruck:
        • „Die Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts binden die Verfassungsorgane des Bundes und der Länder sowie alle Gerichte und Behörden.“
Die formelle Bindungswirkung einer Entscheidung besteht nur im konkreten Fall (inter partes). Es besteht keine inhaltliche Bindung für andere Gerichte an die ausgeurteilte Rechtsmeinung des Gerichts. Diese haben keine Gesetzeskraft. Die Rechtsmeinung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist aber eine Richtschnur für die untergeordneten Gerichte, die meist auch befolgt wird. Abweichungen sind recht selten. Jedes Gericht kann aber in einem anderen gleich oder ähnlich gelagerten Fall einer anderen juristischen Meinung folgen, wenn es dies für richtig hält.

In den in § 31 Abs. 2 BVerfGG genannten Fällen haben die Entscheidungen des Gerichts jedoch Gesetzeskraft und gelten für jedermann (inter omnes). Es handelt sich dabei im Wesentlichen um Verfahren, in denen das Gericht feststellt, ob ein Gesetz mit der Verfassung vereinbar ist oder nicht. Die Feststellung, dass ein Gesetz, das nach dem Inkrafttreten des Grundgesetzes verabschiedet wurde, verfassungswidrig ist, steht nur dem Bundesverfassungsgericht zu (§ 95 Abs. 3 Satz 1 bzw. Satz 2 BVerfGG; Normverwerfungskompetenz). Hält ein anderes Gericht ein Gesetz für verfassungswidrig, so hat es dies dem BVerfG gemäß Art. 100 GG vorzulegen, soweit dies entscheidungserheblich ist (konkrete Normenkontrolle).

Obwohl der Wortlaut des § 95 Abs. 3 Satz 1 bzw. Satz 2 eindeutig ist („… so ist das Gesetz für nichtig zu erklären“), sieht das Bundesverfassungsgericht in einigen Fällen von einer Nichtigkeitserklärung ab und trägt dem Gesetzgeber stattdessen eine Neuregelung der Gesetzesmaterie auf; bis zur Neuregelung ist das Gesetz dann weiterhin gültig, aber nicht mehr anwendbar. Stark vereinfachend kann man sagen, dass dies immer dann aufgetragen wird, wenn ein Gesetz (nur) gleichheitswidrig ist.
But it is probably wrong.
It is only Wikipedia and when it is saying the same I have said, it can only be wrong.
In your book, it is probably very probable that someone with a Mittlere Reife knows such things better than a fully qualified lawyer.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:45 pm

Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:To not have to repeat what I would say each time you have answered with calling me a bigot and claimed that gender is defined by the brain, I say it only once:

Provide evidence that gender is determined by someone's brain. I do not know a scientifical definition who says such a thing.

Does that mean that I have to do a psycho-analysis of an animal to determine its gender?

Or are humans no animals that there are special rules for them?

And what with plants. There are male and female plants [O]. But they do not have a brain. Is our scientifical understanding suddenly devaluated? If they have no brain, but the gender is determined by the brain, they can't have a gender. Or am I mistaken?
You are obviously too stupid to understand the term gender as opposed to sex.
Yes, you are right, I'm probably too stupid if I do not know a term we do not even have in German as such. And it is absolutely common to know about gender as opposed to sex. Everyone knows that the word, "gender" has more than one valid definition, that while in ordinary speech it is used interchangeably with "sex" to denote the condition of being male or female, in the social sciences it refers specifically to socially constructed and institutionalized differences such as gender roles.

But is that important?

Fact is that your sex - if that term is more appropriate - is male.

Even the Transsexuellengesetz uses only the term »Geschlecht« that can be translated into sex as well as into gender. It talks about the at the birth registered gender and the by the transsexuality imprinted gender. But hey, the German legislator is probably stupid too.


Serafina wrote:Yeah, given that i spoke to an actual lawyer (or rather, professor of law'), i would rather trust him than you, especially given that you are actually contradicting the actual laws regulating precedence.
argumentum ad verecundiam.

Serafina wrote:How about a simple Google search and taking the first result?
Wow I said:

»Even if these statistics are blatantly outdated, I doubt that they have changed so much that it would make the Transsexuellengesetz suddenly important to most lawyers. There may be the one or other attorney who has specialised in that field. But I couldn't find any in a search machine for attorneys [O].«

And now you are representing a page that lists three attorneys. Yes I see, transsexuality has to be a very important topic each lawyer and each attorney should be familiar with.

Serafina wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:And concerning the search for any decisions: I think I have made my opinion clear. I'm not going on a wild-goose chase to look for decisions in my spare time, from which I do not even know if they are existing at all and even if they are existing, I may have to read through a whole novel.
"Wild goose chase". It takes less than a minute with Google or the search engine of the supreme court. It's on bloody Wikipedia. Don't try to weasel out of this, bigot.
Nice of you to ignore what was said to nitpick the vality of a term.

Who is like God arbour wrote:And it's hardly unreasonable to assume that someone who claims to know what he talks about does his own bloody research.
You are right. Only that I have never claimed to know much about transsexuality.
I even have outright stated that I have never had to do with it before.
Serafina wrote:Hey, i quoted right out of the fucking law. Wikipedia won't top that.
        • „Die Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts binden die Verfassungsorgane des Bundes und der Länder sowie alle Gerichte und Behörden.“
They are BINDING to every federal and state institution/agency as well as courts.

In the case we are talking about, the Bundesverfassungsgericht even stated that part of the law violate the constitution as well as the spirit of the law itself. Such a decisions HAS the status of a law.

You were wrong, bigot. In your own field of expertise. There IS legal precedence it Germany. It's not always binding, but it is in this case.

And you have still not understood the difference between inter partes and inter omnes.
Yes, you quoted right out of the fucking law. But you do not understand the law.
Wikipedia does not try to supersede the law. It gives an explanation how the law is to be understood.

But if you do not believe me, believe Dr. Anke Eilers, Law Clerk at the Federal Constitutional Court:
                • [...]
          I. Introduction

          I am very glad that I have been given the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the German Federal Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, in today's conference, and I thank you very much for your interest. The subject which I will talk about is the binding effect of Federal Constitutional Court decisions upon political institutions (that is, [i.e.] on parliament and government.)


          1. First of all, I would like to briefly introduce myself. I am a judge at the Regional Court (Landgericht) Bonn and have so far dealt with civil-law disputes there. Since 1 October 2001, I have been a law clerk at the Federal Constitutional Court. At first, I worked for our former president, Prof. Dr. Limbach. Since her retirement from office in spring 2002, I have been working for Federal Constitutional Court judge Mr. Mellinghoff, who had the pleasure of speaking to you about constitutional law here in Tirana in November last year. He told me to give you his best regards.


          2. The Federal Constitutional Court, which celebrated its 50th anniversary two years ago, is an essential institution in the social and legal system of the Federal Republic of Germany. On the one hand, it is the highest court, on the other hand, it is the supreme constitutional body. It is no ordinary court of appeal in civil-law, criminal-law or administrative-law proceedings. Its task consists in reviewing whether the legislative, the executive or the judiciary have violated the Constitution.

          The Federal Constitutional Court's competencies are specified in our Constitution, the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), which was adopted in 1949 and complemented in 1990 on the occasion of German reunification, and they are specified in ordinary law, namely in the Federal Constitutional Court Act.

          The Federal Constitutional Court has comprehensive competencies to control all three state powers on the basis of the Constitution. This means that the Federal Constitutional Court does not apply ordinary law, like, for instance, criminal law, administrative law or civil law, but that it reviews whether statutes, decisions of other courts and sovereign acts of German administrative authorities or of the German government are compatible with the Constitution. The Federal Constitutional Court does not act ex officio. An application in one of the specific types of proceedings that exist before the Federal Constitutional Court is always required for the Court to act.

          To better understand the binding effect of the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions, it is necessary to briefly describe the relevant types of proceedings:

          The Federal Constitutional Court reviews whether legislative acts comply with the Constitution. This type of proceedings is called "review of statutes." Here, it must be distinguished between
          1. the so-called concrete review of statutes, which is performed on account of a specific case in judicial referral proceedings pursuant to Article 100 subsection 1 [Article 100.1] of the Basic Law, Section 13 subsection 11 [§ 13.11] and Sections 80 et seq. [§§ 80 et seq.] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act;
          2. the abstract control of statutes pursuant to Article 93 subsection 1 numbers 2 and 2a [Article 93.1.2 and 93.1.2a] of the Basic Law, Section 13 subsections 6 and 6a [§ 13.6 and 13.6.a] and Sections 76 et seq. [§§ 76 et seq.] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act; and
          3. the constitutional complaint pursuant to Article 93, subsection 1 number 4a [Article 93.1.4a] of the Basic Law, Section 13 subsection 8a [§ 13.8a] and Sections 90 et seq. [§§ 90 et seq.] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.



          a) The first group of cases is the request of a so-called "concrete review of statutes" pursuant to Article 100 subsection 1 [100.1] of the Basic Law, which arises from an ordinary lawsuit. Every German court which is convinced that a relevant federal or state law that is applicable to its case violates the Basic Law must refer the question of constitutionality to the Federal Constitutional Court and suspend the proceedings until a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court has been reached. The Federal Constitutional Court is the only court in Germany which is vested with the power to declare a law unconstitutional. No ordinary German court may decide on the unconstitutionality of a law. But of course every German court has to reflect on the constitutionality of the laws that are applicable to cases that are brought before it, because the Basic Law says in its Article 1 subsection 3 [Article 1.3]:

          "The following fundamental rights are binding upon legislature, executive, and judiciary as directly valid law."

          If doubts about the constitutionality of the statute are raised but the court concludes that there is a way to interpret the statute in conformity with the Basic Law, it can do so. It is only the "negative declaration" of a court - concluding that a statute cannot be interpreted in conformity with the Basic Law - that is reserved exclusively to the Federal Constitutional Court.

          The submitting court has to explain in detail why it considers the relevant legal provision to be in conflict with the Constitution, why the outcome of the case depends on the validity of the law, and why there is absolutely no acceptable way of interpreting the statute in accordance with the Constitution. The submitting court has this obligation whether or not the issue of constitutional conformity has been raised by one of the parties. If the Federal Constitutional Court accepts the request for the review of the statute, it provides the parties an opportunity to be heard and permits the highest federal bodies or the government of the Land (state) concerned, if the law of a Land is challenged, to enter the proceedings.

          Proceedings that involve the concrete review of statutes are frequently brought before the Federal Constitutional Court. They account for the second largest share of the Federal Constitutional Court’s activities. From the beginning of its work in 1951 until the end of 2002, the Federal Constitutional Court has found over 300 statutory provisions unconstitutional.


          b) The so-called "abstract review of statutes", however, does not stem from court proceedings. It is instituted at the request of the federal government, of a Land government or of one third of the members of the Bundestag (the lower House of the German parliament.) In such cases, the Federal Constitutional Court is asked to decide differences of opinions or doubts about the compatibility of Federal or Land law with the Basic Law. The requesting party has to submit written briefs and the relevant federal bodies or Land governments are asked to participate.

          While the Federal Constitutional Court can refuse to decide a case that involves the concrete review of a statute on the ground that the submitting court has not plausibly asserted its concern about the unconstitutionality of the challenged statute, or because the Constitutional court finds that the decision of the case does not necessarily depend on it, there is "no easy way out" in the case of the abstract review of statutes. Here the Federal Constitutional Court has to deliver an opinion which is binding upon every state body, including the legislature. Once the request is submitted, the party who started the proceedings no longer has the power to withdraw it. The Federal Constitutional Court will analyse the statute in question under every constitutional aspect; in its review, it is not restricted to objections raised by the parties.

          A good example for proceedings that involve the abstract review of statutes are the abortion cases (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court [Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, BVerfGE] 39, p. 1 and BVerfGE 88, p. 198.) In 1974 and again in 1992, the Bundestag passed abortion reform statutes. Both times, a number of members of the Bundestag as well as the Land government of Bavaria (and in the first case, 4 more Land governments) petitioned the Federal Constitutional Court to review Section 218a [§ 218a] of the Abortion Reform Act on the ground that it violated several provisions of the Basic Law, including its clauses on human dignity and the right to life.


          c) The other instrument of control that the Federal Constitutional Court has, which is important for its relation to other courts and which accounts for the largest share of its workload, is the constitutional complaint: More than 4,900 constitutional complaints were lodged by individuals and legal persons in 1999 alone. After exhausting all other available means to find relief in the ordinary courts, any person who claims that "public authority" has violated his or her fundamental substantive or procedural rights under the Basic Law can file a constitutional complaint. Fundamental rights are rights of protection against the state. They guarantee individuals a sphere of rights that is enshrined in the Constitution; any intervention with this sphere by the state requires justification.

          In this context, "public authority" means all acts of government including judicial decisions, administrative decrees and legislative acts.

          In any case, the complainant has to be affected personally, directly and presently by the act of public authority. As most legislative acts require implementation by the administration, the complainant will frequently have to wait for an administrative act addressed to him or her to bring an action against this act.

          In some cases, however, it has been found that a law itself presently and directly affects the fundamental rights (Section 95 subsection 3 [§ 95.3] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.) As no ordinary judicial remedy is available against legislative acts, a constitutional complaint has been considered admissible in these cases.

          In this context, the proceedings that related to the Census Act (BVerfGE 65, p. 1) may serve as an example. The Census Act obliged all citizens to take part in a census. In this case, there was no act of the executive power against which the citizens could have brought legal action.

          In this context, the review that is performed is concrete because the complainant must demonstrate that the challenged statute affects him or her personally, presently and directly. However, the decision about the statute is detached from the original case, in its dictum and also as regards its legal consequences.

          The constitutional complaint is an extraordinary legal remedy that is available to the individual for the protection of his or her fundamental rights. All remedies within the relevant branch of jurisdiction must therefore have been exhausted before the person affected can take the case to the Federal Constitutional Court. This restriction makes sense because all courts are obliged to consider constitutional values when deciding cases of ordinary law. This principle follows, as I have already mentioned, from Article 1 subsection 3 [Article 1.3] of the Basic Law. It provides that the fundamental rights that are set forth in the Constitution shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law.

          Most constitutional complaints challenge court decisions. Therefore the scrutiny of the case - and full review if the case is admitted for decision - necessarily has to include the evaluation of the preceding court decisions. The Federal Constitutional Court is restricted to the review of constitutionality. Usually the complainants claim the violation of fundamental rights in the findings of the competent courts, either because the courts have applied a statute in an unconstitutional manner or because the statute itself that is applicable to the case is unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court, however, is only permitted to review whether the competent courts have violated the complainant’s constitutional rights. As long as no fundamental right has been infringed, the Federal Constitutional Court is bound by the decisions of the competent courts.

          However, if the Federal Constitutional Courts finds that the competent courts have applied a valid statute in an unconstitutional manner, it will overturn the decision. If it holds that the statute applied by a competent court is unconstitutional, it declares the statute in question null and void just like in the cases that involve the review of statutes and regular courts may no longer apply it. And if the Federal Constitutional court finds that a statute is only in compliance with the Basic Law if interpreted in a specific way, this specific interpretation is binding upon all the other courts, too.

          The effect of the constitutional complaint on the constitutional law in Germany cannot be overestimated, although the rate of the successful complaints is very low. It is below 3%. Most landmark cases in Germany’s constitutional history have originated from constitutional complaints by ordinary citizens.


          II. Types of Binding Effect

          The effect of the Federal Constitutional Court's work, and the importance that goes with it, essentially depend on the binding effect of its decisions.

          Our Constitution does not contain a specific regulation to this effect. It just explicitly states the priority of the Constitution (Article 1 subsection 3 [Article 1.3] and Article 20 subsection 3 [Article 20.3] of the Basic Law.) In this respect, the legal situation in Germany is different from that in Albania. As far as I know, Article 132 subsection 1 [Article 132.1] of your Constitution provides that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and binding ("The decisions of the Constitutional courts have general binding force and are final. The Constitutional Court has only the right to invalidate the act it reviews.")


          1. In Germany, Section 31 [§ 31] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, that is, [i.e.] a regulation in ordinary law, determines the binding effect of Federal Constitutional Court decisions. Its wording is:

          "The decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court are binding upon federal and Land constitutional bodies as well as upon all courts and authorities.

          In cases pursuant to Section 13 number 6 [§ 13.6] [abstract review of statutes] and Section 11 [§ 11] [concrete review of statutes], ... decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court have the force of law. This also applies in cases pursuant to Section 13 number 8a [§ 13.8a] [constitutional complaint proceedings] if the Federal Constitutional Court declares an Act to be compatible or incompatible with the Basic Law or null and void ..."


          2. As concerns the effects of Federal Constitutional Court decisions, it must be distinguished between res judicata, force of law and binding effect.


          a) The so-called res judicata effect of Federal Constitutional Court decisions is not regulated by statute. As is the case also with all other judicial decisions, Federal Constitutional Court decisions are res judicata for the parties to the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court. The res judicata effect of Federal Constitutional Court decisions only applies inter partes, which means that the decisions are only res judicata for the legislature if the legislature itself was party to the proceedings.

          Res judicata means first and foremost the irrevocability of the decision for the ruling court. The court cannot revoke its decision once it has been issued. The legal consequences that are expressed in the operative provisions of a decision are no longer at the Federal Constitutional Court's disposal.

          Apart from this, res judicata means the unappealability of the issued decision. Unappealability arises at the point in time when the decision is issued because there are no legal remedies against the decision of a highest court (formal res judicata.)

          Res judicata also means substantive res judicata, which means that the parties to the proceedings are also bound beyond the proceedings themselves, in particular in later proceedings, by a decision that is formal res judicata. As concerns the content of the decision, substantive res judicata is restricted to the facts that are of relevance to the decision. As concerns time, substantive res judicata is valid as long as the facts that are of relevance to the decision do not change in comparison to the point in time when the decision was issued. Substantive res judicata serves legal certainty and the undisturbed administration of the law.

          Only decisions on the merits are substantive res judicata. The so-called non-admission orders pursuant to Section 93b [§ 93b] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, by which the Federal Constitutional Court decides that a constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision, are no such decisions. Decisions in proceedings that involve the review of statutes, however, are res judicata.


          b) The force of law pursuant to Section 31 subsection 2 [§ 31.2] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act is restricted to specific types of proceedings (abstract and concrete review of statutes, review of statutes in constitutional complaint proceedings.) It is binding inter omnes upon all public authorities and private individuals. The fact that it is also binding upon private individuals distinguishes the force of law from the binding effect pursuant to Section 31 subsection 1 [31.1] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.

          Res judicata and force of law only apply to the operative provisions of the decision, which means that in proceedings that involve the review of statutes, they apply to the decision about the validity or the nullity of the specific statute that has been reviewed. The historical root of the force of law is the aim to lend the law of the German Reich authority against the law of the individual German states, which was pursued in the 19th century. Today, the importance of the force of law lies in the priority of the Constitution.

          The special impact of the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions on the legislature becomes apparent if the fact is taken into account that the legislature is bound by the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions even in proceedings to which it is no party. As a general rule, the Federal Constitutional Court aims at taking the interests of public authorities (the federal government, the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof]) into account by asking them to submit written opinions.


          c) The binding effect pursuant to Section 31 subsection 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act extends to all Federal Constitutional Court decisions and concerns all constitutional bodies of the Federal and Länder governments, all courts and authorities, that is, [i.e.] the entire public authority. These bodies, which hold sovereign power, are bound by the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court irrespective of the type of proceedings. This means that the binding effect goes beyond the res judicata effect. The legislature is also a constitutional body. For the legislature, both the force of law and the binding effect are relevant, but the binding effect alone would be sufficient because it goes beyond the force of law. Only decisions on the merits have binding effect.

          As concerns the binding effect, two complexes of problems can be distinguished: on the one hand, there is the question to which parts of the decision the binding effect applies, on the other hand, there is the issue of the ban on repeating a statute, that is, [i.e.] the question to what extent the legislature is bound in a specific case.


          aa) What is important first of all in order to answer the question which parts of the decision have a binding effect are the types of decisions that exist in the Federal Constitutional Court.

          The Federal Constitutional Court can state that a statute is null and void because it violates the Constitution. If the nullity of a statute is stated, no further act of implementation is required. The legal effect arises eo ipso. Normally, the statute is declared null and void ex tunc, that is, [i.e.] from the beginning of the collision between the statute and the Constitution. As a general rule, the statute is declared null and void in its entirety, but partial declarations of nullity of specific parts of a statute are also possible.

          In its Section 78 [§ 78], the Federal Constitutional Court Act expressly regulates the declaration of nullity in proceedings that involve the abstract review of statutes: "If the Federal Constitutional Court comes to the conclusion that Federal law is incompatible with the Basic Law or that Land law is incompatible with the Basic Law or other Federal law, it declares the law to be null and void. If further provisions of the same law are incompatible with the Basic Law or other Federal law for the same reasons, the Federal Constitutional Court may also declare them to be null and void."

          Apart from declaring unconstitutional regulations null and void, the Federal Constitutional Court has occasionally confined itself to stating the unconstitutionality of a statute while setting at the same time a deadline for the legislature to take corrective legislative action.

          In some of these proceedings, the Federal Constitutional Court has explicitly ordered the continued applicability of the unconstitutional regulation. Such a decision that orders the continuance in force of an unconstitutional regulation has the force of law.

          Apart from such declarations of unconstitutionality, the Federal Constitutional Court has adopted admonitory decisions in which it has appealed to the legislature to act and amend the unconstitutional statute at a specific point in time at the latest (for example in the so-called Prison Correspondence Case, BVerfGE 33, p. 1.)

          There is also the possibility of an interpreting a statute in conformity with the Basic Law; in such cases, the Federal Constitutional Court regards a specific interpretation of the statute as the only one that is constitutional. There have been a few cases in which the court itself has ordered specific legal practices to be implemented. Such admonitory decisions have a binding effect but they do not have the force of law.


          bb) It is exactly the different content of the three types of decisions that shows how important the scope of the binding effect of Federal Constitutional Court decisions is.

          It is undisputed that the objective scope of the binding effect extends to the operative provisions of a decision. Apart from this, the Federal Constitutional Court itself also assumes in its established case-law that the binding effect extends to the essential reasoning of its decision (BVerfGE 1, p. 14 [at p. 37]; 79, p. 256 [at p. 264].) This is understandable in view of the highly differentiated content of the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions.

          This opinion, which is not undisputed in legal literature, is based on the idea that the Federal Constitutional Court is the authoritative and only interpreter and guardian of the Constitution. The Federal Constitutional Court determines what constitutional law is. The binding effect must therefore also extend to the grounds of its decisions. Only they contain a concretisation of the Constitution that can gain importance beyond the individual case. In this way, a uniform and consistent interpretation of the Constitution is achieved. A standstill in the evolution of the law would seem out of the question because the Federal Constitutional Court itself is exempt from the binding effect pursuant to Section 31 subsection 1 [§ 31.1] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act. It can therefore change its interpretation of the law and thus exempt the government bodies that are bound by its decisions from the binding effect of the decisions. This is demonstrated in some decisions in which the Federal Constitutional Court has departed from its former case-law.

          It is problematic to distinguish what forms part of the essential reasoning of a decision and what does not. As regards this distinction, there is a variety of opinions. The Federal Constitutional Court itself has ruled that such reasoning is essential which cannot be left out of the decision without the concrete conclusion of the decision being lost (BVerfGE 20, p. 56 [at p. 87; 96, p. 375 [at p. 404].) Non-essential are the reasons that are only given obiter, and that do not form part of the connection between the general legal rule and the concrete decision that is established in the reasoning.


          cc) Another problem is posed by the question whether, when the Federal Constitutional Court has stated the nullity of a statute due to its unconstitutionality, the legislature can adopt another statute the content of which corresponds to the one that had been turned down by the Federal Constitutional Court (ban on the repeated adoption of statutes.)

          The Federal Constitutional Court has dealt with this question in three decisions. As early as in 1951, it ruled as follows:

          The Federal Constitutional Court has to state the nullity of a legal provision if the provision contradicts the Basic Law. This ruling, together with its essential reasoning, is binding upon all federal constitutional bodies pursuant to Section 31 subsection 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act in such a way that a federal law with the same content cannot again be deliberated and adopted by the entities with legislative power and cannot again be promulgated by the federal president (BVerfGE 1, p. 14 [at pp. 36-37].) For a long time, this opinion seemed to be unchallenged. The Second Panel of the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed its own ruling in 1985 (BVerfGE 69, p. 112 [at pp. 115 et seq.].) (The Federal Constitutional Court consists of two Panels, or Senates, with eight judges each, each Panel is the Federal Constitutional Court.)

          It was surprising that only two years later, the First Panel of the Federal Constitutional Court disassociated itself from the ban on the repeated adoption of statutes. The Court held that Section 31 [§ 31] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, and the fact that Federal Constitutional Court decisions that declare the nullity of statutes are res judicata, do not prevent the legislature from adopting new statutes whose content is the same as, or similar to, the statutes that were declared null and void. In support of its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court explained: Article 20 subsection 3 [Article 20.3] of the Basic Law (the principle of the rule of law) is binding upon the legislative power solely as regards the constitutional order but not as regards ordinary law. The binding effect set forth in Section 31 subsection 1 [§ 31.1] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, that is, [i.e.] in ordinary law, therefore cannot prevent the legislature from making use of its legislative discretion, and from assuming its legislative responsibility by adopting a new statute with the same content if the legislature considers this necessary.

          The Court further argued that it was the legislature's task to adapt the law to changing social requirements and to changing concepts of the social order. Because the Federal Constitutional Court was not allowed to correct itself on its own initiative, a codification of the Federal Constitutional Court's case-law would lead to a paralysation in the evolution of the law that was incompatible with a democratic state under the rule of law and with a social welfare state (BVerfGE 77, p. 84 [at pp. 103-104].)

          However, good reasons are required for the repeated adoption of a statute. The principle of mutual loyalty between constitutional bodies (Verfassungsorgantreue) sets limits to it. This principle prohibits the legislature from adopting the same statute unchanged immediately after it has been declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court, thereby openly affronting the Federal Constitutional Court.

          d) As I have already mentioned, the Federal Constitutional Court itself is not bound by Section 31 subsection 1 [§ 31.1] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act. This is supposed to prevent the fossilisation of the Basic Law. Although the Federal Constitutional Court is not bound by its own case-law but can depart from its previous conclusions with the corresponding grounds being given, only very few decisions can be found in which such a departure is apparent. The Federal Constitutional Court regards it as an intrinsic value to preserve its continuity as far as possible and to make reference, in the case of innovations, to traditions in legal dogmatics that have proven their worth. As a general rule, this is done in the headnotes that precede the decisions. This approach is based on the correct idea that continuity strengthens confidence in the legal system. In this respect, the factual binding effect of the Federal Constitutional Court's case-law on its own decisions is considerable.

          The factual binding effect also exist vis-à-vis all other state bodies. The state bodies voluntarily submit to the standards which are set by the Federal Constitutional Court and which can be taken from the grounds of the decisions.

          Normally the parliamentary legislature also strives to take account of the Federal Constitutional Court's directives and of its hints for the interpretation of its decisions to the letter. The courts also follow the Federal Constitutional Court's grounds for its decisions as exactly as possible so that their decisions will be proof against constitutional complaints. The same applies to the administration.

          Ultimately, the Federal Constitutional Court's strong position is based on the rational predictability of its case-law, which is designed for continuity, and in the degree of acceptance of its decisions and the great factual authority that goes with it. To enforce the Federal Constitutional Court's case-law, and this seems particularly remarkable to me, hardly any legally binding orders are required, if only because of the fact that law-making bodies have to draw the political conclusions from the Federal Constitutional Court's declaratory decisions. The secret of the effectiveness of Federal Constitutional Court decisions must be their conclusiveness and, ultimately, the legal culture that has developed in Germany since 1949.

          e) If nevertheless, in exceptional cases, the binding effect is not observed, this does not go unsanctioned. The non-observance of the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions can constitute an infringement of the Constitution pursuant to Article 20 subsection 3 [Article 20.3] of the Basic Law; such an infringement can, if appropriate, be challenged by way of a constitutional complaint pursuant to Article 2 subsection 1 [Article 2.1] of the Basic Law. the Federal Constitutional Court, however, cannot itself impose sanctions. The disregard of the fact that a decision in proceedings that involve the review of statutes has the force of law can be seen as a possible perversion of the course of justice, which is punishable.

          Apart from these sanctions, it must also be mentioned that pursuant to Section 35 [§ 35] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, the Federal Constitutional Court may state by whom the decision is to be enforced; in individual instances, it may also specify the method of enforcement. The Federal Constitutional Court has no official bodies of enforcement of its own. Interim regulations by the Court itself that substitute statutes are part of the order of enforcement; the same, however, already applies to the order of the continuance in force of a law that has been declared unconstitutional.

          As examples, the abortion cases should again be mentioned. In 1975 the time-phase solution, which made an abortion within 12 weeks of conception permissible, and which had been adopted as a law, was declared unconstitutional because it infringed the right to life of the nasciturus, which was protected by fundamental rights. For the same reasons, the Federal Constitutional Court could not order that the law continue in force even temporarily. The old regulations in criminal law could not be revived because they were not in keeping with the times and were contrary to the will of all political camps. An unregulated situation was not acceptable because to protect unborn human life, even criminal law was required. In this situation, the Federal Constitutional Court held that for a transitional period, abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy would be punishable, but it established conditions under which abortion would be exempt from punishment (these conditions made abortion permissible for instance on grounds of the embryo's severe handicap or for medical reasons.) This approach had so far only been favoured by the parliamentary opposition, which had been outvoted. This means that criminal liability was based on an order of enforcement issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, not on a statute adopted by the democratically legitimated legislature.


          3. Binding Effect and Ruling Bodies of Judges

          It must be mentioned that apart from the Panels, which have already been described, there are also Chambers within the Panels in the Federal Constitutional Court. The Chambers, which consist of three judges, decide about the admissibility of a constitutional complaint. A constitutional complaint can also be granted in a Chamber decision. Such decision also has binding effect (Section 93c subsection 1 sentence 1 [§ 93c.1.1] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.)


          4. Special Type of Effect

          Pursuant to Section 79 [§ 79] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, new proceedings may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a final conviction that is based on a rule which has been declared incompatible with the Basic Law or null and void, or on the interpretation of a statute that has been declared incompatible with the Basic Law by the Federal Constitutional Court. In all other cases, the unappealable decisions that are based on a statute that has been declared null and void remain unaffected. However, the enforcement of such a decision is impermissible.

          Thus Section 79 subsection 1 [§ 79.1] of the Federal Constitutional Court Act establishes an exception to the protection of the legal validity of unappealable sovereign acts. The principle of res judicata is departed from in favour of justice.
                • [...]
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:50 pm

You know, Kor, i actually wanted to take your previous post as a sort-off-apology.
If you wish to know my opinion you only need to ask direct and specific questions and i will reply in the same manner.

I just want to make it clear that it is not a choice - but that's a somewhat common mistake. I might as well ask you when you decided to be male - you didn't, you just are.

Il will say the choice i was refering to was in regards to you doing something about it and making it clear you wished to be refered to and accepted in a certain way rather than "going stealth" as i believe it is refered to, but regardless your reply was well written and as i agree with it whole heartedly i have no problem confirming that by saying consession given if that makes you happy.
If you are posting your theories like i asked for earlier (multiple times), i am willing to continue the discussion.
It is unlikely that i will follow all your debate demands either because of personal choice or because of a lack of formal education allowing me to do some of the math you seem to require, but i will refer to you without insults and by a appropreate title when the need requires it if you can accept a few of educational flaws.

User avatar
Airlocke_Jedi_Knight
Jedi Knight
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Camby
Contact:

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Airlocke_Jedi_Knight » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:53 pm

Why did I EVER stop posting here?!!! This is one of the most entertaining things I have ever seen. Serafina, you are being an idiot. You are clearly TRYING to find a reason to freak out on someone and defend your beliefs and choices. But...um....if you were so comfortable with your own sexuality and current position regarding your gender, why would you feel the need to lash out at someone so hard? Kor is not making any bigoted remarks and is simply trying to end this stupid, yet massively entertaining discussion. You notice how many people are arguing against you? Just let it go, already. You are accomplishing nothing.


Also, there is this guy at my workplace who is about two weeks away from his gender swap operation. Nice guy.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:55 pm

Serafina wrote:We do. Gender is called "Geschlechtidentität", it is used in legal documents and laws.
That term is not even used in the Transsexuellengesetz.

And I can neither find that term here nor here.

Show me a law and a legal document where the the term "Geschlechtidentität" is used.


Serafina wrote:Besides, we are talking in english it's your job to know the meaning of words you are using.
If you are using a term meaning something different from what everyone would understand, you should clarify it. I doubt that most native-English-speakers are knowing the social sciences meanings of the term gender. But I may be wrong. After all, I'm not a native-English-speaker as you know.


Serafina wrote:Ohh, latin. Impressive. Also called appeal to authority.
And given that you appeal to YOUR authority, that simply cancels your "argumentum ad verecundiam".
There is a little difference between referring to a anonymous professor of law without saying what he has said and which arguments he has used and me, who is providing one argument after another.

Okay I know that you ignore all arguments you do not like and will now claim that my arguments do not have any value.

But even if my arguments had not value, I'm arguing.

To say that I appeal only to my authority is obliviously wrong.


Serafina wrote:I never criticized you for not being an expert on Transsexuality.
No, you only demanded that I have to know already all that is to know about transsexuality and all legal problems concerning transsexuality.


Serafina wrote:If you are talking about something, you are expceted to do your own research to ensure that you know what you are talking about.
If you want to argue that you should be treated as a woman although your sex is male, it is at you to explain your reasoning and to provide evidence.





And do not think that I will bother to correct your selective quotes out of the article, I have quoted.

I have stated several time, that certain decisions of the Federal Constitution Court are effective inter omnes (especially those through which a statute (a law) is stated to be null and void).

But most decisions are only effective inter partes. If someone complaines about the decision of a court, the Federal Constitution Court only reviews whether the decision comply with the Constitution. If it finds that the decision does not comply with the Constitution, it will decide that the decision is null and void and remand the case to the deciding court. Of course, in such a case, the deciding court has to adher to what the Federal Constitution Court has said.

But otherwise a judge is independent and can decide as he or she wants - as long as he is not commiting a Rechtsbeugung. And not even a totally indefensible decision alone is enough to say that a judge has perverted the course of justice (BGH, Urteil vom 4. September 2001, Az. 5 StR 92/01; BGHSt 47, 105-116).

I have provided excerpts out of three articles (only one from wikipedia) who are confirming my opinion.

But you decided to see only these parts, where they are talking about the decisions which are effective inter omnes - as if that would prove me wrong - as if I had denied that there are such decisions.

Than I can't help you.

If you really think you know it better than me and others or if you want to make a strawman out of what I have said, please do so. Then I can't help you and will not try to convince you further.

I concede that I'm not able to explain it to you.

Whether my inability to explain something or your inability to accept anything is responsible is debatable.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:01 pm

Can't you read:
                • Declaration by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on behalf of the European Union on the International Day Against Homophobia, 17 May 2010


          In the context of the International Day Against Homophobia, I, on behalf of the European Union, reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. My own deeply held personal commitment to the equality and social justice agenda, in particular in the field of gay rights, goes back many years.

          The European Union rejects and condemns any manifestation of homophobia as this phenomenon is a blatant violation of human dignity. It considers that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity is incompatible with the basic principles on which the EU is founded, and it is and will remain committed to the prevention and eradication of discrimination based on the six grounds mentioned in Articles 10 and 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which include sexual orientation.

          The European Union recalls that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity is also prohibited by international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 2, 16 and 17), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 2) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 2), to which all EU Member States are party.

          The European Union is deeply concerned by the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular the use of death penalty on this ground, the practice of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention, denying the right to peaceful assembly and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health.

          This forms an integral part of the EU common foreign and security policy where several measures have been taken, specifically, the creation of a Taskforce on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered People's (LGBT) rights within the Council Working Group on Human Rights (COHOM) and the upcoming adoption by the latter of a EU Toolkit on LGBT rights.

          The European Union urges States to take all necessary measures to ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties and that such human rights violations are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice.

          The European Union urges States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.

          The European Union recalls in this context, that 67 States from different regions condemned violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the General Assembly Statement on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity of 18 December 2008. The European Union welcomes the ever increasing support to these principles in the world and urges States to continue in the promotion of these principles, as outlined in the World Congress on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity on 15 of March, 2009.

          The Candidate Countries Croatia* and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, and the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Armenia and Georgia align themselves with this declaration.
That thing is a non-binding declaration and not a law.

And it is coming from the Council of the European Union. I would hardly call that evidence that there are German laws and legal documents with the term "Geschlechtidentität".

As far as I know, no German authority has ever used this term.

I do not claim, that no German authority has ever used this term. Only that I do not know of such a use.

But what would it prove if there are a few laws or legal documents out of thousands and thousands?

Does this mean that I have to be familiar with the term "Geschlechtidentität"?

Obviously you know more than I because you as a transwoman has researched that topic in extenso.

But then present what you have found.

Show that "Geschlechtidentität" is a term I should be familiar with. Show that it is a commonly used term in Germany. Show that this is the usual translation of gender.

And do not only claim that a large number of native-English-speakers appears to know what the "second" meaning of gender is. Show it. How large is the number? Can you give a relation?

Or could it be that this is merely your perception? I mean, how many native-English-speakers do you know and are they representative for all native-English-speakers? Are you sure, that you do not only know so many native-English-speakers who know the "second" meaning of gender, because you are trying to "surround" you with such people?



How could a scan of e.g. my certificate of my 2. Staatsexamen convince you, that I am me, if there is nothing to prove my identity when I cover up all that could prove it?

I mean, I could take e.g. the image of this certificate and change it and you wouldn't be wiser.

Especially considering that you do not know, how such a certificate is supposed to look like at all?

You would still claim that my certificate of my 2. Staatsexamen is not real or that it is not mine.



And you are right. You have nabbed and convicted me. I admit it. I'm no lawyer. I have not studied legal science. I have not even made my Abitur. I'm a fraud.

There you have it.

And all it needed for this was someone who has only a Mittlere Reife.

And of course you are totally right when you say that without exception all decisions of the Federal Constitution Court have res judicata, force of law and a binding effect.

That's exactly what Dr. Anke Eilers, former Law Clerk at the Federal Constitutional Court, has explained in her over 6.000 word long speech. She could have explained it in one single sentence. But that would have been a rather short speech so she decided to stretch the contents of this sentence to over 6.000 words.

But on the bottom line, there is no question that without exception all decisions of the Federal Constitution Court have res judicata, force of law and a binding effect. And to be precise: That not only inter partes but inter omnes.

I do not know what I thought thinking I could bluff you.

It is the same with the mantle of Earth. Of course it is liquid. I really do not know how I could believe that, in consideration of the many sources you have referred to, who are clearly saying that the mantle is trough and through liquid, I could fool you.

See, I have to be even so stupid that I really thought I could deceive you. Oh man, how stupid do I have to be to think such a thing.

Are you satisfied?

Or is there something else you want?

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:44 pm

@wyrm.
Wyrm wrote:"BUT... YOU STARTED IT!!!"
Correct.
Wyrm wrote:Drop the whiny pretensious bullshit, Kor. Unless you're claiming that either you or Wrigler are in fact mentally handicapped (which would be a massive self-pwnage), Sarafina has fulfilled this requirement by default.

She is not addressing actual mentally handicapped people — you are perfectly capable of learning and correcting the faults in your thinking, if only you were willing to do so — and she has never made any claims of civility.
So by that logic it is ok for me to use racial and homophobic slurs as long as im am using them against individuals who are NOT from racial minorities or homosexuals?, are you actually saying that if such disgusting insults do NOT apply to the person you are using them on then it is ok to use them?.

Just because i am not retarded does that mean that everybody reading the post is not and would not be offended by the use of such evil comments?, do you include the fact i may have family members who are mentally disabled and that such comments may offend me?.

Or that they like the other slurs regarding homosexuality or racial minorities are just not needed and quite disgusting?.
Wyrm wrote:You over at SFJ, on the other hand, are another matter. "We do try to make sure SFJ is open, friendly, and polite." It's right there in the New Member's Guide, yet neither members nor the admins seem to remember it.
I was polite, i politely gave her a taste of her own medicine.

Because of that and our continued dialog we seem to have come to a better understanding of each other and our positions, a understanding that does not require input from a hippocrite like you.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Does literally everyone go to Stardestroyer.net?

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:05 pm

Yes, it is not as bad as using it against someone where the insult fits.
They are still insults. They can still hurt. But it is FAR easier to handle them when they do not actually apply to you.
They hurt much, much more when they actually fit.
Perhaps but how do you think a parent or a family member of a retarded child would feel about you using such slurs?. I will go no farther regarding that line of thought but the fact is that every time you use a slur like that anybody reading it can be effected.

That's not the only difference, too - it is a difference wether you attack someone for who they are, or for doing something.
To make a clumsy example:
I can dislike someone due to race, gender or things like that (not that i do it, it's just an example).
Or i can dislike them for being greedy, arrogant or something like that (which i actually do).
The former is racism/sexism etc. - the latter is not regarded to be nearly as bad, if at all.
In regards to greed or arrogance you do have a point as long as it is not done because of some sort of mental illness but how is a child responsible for being born retarded?.
But i can NOT change who i am, and neither is it my fault.
Nor can they and its not their fault either.
Do you actually think someone is as offended by reading an insult to another person as if when it is directly thrown at him?
Your supporters seem to be and i certainly was and i made you aware of my dislike and distaste from the start, you mearly ignored and increased your usage. Now i would have thought that somebody who wants and il say certainly deserves considerable empathy and respect from others would get more by showing more.

Insults, aggression and abuse will in most cases begat insults, aggression and abuse.
Kor, let me tell you something:
By your own logic, your posts were at least as bad as mine. Why?
Well, quite simple - they appeared to be extremely intolerant and hostile.
They were supposed to be, while i prefer not to resort to foul language personally and due to the board rules am also bound to not do so. But as i have told you i am far from the retard that you call me and i can find and exploit a chink in most armour as well as stay within the bounds of the boards rules when dealing with the verbally abusive.
Words like idiot, retard, stupid, moron etc. are often and widely used against people who are not mentally handicapped.
Everyone uses them. They are not directly tailored towards mentally handicapped people.
They were tailored towards the mentally handicapped in the past that is why they exist but unlike you in your situation the mentally handicapped are not as capable of defending themselves as well as you are so the usage has become more acceptable to some.
But your insults were directly tailored against transgendered people.
No my words were directly tailored to you and the very large target you showed me by mentioning your situation. If you are going to fight somebody physically or verbally you should never let em see you bleed and certainly not let them see where you are bleeding from.
Please, just accept that you retaliated with insults, and harsh ones at that.
Try to understand why they were hurtful - and that there are grades of severity with insults. Insults against someone where they actually fit due to him being who he is are definitely crossing the line.
Accept it?, of course i accept it i put considerable thought and effort into it at the time to make sure i broke none of my forums rules about foul language, politeness and accuracy while making it as upsetting to you as possible.

Now i am neither proud or ashamed of what i did or how i did it considering my feelings regarding your many insults and my requests for them to stop prior to my retaliation but if we are both honest id say we have a new appreciation for each others positions regarding our respective insults because of the entire situation.
Last edited by Kor_Dahar_Master on Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply