Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wrong, judges accept deals all the time and don't have to make any decision. Not to mention the million ways you can settle disputes with legal contracts outside of a court.
You're talking about situations where both parties agree. That's entirely different. The fact that people will not always agree is why we need systems like this in the first place, that's what's being critiqued here.
Also, chill with the ad-homs, it makes you look more unhinged than you are.
Then be serious and stop strawmanning my points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
And yet that's exactly what Russia started doing, within hours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
That was obviously parody and nobody for a second didn't think it was AI generated
When Trump told Russia if they were listening to find the 30,000 emails that were missing, he was obviously joking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're assuming both parties are doing it correctly.
No, I'm assuming both parties are comprised of human beings.
More fundamentally what is "a solution" supposed to mean in this sentence?
A mutually accepted resolution
If debate is a failure because it does not cause all parties to agree then so is an arbiter
Agreement and acceptance of the outcome are two different things. Ask Al Gore.
Just as government is a means to an end so is arbitration and the attempt to debate. As tools they can fail (through a diversity of fault points) and when they do we (I) say they have failed which is a far cry from defining success as obedience to their outcome.
That's your whole problem; you don't respect any resolution you disagree with as legitimate. There will always be disagreement within a society, that's not avoidable. If people do not accept the outcomes they disagree with we wouldn't have one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A final arbiter? Enjoy the dictatorship I guess.....
It's a logical necessity genius. If there is no individual or entity who gets the final say then no issue would ever be legally resolved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Public-Choice
@WyIted
@Moozer325
You are all missing the point.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
"The people" in this passage has been interpreted by the supreme court to essentially mean "each individual". Therefore it logically follows that any infringement on any individual's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. This has been the basis by which nearly every effort by the left to enact gun safety laws and measures has been defeated.
So let's take this a step further; if each individual is granted this inalienable right and the purpose of that right is to ensure the security of a free state, then it is up to each individual to determine for themselves whether that security is in danger and if so, nullify the threat.
Another way to think about it is to ask, with any given provision who gets to decide the issue at hand? If we're talking about pardon power the constitution says that's solely up to the president. If we're talking about the right to interpret what the constitution means with regards to any individual issue, that is up to the supreme court. The constitution tells us who gets to decide, and when it comes to whether the security of the free state is in danger, well that's up to "the people" by which we mean each individual American.
So while you may disagree with the assassin's judgement, if you accept the SC's interpretation of "the people" (which is the basis of our national position on guns that all the 2A advocates continue to celebrate) you can't claim their use of it is constitutionally out of bounds, and in fact if you are being consistent you would defend their right to make that choice regardless of whether you agree with it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So how do you explain all of the politicians supporting the war who aren't benefiting financially from itWhat? Name some. Post the donations.
We're talking about benefiting personally. If the argument is that their campaigns are benefiting from political contributions (which is bad) then there isn't a policy position taken by any politician anywhere that this argument wouldn't work against.
so that money is in fact going to Americans.So the ultra rich donor class. I know you meant that. Normal Americans need not apply.
So to be clear... Your position is that more money in the hands of the ultra rich does not benefit normal Americans... Is that right?
There is no evidence and that Putin would not have invadedIgnoring the 4 years when he didn't, maybe.
I just explained all of this. Did you read it? Do you understand it?
I'd really like to know exactly the mechanism that would certainly lead to global thermo nuclear war if it should ever happen that Ukraine negotiates a settled peace treaty with Russia over the Donbas.
It's really breathtaking to think that someone could be so dishonest.
No one said anything about certainty of any outcome, first off all. I said it would move us closer on that direction.
Also, the premise of my argument which you entirely ignored so that you could strawman my position is that there is no realistic terms by which a peace deal could be negotiated.
So no, I never in any way suggested anything close to 'negotiating a peace deal would lead to certain nuclear war'.
Third to answer the question you were sort of implying, strawman's aside; the mechanism Isa that Russia will not stop with Ukraine. They have already hinted that once they secure Ukraine Poland would be next, which is a NATO ally. So if Russia attacks Poland that will drag us into war with Russia.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Does anyone, ANYONE AT ALL, remember the Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory that all the mainstream press, including Fox News, trumpeted for 4 long years?
It wasn't a conspiracy theory. Trump did collude with Russia, that's a fact. Don Jr. did hold a meeting with a woman who was and represented herself as acting to provide information that was "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump", Trump's campaign chairman did give internal polling data to the Russians, and Trump did regularly plan his rally talking points around the information Russia stole and was leaking in coordination with a Trump ally (Roger Stone).
There is probably also a lot more we don't know since Trump did not cooperate with the investigation. But regardless just because we don't have Trump and Putin on tape planning their next moves together doesn't mean there was nothing there.
What about the "Trump cheated" and won the election against Clinton illegitimately bullshit they ran with before that?
Most people would call winning with the welcomed help of a foreign advisary's disinformation campaign to be illigitimate, as I bet you would of it were the other way around. But either way that's a matter of opinion.
Things in the press have gotten so bad now that most of the sources are anonymous.
Sources have always been anonymous because that's how journalists are able to get inside information. That's common sense, or at least it used to be until Trump started ranting about it and then all of a sudden ignorant people all over the country thought Trump was making a valid point and just like that, our collective Media literacy IQ dropped by 20 points.
aside from Fox News, the system is incredibly tilted in favor of the Democrats.
That's because reality has a known liberal bias
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
wrong. we (and when I say ‘we’, I mean the career politicians) fight foreign wars only to make money.
So how do you explain all of the politicians supporting the war who aren't benefiting financially from it, along with all the generals who have upheld this principal for decades?
Trump would have this war done and settled within 6 months, furhtermore it would have never happened if her were in office.
Pure fantasy. There is no evidence and that Putin would not have invaded if Trump was reelected and in fact that notion defies common sense. Trump has shown himself to be a major Putin sycophant. You guys act like Trump is so tough on him and yet when he stood face to face with him on the world stage he cowered and took Putin's word over that of US intelligence.
By far the most reasonable explanation for why Putin didn't invade during the Trump administration is because he was waiting for a second Trump term where he believed Trump would have pulled the US out of NATO, thereby creating a much more favorable environment for Putin to continue the invasion he had been planning for years.
And as far as Trump having the war settled in 6 months, I think that would have happened much sooner, because Trump would have just handed Ukraine to Russia. I really hope you weren't implying that Trump would "negotiate" a deal where everyone is happy because of you think that is even possible you are breathtakingly ignorant on what this war is about.
And if that still isn't enough, we're not sending money to Ukraine. That money is almost entirely going to US weapons manufacturers who are them sending the weapons to Ukraine, so that money is in fact going to Americans.you just made point for me bud.
What point was that? That your implication of us sending money to Ukraine factually wrong?
No prominent left wing figure sanctioned the BLM riots, that's just a lie.Tampon Tim did nothing when arson was committed, and Kamala held bail funds for the few who were jailed.
None of this supports your original point, and both points are misleading at best. Harris literally sent out a tweet, that's it.
bro, go back to fantasyland.
Translation: "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about and have no interest in the facts because I know they're probably inconvenient for me, so I'm just going to take a parting shot and hope people follow the squirrel rather than recognize my claim is full of shit."
Fixed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Debate is the only solution.
And yet debate in many if not most cases solves nothing (as our conversations have proven). So in those cases there is no solution other than to leave the decision up to a final arbitrator. And since no deity is about to come down to the heavens to fill that role, it has to be a living human being. Sucks, but that is reality no matter how inconvenient.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You don't see much, and neither does the propaganda media when its useless for propaganda.
Maybe I don't see them because they don't exist. Would explain why you can't provide them either.
In the extremely unlikely event that everyone who protested against the removal of the statute on august 11th and 12th was a "neo nazi" or a "white supremacist" (I already pointed out Enrique and by extension most of any proud boys who were there) then Trump is simply wrong about there being "very fine people" because we know he was not talking about "the neo-nazis and the white supremacists".
Simply wrong? That's the point you're not getting.
It's not about whether he was ultimately right or wrong, it's about why he would have said such a thing. Trump even told us at the time that he saw the same images as everyone else, so what else could he have been looking at?
Let's remember the context here, we just watched a bunch of white supremacists march down Charlottesville in broad daylight, one of ramming their car through counter protesters killing one of them. What would have been so difficult about condemning white supremecy and leaving it there? Nothing of course, unless you're Trump. He couldn't help himself. For whatever reason, whether it was because he sympathizes with them or simply because he knows they're his voters, he had to throw that "fine people" line in there.
There is a reason his chief of staff stood there with his hand in his face. Anyone with an ounce of common sense realized that this was not the time for that, but not Trump, because he clearly didn't feel the same way about what we just saw as everyone else. That's the point here.
I have seen no mechanism by which "racist dog whistle" could be objectively evaluated.
That's why he uses them. It's not rocket science. If his point is just vague enough the people who oppose it will be outraged, the people who love it will rejoice, and the people who don't agree with it but are predisposed to support him will pretend there's nothing there. This is his strategy, and he's been using it for decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Red herring. Correction:
Wasn't a red herring, and no convoluted correction is needed. This is a really simple and straightforward question:
Person 1 writes "A = B"
Person 2 writes "A =/= B"
How does a society of human beings resolve this?
A represents the words written into law. B is an interpretation of how those words apply to a given situation. So how does this get resolved?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In one sentence: The assassins are wrong.
Says who? If the people don't consent to being governed they can take matters into their own hands. That's the idea right? Sounds to me like there's no such thing as being wrong.
Also they're attacking someone with no military power.
He's very close to having that power again. So is it only a problem now but ok in January?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Obviously there were hundreds of randos and grandmas
Obviously? I haven't seen that. Wondering if you have.
Created:
Posted in:
The purpose of the second amendment is so that the people are able to rise up against tyranny and put those wannabe tyrants in their place.
Trump is, according to the people (represented by two would-be assassins), a tyrant who must be kept at bay. Therefore the assassination attempts are constitutionally justified.
Second amendment advocates, it seems like a great day to be an American. Why are you not proud?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Can you please provide us with images or identities of the very fine people who were not the Neo Nazis he was referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Or do you believe objective meanings have magical powers that enforce themselves?No more than I believe the equals sign has a magical ability that prevents anyone from writing unequal expressions on each side.
Person 1 writes "A = B"
Person 2 writes "A =/= B"
How does a society of human beings resolve this?
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Can someone please explain why any american would give a shit about ukranians
Well, because we're human beings for one, so it's natural to care when one country decides to effectively engage in genocide. Russia is literally firing missiles into Ukrainian hospitals and residential buildings killing innocent families. If that doesn't bother you then you need help.
But if you need a more selfish reason to care, we're sending arms to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight this war rather than what in all likelihood happens next when Russia decides to go further than Ukraine and drag the US into nuclear war. It's one of the most basic ideas of US foreign policy; we fight the battles abroad so we don't have to fight them at home.
And if that still isn't enough, we're not sending money to Ukraine. That money is almost entirely going to US weapons manufacturers who are them sending the weapons to Ukraine, so that money is in fact going to Americans.
We are on the brink of nuclear exchange, we have an invasion at our southern border, we have historic inflation and our jobs are being taken by cat-eating Haitians and the aurora venezuelans.
Wow, you've really gone of the deep end.
The thing that would get us closer to nuclear war is if we gave up on Ukraine.
We don't have an invasion at the southern border, that's just stupid. What we have is a serious problem with migrants fleeing their countries and taking advantage of our inadequate asylum system. You know, the one that would have been fixed months ago if Donald Trump would have gotten the hell out of the way and allowed republicans to support the bill they've been asking for for years.
Inflation is already down to just below 3%, which is exactly where economists say is optimal. This is no longer an issue.
And Hatian migrants eating cats and dogs? Really?
Well, considering they sanctioned BLM riots, burning down buildings, not to mention the plandemic or the multiple assassination attempts — or the failure to genuinely denounce them, yeah, it’s no wonder the dems are considered the party of violence.
No prominent left wing figure sanctioned the BLM riots, that's just a lie.
The first assassination attempt was a nutjob conservative republican kid who researched other mass shooters and targets that included democrats and celebrities. It wasn't political, he wanted to make a name for himself. That's all. We don't know enough about the second attempts motives. And if you think the left hasn't denounced them it's because you're stuck on News Max or the many right wing podcasters being bankrolled by Russia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Diagnostic question: If the founders or those contemporary to them had claimed that "arms" included strawberry shortcakes and actively infectious small pox samples does that mean that must be true?
Yes, if that was clearly the legislative intent then that's what it would mean. Why they would include something so ridiculous is another question.
It's not up to you either. Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning. That doesn't imply that the objective meaning is defined as the whims of a judge, nor could it be implied given the definition of "objective".
Do you believe there is such thing as a reasonable disagreement?
Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning.
That by definition means it's up to them.
Or do you believe objective meanings have magical powers that enforce themselves?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
The defenders of Democracy cant have people deciding who they want to vote for.
"They"
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Was it justified? Is this connected with Butler or Arizona?
The Butler wannabe assassin was a conservative republican kid who did a lot of research on numerous potential targets to assassinate with no connection between them. He was basically another school shooter who decided that mass shootings were played out and wanted to try something different. Trump coming to town was a gift to him, if it wasn't Trump he would have tried it on someone else.
We don't know enough about this shooter yet but sense to be heavily influenced by his stance on the Ukraine war.
Either way, my first thought when hearing about it was "here we go again" with all of the downright stupid claims by Trump supporters pretending the democrats are the party of political violence no matter how clearly reality shows otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, thank god Trump said project 2025 was bullshit.
He also said he didn't know anything about it, so he's just doing what he always does, he lies.
The question is, if he doesn't believe the bulk of that document why lie about it? And have you ever heard him explain what about it is bullshit? No, of course not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You should be happy he doesn't have a plan to fix healthcare because he said in the debate he wouldn't touch it unless he could think of a better system.
He also said he'd be unleashing his new healthcare plan in two weeks.
His words are meaningless. What we know about him is that he couldn't care less about policy and will defer to those he puts in charge to figure it out. We also know what kind of people he will put in charge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the framers of the constitution couldn't have possibly considered X at the time of it's drafting (because X didn't yet exist) then it can't possibly be up to them to determine whether the constitution applies to it. Therefore, it is up to those of us living people to figure out to the best of our abilities, using logic and reason, whether it applies.
Note that this is very different from "the words on that piece of paper say so if you interpret every word literally and without that context, therefore we're stuck with whatever the framers didn't think about". Also notice that this is very different from "if X didn't exist at the time the constitution was drafted then X is automatically, without any thought or reason, excluded".
If you still need me to clarify you'll need to be very specific in what you are still not understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
By that logic, Trump will inherit a booming economy again, and do the same as 2016. Nothing to worry about.
You mean he'll do nothing but ride the wave created for him by the previous administration and then dramatically mismanage a global crisis leading to terms of thousands of unnecessary deaths? I would say that's something to be concerned about.
I think it's more of the fault of moderators not pressing her to say the things that would secure her victory.
Ah, so the moderators weren't helping. That's good, might want to tell Trump and his surrogates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Remember that Covid happened under Trump.
In a way, that's really what all this is about. Trump supporters love to pretend Trump's term ended on January 1st 2020. They say Trump can't be held responsible for the impacts of COVID cause that wasn't his fault. But apparently COVID's impact was alive and well through January 19th 2021, and then stopped at noon on January 20th.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Many Democrat voters see value in proper virtue acting instead of workable solutions.
Yeah, that's definitely what Trump brings to the table. Maybe if he posted more on truth social we would learn more about the concepts of a plan he has to address healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Just because you don't agree with what you think love should be , it's not necessarily a contradiction. It's just against your thought process.
Creating a place intended to be an eternal destination of torment contradicts any reasonable definition of love. Pretending that is not the case doesn't stop it from being so.
So what?
It's what I was thinking also. I directly answered the question because that's what respectful dialog entails, but these discussions about biblical contradictions kind of miss the point. You can come up with any ad hoc explanation you want to square the contradictions within the bible, that still doesn't give anyone a valid reason to believe it's true.
Created:
Posted in:
Overwhelmingly, Americans think Donald Trump is an obnoxious vile petulant ignoramus who is the opposite of everything they teach their kids to be. But they put all that to the side because Trump was president before, and their lives were better at that time.
Those of us who are educated know why. We know Trump inherited an economy that had been growing for 7 straight years, we know Trump didn't actually do anything to make the economy of the late 2010's as good as it was, we know that Biden/Harris inherited a huge mess to clean up, and we know that the the biggest issue (inflation) was a global phenomenon that had little to anything to do with Biden's policies.
If it weren't for this massive correlation/causation fallacy Harris would win this election in a landslide. So what do you all think, has her campaign focused hard enough on this issue? Did she miss a clear opportunity to talk about this at the debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
List or state what you believe is a biblical contradiction.
An all loving and all powerful God allows his creations to spend eternity rotting in hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump doesn't have to be presidential. That standard only applies to democrats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Could not have possibly been considered" =/= "does not apply".
It does equal...
This is why we have courts to litigate these issues. No one knows what the founding fathers would have thought about free speech in the context of the twitterverse, but we can make reasonable presumptions as to what the intent was and how it applies, in fact that's all we can do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
First off, it's not My Candidate....
Right. Everyone here is well aware of how relentlessly tough you've been on Trump...
Second,, it's pretty obvious what Drumph is doing here, sucking the air out of the room by forcing a hostile media to indirectly report on the scam of big mega-corps using...
Uh huh, look at Trump once again masterfully manipulating the media by pretending to be a total jackass and ignoramus whenwhat he's really doing is [insert nonsense ad hoc rationalization here].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Again: There were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them.
I never argued the first amendment doesn't or wouldn't apply to them.
Again: [since you don't read]:
This is why we have courts to litigate these issues. No one knows what the founding fathers would have thought about free speech in the context of the twitterverse, but we can make reasonable presumptions as to what the intent was and how it applies, in fact that's all we can do.
This is really simple. Here's how I approach this:
Fact: X didn't exist at the time The constitution was drafted
Response: assess based on the intent of the amendment whether X is protected by the constitution
Here's you're approach:
Fact: X didn't exist at the time The constitution was drafted
Response: well since we can shoehorn X into the category of what the constitution is referring to we have no choice but to ignore legislative intent and the real world impacts and just declare X constitutional until the constitution is amended, even if it were to result in the annihilation of the country.
I prefer mine, so does every civilized society on earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why is Biden supporting Trump???Master troll move maybe?
Fix Biden, please.
If I were you I might be more concerned with why your candidate is still claiming Haitian migrants are eating the towns cats and dogs, despite the schools and hospitals there continuing to receive bomb threats after he put this in the mainstream.
But hey, you have the right to prioritize whatever issue you really think is important I guess. Just stop pretending you hold everyone to the same standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, she doesn't think Hatian migrants are eating the local's cats and dogs, so there's that...
Created:
-->
@Barney
It also gives us another clue to your OP. One must ask themself, if this conspiracy was about immigrants from Sweden would Trump and the right have swallowed it whole the way they did?
So basically, the answer from Trump supporters in this thread is the same as always - that we can't know whether Trump is racist because we're not inside his head. I find it interesting how everytime the debate over what Trump's beliefs or intentions are (like is he a racist) suddenly everyone pretends this is a court of law and convicting him in our minds will result in the loss of his freedom. That's not the standard. Judging the character of others is something we do every day of our lives. We do it when we walk into a gas station and pay for a hot dog. The idea that we can't possibly judge the most visible man on earth over the past decade is preposterous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Soo when Harris is campaigning, is she campaigning for the continued policies of her current administration or is she rejecting her current administration policies and campaigning against them and wants to change them if she gets elected?
She's campaigning to run the government in accordance with her vision for the country. There is obviously a lot of overlap between her and Biden, but no two people agree on everything. It's not an all or nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is why we have courts to litigate these issues.How convenient for the courts and those who control them, the words mean whatever they want them to mean.
Sorry the practical realities of enforcing laws don't align to your fantasy where interpreting them can be done on a calculator.
Your argument was defeated
You're delusional
A nuclear warhead does not fit into any conception of an arm which the framers had at the time they wrote those words.It is not a weapon which existed or could be predicted but it is a weapon. They understood the concept of a tool used to make war.
Still doesn't fit into any conception they had of an arm. Still didn't exist and therefore could not have possibly been considered at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment.
you just conceded.
You're delusional
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not a mistake to limit the meaning of your words to things that existed at the time you wrote themThere were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them. Someone should tell Trump it will be very easy to shut MSNBC up.
This is why we have courts to litigate these issues. No one knows what the founding fathers would have thought about free speech in the context of the twitterverse, but we can make reasonable presumptions as to what the intent was and how it applies, in fact that's all we can do.
it's absurd to assume that anything one would later invent (like a nuclear warhead) becomes automatically built into the law you wrote because they decided to call it an arm.They didn't decide to call it a weapon. It is a weapon.
A nuclear warhead does not fit into any conception of an arm which the framers had at the time they wrote those words. Again, language is about communicating ideas. You cannot communicate an idea that doesn't exist.
Because if you're a lawmaker then it's literally your job.To pass laws at random until somebody proves that they aren't helping? I don't think so.
No genius, it's there job to take a stance on issues that affect the public and answer for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Just because I don't give you the answer you want , I'm still going to give my best answer the way I see it.The problem is, you just look for hypotheticals. Doesn't prove anything of what I do in the real situation.So I'm going to be honest and say I don't know what I'd do in a situation until I'm actually in it. I can't foretell the future. I don't know like I said.
It has nothing to do with giving me the answer I want. It's a basic hypothetical, and hypotheticals are very useful ways to test whether oneself or others are being honest and/or consistent, so when someone tells me they don't deal with hypotheticals that very clearly shows that they are either not interested in critical thinking, not being honest, or both.
There is no future scenario where you would ever have to make that choice. The point of the question is to see if you can acknowledge what is very basic common sense; an AK47 is far more deadly then a handgun, and a handgun is far more deadly than a knife. If you don't know that you are truly lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thinking you can ignore the law because you feel comfortable assuming the words written were a mistake because you assume you knew what they would have intended given information they didn't have doesn't work too well either.
We're not talking about mistakes. If I write a law in 1790 that says every American can bear arms, and AK47's didn't exist at that time, I couldn't possibly be talking about them. It's not a mistake to limit the meaning of your words to things that existed at the time you wrote them and it's absurd to assume that anything one would later invent (like a nuclear warhead) becomes automatically built into the law you wrote because they decided to call it an arm.
In fact 95% of the time you or anyone else accuse me of a strawman it's because you didn't make your 'intent' clear (you used language imprecisely or incorrectly) and then you got mad because I read between the lines.
Complete and total bullshit. Making shit up =/= reading between the lines.
because rights don't do you any good when you're dead.and violating the rights of intelligent violent apes that number in the billions and carry guns is not very safe. Also, right to die?
You are so pathetic. Please stop watching Die Hard movies, they're not real life.
If the default wasn't that every problem is soluble by law then why would I need to prove that mental health is insoluble by law?
Because if you're a lawmaker then it's literally your job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Take COVID-19 deaths, for example—over 400,000 people passed away by the time Trump left office. But Biden’s really upped the ante, with over 600,000 additional deaths by the end of 2022
Someone failed their basic math exam.
Trump deaths in 2020: 400k
Trump deaths per year: 400k
Biden deaths in 2021 & 2022: 600k
Biden deaths per year: 300k
Not exactly upping the ante. Might want to check that AI a little closer before hitting "Create post".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
If someone decided to walk into your child's school with the intent to slaughter as many people as possible, would you rather he be armed with a knife, a handgun, or an AK47?I don't know.
Yeah, that's what I thought. This is one of the easiest questions you'll ever be asked but you're bias won't allow you to answer it. That is when you show how painfully dishonest you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Wait so you get to decide my intent and the meaning of my words depends on my intent, which you decide. You must be an ADOL scholar, congratulations!
lol, you really thought that was clever.
No, I don't decide your intent, you demonstrate it by engaging in the same behavior repeatedly no matter how many times it is pointed out to you.
You implied it in two different ways. First you said anything created by man is subjective. Words are created by man, therefore you said words are subjective.
If the original point you were making is that words have some sort of intrinsic meaning then no, they don't. The actual definition of a word is in fact subjective, but the meaning of words to the extent that we are speaking English is clear provided we are looking at individual words or small sets. But with each additional word spoken, it becomes less clear, and when you add in context it can get very complicated so people will come away with different interpretations. That's where it is subjective - determining the best way to interpret it.
Secondly you said that the meaning of words depended on intent, and intent which apparently changes after you die making it some kind of mystical property only discernible by the tech priests known as "scholars".
Intent is where the meaning becomes objective. Someone's interpretation of your words is irrelevant to what you were actually trying to say because the message you intended to convey is a matter of objective fact.
The purpose of words is to communicate thoughts and ideas from one person to another. Your silly conception of language as some sort linguistic game of "gotcha" is unproductive at best and downright stupid at worst. If you're more concerned with the words used than message being conveyed you aren't communicating.
Everything in life requires balance.What's your balanced intake of sarin gas? What's the right balance between murder and non-murder? How much contradiction should be mixed in with truth?
These are not analogous to what we're talking about. I was talking about the balance between rights and safety, which does require balance, because rights don't do you any good when you're dead.
It's not a fallacy when the slope is slippery and there are a lot of people at the bottom of that slope who started with the best intentions.
It's a fallacy to claim X will lead to Y when not only is that demonstrably untrue but it's especially egregious when not X itself is impossible.
Fine, play stupid. Ctrl-v makes this easy:
I don't know why you think you're making a good point when you continue to argue that what government should be limited to is a matter of objective fact. It's every bit as stupid as arguing that 2+2=5, but you're welcome to keep showing yourself incapable of recognizing when your position reduces down to complete absurdity.
If you don't think the problem can be solved by law then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.If you think you can prove that all problems are soluble by law until proven otherwise then make that case
Why would I make the case to defend something I never argued? It's almost as if you can't defend your position so you deflect into a caricature you invented out of a need for safe harbor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I'm going to defend myself from somebody using a gun or knife. That attacker is not harmless because the person doesn't have a gun. A gun is not the only way to kill somebody.
If someone decided to walk into your child's school with the intent to slaughter as many people as possible, would you rather he be armed with a knife, a handgun, or an AK47?
No deflections, answer the question. What would be your first choice, and what would be your second?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Then you don't know what it is or why it is important.That’s because in the context of this discussion it isn’t important.
It is important, because that's exactly what you are appealing to. As far as I can tell, the only criticism you've offered of my position (while offering no alternative btw) is that there's no actual starting point, and the reason you claim this is because you just keep asking me "why?" over and over again until there's nothing left but "just because". That's literally the problem of infinite regress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The meaning of words is determined by their intentI see, well I intend to always be right. That should cut down on our disagreements?
It would if it were true, unfortunately you prefer to attack the caricature of me you invented so the disagreements will likely continue.
There is a reason we have constitutional scholarsThere is a reason that self-described constitutional scholars vehemently disagree with each other.
Yes, because it turns out that interpreting what words written down hundreds of years ago is far more complicated than 2+2=4.
If you want to exit clown world at some point I would suggest you start with the premise that words have meanings you can understand yourself and if the truth isn't objective then there is hardly any point talking about it.
I never said words don't have meaning, and I haven't said anything close to the truth isn't objective. You really hate responding to the things I actually say don't you? I wonder why...
What I said is that determining what someone is saying isn't as simple as you pretend it is. If I said to you I'm hungry, that's very simple to figure out. If I write a 5,000 word essay about my philosophy on gun violence, that's going to take a lot more work to figure out. That's how reality works. I suggest you learn to deal with it.
Or you can just keep fantasizing about civil war, since that seems to be what gets your dick hard.
And most people in their subjective opinions think that ensuring the safety of it's citizenryAt the cost of the primary function?
It's not an all or nothing proposition. Everything in life requires balance.
It's also a historical fact that violating rights is not the safest on the grand scale, but if you start thinking about morality as a means to an end the abstraction breaks and the slippery slope begins.
It's a slippery slope fallacy. There is no such thing as absolute rights because then they would come into conflict with each other, so reasonable restrictions have always been unavoidable. Your conception of rights as some impenetrable thing that would lead to the downfall of society should they be the slightest bit infringed is pure fantasy.
I guess a full paragraph was too much for your reading comprehension level. Let's try just this:That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men - Declaration of Independence
Reading comprehension indeed. Let's look back at what I said that you cut off, which is consistent with everything I've been saying since the start of this conversation...
"Nothing about this supports your assertion that the founding fathers saw protecting rights as the only legitimate purpose of government."
I never said they didn't see protecting rights as a legitimate purpose, I said nothing about that passage supports that they see protecting rights as it's only legitimate purpose, as in there could be other legitimate purposes as well, which contradicts your claim. To prove my position wrong with regards to the founding fathers (which is still not what you originally argued) you would need to show where they exclude other possible purposes as being legitimate, which is very difficult to do since they explicitly stated that the people have a right to alter their form of government as they see fit.
If that is what you were talking about you would have answered "of course not" to "they aren't obligated to".
I didn't say "of course not" because that's not my position. Again, *if* lawmakers are going to argue that the problem facing our society and leading to unwarranted deaths is an epidemic of mental illness then they have an obligation to offer some kind of solution to improve the situation. Not sure how anyone can disagree with that, but you're entitled to your own opinion to say they have no obligation to fix anything, even though that's literally their job.
Assuming it can be solved by law in a way that doesn't create other problems (such as violating rights). Your assumption of such is integral to the false dichotomy. A bit more expanded: "all problems must have legal solutions, those legal solutions must be simultaneously available, and anyone who doubts one proposal must be aware of and propose a real solution lest their doubts be cast aside as irrelevant"
If you don't think the problem can be solved by law then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
If he sucked with using firearms but is a skilled butcher, then what?
Then you would have a unique case that is irrelevant to what public policy should be.
We're talking about probability, not possibility. If we lived according to possibility there would be no purpose to locking your door at night, because *if* the would-be intruder is skilled enough then they could find a way in regardless. Yet I somehow suspect you will still lock your door tonight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
But it wasn't, so according to you, we can all purchase or own nuclear warheads according to the constitution.Yes
Like Badger said, you're a lunatic.
You're entitled to your own opinionIt's the objective meaning of those words
Words that were written before nuclear bombs were even thought possible.
The meaning of words is determined by their intent, that's an objective fact for you. There is a reason we have constitutional scholars, that wouldn't be the case if anyone with a dictionary could properly interpret every passage in the constitution or any other legal document for that matter. This is really basic stuff.
You're arguing that the *purpose* of government is an objective fact.I said "The job of government is to protect rights" and then I clarified that I meant protecting rights is the legitimate purpose
Legitimacy is by definition, subjective.
And most people in their subjective opinions think that ensuring the safety of it's citizenry, is not only legitimate but a moral obligation.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles sand organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration of Independence
Nothing about this supports your assertion that the founding fathers saw protecting rights as the only legitimate purpose of government. They state very clearly that the government derives it's powers from consent of the governed and that the people have a right to alert it, thereby explicitly granting that government is whatever the people being governed want it to be.
Context shifting red herring. You did not mean "look over there" is misdirection. You meant "If you won't do something (like pass a mental health bill) then you must concede on 'gun saftey' laws".
Your dishonesty is truly breathtaking. Here is what I said in it's full context (that means including the part you purposefully omitted):
This doesn’t seem like a problem of weapons. It seems like a problem of motivation or mental health.It's not an either/or. Dealing with mental health does not exclude us from dealing with guns. And as a side note, the mental health argument has shown itself time and time again to be nothing more than an excuse and a distraction. I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence
I was explicitly talking about people who appeal to mental health as a source of blame for our gun violence epidemic. So if someone is blaming mental health then the rational expectation is that they would propose something, anything, to help address the issue. That is not even close to what you pretend it to be.
Created: