|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 09 2018 08:07 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity. Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same.
I wouldn't be upset with someone if they called them both falling, that seems like an incredibly ridiculous thing to argue.
I guess if people want to argue that "making illegal" signifies more regulations than "regulate" That's more reasonable than arguing that someone has to use their own nonsensical definitions to come to the conclusion that people who want to more regulations want to make something illegal.
The argument made in the post I originally quoted was ridiculous. This argument you're making is less so, but as we've established, not of any value.
On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid.
I mean I just don't understand how this is so difficult?
|
On September 09 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 08:07 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity. Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same. I wouldn't be upset with someone if they called them both falling, that seems like an incredibly ridiculous thing to argue. I guess if people want to argue that "making illegal" signifies more regulations than "regulate" That's more reasonable than arguing that someone has to use their own nonsensical definitions to come to the conclusion that people who want to more regulations want to make something illegal. The argument made in the post I originally quoted was ridiculous. This argument you're making is less so, but as we've established, not of any value. Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. I mean I just don't understand how this is so difficult?
I don't see how the argument is unreasonable. I think people should have the right to drive cars, but I want it to be regulated so there's less uncertainty as to whether they will be safe and responsible. That doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. There is a middle ground here, and saying "regulation=illegal" as a default just hamstrings the conversation. I'm only making this point because, apparently, I need to.
|
On September 09 2018 08:29 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:07 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say?
EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity. Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same. I wouldn't be upset with someone if they called them both falling, that seems like an incredibly ridiculous thing to argue. I guess if people want to argue that "making illegal" signifies more regulations than "regulate" That's more reasonable than arguing that someone has to use their own nonsensical definitions to come to the conclusion that people who want to more regulations want to make something illegal. The argument made in the post I originally quoted was ridiculous. This argument you're making is less so, but as we've established, not of any value. On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say?
EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. I mean I just don't understand how this is so difficult? I don't see how the argument is unreasonable. I think people should have the right to drive cars, but I want it to be regulated so there's less uncertainty as to whether they will be safe and responsible. That doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. There is a middle ground here, and saying "regulation=illegal" as a default just hamstrings the conversation. I'm only making this point because, apparently, I need to.
I'll try one last time another way.
Suicide, is it illegal or regulated? Remember saying it's both is supposed to be completely unreasonable and take contorting the definitions beyond recognition according to the argument I challenged.
|
5930 Posts
On September 09 2018 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 08:29 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:07 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity. Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same. I wouldn't be upset with someone if they called them both falling, that seems like an incredibly ridiculous thing to argue. I guess if people want to argue that "making illegal" signifies more regulations than "regulate" That's more reasonable than arguing that someone has to use their own nonsensical definitions to come to the conclusion that people who want to more regulations want to make something illegal. The argument made in the post I originally quoted was ridiculous. This argument you're making is less so, but as we've established, not of any value. On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. I mean I just don't understand how this is so difficult? I don't see how the argument is unreasonable. I think people should have the right to drive cars, but I want it to be regulated so there's less uncertainty as to whether they will be safe and responsible. That doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. There is a middle ground here, and saying "regulation=illegal" as a default just hamstrings the conversation. I'm only making this point because, apparently, I need to. I'll try one last time another way. Suicide, is it illegal or regulated? Remember saying it's both is supposed to be completely unreasonable and take contorting the definitions beyond recognition according to the argument I challenged.
Pretty sure its illegal in a lot of countries. In a lot of places where euthanasia is not a legal option, people can get arrested and charged for aiding in someone's suicide. And you can't really charge a dead person for committing suicide.
Now if euthanasia is legal, suicide is clearly regulated. You just have to go through the legal channels to not risk getting charged for "complicity in suicide". I don't get what you're really arguing about because there's definite differences between someone being illegal (first degree murder) and something being regulated (level of window tints).
|
On September 09 2018 09:16 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:29 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:07 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity. Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same. I wouldn't be upset with someone if they called them both falling, that seems like an incredibly ridiculous thing to argue. I guess if people want to argue that "making illegal" signifies more regulations than "regulate" That's more reasonable than arguing that someone has to use their own nonsensical definitions to come to the conclusion that people who want to more regulations want to make something illegal. The argument made in the post I originally quoted was ridiculous. This argument you're making is less so, but as we've established, not of any value. On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. I mean I just don't understand how this is so difficult? I don't see how the argument is unreasonable. I think people should have the right to drive cars, but I want it to be regulated so there's less uncertainty as to whether they will be safe and responsible. That doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. There is a middle ground here, and saying "regulation=illegal" as a default just hamstrings the conversation. I'm only making this point because, apparently, I need to. I'll try one last time another way. Suicide, is it illegal or regulated? Remember saying it's both is supposed to be completely unreasonable and take contorting the definitions beyond recognition according to the argument I challenged. Pretty sure its illegal in a lot of countries. You can get arrested and charged for aiding in someone's suicide and euthanasia is not a legal option. And you can't really charge a dead person for committing suicide.
Talking about the US. Perhaps prostitution would be an easier example for an international audience to follow my argument with?
Now, if euthanasia is legal it suicide is clearly regulated. You just have to go through the legal channels to not risk getting charged for "complicity in suicide".
Now try to tell me which it is in the US 
|
On September 09 2018 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 08:29 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:07 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity. Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same. I wouldn't be upset with someone if they called them both falling, that seems like an incredibly ridiculous thing to argue. I guess if people want to argue that "making illegal" signifies more regulations than "regulate" That's more reasonable than arguing that someone has to use their own nonsensical definitions to come to the conclusion that people who want to more regulations want to make something illegal. The argument made in the post I originally quoted was ridiculous. This argument you're making is less so, but as we've established, not of any value. On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. I mean I just don't understand how this is so difficult? I don't see how the argument is unreasonable. I think people should have the right to drive cars, but I want it to be regulated so there's less uncertainty as to whether they will be safe and responsible. That doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. There is a middle ground here, and saying "regulation=illegal" as a default just hamstrings the conversation. I'm only making this point because, apparently, I need to. I'll try one last time another way. Suicide, is it illegal or regulated? Remember saying it's both is supposed to be completely unreasonable and take contorting the definitions beyond recognition according to the argument I challenged.
I think we're in a misunderstanding here, because I'm not defending that argument. Mine was a separate point. I actually get the feeling we're pretty much on the same page, reading your latest answers.
|
5930 Posts
On September 09 2018 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 09:16 Womwomwom wrote:On September 09 2018 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:29 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:07 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity. Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same. I wouldn't be upset with someone if they called them both falling, that seems like an incredibly ridiculous thing to argue. I guess if people want to argue that "making illegal" signifies more regulations than "regulate" That's more reasonable than arguing that someone has to use their own nonsensical definitions to come to the conclusion that people who want to more regulations want to make something illegal. The argument made in the post I originally quoted was ridiculous. This argument you're making is less so, but as we've established, not of any value. On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. I mean I just don't understand how this is so difficult? I don't see how the argument is unreasonable. I think people should have the right to drive cars, but I want it to be regulated so there's less uncertainty as to whether they will be safe and responsible. That doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. There is a middle ground here, and saying "regulation=illegal" as a default just hamstrings the conversation. I'm only making this point because, apparently, I need to. I'll try one last time another way. Suicide, is it illegal or regulated? Remember saying it's both is supposed to be completely unreasonable and take contorting the definitions beyond recognition according to the argument I challenged. Pretty sure its illegal in a lot of countries. You can get arrested and charged for aiding in someone's suicide and euthanasia is not a legal option. And you can't really charge a dead person for committing suicide. Talking about the US. Perhaps prostitution would be an easier example for an international audience to follow my argument with?
It depends on state but prostitution in Australia is mostly regulated. Brothels are generally legal and so are sex workers. They for the most part escorts have to register with the relevant regulatory body if its legal (except for NSW who doesn't seem to give a fuck). If you're not registered with the relevant regulatory body, then you are in breach of the law.
If we stick to brothels, then its easy. There's Victoria, who has a whole list of laws for sex workers that restrict the method of solicitation and have a whole list of requirements to maintain legal registration. There's NSW, who has pretty much decriminalised sex work completely. And there's the Northern Territory where brothels are straight up illegal due to the history of indigenous sex slavery.
So brothels are heavily regulated in Victoria, basically unregulated in NSW (outside of requirements that overlap with other laws like not being next to a primary school and not engaging in child prostitution) and illegal in the Northern Territory. Maybe I just don't get what point you're making but I think there's a big difference from something being regulated, unregulated and illegal.
|
On September 09 2018 09:41 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 09:16 Womwomwom wrote:On September 09 2018 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:29 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 08:07 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity. Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same. I wouldn't be upset with someone if they called them both falling, that seems like an incredibly ridiculous thing to argue. I guess if people want to argue that "making illegal" signifies more regulations than "regulate" That's more reasonable than arguing that someone has to use their own nonsensical definitions to come to the conclusion that people who want to more regulations want to make something illegal. The argument made in the post I originally quoted was ridiculous. This argument you're making is less so, but as we've established, not of any value. On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. I mean I just don't understand how this is so difficult? I don't see how the argument is unreasonable. I think people should have the right to drive cars, but I want it to be regulated so there's less uncertainty as to whether they will be safe and responsible. That doesn't mean I want it to be illegal. There is a middle ground here, and saying "regulation=illegal" as a default just hamstrings the conversation. I'm only making this point because, apparently, I need to. I'll try one last time another way. Suicide, is it illegal or regulated? Remember saying it's both is supposed to be completely unreasonable and take contorting the definitions beyond recognition according to the argument I challenged. Pretty sure its illegal in a lot of countries. You can get arrested and charged for aiding in someone's suicide and euthanasia is not a legal option. And you can't really charge a dead person for committing suicide. Talking about the US. Perhaps prostitution would be an easier example for an international audience to follow my argument with? It depends on state but prostitution in Australia is mostly regulated. Brothels are generally legal and so are sex workers. They for the most part register with the relevant regulatory body. If you're not registered with the relevant regulatory body, then you are in breach of the law. If we stick to brothels, then its easy. There's Victoria, who has a whole list of laws for sex workers that restrict the method of solicitation and have a whole list of requirements to maintain legal registration. There's NSW, who has pretty much decriminalised sex work completely. And there's the Northern Territory where brothels are straight up illegal due to the history of indigenous sex slavery. So brothels are heavily regulated in Victoria, basically unregulated in NSW (outside of requirements that overlap with other laws like not being next to a primary school and not engaging in child prostitution) and illegal in the Northern Territory. Maybe I just don't get what point you're making but I think there's a big difference from something being regulated, unregulated and illegal.
I think if you focus on the US (and the argument I challenged) it will be more clear. If not, I'll let it go unless the person that made it wants to clarify.
|
On September 09 2018 08:12 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. If you want to argue with me, why not do so directly, instead of taking a potshot from what's basically the peanut gallery? If my argument isn't valid, please go into why that's the case. Otherwise, I don't see what you're adding to the discussion.
I thought GreenHorizon's criticism was well taken, and had similar thoughts upon reading your bizarre regulated/illegal dichotomy. I'm not going to plagiarize him. You make take it as direct criticism of your thought; the kind of stretches you do on regulation (such that automatic weapons are merely regulated) makes me think stuff like murder isn't illegal in your book, it's just regulated. I'm sorry that you thought it was potshots or whatever.
|
|
|
On September 09 2018 16:05 Jumperer wrote:Jesus, none of you people actually know how to argue logically it's pathetic. You're just repeating shits you say from the liberal media and then attempt to win an argument by jumping on a person 10v1. I've won against 100 people by myself before so all you mofuckers can come at me all you want. Just because you're thinking at the lower level than me + doesn't understand what I'm saying since it's too advanced for you doesn't mean that I'm wrong. The link between mental illness and gun violence is easily proven. I can cite 500 studies but I'll give you 2. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/Since all of you cant speedread like me I'll give you a mainstream article to read on mental illness. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.htmlOn the car and gun comparison. No shit sherlock guns and cars are not the same. What I was saying in my previous post is if you want to stop problem "drunk driving"You don't ban car. You tackle the problem by stopping people from getting drunk and then driving a car. I use the same logic with guns. Think about it, we have 2nd amendments for ages why is this whole mass shooting phenomenon only started in recent time and not back in the day? Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. LOOK AT CHICAGO, Illinois has tougher gun laws than many other states. Gun regulations work if there are no guns to begin with, hence the new nation line. The U.S already have more guns than any other nation on the planet. Regulation wouldn't do anything. The only way to reduce all these mass shootings is to focus on mental illness which is the root cause of this problem. And lastly, taking guns away from ordinary citizen is exactly what the elites want. The tyranny of government is a huge threat. Although this is a bad point for me to make because none of you little kids has the capability to understand what i'm talking about. If you got a problem with me we can settle it in 1v1 broodwar match. But seriously though all of you are trash when it come to debating. I can make your own points better than you.
10/10 post. please tell me more about your greatness senpai.
get off your fkin high horse lol. all of your points have been argued against throughout the entire thread and youve not only ignored all of it, your general stance is "im right because im smarter than all of you, even if i dont know who you guys are, so bow down to me you scrubs".
master of debating right there
|
Dont quote him directly you lowlife scum. Trash like you cant speak to him like that.
|
"I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids..."
I also love the projection: "Repeat things you've heard from liberal media" while repeating things he's heard from conservative media... and, as has been stated before, people have refuted your points using logic and evidence, you've just conveniently ignored them all
|
The thing I find most important to point out is that while mental illness and proper care are some of the most important issues we face around mass shootings, people with mental illnesses are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators in general, and iirc that's without counting suicide.
|
On September 09 2018 13:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 08:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say?
EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. If you want to argue with me, why not do so directly, instead of taking a potshot from what's basically the peanut gallery? If my argument isn't valid, please go into why that's the case. Otherwise, I don't see what you're adding to the discussion. I thought GreenHorizon's criticism was well taken, and had similar thoughts upon reading your bizarre regulated/illegal dichotomy. I'm not going to plagiarize him. You make take it as direct criticism of your thought; the kind of stretches you do on regulation (such that automatic weapons are merely regulated) makes me think stuff like murder isn't illegal in your book, it's just regulated. I'm sorry that you thought it was potshots or whatever.
Hard for me to see it as anything else when you follow up by dumping words in my mouth.
|
On September 10 2018 00:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 13:32 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 08:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. If you want to argue with me, why not do so directly, instead of taking a potshot from what's basically the peanut gallery? If my argument isn't valid, please go into why that's the case. Otherwise, I don't see what you're adding to the discussion. I thought GreenHorizon's criticism was well taken, and had similar thoughts upon reading your bizarre regulated/illegal dichotomy. I'm not going to plagiarize him. You make take it as direct criticism of your thought; the kind of stretches you do on regulation (such that automatic weapons are merely regulated) makes me think stuff like murder isn't illegal in your book, it's just regulated. I'm sorry that you thought it was potshots or whatever. Hard for me to see it as anything else when you follow up by dumping words in my mouth.
I'm taking the logical followup to your exact words. Also,
On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to.
[quote]
Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know!
[quote]
How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses.
But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender? Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal".
On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't?
I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. If you can buy automatic weapons if you run through some regulation then they are not illegal. They are regulated. If you can buy some medicine but not others from the local pharmacy then medicine is not illegal. it is regulated. If by law, people can drive a car with a drivers license, then a car is not illegal. It is regulated. No one will ever describe a car or motorised vehicle as illegal. So it is with automatic weapon, and medicine, so it is with cars or motorised vehicles. It's absurd to argue otherwise, except by using your own personal definitions. You can shoot someone if you jump through the right hoops, does that mean it isn't illegal but regulated? You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now?
Have zero context if bringing in the context of what "Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate" is tantamount to "putting words in your mouth." I apologize if you're now abandoning that argument, because I thought by your continued points that you still thought it was a useful distinction.
Also, pick your own regulated/illegal example if reusing ones you directly made reference to is akin to "dumping words in my mouth." You've lost everyone in that. It's much easier write criticism of your points through other criticism if you stand by some of the points you made.
|
|
|
On September 10 2018 01:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2018 00:57 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 13:32 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 08:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid. If you want to argue with me, why not do so directly, instead of taking a potshot from what's basically the peanut gallery? If my argument isn't valid, please go into why that's the case. Otherwise, I don't see what you're adding to the discussion. I thought GreenHorizon's criticism was well taken, and had similar thoughts upon reading your bizarre regulated/illegal dichotomy. I'm not going to plagiarize him. You make take it as direct criticism of your thought; the kind of stretches you do on regulation (such that automatic weapons are merely regulated) makes me think stuff like murder isn't illegal in your book, it's just regulated. I'm sorry that you thought it was potshots or whatever. Hard for me to see it as anything else when you follow up by dumping words in my mouth. I'm taking the logical followup to your exact words. Also, Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech.
Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender?
Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. On September 09 2018 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. If you can buy automatic weapons if you run through some regulation then they are not illegal. They are regulated. If you can buy some medicine but not others from the local pharmacy then medicine is not illegal. it is regulated. If by law, people can drive a car with a drivers license, then a car is not illegal. It is regulated. No one will ever describe a car or motorised vehicle as illegal. So it is with automatic weapon, and medicine, so it is with cars or motorised vehicles. It's absurd to argue otherwise, except by using your own personal definitions. You can shoot someone if you jump through the right hoops, does that mean it isn't illegal but regulated? You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? Have zero context if bringing in the context of what "Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate" is tantamount to "putting words in your mouth." I apologize if you're now abandoning that argument, because I thought by your continued points that you still thought it was a useful distinction. Also, pick your own regulated/illegal example if reusing ones you directly made reference to is akin to "dumping words in my mouth." You've lost everyone in that. It's much easier write criticism of your points through other criticism if you stand by some of the points you made.
My exact words, and my point, are that the two are different. I never tried to conflate the two. My position never changed. Remind me then, what your point is exactly?
|
On September 09 2018 16:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 16:05 Jumperer wrote:Jesus, none of you people actually know how to argue logically it's pathetic. You're just repeating shits you say from the liberal media and then attempt to win an argument by jumping on a person 10v1. I've won against 100 people by myself before so all you mofuckers can come at me all you want. Just because you're thinking at the lower level than me + doesn't understand what I'm saying since it's too advanced for you doesn't mean that I'm wrong. The link between mental illness and gun violence is easily proven. I can cite 500 studies but I'll give you 2. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/Since all of you cant speedread like me I'll give you a mainstream article to read on mental illness. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.htmlOn the car and gun comparison. No shit sherlock guns and cars are not the same. What I was saying in my previous post is if you want to stop problem "drunk driving"You don't ban car. You tackle the problem by stopping people from getting drunk and then driving a car. I use the same logic with guns. Think about it, we have 2nd amendments for ages why is this whole mass shooting phenomenon only started in recent time and not back in the day? Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. LOOK AT CHICAGO, Illinois has tougher gun laws than many other states. Gun regulations work if there are no guns to begin with, hence the new nation line. The U.S already have more guns than any other nation on the planet. Regulation wouldn't do anything. The only way to reduce all these mass shootings is to focus on mental illness which is the root cause of this problem. And lastly, taking guns away from ordinary citizen is exactly what the elites want. The tyranny of government is a huge threat. Although this is a bad point for me to make because none of you little kids has the capability to understand what i'm talking about. If you got a problem with me we can settle it in 1v1 broodwar match. But seriously though all of you are trash when it come to debating. I can make your own points better than you. 10/10 post. please tell me more about your greatness senpai. get off your fkin high horse lol. all of your points have been argued against throughout the entire thread and youve not only ignored all of it, your general stance is "im right because im smarter than all of you, even if i dont know who you guys are, so bow down to me you scrubs". master of debating right there
What an amazing post by Jumperer, as if his arguments haven't already been addressed a dozen different ways already.
I hope he comes back after his well-deserved ban, so he can dazzle the rest of us with his omniscience.
|
On September 09 2018 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech.
Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender?
Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together. Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. If you can buy automatic weapons if you run through some regulation then they are not illegal. They are regulated. If you can buy some medicine but not others from the local pharmacy then medicine is not illegal. it is regulated. If by law, people can drive a car with a drivers license, then a car is not illegal. It is regulated. No one will ever describe a car or motorised vehicle as illegal. So it is with automatic weapon, and medicine, so it is with cars or motorised vehicles. It's absurd to argue otherwise, except by using your own personal definitions. You can shoot someone if you jump through the right hoops, does that mean it isn't illegal but regulated? Yes.
What is the point you are making?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
