fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 21, 2015 22:29:28 GMT -5
You can have or claim all of the rights that your heart desires- and that amounts to a hill of beans. Without some form of collective agreement- aka government- then those rights boil down to whatever an individual can enforce by themselves or by gang. And now we are back to Locke and Hobbes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 21, 2015 22:52:56 GMT -5
You can have or claim all of the rights that your heart desires- and that amounts to a hill of beans. Without some form of collective agreement- aka government- then those rights boil down to whatever an individual can enforce by themselves or by gang. And now we are back to Locke and Hobbes. bingo. civics 001. precivics. protocivics. paleocivics.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 9:36:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 9:42:49 GMT -5
BOOO!!!! Go throw away your freedoms, not mine. Are those freedoms yours to give away? The posters who want to limit how you practice your religioin are will to give away some modest freedoms too. Someone elses modest freedoms.And after hundreds of posts in a dozen different threads you are still able to demonstrate that you have not a clue about what the actual argument is. But you are perfectly free to remain ignorant. You have the right. Ain't America great? The moderators say that is not an insult. I think it is. You never broke my argument. It is a sound argument based on a sound principle. It is a pity that someone as obviously smart as you has to make the argument about the person and not the facts of the argument. Anyway it completely ticks me off that your post gets to stand. I am gone for a few months. Congratulations on finally winning the argument.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 22, 2015 9:53:38 GMT -5
And after hundreds of posts in a dozen different threads you are still able to demonstrate that you have not a clue about what the actual argument is. But you are perfectly free to remain ignorant. You have the right. Ain't America great? The moderators say that is not an insult. I think it is. You never broke my argument. It is a sound argument based on a sound principle. It is a pity that someone as obviously smart as you has to make the argument about the person and not the facts of the argument. Anyway it completely ticks me off that your post gets to stand. I am gone for a few months. Congratulations on finally winning the argument. We've always permitted posters to accuse each other of ignorance. Count it as an honour. It means you've truly managed to get under somebody's skin, especially if they're coming out of the woodwork just to poke at you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2015 11:11:52 GMT -5
The moderators say that is not an insult. I think it is. You never broke my argument. It is a sound argument based on a sound principle. It is a pity that someone as obviously smart as you has to make the argument about the person and not the facts of the argument. Anyway it completely ticks me off that your post gets to stand. I am gone for a few months. Congratulations on finally winning the argument. We've always permitted posters to accuse each other of ignorance. Count it as an honour. It means you've truly managed to get under somebody's skin, especially if they're coming out of the woodwork just to poke at you. i guess. or it might simply indicate that he just doesn't understand the argument. in fairness, i don't understand his argument, either. bigotry is not a religious freedom, imo.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 22, 2015 11:45:03 GMT -5
We've always permitted posters to accuse each other of ignorance. Count it as an honour. It means you've truly managed to get under somebody's skin, especially if they're coming out of the woodwork just to poke at you. i guess. or it might simply indicate that he just doesn't understand the argument. in fairness, i don't understand his argument, either. bigotry is not a religious freedom, imo. You've never understood the difference between principled moral objection and bigotry, and you've never wavered in your faith in the effectiveness and necessity of public accommodation laws, so why would you understand his argument? It's precisely because you don't understand our argument that your ideas, now foist upon the land by corrupt courts, are so dangerous. In any case, I'm sure tallguy has better things to do than take pot shots at hickle in a thread that has nothing to do with the OB debate. Maybe he'd like to chime in on the matter of gun control we've been discussing for the past 19 pages.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2015 12:02:47 GMT -5
i guess. or it might simply indicate that he just doesn't understand the argument. in fairness, i don't understand his argument, either. bigotry is not a religious freedom, imo. You've never understood the difference between principled moral objection and bigotry, and you've never wavered in your faith in the effectiveness and necessity of public accommodation laws, so why would you understand his argument? It's precisely because you don't understand our argument that your ideas, now foist upon the land by corrupt courts, are so dangerous. In any case, I'm sure tallguy has better things to do than take pot shots at hickle in a thread that has nothing to do with the OB debate. Maybe he'd like to chime in on the matter of gun control we've been discussing for the past 19 pages. actually, i am pretty sure that you missed my point. hickle has provided me with NO evidence that he understands the concept of public accommodation. when i pointed out, in a reducio ad absurdum fashion that the failure to accommodate leads inexorably to people dying for lack of essential services, hickle stated that it is within the rights of a person to exercise his faith even if it endangers the lives of others. and while i gave him points for honesty and consistency, clearly there is a problem there that he is either failing to see or failing to acknowledge. you, on the other hand, see the shortcomings of both positions, i believe. you would never answer in the same strident manner that hickle did. this is why i have dared to call you reasonable on this board. when you are confronted by the logical extremities of certain positions, you can admit that they have failings on the margins, even if you agree with the stand in the general sense. what i am suggesting about myself is that i don't understand unreasonable and morally marginal adherence to principle. i am not ashamed of that in any sense.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 22, 2015 12:29:53 GMT -5
You've never understood the difference between principled moral objection and bigotry, and you've never wavered in your faith in the effectiveness and necessity of public accommodation laws, so why would you understand his argument? It's precisely because you don't understand our argument that your ideas, now foist upon the land by corrupt courts, are so dangerous. In any case, I'm sure tallguy has better things to do than take pot shots at hickle in a thread that has nothing to do with the OB debate. Maybe he'd like to chime in on the matter of gun control we've been discussing for the past 19 pages. actually, i am pretty sure that you missed my point. hickle has provided me with NO evidence that he understands the concept of public accommodation. when i pointed out, in a reducio ad absurdum fashion that the failure to accommodate leads inexorably to people dying for lack of essential services, hickle stated that it is within the rights of a person to exercise his faith even if it endangers the lives of others. and while i gave him points for honesty and consistency, clearly there is a problem there that he is either failing to see or failing to acknowledge. you, on the other hand, see the shortcomings of both positions, i believe. you would never answer in the same strident manner that hickle did. this is why i have dared to call you reasonable on this board. when you are confronted by the logical extremities of certain positions, you can admit that they have failings on the margins, even if you agree with the stand in the general sense. what i am suggesting about myself is that i don't understand unreasonable and morally marginal adherence to principle. i am not ashamed of that in any sense. To be honest, I haven't paid close attention to the debate between you, Tall, and hickle in quite some time, so I may be missing some of the nuances of his position. What I do know is that Tall came into this thread for the first time in two weeks to boot hickle, hickle obviously felt it was one boot too many, and now he's taken his ball and gone home. So there you go. Your collective obsession with getting the last word in has cost you your favourite butt to boot. You've killed the golden goose. Or... Tall has. Now who's butt is he going to boot? Mine? It's been booted so many times it's like iron.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 9:36:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 14:50:15 GMT -5
Mass murders, Just what does this have to do with me, A law bidding citizen, NRA member. Just because I have a constitutional right to bear arms, I am some how responsible for some sociopath killing people. You can add all the laws you want, It will not stop the sociopath that truly want to kill a bunch of people. Stop trying to unload your guilt on me. Let me point out that a couple of mass murders that caused the most deaths had nothing to do with sociopaths or guns. They did it with box cutters and a truck load of fertilizer. Applying a collective guilt to gun owners is merely the latest ploy for gun restriction proponents. This to shall pass, but not until the public is educated.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 22, 2015 19:13:17 GMT -5
actually, i am pretty sure that you missed my point. hickle has provided me with NO evidence that he understands the concept of public accommodation. when i pointed out, in a reducio ad absurdum fashion that the failure to accommodate leads inexorably to people dying for lack of essential services, hickle stated that it is within the rights of a person to exercise his faith even if it endangers the lives of others. and while i gave him points for honesty and consistency, clearly there is a problem there that he is either failing to see or failing to acknowledge. you, on the other hand, see the shortcomings of both positions, i believe. you would never answer in the same strident manner that hickle did. this is why i have dared to call you reasonable on this board. when you are confronted by the logical extremities of certain positions, you can admit that they have failings on the margins, even if you agree with the stand in the general sense. what i am suggesting about myself is that i don't understand unreasonable and morally marginal adherence to principle. i am not ashamed of that in any sense. To be honest, I haven't paid close attention to the debate between you, Tall, and hickle in quite some time, so I may be missing some of the nuances of his position. What I do know is that Tall came into this thread for the first time in two weeks to boot hickle, hickle obviously felt it was one boot too many, and now he's taken his ball and gone home. So there you go. Your collective obsession with getting the last word in has cost you your favourite butt to boot. You've killed the golden goose. Or... Tall has. Now who's butt is he going to boot? Mine? It's been booted so many times it's like iron. You will notice, though, that it has never been me to bring that argument into a totally unrelated thread. Always hickle, every time. And again, it is never to make a relevant point, but to again try to say that we are limiting freedoms, when the truth is nothing of the sort. He even admitted recently that he was generally at fault for interjecting the argument again and again, yet he still can't manage to prevent himself from doing so. I wouldn't even mind that so much, but he has the argument reversed, still. Nobody's religious freedoms are or were at risk in that issue, nor have they ever been so. My issue is that I refuse to let that bull**** stand unopposed. Maybe if he has really left for a few months I won't have to repeat any such post...for a few months. What a nice respite that would be.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 23, 2015 2:48:49 GMT -5
Respite will come when you accept that, as of a dog's age ago, nobody gave or gives a snow leopard's fuzzy rump whether either of you thinks "religious freedoms are or were at risk in that issue" or not.
Just because it's your prerogative to police the board for heretical opinions doesn't mean it's admirable or even worthwhile for you to do so.
But I've said all this before. And the point is moot now anyway, isn't it? You've driven the last wolf out of Ireland.
|
|