Rozalia Posted March 23, 2017 Author Share Posted March 23, 2017 I'm not playing a game. If you want to say I lost and will stop posting your nonsense as a result you have my full support. An argument is a contest if you like it or not. If he has provided evidence and all you have is your word then you fail to overturn what he has put forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 An argument is a contest if you like it or not. If he has provided evidence and all you have is your word then you fail to overturn what he has put forward. No, it's not. An argument is an exchange of ideas and beliefs that people who aren't lunatics can easily engage in. Believe what you like, I won't be considering this an argument of that sort, nor will any of the people I know so it's pretty irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 24, 2017 Author Share Posted March 24, 2017 No, it's not. An argument is an exchange of ideas and beliefs that people who aren't lunatics can easily engage in. Believe what you like, I won't be considering this an argument of that sort, nor will any of the people I know so it's pretty irrelevant. Like I've said, you can believe your own definitions but no one else will. Debates are contests and can end with a clear winner and loser. If there was no winner or loser then there would be no reason to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Like I've said, you can believe your own definitions but no one else will. Most already support me, though the people in your Discord are amused by how angry you are and how much of your channel's content is about me. Others including the people with very advanced knowledge of these matters just don't use dictionary definitions for their terms so you can't just go to Webster's and get a political science definition of a term; you have to put in some effort to find what you want and what it's called in the study of politics. Debates are contests and can end with a clear winner and loser. If there was no winner or loser then there would be no reason to debate. There's no winner or loser here so I guess we had no reason. Probably should've decided that earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 24, 2017 Author Share Posted March 24, 2017 *Stuff* I thought I'd make people aware of the KKK/Nazi/Islamist supporter, nothing more. The Discord server I run talks about a lot of things. Evidence of this "most people"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 I thought I'd make people aware of the KKK/Nazi/Islamist supporter, nothing more. The Discord server I run talks about a lot of things. Evidence of this "most people"? So you don't support the Constitution? That's literally all I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 24, 2017 Author Share Posted March 24, 2017 *Stuff* Let me check how many agree with you real quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 The Constitution is often considered popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 The Constitution is often considered popular. Except when it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. See: Literally any anti-gun website. (Moms Demand Action, Everytown, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Except when it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. See: Literally any anti-gun website. (Moms Demand Action, Everytown, etc.) The ACLU has said they'd cover the Second Amendment themselves except the NRA is much bigger and better funded to take care of that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) The ACLU has said they'd cover the Second Amendment themselves except the NRA is much bigger and better funded to take care of that one. But the ACLU doesn't believe the right to possess a firearm is an individual right. From the ACLU website: Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions. Edited March 24, 2017 by WISD0MTREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Huh, was unaware they took that position. I mean it makes sense because ignoring an entire clause of a sentence is kind of silly. Not sure if that's changed since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 24, 2017 Author Share Posted March 24, 2017 The Constitution is often considered popular. And yet you are not crushing me so badly even with your mates chiming in. Its nothing to do with the American Constitution or Freedom of Speech. Your viewpoint is just simply insane. The ultimate in tolerance for intolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) Huh, was unaware they took that position. I mean it makes sense because ignoring an entire clause of a sentence is kind of silly. Not sure if that's changed since. Let’s use a modern example easier to understand: "A well-balanced breakfast necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed." You see how that works? Edited March 24, 2017 by WISD0MTREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 And yet you are not crushing me so badly even with your mates chiming in. Its nothing to do with the American Constitution or Freedom of Speech. Your viewpoint is just simply insane. The ultimate in tolerance for intolerance. I'm not taking this seriously at all. It's not a win or lose thing, it's just opinions. I happen to think our freedoms are too important to flippantly start to limit just because we don't like some things being said. Again, that's what the Constitution is there to protect: unpopular stuff. Popular stuff doesn't need to be included because no one tries to get rid of it. Let’s use a modern example easier to un'derstand: "A well-balanced breakfast necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed." You see how that works? Yes, you'd need to have a group for the right to take place as a breakfast and keep it together until you were finished eating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Yes, you'd need to have a group for the right to take place as a breakfast and keep it together until you were finished eating. This is not how the Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase. In Heller, there’s a very long discussion about why that “prefatory clause†doesn’t mean what you think it means. How does that meaning jibe with "shall not be infringed?" If it meant "strictly controlled," that would be a direct and utter contradiction in that simple statement. Not only this, but this "right of the people " appears in other places in the bill of rights unambiguously, such as the 1st, and 4th amendments. Why is it only the 2nd amendment gets threatened by this misinterpretation? The bill of rights was written for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, not some collectivist thing you're thinking of. The 2nd amendment, like other amendments, was made precisely for the government not to create laws and regulations against those specific things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 This is not how the Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase. I realize that, I was just mocking your example since it actually included the restriction relating to the first part of the amendment which specifies a full breakfast together, not individual items eaten alone. In Heller, there’s a very long discussion about why that “prefatory clause†doesn’t mean what you think it means. How does that meaning jibe with "shall not be infringed?" If it meant "strictly controlled," that would be a direct and utter contradiction in that simple statement. Not only this, but this "right of the people " appears in other places in the bill of rights unambiguously, such as the 1st, and 4th amendments. Why is it only the 2nd amendment gets threatened by this misinterpretation? How do you explain that we must ignore the first half of the amendment? The bill of rights was written for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, not some collectivist thing you're thinking of. The 2nd amendment, like other amendments, was made precisely for the government not to create laws and regulations against those specific things.We seem to be giving up on Constitutional protections here at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 How do you explain that we must ignore the first half of the amendment? "The right of the people shall not be infringed" is the operative clause and the part before it is the prefatory clause. The operative clause is the actual protected right. The prefatory clause only serves as an introduction. Supreme Court case D.C. vs Heller: "Reading the 2nd amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear arms" in an organised Militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that as "the people" (p.7) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 "The right of the people shall not be infringed" is the operative clause and the part before it is the prefatory clause. The operative clause is the actual protected right. The prefatory clause only serves as an introduction. Supreme Court case D.C. vs Heller: "Reading the 2nd amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear arms" in an organised Militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that as "the people" (p.7) Oh, you ignore it. That's easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 I'm not taking this seriously at all. It's not a win or lose thing, it's just opinions. I happen to think our freedoms are too important to flippantly start to limit just because we don't like some things being said. Again, that's what the Constitution is there to protect: unpopular stuff. Popular stuff doesn't need to be included because no one tries to get rid of it. Its not simply win or lose. Its you losing big time and most people thinking you're a lunatic. To a normal person they might reflect on why they are seen as crazy for their view... not you I see however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Oh, you ignore it. That's easy. I'm sure Rosetta Stone teaches English grammar. Then you'd understand why. Or, you could read the reason in my previous post. http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-english/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 I'm sure Rosetta Stone teaches English grammar. Then you'd understand why. Or, you could read the reason in my previous post. http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-english/ Lightning. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Obamacare is such a double edged sword issue,on one hand if you repeal it,you'll basically put millions of people at risk for losing their insurance,on the other hand,if it remains,then expect to pay much,much more for health insurance. Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Well, you don't. At the end of the revolution, the definition of 'militia' was "any white man between the ages of 18-45". So, the right to bear arms only applies to these people lol. The reason behind this is because the revolutionary army was no more than a large militia, and as such, the revolutionary force that guarantees Americas constitution is the 'organised militia' - white men between 18-45. Simple really. Ermmm Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.