Comments on: How the…?

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:19:21 +0000

John, re: your most recent comment, now you’re starting to get my point. It’s not black and white.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:18:35 +0000

“You stop at a red light, despite being in a hurry, even if there is no other traffic (or maybe you dont?)” key part of the phrase being “even if there is no other traffic”

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:00:41 +0000

See, I don’t attempt to personally offend you when I bring up arguments. Obviously, driving through intersections when the light is red is going to harm someone. I’ve never treated you with the contempt that you are treating me with. I know, I’m the stupid moron that believes that you should leave me alone if I’m not harming anyone. I’m not planning on shooting my computer with a musket because it’s denying my ability to have a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with me.

By: CmdrFenix

CmdrFenix — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:50:59 +0000

Just remember… there is an element of common sense here Tim. Stopping at a red light, no normal person would object to. So how much “Liberty” do we sacrifice? Our rights to keep and bear arms? What about the patriot act (which WAS the point of this article) which steps on ALL of our rights in the name of security? How much do we have to loose? Tell me where the line in the sand is?

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:20:12 +0000

Like I expected, you opted to nitpick the example rather then consider the broader implications. Not surprising.

It’s very simple. Anytime two people disagree about something, there is STRONG potential for denial of “liberty”, even if such denials are minor. This concept will never change. You’re going to have to accept that sometimes “liberty” is lost in order for society to function. You stop at a red light, despite being in a hurry, even if there is no other traffic (or maybe you dont?). You are denied “liberty”. Better load a musket and rail against traffic lights at empty intersections to avoid being a hypocrite, since I know you care about that, right?

Oh, sorry, I was mistaken..

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:33:33 +0000

She’s not required to provide me with emotional stability or mental wellbeing. No one is required to provide me with anything. The broader implication is that you want to use force to take things away from me and give them to others against my will for the “greater good”, including the original post, my privacy and ability to be secure from unreasonable searches of my property and papers.
I don’t for a minute believe people should be able to do everything they want, but if they’re not harming others…..

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:27:59 +0000

But she’s harming you by denying you emotional stability and mental wellbeing.

Hopefully you see the philosophical problem this leads to, and perform some serious reflection on the concept. More likely though you’ll come back and post some BS about how stability or mental wellbeing dont matter or otherwise nitpick my example rather then consider the broader implication…

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:36:04 +0000

Article 9 of the bill of rights. Just because rights aren’t in the constitution, doesn’t mean they don’t exist,and those rights belong to the people and the states. One of those unlisted rights is the right to travel. In Heller vs. DC, the justices stated that the modern semi auto pistol was the most modern firearm and individuals can own and use them for defense. I think that the car is the most modern means of travel and shouldn’t be considered a privledge as it is these days..

And Tim, you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as you aren’t harming anyone else. Which means if she says no to the date, you would be harming her by forcing her to go on one.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:32:55 +0000

I’m not taking it to an absurd level. You always make that claim, but you simply aren’t getting the point …

If you apply your view of “liberty” to a right, let’s say the right to wear silly hats, and claim that it’s worth using lethal force to defend, constitutionally enshrined, and all that jazz … then in order to be intellectually honest, you must also be willing to apply your view of “liberty” to the right to wear silly shoes. And silly shirts, etc. I point this out, and you accuse me of taking it to the extreme.

It may be that my way of reasoning with this stuff is skewed by my hobbyist study of physics, but if you can’t apply a position 100% of the time and have it still be “valid” … then it’s not valid.

If infringing your ability to “do what you want” by passing a law is bad, then infringing your ability to “do what you want” by a girl saying no to a date must also be bad for the exact same reason, and furthermore must be the same KIND of bad, and must be bad to the same degree/extreme/level. Otherwise, you’re being a hypocrite. Failsauce.

By: CmdrFenix

CmdrFenix — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:20:35 +0000

Haha, that is why I use Firefox!

Come now, you are taking the whole argument to an absurd level, or should I call you the O’Reilly of the left?