"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Like I said to Girly, if you could just get passed the denial stage and admit that the only thing that separates you, Chas, Cjlr, etc., and us libertarians, is that you guys want to use force against people, THEN we could move on to a productive debate about which system is better. But we're stuck in this stupid, useless circle where, when you force someone to do something at gunpoint you insist it's not violence, but if someone does it to you, suddenly then it is.

Dude,wtf?!? Fuck libertarianism, Girly's an anarchist and a nihilist at my core. I just realize that "playing the game" is more productive and pleasant and profitable than raging against the machine. That's all.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
21-01-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:37 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 02:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Why don't you address the point I made? You always run from them.

What would have been "stolen" a young Obama's future prospects more:

1. The police arrest him for smoking pot

2. A robber steals his wallet

Which ones would he have been able to recover from, and which one would have left him destitute? Why don't you answer that?!

Because its a nonsensical question!!!!! And in no way relates to the fucking point, is that a lawful arrest is not a robbery. If Obama chose to break the law, it is not the police stealing his "future prospects" anymore than the police are stealing the future of someone who drinks and drives. Its illegal. He chose to do it. The ONUS is on HIM



There's not enough Excedrin for this, Cath.
He's just an Obama-Hater and probably still looking for the birth certificate,


(hands Cath a towel)

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:41 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 02:37 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Because its a nonsensical question!!!!! And in no way relates to the fucking point, is that a lawful arrest is not a robbery. If Obama chose to break the law, it is not the police stealing his "future prospects" anymore than the police are stealing the future of someone who drinks and drives. Its illegal. He chose to do it. The ONUS is on HIM



There's not enough Excedrin for this, Cath.
He's just an Obama-Hater and probably still looking for the birth certificate,


(hands Cath a towel)


*Breathes deeply into a paper bag*

Willful ignorance just gets my blood pressure to skyrocket. Since Frank is packed with it, I think I'm stroking out.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
seriously. I'm done. You win, Frank.

I got into a fight with an ignorant idiot (read:you), and you dragged me down to your level and beat me with experience.

My hat is off to you.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:26 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Girly, do you have a gun I can borrow and one bullet I can have? I'd like to stick it in my mouth.

I have Mossberg shotguns with a variety of different shot. I make sure they are long enough that I can't off myself with a trigger toe. You're shorter than me. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
21-01-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:45 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  seriously. I'm done. You win, Frank.

I got into a fight with an ignorant idiot (read:you), and you dragged me down to your level and beat me with experience.

My hat is off to you.

No, I won because for the 100th time I asked you a question that you couldn't possibly answer without exposing the absurdity of your position. In my rule book, that's how you score points in a debate.

You're arguing that law enforcement is always good and proper, while robbery is evil. Well, what if you lived in NYC, you found a bag full of some powder in your daughter's dresser, which you put in your pocket to take across town to get tested and see what it was. And on the way, a NYC cop did a 'stop and frisk', found the drugs, arrested you, and you got convicted of possession charges. Would you rather have that, or rather have a mugger steal your purse in the alley? You can't answer that because you know that your position is absurd. That's why a reductio ad absurdum argument leaves you throwing up your hands and walking away. If your position wasn't so absurd, that technique wouldn't work.

If we keep a score card there were dozens and dozens of similar questions and challenges I made to you, and you ran from every single one of them. You couldn't answer them without looking dumb, so you kept changing the subject. By contrast, I answered every single question you posed directly. That's why you're getting so frustrated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 02:45 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  seriously. I'm done. You win, Frank.

I got into a fight with an ignorant idiot (read:you), and you dragged me down to your level and beat me with experience.

My hat is off to you.

No, I won because for the 100th time I asked you a question that you couldn't possibly answer without exposing the absurdity of your position. In my rule book, that's how you score points in a debate.

You're arguing that law enforcement is always good and proper, while robbery is evil. Well, what if you lived in NYC, you found a bag full of some powder in your daughter's dresser, which you put in your pocket to take across town to get tested and see what it was. And on the way, a NYC cop did a 'stop and frisk', found the drugs, arrested you, and you got convicted of possession charges. Would you rather have that, or rather have a mugger steal your purse in the alley? You can't answer that because you know that your position is absurd. That's why a reductio ad absurdum argument leaves you throwing up your hands and walking away. If your position wasn't so absurd, that technique wouldn't work.

If we keep a score card there were dozens and dozens of similar questions and challenges I made to you, and you ran from every single one of them. You couldn't answer them without looking dumb, so you kept changing the subject. By contrast, I answered every single question you posed directly. That's why you're getting so frustrated.

lemme try your way then.

Finding evidence of something illegal should involve a call to the police. What if you found a bunch of hacked up body parts, and you threw them into a duffle bag and carry them down to the ME's office, and on the way a cop saw blood dripping on the subway, and asked to look in your bag. and you got arrested for murder.

Oh sorry Officer, I found these body parts, I was just taking them to the lost and found (read: ME office).

Sounds like a totally reasonably explanation to me. They should let me go without question.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 03:03 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2014 03:20 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  No, I won ...

The fuck we playing for again? ... What'd you win?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:59 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Finding evidence of something illegal should involve a call to the police. What if you found a bunch of hacked up body parts, and you threw them into a duffle bag and carry them down to the ME's office, and on the way a cop saw blood dripping on the subway, and asked to look in your bag. and you got arrested for murder.

Excellent. This really proves my point that in your mind, all laws are moral and legitimate because you're unable to distinguish between a positive right/law (ie an offensive law which initiates force) vs. a negative right/law (ie a defensive law).

I am _ONLY_ arguing against offensive laws. I agree on the validity of defensive laws. And every time I prove to you that there is a difference and that your beloved offensive laws are actually problematic, you guys always change the subject, reverting to a strawman, and saying that if I'm against positive laws, I must be against negative laws too. This is absurd, and shows you don't even understand the concept. You're not defending positive laws, you just can't get around what that means. There IS a difference between a law that blocks the use of force by saying you must not murder someone, vs. one that initiates force to make you do something against your will, like saying you must not use drugs.

Naturally you ran from my question which would steal more from you: being arrested for drug possession or mugged in the alley.

Here's another question you'll run from (I think we're getting close to 100). Remember the scandal in Tenaha, TX? Throughout the country the asset forfeiture laws state that if a cop suspects you might be a drug dealer, the police dept can seize your property. But most police are discrete about it. In Tenaha, however, a tiny town of 1,100 people, they set up a speed trap and when they saw a black person driving a nice car they pulled them over, basically said that the only way a black person could have a nice car was to deal drugs, so they confiscated them. Thousands of them. When one woman who tried to resist and call her lawyer, the cops took her kids and threatened to turn them over to CPS if the woman didn't stop resisting. It created a national outcry only because of the scale of it and the fact that they targeted minorities. However, the courts confirmed what they did was legal.

Are you going to argue that it's just lawful traffic enforcement? What about all the other thousands of similar asset seizures that occur nationwide every day and stay below the radar? What if it happened to you one day? What if you saved and saved to buy yourself a flashy new sports, and the next day the cops took it from you--legally, just like in Tenaha. Would you still say that all law enforcement is moral and just? Would you still argue there's no difference between defensive and offensive laws and having the police take your car is no different than having the police arrest you for murdering someone?

Yes, that's yet another reductio ad absurdum. But it works only because your position is absurd. When the police are seizing OTHER people's property and you're on the receiving end because it subsidizes law enforcement and reduces your property tax bill, THEN it's legitimate law enforcement. However, turn the tables around where on the busy side of the gun, and I can guarantee you'll clearly see the difference between positive and negative rights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 03:25 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 02:59 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Finding evidence of something illegal should involve a call to the police. What if you found a bunch of hacked up body parts, and you threw them into a duffle bag and carry them down to the ME's office, and on the way a cop saw blood dripping on the subway, and asked to look in your bag. and you got arrested for murder.

Excellent. This really proves my point that in your mind, all laws are moral and legitimate because you're unable to distinguish between a positive right/law (ie an offensive law which initiates force) vs. a negative right/law (ie a defensive law).

I am _ONLY_ arguing against offensive laws. I agree on the validity of defensive laws. And every time I prove to you that there is a difference and that your beloved offensive laws are actually problematic, you guys always change the subject, reverting to a strawman, and saying that if I'm against positive laws, I must be against negative laws too. This is absurd, and shows you don't even understand the concept. You're not defending positive laws, you just can't get around what that means. There IS a difference between a law that blocks the use of force by saying you must not murder someone, vs. one that initiates force to make you do something against your will, like saying you must not use drugs.

Naturally you ran from my question which would steal more from you: being arrested for drug possession or mugged in the alley.

Here's another question you'll run from (I think we're getting close to 100). Remember the scandal in Tenaha, TX? Throughout the country the asset forfeiture laws state that if a cop suspects you might be a drug dealer, the police dept can seize your property. But most police are discrete about it. In Tenaha, however, a tiny town of 1,100 people, they set up a speed trap and when they saw a black person driving a nice car they pulled them over, basically said that the only way a black person could have a nice car was to deal drugs, so they confiscated them. Thousands of them. When one woman who tried to resist and call her lawyer, the cops took her kids and threatened to turn them over to CPS if the woman didn't stop resisting. It created a national outcry only because of the scale of it and the fact that they targeted minorities. However, the courts confirmed what they did was legal.

Are you going to argue that it's just lawful traffic enforcement? What about all the other thousands of similar asset seizures that occur nationwide every day and stay below the radar? What if it happened to you one day? What if you saved and saved to buy yourself a flashy new sports, and the next day the cops took it from you--legally, just like in Tenaha. Would you still say that all law enforcement is moral and just? Would you still argue there's no difference between defensive and offensive laws and having the police take your car is no different than having the police arrest you for murdering someone?

Yes, that's yet another reductio ad absurdum. But it works only because your position is absurd. When the police are seizing OTHER people's property and you're on the receiving end because it subsidizes law enforcement and reduces your property tax bill, THEN it's legitimate law enforcement. However, turn the tables around where on the busy side of the gun, and I can guarantee you'll clearly see the difference between positive and negative rights.


ok. how about this then, as trying your hand at reductio ad absurdum focusing only on positive laws.

You compared being arrested for illegal possession a white powdery substance (presumably cocaine) when you were just carrying it from your daughters room to some lab for testing.

Well what about being in possession of stolen property? You had reason to believe it was stolen, but you purchased it anyway. You didn't steal it from its original owner, in fact, since possession is 9/10ths of the law, you bought it from the possessor of the property. Now you are driving around in a stolen car, that you purchased. Still think the cops shouldn't arrest you.

you seem to have this thought in your head that recreational drugs like cocaine, have no effect on OTHER people and therefore aren't harmful. I disagree.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: