To Protect and to Serve II

#5,279
#5,279
There is no argument
The law has already been argued in front of the appellate court.
Your side lost. It doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.
 
#5,282
#5,282
Orangeslice13 said:
There is no argument
The law has already been argued in front of the appellate court.

Your side lost. It doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.
Click to expand...

I think you mean that they ruled it doesn't infringe on any constitutionally-protected rights. It most definitely infringes on rights.

You're arguing about what's legal and I'm arguing about what's right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#5,283
#5,283
Orangeslice13 said:
There is no argument
The law has already been argued in front of the appellate court.
Your side lost. It doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.
Click to expand...

So we've gone from from deflection to name-calling and are now at conclusory statements. We're running the full gammet here.

"Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,285
#5,285
n_huffhines said:
I think you mean that they ruled it doesn't infringe on any constitutionally-protected rights. It most definitely infringes on rights.

You're arguing about what's legal and I'm arguing about what's right.
Click to expand...

What is legal defines what is right in a modern society but let’s play it your way.

Let’s extend this to the extreme to determine the line of “right and wrong” outside the law.

Do you feel you should have the right to walk buck naked in public? In front of schools at shopping centers ect. If you have to wear clothes then you’re not free are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,286
#5,286
midnight orange said:
So we've gone from from deflection to name-calling and are now at conclusory statements. We're running the full gammet here.

"Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty."
Click to expand...



How long have you been posting here?
Me shifting in and out of seriousness comes as no surprise to anyone here. If you’re seeking a rules oriented debate you should try somewhere less anonymous. That might encourage better behavior among the participants.
And I haven’t called you any names. Calling you a dip**** would be name calling. I haven’t stooped to that























Yet

Edit: I must be slipping. I missed the perfect opportunity here.

I should have concluded my conclusion with the definition of a dip****.



Dang it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,287
#5,287
Orangeslice13 said:
How long have you been posting here?
Me shifting in and out of seriousness comes as no surprise to anyone here. If you’re seeking a rules oriented debate you should try somewhere less anonymous. That might encourage better behavior among the participants.
And I haven’t called you any names. Calling you a dip**** would be name calling. I haven’t stooped to that






















Yet

Edit: I must be slipping. I missed the perfect opportunity here.

I should have concluded my conclusion with the definition of a dip****.



Dang it.
Click to expand...

You can call me a dipsh*t all you want and I can promise I will not be offended.
 
#5,292
#5,292
Orangeslice13 said:
What is legal defines what is right in a modern society but let’s play it your way.

Let’s extend this to the extreme to determine the line of “right and wrong” outside the law.

Do you feel you should have the right to walk buck naked in public? In front of schools at shopping centers ect. If you have to wear clothes then you’re not free are you?
Click to expand...

How is no clothes comparable to types of clothes? You are arguing about ludeness and I'm talking about something that shouldn't bother anybody. No masks is a right to privacy issue and a nudist is seeking the exact opposite of privacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,293
#5,293
n_huffhines said:
How is no clothes comparable to types of clothes? You are arguing about ludeness and I'm talking about something that shouldn't bother anybody. No masks is a right to privacy issue and a nudist is seeking the exact opposite of privacy.
Click to expand...

Enough ludes and you won't care about wearing nothing but a mask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,294
#5,294
n_huffhines said:
How is no clothes comparable to types of clothes? You are arguing about ludeness and I'm talking about something that shouldn't bother anybody. No masks is a right to privacy issue and a nudist is seeking the exact opposite of privacy.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about sedatives or obscenities?
 
#5,297
#5,297
n_huffhines said:
How is no clothes comparable to types of clothes? You are arguing about ludeness and I'm talking about something that shouldn't bother anybody. No masks is a right to privacy issue and a nudist is seeking the exact opposite of privacy.
Click to expand...

That’s my point
Where’s the line. You think masks shouldn’t bother anyone. I think they do. You say privacy is more important than safety. I think safety (ability to identify your attacker) is more important that your right to misbehave in a mask. To me if it’s important enough to protest then it shouldn’t have to hide. I’d argue the mask degrades the point you’re trying to make. Some think nudity shouldn’t bother anyone I think it does. So who gets to decide?


Lawmakers. That’s why we elected them
 
#5,298
#5,298
midnight orange said:
I was only pointing out that it is an intellectually dishonest debate tactic that signifies the name-caller has no valid points or has exhausted his arguement. Other than that I don't care.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if I believe you.
This is an anonymous board and that anonymity leads to distrust
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top