Flag burners in Berkeley, California

#104
#104
ksushalovesthevols said:
Humor me. What is the duality in saying I believe they (Sheehan, the Berkeley protesters, the Muslim Brotherhood and, for that matter anyone else whose speech is constitutionally protected) have the right to speak, whether or not I agree with their message?
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not understanding duality. I was hoping it meant while you believe the folks mentioned have the right to speak, you also believe those that disagree with them also have a right to speak dissenting opinions.
 
#105
#105
hmanvolfan said:
I guess I'm not understanding duality. I was hoping it meant while you believe the folks mentioned have the right to speak, you also believe those that disagree with them also have a right to speak dissenting opinions.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that both the protesters and those who disagree with them are entitled to speak within the bounds of what is constitutionally protected.
 
#108
#108
I think all these flag burners should be lined up on a wall and have their nuts get living crap kicked out of them. Anyone who desecrates the flag of our country does not love our country, they love the idea of a one world way. The flag is what symbolizes us and I could give 5 rat's asses about what the world thinks about us. I think the world is jealous that a 200 year old country has ascended to the only world power left and all these countries that have thousands of years of heritage can't let go of it to make their countries better. Shame on us?? No way. Shame on them for getting in the way of their own progress.
 
#109
#109
ksushalovesthevols said:
I was just laughing at the fact that you were calling my reference to well-established con law principles a bunch of nonesensical garbage.
Click to expand...

he'd be right of course. something you might learn after law school. . . just because it is the law and has been for 200 years that doesn't make it fair or right.
 
#110
#110
hmanvolfan said:
I listened to the video and couldn't hear any vulgar language outbreaks at all. Do you know what Tourette Syndrome is?
Click to expand...


Yes - it also involves involuntary body movements and various physical "tics". I was referring to the jerking motion of the video. Vulgar language outbreaks are only present in a small % of those suffering TS

It was a joke. Sheeeesh :blink:
 
#111
#111
droski said:
he'd be right of course. something you might learn after law school. . . just because it is the law and has been for 200 years that doesn't make it fair or right.
Click to expand...

there's more to arguing against established law than disagreeing with the end result. if he were to engage me in a discussion on the merits of why he thought the logic underlying these principles was wrong, that would be one thing. however, all he's doing is making an emotional argument based on his own gut feeling of how it should come out, nothing more.
 
#112
#112
volinbham said:
Yes - it also involves involuntary body movements and various physical "tics". I was referring to the jerking motion of the video. Vulgar language outbreaks are only present in a small % of those suffering TS

It was a joke. Sheeeesh :blink:
Click to expand...
Don't you know you're not allowed to joke in the politics forum? :p
 
#114
#114
ksushalovesthevols said:
there's more to arguing against established law than disagreeing with the end result. if he were to engage me in a discussion on the merits of why he thought the logic underlying these principles was wrong, that would be one thing. however, all he's doing is making an emotional argument based on his own gut feeling of how it should come out, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Thats were you assume things that aren't so. At no point did I become emotional in my responses. You were the one who resorted to name calling and taking everything I said personally.
 
#115
#115
I'm not saying you were emotional, but your responses were grounded in your preference of a different outcome. It's clear that you disagree, but I would prefer to have a discussion on the merits as to what logic underlying these decisions you feel is erroneous.
 
#116
#116
But you did say I was being emotional.

ksushalovesthevols said:
there's more to arguing against established law than disagreeing with the end result. if he were to engage me in a discussion on the merits of why he thought the logic underlying these principles was wrong, that would be one thing. however, all he's doing is making an emotional argument based on his own gut feeling of how it should come out, nothing more.
Click to expand...
 
#117
#117
pardon the ambiguity, but i meant that your argument was based on emotions (i.e., your desire for a certain outcome) rather than implying that your delivery was emotional. does that make sense?
 
#118
#118
Tell me how you believe my argument was based on emotions?

You are changing the argument to suite your desired outcome. Every time you have been shown an error in what you have wrote you change to a different angle. "Its not how it was said but how it was written"
 
#119
#119
MontereyVol said:
Tell me how you believe my argument was based on emotions?

You are changing the argument to suite your desired outcome. Every time you have been shown an error in what you have wrote you change to a different angle. "Its not how it was said but how it was written"
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm saying that an argument that is based solely or in large part on the desire for a certain outcome, without a discussion of the logic, is grounded in emotion. In other words, based on your failure to discuss the logic behind these precedents, it seems that it's not logic but your feelings that make you want that outcome.
 
#120
#120
ksushalovesthevols said:
I'm not. I'm saying that an argument that is based solely or in large part on the desire for a certain outcome, without a discussion of the logic, is grounded in emotion.
Click to expand...

I agree, however that has nothing to do with what I have been talking to you about.

ksushalovesthevols said:
In other words, based on your failure to discuss the logic behind these precedents, it seems that it's not logic but your feelings that make you want that outcome.
Click to expand...

Again, you change the argument to suit your need to be on the right side. Since you long ago proved you will not admit to being wrong, I can only reason that you will just keep changing the argument until you are right.
 
#121
#121
I've not changed anything in my argument. You just appear to be unreceptive to any sort of logic. I'm done engaging that level of density.
 
#123
#123
screw these pot smoking hippies. I wish a pro-US group would beat the @#$@ out of them. Move to freaking Switzerland or something.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top