To Protect and to Serve II

#5,276
#5,276
midnight orange said:
That's not an arguement.
Click to expand...

Nope. But it does communicate the point that we’re too far apart to understand each other and saying the same things over and over won’t change it.

You don’t like the law....challenge it in court.
The Georgia version has already made it passes the appeals court.
Others versions have been overturned in states like Illinois because of wording but get replaced with laws like the Ga law.

It turns out that you do have a right to privacy so the police can’t ask for you ID ect. But you don’t have the right to not be recognized.

I wish you luck in your efforts to change this law. It’s interesting that the klan is the only group to challenge this law so being on the same side of the argument puts you in good company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,279
#5,279
Orangeslice13 said:
I wish you luck in your efforts to change this law. It’s interesting that the klan is the only group to challenge this law so being on the same side of the argument puts you in good company.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Georgia police invoke law made for KKK to arrest anti-racism protesters - The Washington Post

Unfortunately liberty minded folks get the unpleasant task of defending all kinds of reprobates engaging in reprehensible and not so reprehensible but illegal behavior, as long as they are not initiating violence against another person or their property. That’s why we defend johns, prostitues, drug users, drug dealers, misers, inside traders, racists, reluctant gay wedding cake bakers, etc. from those who would cage them because it offends their delicate sensibilities. Remember

“You today, me tomorrow”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,282
#5,282
Orangeslice13 said:
The intent of the law was to damask individuals so that individuals who break the law could be identified.
The group that brought a need for this law is irrelevant. Not allowing masks in public reduces criminal activity. Especially in a protest situation.

I’m sure you’d be opposed to the removal of this law and allowing both sides to wear masks. Then again maybe you like the violence.
Click to expand...

There are a million ways to reduce criminal activity, but we don't want a million laws. If you aren't free to anonymously protest, you aren't free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,283
#5,283
midnight orange said:
Nope.

Georgia police invoke law made for KKK to arrest anti-racism protesters - The Washington Post

Unfortunately liberty minded folks get the unpleasant task of defending all kinds of reprobates engaging in reprehensible and not so reprehensible but illegal behavior, as long as they are not initiating violence against another person or their property. That’s why we defend johns, prostitues, drug users, drug dealers, misers, inside traders, racists, reluctant gay wedding cake bakers, etc. from those who would cage them because it offends their delicate sensibilities. Remember

“You today, me tomorrow”
Click to expand...


Liberty minded???
You???


That is funny
 
#5,287
#5,287
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.
 
#5,290
#5,290
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
#5,291
#5,291
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
#5,293
#5,293
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
#5,294
#5,294
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
#5,295
#5,295
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.
 
#5,300
#5,300
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
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top