Author Topic: Debating liberals  (Read 4419 times)

Offline Zak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #60 on: June 16, 2019, 05:03:18 PM »
You're missing the point. And yes, I misspoke. what I meant was the original intent, where the original 10 is what guaranteed our Constitution. The Constitution was drawn up and finalized. However, had a Bill of Rights not been ratified, we wouldn't have had a Constitution.
What separates the two, is the fact that the original 10 Amendments, Bill of Rights is essentially written in stone, our very existence depends on them.
This is what separates the two, yes, they are essentially connected, Article V covers it, and yes, it would require two thirds of both Houses to amend it, or two thirds of the states. if the original 10 are ever amended, our Republic is dead and a dictatorship will follow, guaranteed.

I know I'm not making myself clear. But the Constitution was drawn up as a final document. Done. But the anti Federalists wanted a separate document guaranteeing certain Rights that the Govt could not touch.
This why I said they were separate. Does that make sense?

Sure, I understood what you were saying. It was just a technicality that I wanted to correct mainly for the benefits of others who might not have paid attention to the entire conversation.

Without the Bill of Rights we would be living in a Big Jail.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 05:13:52 PM by Zak »

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67863
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #61 on: June 16, 2019, 05:33:12 PM »
Sure, I understood what you were saying. It was just a technicality that I wanted to correct mainly for the benefits of others who might not have paid attention to the entire conversation.

Without the Bill of Rights we would be living in a Big Jail.
Yep, there's no doubt how the left would have interpreted the Constitution to fit their dictatorship.
#WWG1WGA

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #62 on: June 16, 2019, 09:06:38 PM »
It's called the process of deduction or rather elimination. If I gave you a list of shit you can't have, then you simply compare that to what is available.

Weapons of mass destruction, that would be bombs, be it hand grenades to nuclear bombs, all are prohibited because they can maim multiple people at a time, meaning you are targeting the innocent indiscriminately.
So what does that leave you? Guns, knives, bats and a myriad of small arms, but under the law you can have and own fighter jets, tanks, because if a military can have it, you can too, they just have to be registered.

The first part assures the people the Right to form an army. The second part guarantees that the govt never ever interfere with the right to bear weapons.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

With one restriction, you can't own weapons that kill indiscriminately.
The restrictions make sense, only because we have crazy people in the world and a bomb doesn't have a sight or targeting device. Personally, I hate any restriction, because truth is, laws mean nothing to those Hell bent on killing you.
But with this knowledge, can you now deduce what is allowed and what is not? Instead of asking silly questions, why don't you read the federalist Papers, they literally explain everything about our govt.
Don't pay lip service, look it up, read it then get back to me.

Solar, the burden of proof is upon to show where exactly the exceptions are and to make your case.  It's not up to me to trawl through documents to prove the negation of what you say.  You say there are exceptions.  Where?  Where do the founding fathers specifically state any exceptions exist? 

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #63 on: June 16, 2019, 09:23:40 PM »
A well regulated Militia, = ordinary citizens

Regulated = disciplined and well equipped.   They keep their guns, ammo, etc well maintained and secured when not using them.   They're disciplined with their emotions and they don't get cocky. Some gun owners I see on youtube videos are not regulated at all.  So, should every ordinary citizen have a gun?  Should a person who is having a full blown schizophrenic episode have a gun.  Are they well regulated?  I don't think so.


being necessary to the security of a free State, = defense against tyranny

Agreed!

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, = personal gun ownership

How do you derive that the word "Arms" means gun only and not weapon?

Let's use Solar's dictionary since he rejects modern dictionaries since he believes them to be of liberal construction. 

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/arms

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

Going by his dictionary of what arms means it doesn't limit the weapons at all.
shall not be infringed. = gun laws are Unconstitutional

It talks about guns, not explosive devices.

How do you derive arms to meaning guns only?  Can you explain this, show this and prove this to be the case?



Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #64 on: June 17, 2019, 01:23:54 AM »
It's called the process of deduction or rather elimination. If I gave you a list of shit you can't have, then you simply compare that to what is available.



I have a problem with your reasoning.  I will explain why your reasoning is overly simplistic.  Let's say I have a jar of differing colored jelly beans.  Let's say all I'm told is I'm not allowed to have black jelly beans.  What does this mean?  Does it mean I'm allowed to have the rest of them?  Your way of thinking would be to assume yes but I say not necessarily so.  I have no idea whether I'm allowed to have the others or not.  I know I can put the blacks in the can't have jar.  But, do I put the other colored ones in the can have jar?  What about ones that may look dark purplish but to the other person who said I'm not allowed to have the black ones they looked black to them. 

See, that's the problem.  It's not as simple as you think. 

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24012
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #65 on: June 17, 2019, 02:22:23 AM »
I have a problem with your reasoning.  I will explain why your reasoning is overly simplistic.  Let's say I have a jar of differing colored jelly beans.  Let's say all I'm told is I'm not allowed to have black jelly beans.  What does this mean?  Does it mean I'm allowed to have the rest of them?  Your way of thinking would be to assume yes but I say not necessarily so.  I have no idea whether I'm allowed to have the others or not.  I know I can put the blacks in the can't have jar.  But, do I put the other colored ones in the can have jar?  What about ones that may look dark purplish but to the other person who said I'm not allowed to have the black ones they looked black to them. 

See, that's the problem.  It's not as simple as you think.

It is simple.

If you're told you can't have a particular color jellybean, then why were you not told you can't have the others?

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #66 on: June 17, 2019, 03:00:29 AM »
It is simple.

If you're told you can't have a particular color jellybean, then why were you not told you can't have the others?

And, that's a very good question.   It would be strange indeed.   Quite honestly I would not know why I was not told I can't have the others.  I have no idea what the other person was thinking.   Just like I don't get why people think the way they do or why they do the things they do?  And, when people write things I don't get why they never say what they mean but instead speak in a round about fashion.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24012
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #67 on: June 17, 2019, 03:02:39 AM »
And, that's a very good question.   It would be strange indeed.   Quite honestly I would not know why I was not told I can't have the others.  I have no idea what the other person was thinking.   Just like I don't get why people think the way they do or why they do the things they do?  And, when people write things I don't get why they never say what they mean but instead speak in a round about fashion.

Per Solar's point, that's where logic comes into play.  Forget about all the what-ifs and who's thinking what and just stick to logic.

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #68 on: June 17, 2019, 03:18:11 AM »
Per Solar's point, that's where logic comes into play.  Forget about all the what-ifs and who's thinking what and just stick to logic.

Ok Taxed.  Let's try this a different way.

What is 2 + 2?   My first answer that would be off the cuff would be 4.  This is based upon the based 10 number system which the average person gets.  But, that assumes we're using the base 10 number system and we're doing a summation at all.

Why can't the + symbol mean concatenation as well? 

In summation (base 10) 2 + 2 =4.

In concatenation, 2 + 2 = 22. 

Which logic applies here? 

Back to this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does Solar derives what he derives from this?  It's him who made the claim.  He should be able to back it up and explain it.  Not acting like a liberal does and telling someone to read something instead of backing their stuff up?   
 
It's like he's just saying things from thin air and not explaining how we get from A to B to C. 
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 03:21:50 AM by alienhand »

Offline lecarrjan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #69 on: June 17, 2019, 03:28:05 AM »
You are not going to win any argument with anyone about [guns abortion etc] with facts and reason for beliefs are not based on facts and reason, they are based on emotion. 


http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/argument.html


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24012
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #70 on: June 17, 2019, 03:29:46 AM »
Ok Taxed.  Let's try this a different way.

What is 2 + 2?   My first answer that would be off the cuff would be 4.  This is based upon the based 10 number system which the average person gets.  But, that assumes we're using the base 10 number system and we're doing a summation at all.

Why can't the + symbol mean concatenation as well? 

In summation (base 10) 2 + 2 =4.

In concatenation, 2 + 2 = 22. 

Which logic applies here? 

It's always 4, because you set the context as adding two base 10 numbers.

For example, some programming languages do indeed use the '+' as a string concatenation operator, e.g. JavaScript: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Expressions_and_Operators#String_operators

The '+' is also an arithmetic operator.  JavaScript, at runtime, determines what the two datatypes are and figures out the context of the operator.  If you did want to concatenate a 2 and a 2 to make 22, you'd specify the two operands as a string by wrapping them in quotes, e.g. "2" + "2" == "22".

Point being, the context is established up front of what you're trying to do.


Quote
Back to this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does Solar derives what he derives from this?  It's him who made the claim.  He should be able to back it up and explain it.  Not acting like a liberal does and telling someone to read something instead of backing their stuff up?
What in the hell are you talking about?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 03:48:45 AM by taxed »

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #71 on: June 17, 2019, 03:43:26 AM »
It's always 4, because you set the context as adding two base 10 numbers.

For example, some programming languages do indeed use the '+' as a string concatenation operator, e.g. JavaScript: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Expressions_and_Operators#String_operators

The '+' is also an arithmetic operator.  JavaScript, at runtime, determines what the two datatypes are and figures out the context of the operator.  If you did want to concatenate a 2 and a 2 to make 22, you'd specify the two operands as a string by wrapping them in quotes, e.g. "2" + "2" =="22".

Point being, the context is established up front of what you're trying to do.

Taxed, you provided me with some helpful information.  If I'm understanding you correctly certain meanings, definitions and contexts is simply just accepted.  And, concerning the 2nd amendment Solar, you and others have read these things like the federalist papers and are simply that the founding fathers had that is inferred from their writings.  Is that correct?  And, what Solar is telling me is read through these things myself and try to derive these meanings on my own from these things, is this correct?


What in the hell are you talking about?

Nothing!  Nevermind on this one!

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24012
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #72 on: June 17, 2019, 03:47:46 AM »
Taxed, you provided me with some helpful information.  If I'm understanding you correctly certain meanings, definitions and contexts is simply just accepted.

Correct. However, if you don't know the context, there's this amazing technique I've learned over the years; it's called "asking a question".

Quote
And, concerning the 2nd amendment Solar, you and others have read these things like the federalist papers and are simply that the founding fathers had that is inferred from their writings.  Is that correct?  And, what Solar is telling me is read through these things myself and try to derive these meanings on my own from these things, is this correct?

I can't really help you here, because I don't know how much more simple and clear the Second Amendment could possibly be.

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #73 on: June 17, 2019, 03:59:45 AM »
Correct. However, if you don't know the context, there's this amazing technique I've learned over the years; it's called "asking a question".


If I ask the question and others won't give the answer saying things along the lines that it is common sense then what?

I can't really help you here, because I don't know how much more simple and clear the Second Amendment could possibly be.

Honestly, you really can't not in a direct sense.  And, that's b/c sometimes the question is to simply to really give an answer.   Example:   Could you explain to someone how to breath or take in a breath and exhale?   Certain things are so automatic and instinctual that one may do or know things at an unconscious level.  Am I making sense?  Even the founding fathers said that certain things were self-evident.  Maybe to them certain things were so plain and obvious that they couldn't explain it but in the most simple terms. 

Some things are simply to simple to explain.  If you get what I'm saying. 

My dead grandmother had a saying.  "You're so smart, you dope."  Trust me, my grandmother was blunt on things. 
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 04:06:08 AM by alienhand »

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24012
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #74 on: June 17, 2019, 04:05:43 AM »
If I ask the question and others won't give the answer saying things along the lines that it is common sense then what?
Then ask again.

Quote
Honestly, you really can't not in a direct sense.  And, that's b/c sometimes the question is to simply to really give an answer.   Example:   Could you explain to someone how to breath or take in a breath and exhale?   Certain things are so automatic and instinctual that one may do or know things at an unconscious level.  Am I making sense?  Even the founding fathers said that certain things were self-evident.  Maybe to them certain things were so plain and obvious that they couldn't explain it but in the most simple terms. 

Some things are simply to simple to explain.  If you get what I'm saying.
I honestly have no idea what you're saying.  The Second Amendment is as simple as "See spot run".

 

Powered by EzPortal