4 ms·

> you understand what I'm saying Obviously, I apparently did not. Therefore: > I'm disagreeing with it as a matter of principle. Please don't do that. Redef

by nmrm2 11y ago

> you understand what I'm saying Obviously, I apparently did not. Therefore: > I'm disagreeing with it as a matter of principle. Please don't do that. Redefining words for yourself and then using your secret meanings in discussions is both irritating (because it wastes other commenter's time) and comes off as arrogant (because it demonstrates a clear disregard for other's time and a willful unwillingness to communicate effectively). If you know something is a Right in the conventional sense even though it has conditions attached, state that you disagree with those conditions. Don't call it "not a right" to make a point. Doing so derails the conversation and wastes other's time. > licenses are just another way for the state to make money and restrict my right to travel via the common means of the day. That's obviously not true. You really think your $20 license fee pays for... anything? It's probably not even offsetting the cost of the licensing regime. And restricting your travel obviously is not the goal of a driver's license. Where did you even get that idea? "The State" doesn't require licensing because it wants to screw you out of money or keep you down. We, the people, require licensing because driving is dangerous and we don't want idiots to kill us. > Driving should not require a license and an annual fee to the state Of course, assuming you live in a democracy, you're free to try to change that. I think you'll find this an impossible reform because given the danger of driving, licensing is an extremely important first step toward making roads safer. > It didn't require a license to ride a horse or drive a buggy Yeah, right, because horses and buggies didn't kill millions of people a year. As an aside, in almost every state you can still ride horses on most public roads without a license.

gnaritas 11y ago
I didn't redefine any words, I used the word in the common sense of the word, you're trying to use it in the legal sense. I made myself clear when I said applying conditions makes it a privilege, if you didn't understand my meaning after that, well then I can't help you, it couldn't have been clearer. We used to live in a democracy, we now live in a plutocracy, the government hasn't represented the will of the governed in quite a long time, that's why voter turnout is abysmal. We're done here, we obviously won't come to any agreement.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > I used the word in the common sense of the word That's bullshit. Everyone past fifth grade understands that Rights come with conditions. Your right to free speech does not extend past the jail house doors. This is literally childish shit. You're being obtuse and you know it. edit: also, we live in a plutocracy in which we have no control over government and that's why "they" can enact ominous plans to restrict our right to freely travel by requiring a one time, one hour safety test and $20 annually? If you're going to go full on tin foil, at least come up with something that doesn't sound like a SNL skit.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    Well I'm glad you're granted the insight to speak for everyone, you must be so full of yourself it just hurts. An edit, what you're so brilliant you can't even figure out how to bypass the post time restriction? Do you just run around being pedantic?
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      Are the downvotes not clear enough? Stop being so stubborn about wording and consider arguing your actual point. Don't call names. I'm curious, how would you feel if unlicensed drivers were limited to 20mph?
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        I did, and I'm not the one being stubborn about wording. He's the one being pedantic.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        You said it was unjust because it was a right, he explained why it was just, you started the semantics argument with "Conditions would make them privileges." and then when you were proved wrong you started with personal insults. You didn't even address the argument that "being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens"... Edit: 'it' being the very concept of restrictions on rights, not really this particular variety

by nmrm2 11y ago

gnaritas 11y ago

I didn't redefine any words, I used the word in the common sense of the word, you're trying to use it in the legal sense. I made myself clear when I said applying conditions makes it a privilege, if you didn't understand my meaning after that, well then I can't help you, it couldn't have been clearer. We used to live in a democracy, we now live in a plutocracy, the government hasn't represented the will of the governed in quite a long time, that's why voter turnout is abysmal. We're done here, we obviously won't come to any agreement.

nmrm2 11y ago
> I used the word in the common sense of the word That's bullshit. Everyone past fifth grade understands that Rights come with conditions. Your right to free speech does not extend past the jail house doors. This is literally childish shit. You're being obtuse and you know it. edit: also, we live in a plutocracy in which we have no control over government and that's why "they" can enact ominous plans to restrict our right to freely travel by requiring a one time, one hour safety test and $20 annually? If you're going to go full on tin foil, at least come up with something that doesn't sound like a SNL skit.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Well I'm glad you're granted the insight to speak for everyone, you must be so full of yourself it just hurts. An edit, what you're so brilliant you can't even figure out how to bypass the post time restriction? Do you just run around being pedantic?
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    Are the downvotes not clear enough? Stop being so stubborn about wording and consider arguing your actual point. Don't call names. I'm curious, how would you feel if unlicensed drivers were limited to 20mph?
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      I did, and I'm not the one being stubborn about wording. He's the one being pedantic.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        You said it was unjust because it was a right, he explained why it was just, you started the semantics argument with "Conditions would make them privileges." and then when you were proved wrong you started with personal insults. You didn't even address the argument that "being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens"... Edit: 'it' being the very concept of restrictions on rights, not really this particular variety