4 ms·
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 apply
by 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 agoWell 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 agoAre 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 agoI did, and I'm not the one being stubborn about wording. He's the one being pedantic.
- Dylan16807 11y agoYou 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
- gnaritas 11y agoNo he didn't explain why anything was just, he got pendantic about the meaning of the word right, and no I didn't start the semantics, I clarified my meaning. And I wasn't proven wrong nor did I start with any insults. Read much? > You didn't even address the argument that "being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens"... No, I didn't, because at that point the debate had already turned sour with his pedantics so it wasn't worth addressing as there's no point in continuing such a discussion with someone so anal about every word.
- Dylan16807 11y agoThe only argument you have presented is that restrictions on [rights or whatever you call them] are fundamentally wrong. No matter what words you choose to use, he disproved that argument and you have presented no other.
- gnaritas 11y agoHe didn't disprove any argument because I didn't make any, I expressed an opinion about my belief of what was just; that cannot be proven wrong. Go find someone else to troll.
- dang 11y agoCome on, you know this isn't allowed here, regardless of how provocative or annoying someone else is being.