3 ms·
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
by 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 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.
- Dylan16807 11y agoThe idea that rights can never have restrictions is not an opinion. It is objectively wrong. The old quote about swinging a fist comes to mind. You can disagree with these restrictions, but you have not presented an argument that's actually focused on driving. If you really think I'm trolling to explain such a simple thing, I'll leave. Good luck in the future!
- gnaritas 11y agoThat was not the point being made, the whole focus on what rights meant was him being pedantic and obtuse about what was being said. That was the diversion, that you think it was the main point just shows he ruined the discussion by ignoring the point. Why would I partake in a hijacking of the thread when my comment was about what constituted justice? Don't bother answering, it was rhetorical.
- scott_s 11y agoPlease stop.
- dang 11y agoCome on, you know this isn't allowed here, regardless of how provocative or annoying someone else is being.