3 ms·

First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishone

by talmand 13y ago

First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishonest on your part. Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either. I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense. By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.

pstuart 13y ago
Agreed, insults ruin the conversation. As do pedantic dismissals that can trigger such insults. You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact". I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that. By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.
- talmand 13y ago
  And continuing with the insults helps, how exactly? Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dishonest for you to claim your right to not quote the entire statement of the amendment due to laziness but require the opposing viewpoint to quote in full to prevent being labeled dishonest. In fact, I'm not even sure what your statement about the media and quoting the entire amendment have to do with each other. I'm not sure how the Supreme Court is involved in a statement of how it is written in the Constitution of what the amendment process is. Have there been cases before the Supreme Court involving changing the amendment process? I'm not aware of any so I'm curious. If you are in favor of creating laws to mess with a group of people you don't like, then that's just a sad fact. Because you are legitimizing the very idea of writing laws to punish people you don't like. If that's the case, then one day some group that doesn't like you will do the same and you'll have no credibility to complain about it.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    You're calling me dishonest for quickly mentioning a critical omission of a subject (the "well-regulated militia" bit) without quoting the full amendment? That is an insult in itself. <insert my muttered response to you here> I wasn't even taking a stand on the issue of "gun rights", simply that it's more than what its proponents make it out to be. The bit about messing with people is because any time I deal with pro-gun people they are almost invariably sanctimonious assholes who are unwilling to talk about the issue as a whole. People like that don't want dialog, so insults will have to do. No, the less laws the better. Let's just make sure they're good ones.

by talmand 13y ago

pstuart 13y ago

Agreed, insults ruin the conversation. As do pedantic dismissals that can trigger such insults. You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact". I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that. By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.

talmand 13y ago
And continuing with the insults helps, how exactly? Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dishonest for you to claim your right to not quote the entire statement of the amendment due to laziness but require the opposing viewpoint to quote in full to prevent being labeled dishonest. In fact, I'm not even sure what your statement about the media and quoting the entire amendment have to do with each other. I'm not sure how the Supreme Court is involved in a statement of how it is written in the Constitution of what the amendment process is. Have there been cases before the Supreme Court involving changing the amendment process? I'm not aware of any so I'm curious. If you are in favor of creating laws to mess with a group of people you don't like, then that's just a sad fact. Because you are legitimizing the very idea of writing laws to punish people you don't like. If that's the case, then one day some group that doesn't like you will do the same and you'll have no credibility to complain about it.
- pstuart 13y ago
  You're calling me dishonest for quickly mentioning a critical omission of a subject (the "well-regulated militia" bit) without quoting the full amendment? That is an insult in itself. <insert my muttered response to you here> I wasn't even taking a stand on the issue of "gun rights", simply that it's more than what its proponents make it out to be. The bit about messing with people is because any time I deal with pro-gun people they are almost invariably sanctimonious assholes who are unwilling to talk about the issue as a whole. People like that don't want dialog, so insults will have to do. No, the less laws the better. Let's just make sure they're good ones.