Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First side effect of the gay marriage ruling
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 98 (761569)
07-02-2015 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
07-02-2015 5:45 PM


Certainly there is no clear explanation there.
No need to repeat that you didn't find it was clear enough to cause you to reconsider the situation. I disagree as explained already.
He asked for clarification of one phrase, and he got it.
No need to repeat that you think that what you did was clarifying, nor is there a need to repeat my response to this, you can just go read it again if you like.
Message 48 was just replying in kind to the increased snark of the discussion
Which he increased in message 46.
And you're claiming he did that because his question was answered.
That doesn't exactly speak well of him.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate with this, but it doesn't look right whatever interpretation I'm trying.
That he missed a good number of opportunities to correct his mistake is a clear fact.
No need to repeat that this is your opinion. I've already explained why I disagree with it.
So there he is claiming a right to concealed carry.
He claimed SCOTUS made a ruling regarding issuing CCLs in his State. How does this affect the argument? You weren't challenging him about a SCOTUS ruling regarding some State policy he raised, you challenged about fundamental rights. The fundamental rights of course that CS was talking about, was the right to carry weapons, which he supported, resulting in further confusion. Do you enjoy merry-go-rounds?
Sadly we are not having a reasonable discussion. Because you are not being reasonable.
Again, this assumption is more likely to cause the problem you are complaining of than it is to solve it. What am I doing that is not reasonable? Pointing out an error that you don't think is an error? It is not unreasonable of me to have made a mistake, so I don't see how that would count. What else?
And really I'm not going to answer the rest of it because I've spent too much time correcting your errors already.
No problem, you were just repeating yourself and ignoring what I had said in your repetition. I understand what you think happened, I was just trying to show you that your charge of calling CS a liar was not the case and in fact it was a breakdown in communication. I'm not clear what errors you have corrected of mine, but I agree there doesn't seem any utility in continuing into the oblivion of repetition.
You have a choice, look back on your discussion and try to falsify the hypothesis that you were near flawless...or you could look back and try to prove that you were near flawless. The good news is that you will be successful whichever option you choose!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2015 5:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2015 12:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 98 (761573)
07-02-2015 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
07-02-2015 5:17 PM


I asked what I should do with the information you clearly felt I should do something with this information as you had tried to bring it to my attention twice.
My point was that PaulK's initial response was justified by Cat Sci's original post and that your posting left out portions of what actually occurred.
Of course it seems that nobody in this thread takes criticism very well.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 5:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 7:32 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 98 (761575)
07-02-2015 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by NoNukes
07-02-2015 7:14 PM


My point was that PaulK's initial response was justified by Cat Sci's original post and that your posting left out portions of what actually occurred.
I'm not in court, so omission is absurd given the posts are right there, have been regularly linked to and this is a short thread at the moment. I thought everyone was on the same page as to where PaulK got the notion about concealed firearms with regards to Catholic Scientist's post and didn't see the need to reveal it. It's kind of a central aspect of the thread.
I don't see how it helps this meta discussion though, PaulK still challenged CS to prove concealed carry was a fundamental right when CS's argument was that carrying is a fundamental right. This still confused CS who defended a different point, which still confused PaulK leading to confusion and snarkiness which still resulted in PaulK accusing CS of lying. Erroneously in my view, as I have explained. All you seem to have proven is that PaulK is not entirely detached from reality, which I hadn't suspected to begin with.
Of course it seems that nobody in this thread takes criticism very well.
Perhaps so, though in fairness if you were criticising me I didn't notice so whatever reaction you have read into my words it hasn't been because I am reacting poorly to criticism. I genuinely had no idea why you were raising it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 7:14 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 8:18 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 98 (761581)
07-02-2015 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Modulous
07-02-2015 7:32 PM


I thought everyone was on the same page as to where PaulK got the notion about concealed firearms with regards to Catholic Scientist's post and didn't see the need to reveal it
Your posts left open an issue about what was said, and for that reason I thought it useful to direct you to message 14. It seemed to me that what you had left out of your quotes was fairly germane to our differences of opinion so I provided something for you to consider.
What should you do with that information? You don't have to do anything.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 7:32 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 95 of 98 (761599)
07-02-2015 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
07-02-2015 9:48 AM


Boy you have changed the argument completely haven't you. As some states don't allow carry at all would seem to defeat your argument. Then again morphing arguments seems to be your hallmark.
So is carrying a weapon a fundamental right? Can you provide any sort of court rulings?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 07-02-2015 9:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 07-03-2015 8:13 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 96 of 98 (761603)
07-03-2015 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Modulous
07-02-2015 6:35 PM


There is obviously no point in this conversation. You are going to spin everything in CS's favour and ignore every correction.
There is simply no possibiity of a reasonable conversation here so long as you maintain your attitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 6:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Modulous, posted 07-03-2015 3:34 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 97 of 98 (761608)
07-03-2015 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
07-03-2015 12:55 AM


There is obviously no point in this conversation.
That's what I just said
You are going to spin everything in CS's favour and ignore every correction.
I have no idea why you think I would want to do this.
There is simply no possibiity of a reasonable conversation here so long as you maintain your attitude.
If you would explain rather than assert my unreasonable attitude maybe I can take corrective action.
quote:
You have a choice, look back on your discussion and try to falsify the hypothesis that you were near flawless...or you could look back and try to prove that you were near flawless. The good news is that you will be successful whichever option you choose!
Success!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2015 12:55 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 98 of 98 (761618)
07-03-2015 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Theodoric
07-02-2015 10:27 PM


Again, please actually learn to read.
Once you go back and understand what I actually said then perhaps I will be able to help you.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2015 10:27 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024