You already did.themadscientist wrote:Then demonstrate it, if you can.
Holy deflection, Batman! Keep at it, I'm sure somebody's fooled.themadscientist wrote:According to you. I'm sure you trust your source. Good luck advocating for lawlessness. I guess there will be a market in the future for anti-law lawyers. Be sure to have your clients plead, "the victim had it coming."
If they are not breaking a rule they are just "wrong." Don't like it, legally close the loopholes. You would have my support.IBCoupe wrote:WELFARE QUEENS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
If they are corrupt, by that act they are violating at least one law. Prosecute them. Again, I fully support you.IBCoupe wrote:CORRUPT POLITICIANS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
It's not a law yet. The proponent of it is having difficulty pushing it through. It is a tough sell being so reprehensible. The international chorus of outrage is certainly justified and loud.IBCoupe wrote:EXECUTION OF UGANDAN GAYS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
That law was enacted by a regime that came to power through unlawful acts. Any laws that thus come from such a regime are the fruit of a poisonous tree.IBCoupe wrote:EXTERMINATION OF GERMAN JEWS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
Oh, so there's "wrong" and there's "truly wrong?"themadscientist wrote:If they are not breaking a rule they are just "wrong." Don't like it, legally close the loopholes. You would have my support.IBCoupe wrote:WELFARE QUEENS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
That's probably not the wisest assumption.themadscientist wrote:If they are corrupt, by that act they are violating at least one law. Prosecute them. Again, I fully support you.IBCoupe wrote:CORRUPT POLITICIANS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
But if it becomes a law, the international chorus should just stuff it, right?themadscientist wrote:It's not a law yet. The proponent of it is having difficulty pushing it through. It is a tough sell being so reprehensible. The international chorus of outrage is certainly justified and loud.IBCoupe wrote:EXECUTION OF UGANDAN GAYS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
Which unlawful act brought the Nazis to power? You're absolutely right: it sure is easier to pretend the world conforms to your ideology than it is to construct an ideology that isn't incompatible with reality.themadscientist wrote:That law was enacted by a regime that came to power through unlawful acts. Any laws that thus come from such a regime are the fruit of a poisonous tree.IBCoupe wrote:EXTERMINATION OF GERMAN JEWS: NOT TRULY WRONG.
I don't need to, Mike. You so blatantly erred and your attempts to cover it up now, after you spent most of the thread avoiding it by deflecting to ad hominem defenses, are so half-hearted that I don't need to do anything except disassemble your lame nonexcuses.themadscientist wrote:Now let's continue the game where you try to come up with more extreme examples to support your wish for me to be as mutable as you. You know you will. Prove me wrong. What now? Want to get biblical? Oh, I know, stoning rape victims in some middle eastern countries; that's a good one!
Still playing the victim, then? Okeedoke. Mike, what you get but won't admit now, is that you are the example. You said something you don't believe to help your guy. It's clear you don't believe it because you're bending over backwards to both refute all the terrible things done completely within the confines of terrible laws, and admit that there are things you dont like that can be made legal, all in the name of not walking back the claim that "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a law," a form of terrible logic that nearly disproves itself.themadscientist wrote:Despite you calling me Adolph and casting aspersion on my honesty I still mean what I said. Since you have already stated you beleive me to lie even though you can't seem to produce an example, funny ain't it? I know you won't beleive that, but ultimately I don't care.
He's probably almost as giddy as I am, watching two villains destroy each other.themadscientist wrote:And the last minute shifting around continues. obama must be giddy watching this silliness. The bad blood from this is going to fracture the party. Can't say it would make me sad, but it's a shame it got to this. The incoming hurricane will be outclassed by what goes down in that convention.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQvszfnO ... re=youtube[/youtube]
IBCoupe wrote:Oh, so there's "wrong" and there's "truly wrong?"
Not necessarily. Since the concept is only defined by what it is not illegal, the next step is non-repeatable as any charge of "wrong" is based upon the opinion of the observer. You think it's "wrong" I don't think it's very wrong at all. Don't assume we share your view. Your stance is 100% grounded in your personal opinion and that's why it's weak and resists extrapolation.IBCoupe wrote:Fine, then in gaming the system, Ron Paul was wrong. Not "truly wrong," but wrong.
How do you define corrupt? Most definitions go something like this:IBCoupe wrote:That's probably not the wisest assumption.
As a politician is supposed to discharge his duties without influence within codified ethics law, law I would expect a law student to be at least aware of. The very act of being corrupt pushes pushes the individual outside the law and your argument starts to take on an odor.Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
If you want to argue about things that haven't happened, what should we do when space aliens arrive?IBCoupe wrote:But if it becomes a law, the international chorus should just stuff it, right?
I don't have a copy of the Weimar Republic's election laws, but I'm reasonably confident burning down the Reichstag is not an approved campaign device. When Ron Paul sets the Capitol of fire we can revisit your shaky concepts and give them a framework because he will have then broken the law. See how laws provide us with defined boundaries of behavior? Certain factions in our country would not see that act as "wrong."IBCoupe wrote: Which unlawful act brought the Nazis to power? You're absolutely right: it sure is easier to pretend the world conforms to your ideology than it is to construct an ideology that isn't incompatible with reality.
It works out fine, has for time immortal. Your argument is dead an you can hang it from strings and jerk it around, but it never had a heartbeat.IBCoupe wrote:I don't need to, Mike. You so blatantly erred and your attempts to cover it up now, after you spent most of the thread avoiding it by deflecting to ad hominem defenses, are so half-hearted that I don't need to do anything except disassemble your lame nonexcuses.
In order for your ideology to work (but we both know it's not actually your ideology), you have to be willing to assert that it's actually impossible for something terrible to be done within the rules. I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.
Again, you make unsupported assertions and miscast them as factual. You are in no position to say what I believe. I have demonstrated consistency in my beliefs and provided concrete examples. You have, what, your opinion? You similarly would have the rule of law dismantled to serve, again, your opinion. Starting to see a pattern? I am, well more to the point, I did a while ago and still do.IBCoupe wrote:Still playing the victim, then? Okeedoke. Mike, what you get but won't admit now, is that you are the example. You said something you don't believe to help your guy. It's clear you don't believe it because you're bending over backwards to both refute all the terrible things done completely within the confines of terrible laws, and admit that there are things you dont like that can be made legal, all in the name of not walking back the claim that "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a law," a form of terrible logic that nearly disproves itself.
It's okay to be partisan, the world needs to see what not to be.
Much better! I'm impressed. See, that's what you should have been arguing from the first time I replied. Instead of writing, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules, so it wasn't wrong," you should have written, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules, and it wasn't wrong." See the difference? One statement makes you seem like a crazy fanboy, and the other merely makes you seem questionably biased.themadscientist wrote:Not necessarily. Since the concept is only defined by what it is not illegal, the next step is non-repeatable as any charge of "wrong" is based upon the opinion of the observer. You think it's "wrong" I don't think it's very wrong at all. Don't assume we share your view. Your stance is 100% grounded in your personal opinion and that's why it's weak and resists extrapolation.
I mean, so it's probably not the greatest argument to say that my opinion is "100% grounded in personal opinion." Clearly, there's some thought put into it. That's just you trying to hide your own biases behind mine. Were this a normal conversation, I'd probably say right here, "In your defense, we didn't get very far into that issue," but this isn't a normal conversation, because the obstacle to discussing that was you.IBCoupe wrote:Ron Paul's behavior here defeats the purpose of a proportional delegation award in the first place.
Pushes them outside the law? I don't see any laws against crony capitalism, do you? See, here your defense of your position really serves to undermine it further. It's probably best to just give up, as you started to do above, and admit, "Yeah, that was a pretty dumb thing to say, and I don't really believe that rules alone define the boundary between morality and immorality."themadscientist wrote:How do you define corrupt? Most definitions go something like this:As a politician is supposed to discharge his duties without influence within codified ethics law, law I would expect a law student to be at least aware of. The very act of being corrupt pushes pushes the individual outside the law and your argument starts to take on an odor.Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
Why would we talk about that? How does this figure into your belief that "If it was truly wrong it would have violated a rule?" You maintain that I have no basis for calling you a liar, and so obviously you must have been telling the truth about your beliefs when you wrote that. So answer the question in the hypothetical: would it be wrong to kill gays for being gay if a law said that you could?themadscientist wrote:If you want to argue about things that haven't happened, what should we do when space aliens arrive?
You might want to check your history books. The burning of the Reichstag took place after the Nazis had taken 37% of the seats in the Reichstag in the year prior. They were well on their way to a government takeover, and for all anybody can tell, the Nazis didn't burn down that building.themadscientist wrote:I don't have a copy of the Weimar Republic's election laws, but I'm reasonably confident burning down the Reichstag is not an approved campaign device. When Ron Paul sets the Capitol of fire we can revisit your shaky concepts and give them a framework because he will have then broken the law. See how laws provide us with defined boundaries of behavior? Certain factions in our country would not see that act as "wrong."
So then you agree with me: Ron Paul can't hide behind the rules, in this situation the fruit of a poisoned tree. You see, he's operating under the rules established by the Republican National Committee, a political organization formed within the boundaries of the laws of the United States. Tell me, how'd that government get started?themadscientist wrote:It works out fine, has for time immortal. Your argument is dead an you can hang it from strings and jerk it around, but it never had a heartbeat.IBCoupe wrote:I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.
No, you've demonstrated that either you don't stand by your beliefs, or that you don't believe what you say you do. Every time you get an opportunity to stand up and affirm what you said earlier, you instead choose to deflect and draw attention away.themadscientist wrote:Again, you make unsupported assertions and miscast them as factual. You are in no position to say what I believe. I have demonstrated consistency in my beliefs and provided concrete examples. You have, what, your opinion? You similarly would have the rule of law dismantled to serve, again, your opinion. Starting to see a pattern? I am, well more to the point, I did a while ago and still do.
themadscientist wrote:You will have to forgive me if I find more solace in a society built on laws than one that serves you personally. You aren't a prince, a big deal, sure, why not, but not royalty. If you hold your ideas so close to your heart go commit a crime and share your philosophy with the arresting officer, then share it with the judge and jury, then with your cellmate. He will then explain how laws are negotiable outside their established amendment process and what he is doing to you is not "wrong" in his mind. I would of course disagree with that, but you have discarded my antiquated notion of rules being rules. To show my good will I'll send you some soap on a rope.
Prohibition of using public office for personal gain is a bedrock component of ethics laws. It may be hard for you to see because you are out there in the mist trying to weigh breaches against your own formulae. That takes a lot of time, it isn't consistent and it's colored by your own personal prejudices.IBCoupe wrote:Much better! I'm impressed. See, that's what you should have been arguing from the first time I replied. Instead of writing, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules, so it wasn't wrong," you should have written, "Ron Paul didn't break any rules, and it wasn't wrong." See the difference? One statement makes you seem like a crazy fanboy, and the other merely makes you seem questionably biased.
However, it seems you still have some ground to cover. My "stance is 100% grounded in [my] personal opinion?" I even offered you insight into the "grounds" for my comment, when I wrote:
I mean, so it's probably not the greatest argument to say that my opinion is "100% grounded in personal opinion." Clearly, there's some thought put into it. That's just you trying to hide your own biases behind mine. Were this a normal conversation, I'd probably say right here, "In your defense, we didn't get very far into that issue," but this isn't a normal conversation, because the obstacle to discussing that was you.IBCoupe wrote:Ron Paul's behavior here defeats the purpose of a proportional delegation award in the first place.
Pushes them outside the law? I don't see any laws against crony capitalism, do you? See, here your defense of your position really serves to undermine it further. It's probably best to just give up, as you started to do above, and admit, "Yeah, that was a pretty dumb thing to say, and I don't really believe that rules alone define the boundary between morality and immorality."
Opening the door to hypotheticals because you can't justify your skewed logic with demonstrable facts is transparent. Try again. Better yet, let's take that issue and flip it around using a real, factual situation.IBCoupe wrote:Why would we talk about that? How does this figure into your belief that "If it was truly wrong it would have violated a rule?" You maintain that I have no basis for calling you a liar, and so obviously you must have been telling the truth about your beliefs when you wrote that. So answer the question in the hypothetical: would it be wrong to kill gays for being gay if a law said that you could?
This guy thought that his opinion was over and above the laws and he killed a guy, because he was gay. Good luck getting supporters for that idea.In court, Mr. Doyle testified that he and two friends, Erik Brown, 21, and Esat Bici, 20, had gone out after drinking heavily at a party at his house, armed with a knife, a claw-hammer, a wrench and a beer bottle, hunting for "a drug dealer or a drug addict or a h0m0 out cruising" to ambush. They found Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Doyle, who said he instigated the attack, was originally charged with second-degree murder, but was permitted to plead guilty to the lesser crime of manslaughter in return for testifying against his friends. At their trial, the 6-foot 5-inch Mr. Doyle stated in a flat monotone that after the party wound down, he had told Mr. Bici, "I would like to beat some people up, stretch some people out." He added that he had fatally stabbed Mr. Rivera "because he was gay."
In no small part to that act and the blaming of it on the Communists. We will never know if they could have achieved their goals within the framework of an untainted process so get out of the weeds and come back to the here and now.IBCoupe wrote:You might want to check your history books. The burning of the Reichstag took place after the Nazis had taken 37% of the seats in the Reichstag in the year prior. They were well on their way to a government takeover, and for all anybody can tell, the Nazis didn't burn down that building.
He is not "hiding" behind anything, that's your slant and there is no poison in it. The rules were established at the outset of the contest and he has adhered to then, done and done. The RNC now seeks to change the rules in mid-process, there is your poison injection. Where do you get to do that? Can we decide that two outs end a team's at bat in the second inning because we don't like the Yankees? Can the winning three point shot be reversed by a last minute rule change that the three point line is now six feet further out? You sign a contract to deliver 10 widgets by wednesday and you do and the customer lines out the entry and pen changes it to 20? No, your little exercise in contrarianism is just that, fluff, potentially entertainment. it's not reasonable, it's not workable, it's not sustainable and in the end it consumes itself.IBCoupe wrote:So then you agree with me: Ron Paul can't hide behind the rules, in this situation the fruit of a poisoned tree. You see, he's operating under the rules established by the Republican National Committee, a political organization formed within the boundaries of the laws of the United States.
So you are ready to take up arms and overthrow your elected government now? Your attempt to draw a parallel between the English monarchy and and our republic, with all its foiables, is specious. If you are ready to do that, I'm sure there are a few cammied up rednecks in the woods of Montana who would glad to add you to their "malitia." With youin's booklerning you make "do whatever you want to do cuz you are righter" sound more su-fist-ikated.IBCoupe wrote:Tell me, how'd that government get started?
But you would. Your opinion requires just that. That's the problem with it. Once you start, where do you stop? You can flirt with these little daliances to your heart's content, but you are trying to comparing dissimilar situations and arguing to extremes to inject emotion into this and justify the subversion of of a legitimate process. Should you win that argument, the door opens. The process becomes a sham where we can make dope changes whenever the more powerful faction has the means to do so. That it's ok to you based upon it being Ron Paul as the victim exposes YOUR partisanship. Next time it might be someone who speaks for your views. Well, upon considering that, since you think the ends justify the means, the candidate that speaks for you would act the same way and in that sort of system succeed so I can see why it gives you no pause.IBCoupe wrote:No, you've demonstrated that either you don't stand by your beliefs, or that you don't believe what you say you do. Every time you get an opportunity to stand up and affirm what you said earlier, you instead choose to deflect and draw attention away.
I wouldn't have the rule of law dismantled to serve my opinion, but you'll never get to discuss that until you man up and actually start to discuss that part of the issue. Instead, you're still pretending that you're being totally consistent by saying no wrong can be done when following rules and simultaneously finding all kinds of excuses for why some rules are rules and other rules are not.
My own formulae hasn't actually been described. My own formulae has been elaborated as nothing but "It isn't true that just because something doesn't break the rules that it is moral." Maybe I've been wrong to say this is deflection; maybe you truly are that dumb.themadscientist wrote:Prohibition of using public office for personal gain is a bedrock component of ethics laws. It may be hard for you to see because you are out there in the mist trying to weigh breaches against your own formulae. That takes a lot of time, it isn't consistent and it's colored by your own personal prejudices.
I don't understand. What's so hard about this. You established a categorical rule. You should be able to apply it categorically. If it becomes legal to kill gays for being gay, would it be wrong to do so? If you truly believe what you wrote, the answer is "Yes." The fact that you have done all this work to avoid answering the question pretty much tells anybody what they'd need to know about you: you're a Paulbot, and a proud one at that. You constructed an excuse for your God-on-earth, and you went a bit too far, and now are struggling to figure out how to weasel out of it.themadscientist wrote:Opening the door to hypotheticals because you can't justify your skewed logic with demonstrable facts is transparent.
Good luck showing that I've advocated that idea. We can get to that debate as soon as you tell me: If a thing is only "truly wrong" when it violates a rule, would it be "truly wrong" to kill gays if the law said you could? It's not a difficult question. I've given you the answer.themadscientist wrote:Try again. Better yet, let's take that issue and flip it around using a real, factual situation.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/18/nyreg ... all&src=pmThis guy thought that his opinion was over and above the laws and he killed a guy, because he was gay. Good luck getting supporters for that idea.In court, Mr. Doyle testified that he and two friends, Erik Brown, 21, and Esat Bici, 20, had gone out after drinking heavily at a party at his house, armed with a knife, a claw-hammer, a wrench and a beer bottle, hunting for "a drug dealer or a drug addict or a h0m0 out cruising" to ambush. They found Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Doyle, who said he instigated the attack, was originally charged with second-degree murder, but was permitted to plead guilty to the lesser crime of manslaughter in return for testifying against his friends. At their trial, the 6-foot 5-inch Mr. Doyle stated in a flat monotone that after the party wound down, he had told Mr. Bici, "I would like to beat some people up, stretch some people out." He added that he had fatally stabbed Mr. Rivera "because he was gay."
That's basically what you've been doing the whole thread, because you're wrong and you know it.themadscientist wrote:Moving on...
You're right. That's my mistake: you're hiding him behind the rules, because that's why he's not "truly wrong."themadscientist wrote:He is not "hiding" behind anything, that's your slant and there is no poison in it.IBCoupe wrote:So then you agree with me: Ron Paul can't hide behind the rules, in this situation the fruit of a poisoned tree. You see, he's operating under the rules established by the Republican National Committee, a political organization formed within the boundaries of the laws of the United States.
I agree completely. The RNC is in the wrong. But you're still stuck in this situation where you say, "Because he adhered to the rules, he wasn't wrong." So tell me: if it's made legal to kill gays, would it be wrong to do so? As soon as you answer this question, I'll be happy to debate the merits of Ron Paul's actions. We can talk about whatever you want, but I need you to be a grown up for a little bit, first.themadscientist wrote:The rules were established at the outset of the contest and he has adhered to then, done and done. The RNC now seeks to change the rules in mid-process, there is your poison injection. Where do you get to do that? Can we decide that two outs end a team's at bat in the second inning because we don't like the Yankees? Can the winning three point shot be reversed by a last minute rule change that the three point line is now six feet further out? You sign a contract to deliver 10 widgets by wednesday and you do and the customer lines out the entry and pen changes it to 20? No, your little exercise in contrarianism is just that, fluff, potentially entertainment. it's not reasonable, it's not workable, it's not sustainable and in the end it consumes itself.
Really cute, but that's not what I wrote. On the other hand, you wrote: "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." Tell me, if it were made legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?themadscientist wrote:So you are ready to take up arms and overthrow your elected government now?IBCoupe wrote:Tell me, how'd that government get started?
I understand how difficult this is for you, but let me reiterate the exchange:themadscientist wrote:Your attempt to draw a parallel between the English monarchy and and our republic, with all its foiables, is specious. If you are ready to do that, I'm sure there are a few cammied up rednecks in the woods of Montana who would glad to add you to their "malitia." With youin's booklerning you make "do whatever you want to do cuz you are righter" sound more su-fist-ikated.
Then you wrote:IBCoupe wrote:I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.
Then I pointed out our country was founded by violent revolution. I said nothing about the English monarchy - no parallels were drawn. I'm just trying to get a handle on this superior worldview you've developed that seems to have so much trouble being applied consistently.themadscientist wrote:It works out fine, has for time immortal. Your argument is dead an you can hang it from strings and jerk it around, but it never had a heartbeat.
How about you actually respond to anything in a substantive way? Eventually, you're going to run out of straw if you keep hopping from argument to argument like this.themadscientist wrote:Next.
I don't believe my opinion requires anything of the sort, and I'll be happy to discuss that once you tell me whether it would be wrong to kill gays in the event that it ceases to be against the law. In the meantime:themadscientist wrote:But you would. Your opinion requires just that. That's the problem with it. Once you start, where do you stop?
You wrote, "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." I'm not arguing any extremes - you have made a categorical statement. That's the extreme.themadscientist wrote:You can flirt with these little daliances to your heart's content, but you are trying to comparing dissimilar situations and arguing to extremes to inject emotion into this and justify the subversion of of a legitimate process.
You can demonstrate your consistency in one word, by answering a simple question: if it were legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?themadscientist wrote:Again, darnit those pasky exhibits underminingg your Tom Cruise moment, I have demonstrated my consistency in regards to this issue, and to be fair, you are consistent with yours, it's just yours is reprehensible. You can't handle the truth.
Morals are subjective, as you have demonstrated. I don't think you're dumb, just unwilling to cop to your partisanship because that would undermine your perception of ability to decide what is and is not "moral." I don't trust your judgment that much.IBCoupe wrote:My own formulae hasn't actually been described. My own formulae has been elaborated as nothing but "It isn't true that just because something doesn't break the rules that it is moral." Maybe I've been wrong to say this is deflection; maybe you truly are that dumb.
My argument is for the stability of the process, a fact you continue to ignore because you need to again bend reality to your opinion, a baseless opinion.IBCoupe wrote:I don't understand. What's so hard about this. You established a categorical rule. You should be able to apply it categorically. If it becomes legal to kill gays for being gay, would it be wrong to do so? If you truly believe what you wrote, the answer is "Yes." The fact that you have done all this work to avoid answering the question pretty much tells anybody what they'd need to know about you: you're a Paulbot, and a proud one at that. You constructed an excuse for your God-on-earth, and you went a bit too far, and now are struggling to figure out how to weasel out of it.
Show the law that is in place to do that. You only have hypotheticals. You argue for discarding the rules, I gave you a concrete example of that. It's your idea, you bear responsability to explain that away. Good luck.IBCoupe wrote:Good luck showing that I've advocated that idea. We can get to that debate as soon as you tell me: If a thing is only "truly wrong" when it violates a rule, would it be "truly wrong" to kill gays if the law said you could? It's not a difficult question. I've given you the answer.
That's your assertion and one, like the preponderance of your other ones, you can't prove.IBCoupe wrote:That's basically what you've been doing the whole thread, because you're wrong and you know it.
So you changed your mind then. I'll have to notify Mr. Paul so he can remit me for reminding you what the rules were and that he's operating within them. As you continue to mischaracterize me, let me help you again. He's not wrong any which way, "truly," "just," or "slightly" based on what has been presented here. If there is concrete eveidence ballots were tampered with or something otherwise definitive I will be the first to cry foul and not because I had a selfish emotional stake in it like you require to make moral decisions. I think you are doing a good job representing your views, you don't need to try and elicit my endorsement.IBCoupe wrote:You're right. That's my mistake: you're hiding him behind the rules, because that's why he's not "truly wrong..
As soon as it's made a law we can discuss it. It's just a device at the moment and you need to use it because you can't support your view without it. Again, he didn't do anything wrong from a moral or legal aspect. That is YOUR opinion. You don't get past step one to even tackle step two so the whole line that you are trying to take is stuck in the gate.IBCoupe wrote:I agree completely. The RNC is in the wrong. But you're still stuck in this situation where you say, "Because he adhered to the rules, he wasn't wrong." So tell me: if it's made legal to kill gays, would it be wrong to do so? As soon as you answer this question, I'll be happy to debate the merits of Ron Paul's actions. We can talk about whatever you want, but I need you to be a grown up for a little bit, first.?
Thank you. I've been told I have a boyish charm. Hypothetical question is hypothetical and useless.IBCoupe wrote:Really cute, but that's not what I wrote. On the other hand, you wrote: "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." Tell me, if it were made legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?
IBCoupe wrote:I understand how difficult this is for you, but let me reiterate the exchange:Then you wrote:IBCoupe wrote:I can see you're also starting to set up the notion that a government borne from violent revolution is a "poisoned tree," and let me know how that works out.themadscientist wrote:It works out fine, has for time immortal. Your argument is dead an you can hang it from strings and jerk it around, but it never had a heartbeat.
IBCoupe wrote:Then I pointed out our country was founded by violent revolution. I said nothing about the English monarchy - no parallels were drawn. I'm just trying to get a handle on this superior worldview you've developed that seems to have so much trouble being applied consistently.
Nice sweeping generalization. Of course we can look to all other schools of thought as devoid of kooks. Oh, I don't know, that women's bodies have secret defenses against rape for example. that must be taught in the 12th grade. More of that partisanship oozing out buddy, you might want to get a tissue.IBCoupe wrote:The real problem is that you're a libertarian, a group consisting mostly of people who never advanced mentally or emotionally beyond age 17. It's not your fault your opinions make you look like an idiot.
Your gay strawmen are offended. Your maligned Nazi strawmen are hurt. Enough substance for you.IBCoupe wrote:How about you actually respond to anything in a substantive way? Eventually, you're going to run out of straw if you keep hopping from argument to argument like this.
themadscientist wrote:But you would. Your opinion requires just that. That's the problem with it. Once you start, where do you stop?
I beleive you beleive that, but again, that's just your opinion and it is demonstrably suspect. You freely admit that the RNC is wrong, but in the same breath dismiss it as acceptable. You can't have it both ways.IBCoupe wrote:I don't believe my opinion requires anything of the sort, and I'll be happy to discuss that once you tell me whether it would be wrong to kill gays in the event that it ceases to be against the law. In the meantime:..
And he didn't violate a rule. A rule is not an extreme, it's a defined barrier and he did not cross it. You're done.IBCoupe wrote:You wrote, "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." I'm not arguing any extremes - you have made a categorical statement. That's the extreme.
It isn't so it's a rediculous question. A hypothetical extreme. What do you care, the law is subjective to you anyway. If aliens landed would you eat jello? ANSWER NOW, IT'S IMPORTANT! to somebody who is trying to force someone to eat jello.IBCoupe wrote:You can demonstrate your consistency in one word, by answering a simple question: if it were legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?
And again the rules are discarded for political purposes. They must think Romney is as weak of a candidate as everyone else does. The tailspin picks up speed and the ground is getting closer and they have nobody to blame, but themselves.Jay Kramer, a Mitt Romney campaign supporter from Washington, D.C., filed a challenge on Friday to keep Libertarian candidate for President, Gov. Gary Johnson, from appearing on the Iowa ballot in November. The Romney campaign hired the Des Moines-based Nyemaster Goode PC for the challenge, which will be heard by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz on Monday at 3 p.m. "This is clearly a setup," said the Johnson campaign's attorney, Alicia Dearn. "The Libertarian Party had 2,000 petition signatures and should have been on the ballot without challenge, as they have always done in the past. But Republican Iowa Secretary of State Schultz — in violation of longstanding Iowa law — rejected the petition and required the Johnson campaign to caucus at the state fair. There, the Romney campaign surveilled the Johnson campaign's activities for the sole purpose of bringing this eleventh-hour challenge," Dearn said.
The effort to squeeze out dissenting opinion in the party would be shocking if not for the steady build up to this point. This is merely the next step. proponents of this behavior will attempt to justify it because of who it is aimed at, but as the Texas delegation has astutely recognized, this is a power grab to push national control over state delegations. That is not how the system was set up and if our country is any indication that is not how it should be done. He disagrees. Do you trust him?TAMPA--On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texan delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican party's rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.
"Our delegates are in shock that such an amendment even would be presented before the Rules Committee much less passed into rule," Fredricks said. "Please know from the Texas delegation standpoint that the only way a floor fight can be avoided is for this rule to be stricken."
At that point, the entire Texas delegation stood up and applauded.
Texans don't necessarily want to have an ugly floor fight on the same day the party officially nominates Mitt Romney. But they're willing to do it if their concerns about the rule aren't satisfied. The changes, which Mitt Romney's top lawyer put forward last week and Gov. Haley Barbour along with some other Romney supporters have embraced, are seen by opponents as intended to significantly weaken the power of grassroots politics and insurgent candidates such as Ron Paul. Many against the move worry that it would give national candidates the power to replace delegates--often grassroots party faithfuls--with big-time donors or friends.
He was not even allowed to speak. He would not agree to endorse Romney which was the caveat.TAMPA, Fla. — Despite a determined and frenzied effort, delegates making a last ditch push to put Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s name on the presidential nominating ballot fell just short of the eight states they needed to make it happen.
Paul supporters, lead by Nevada delegate Wayne Terhune, succeeded in putting together petitions from six states to put Paul’s name up for nomination. But earlier this week, the Romney campaign won a critical rules change requiring eight states to put a candidate up for nomination.
At the last moment, Paul supporters handed the petitions to the convention secretary. Then, the convention voted to adopt the eight-state rule, crushing the Paul effort.
“They said to us, you have no voice,” Paul delegate Cindy Lake of Las Vegas said. “Tea Party, you have no voice. Liberty movement, you have no voice.”
With more than 1,500 Romney delegates on the floor, it was always unlikely Paul would win the rules fight.
"It's a very slim window... but we are in the game," Terhune said earlier in the day.
Other than Nevada, states submitting Paul's name for nomination are Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, Alaska and the Virgin Islands.
As 77-year-old Ron Paul retires and brings his campaign to an end, he is refusing an opportunity to speak at the Republican National Convention to avoid endorsing Mitt Romney.
Preciselythemadscientist wrote:What with him facepalming what the party has become?
Meanwhile, some committee members suggested meddling was at play. A bus full of Virginia delegates arrived at the committee meeting - after it had adjourned.
"The bus that was supposed to pick up the Virginia delegation arrived an hour later than it was supposed to," explained Virginia delegate Morton Blackwell, a prime opponent of Rule 16.
Blackwell continued: "And then when we went downtown, we went around the same series of blocks repeatedly – twice. And then the bus took out away from downtown, went about a mile and a half, and then did a u-turn and came back. And did another circuit, of the same place where we had been before. And at that point, the Virginia delegates demanded, 'Stop the bus. And we're going to walk.' And we did."
Mike Rothfeld, a Virginia delegate also on the bus, went further.
"They pushed us around for 45 minutes and then we missed the meeting," Rothfeld said.
"We were in the security perimeter, they pushed us out of it three separate times. They moved us around until the meeting was adjourned."
No. You shouldn't need a real law to answer a question about your categorical statement. Any hypothetical would do. Would it be wrong to kill gays in the event that its legality ceases to be in doubt?themadscientist wrote:Show the law that is in place to do that. You only have hypotheticals. You argue for discarding the rules, I gave you a concrete example of that. It's your idea, you bear responsability to explain that away. Good luck.IBCoupe wrote:Good luck showing that I've advocated that idea. We can get to that debate as soon as you tell me: If a thing is only "truly wrong" when it violates a rule, would it be "truly wrong" to kill gays if the law said you could? It's not a difficult question. I've given you the answer.
You made a categorical statement. Whether there's such a terrible law somewhere isn't something I'm going to look up - your moral code allows for it. That's what it means when you say, "If it was truly wrong, it would have violated a rule."themadscientist wrote:As soon as it's made a law we can discuss it. It's just a device at the moment and you need to use it because you can't support your view without it. Again, he didn't do anything wrong from a moral or legal aspect. That is YOUR opinion. You don't get past step one to even tackle step two so the whole line that you are trying to take is stuck in the gate.IBCoupe wrote:I agree completely. The RNC is in the wrong. But you're still stuck in this situation where you say, "Because he adhered to the rules, he wasn't wrong." So tell me: if it's made legal to kill gays, would it be wrong to do so? As soon as you answer this question, I'll be happy to debate the merits of Ron Paul's actions. We can talk about whatever you want, but I need you to be a grown up for a little bit, first.?
I love it. The only legitimate rules are those enforced by a liberal society. Tell me about the U.S.S.R. - that's a government derived from the overthrow of monarchs and established by popular will; how were they illegitimate?themadscientist wrote:See the forest for the trees. Your desire to wrap yourself in the cloak of the American revolution, nice try by the way, requires the context of the illegitimate laws that were being rebelled against. England was ruled by a king, not freely elected by the people, not answerable to them in any way with no established systemic method to redress greivances. It is disimilar to what we are talking about on that fundamental level and thus apples and oranges.
I don't understand; was that supposed to somehow rebuke the notion that libertarianism is a childish ideology? Because I don't think the mechanism's there in what you wrote.themadscientist wrote:Nice sweeping generalization. Of course we can look to all other schools of thought as devoid of kooks. Oh, I don't know, that women's bodies have secret defenses against rape for example. that must be taught in the 12th grade. More of that partisanship oozing out buddy, you might want to get a tissue.IBCoupe wrote:The real problem is that you're a libertarian, a group consisting mostly of people who never advanced mentally or emotionally beyond age 17. It's not your fault your opinions make you look like an idiot.
No, I dismiss it as not being something I care about, because it only affects someone who brought it on themselves. Watch me have it both ways. I think speeding on the highway is wrong, and I still don't care all that much that it happens. I also derive a fair amount of pleasure from watching skateboarders hurt themselves on YouTube, but I'm not about to advocate that we go out and beat them up in advance. f*** priorities, how do they work?themadscientist wrote:I beleive you beleive that, but again, that's just your opinion and it is demonstrably suspect. You freely admit that the RNC is wrong, but in the same breath dismiss it as acceptable. You can't have it both ways.
I didn't say the rule is extreme. I said your categorical statement was extreme. Are you drunk when you write this stuff?themadscientist wrote:And he didn't violate a rule. A rule is not an extreme, it's a defined barrier and he did not cross it. You're done.IBCoupe wrote:You wrote, "If it were truly wrong, it would have violated a rule." I'm not arguing any extremes - you have made a categorical statement. That's the extreme.
I'm not a huge fan of jello, regardless of the presence of aliens. Look at that! I just responded to your hypothetical that had no literal basis in anything I actually wrote. Meanwhile, you have said: "If X is true, Y cannot be true," where X="rule remains unbroken" and Y="something wrong has happened." Challenged in a pretty straightforward application of that formula (that you invented), you've done nothing but deflect and whine.themadscientist wrote:It isn't so it's a rediculous question. A hypothetical extreme. What do you care, the law is subjective to you anyway. If aliens landed would you eat jello? ANSWER NOW, IT'S IMPORTANT! to somebody who is trying to force someone to eat jello.IBCoupe wrote:You can demonstrate your consistency in one word, by answering a simple question: if it were legal, would it be wrong to kill gays?
See? Now that I think is a legitimately f*** up thing to do. Gary Johnson's a decent guy from what I've seen, and I see no activity by him that should have earned him the ire of the RNC. And I don't have a dog in that fight, either.themadscientist wrote:Wow, now they pipeline from suppressing a candidate in their own party to suppressing candidates in other parties.
http://www.examiner.com/article/republi ... n_ref_map=[]
And again the rules are discarded for political purposes. They must think Romney is as weak of a candidate as everyone else does. The tailspin picks up speed and the ground is getting closer and they have nobody to blame, but themselves.Jay Kramer, a Mitt Romney campaign supporter from Washington, D.C., filed a challenge on Friday to keep Libertarian candidate for President, Gov. Gary Johnson, from appearing on the Iowa ballot in November. The Romney campaign hired the Des Moines-based Nyemaster Goode PC for the challenge, which will be heard by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz on Monday at 3 p.m. "This is clearly a setup," said the Johnson campaign's attorney, Alicia Dearn. "The Libertarian Party had 2,000 petition signatures and should have been on the ballot without challenge, as they have always done in the past. But Republican Iowa Secretary of State Schultz — in violation of longstanding Iowa law — rejected the petition and required the Johnson campaign to caucus at the state fair. There, the Romney campaign surveilled the Johnson campaign's activities for the sole purpose of bringing this eleventh-hour challenge," Dearn said.
That wasn't Paul's sin.themadscientist wrote:Johnson has committed the same sin, though. he is trying to "steal votes' from the Republicans.