|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 19:46:53 GMT -5
Laws exist in order to have an orderly society. Basic social contract.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 19:49:58 GMT -5
Laws exist in order to have an orderly society. Basic social contract. Laws are fine if they actually do something productive like punish people who do bad things to other people. Things like murder, rape, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 19:50:20 GMT -5
There is no evidence that higher speed limits cause any more deaths than a lower speed limit. Public Masturbation. What exactly do you mean by public? I love how people point to these examples as if I personally agree and condone those actions. Just because I don't like or agree with something doesn't mean I want there to be a law made. You are able to not like something but let others do it. If we criminalized everything that any one person did not like then nothing would be legal.[/quote]how many different meanings to "public" are there? It's a victimless crime, right?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 19:55:35 GMT -5
how many different meanings to "public" are there? It's a victimless crime, right? I want to know what you mean by public. Do you mean in the person's front yard or do you mean in the middle of the street or in a business of some kind?
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 19:57:30 GMT -5
how many different meanings to "public" are there? It's a victimless crime, right? I want to know what you mean by public. Do you mean in the person's front yard or do you mean in the middle of the street or in a business of some kind? They're all public... there's no black and white here. If you think masturbating in your front yard is any more appropriate, you have poor judgement. I swear you just like to argue, just for the sake of arguing.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Apr 18, 2013 20:00:01 GMT -5
Sorry to go back to an older point, but you seriously think we shouldn't have speed limits? You don't see how allowing people to drive like mad men with impunity would infringe on the rights of responsible people by making it far more dangerous for them to drive? There is no evidence that higher speed limits cause any more deaths than a lower speed limit. Links to any studies supporting that fact? The only one I found stated the exact opposite. Also, basic logic dictates that allowing people to drive at any speed they want, wherever they want, is going to inevitably lead to far more dangerous roads. This is also a very slippery slope; the act of running a red light or stop sign doesn't have a victim in itself, so in your world there shouldn't be any need for them either, right?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 20:04:02 GMT -5
I want to know what you mean by public. Do you mean in the person's front yard or do you mean in the middle of the street or in a business of some kind? They're all public... there's no black and white here. If you think masturbating in your front yard is any more appropriate, you have poor judgement. I swear you just like to argue, just for the sake of arguing. They are different. I don't know how you can't see the differences. The person's front yard is their private property. The street is public property (unless there is a person or business who owns the roads). The business is private property. If a person does something in their yard, again without hurting anyone, they can. If the street is public then the people can force him away from the street. Then in the business, the business owner can kick the guy out for doing it. Here's a great joke. A performance artist tells his libertarian friend that he is going to perform nude in a city park. When his free market-loving friend seems disturbed the artists asks, "What, are you offended by public nudity?" The libertarian replies, "No, I'm offended by public parks." I'm the one arguing? I'm stating my opinion and all of you are attacking me for it. So how am I the one causing it?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 20:12:03 GMT -5
There is no evidence that higher speed limits cause any more deaths than a lower speed limit. Links to any studies supporting that fact? The only one I found stated the exact opposite. Also, basic logic dictates that allowing people to drive at any speed they want, wherever they want, is going to inevitably lead to far more dangerous roads. This is also a very slippery slope; the act of running a red light or stop sign doesn't have a victim in itself, so in your world there shouldn't be any need for them either, right? www.livescience.com/3870-higher-speed-limits-deaths-study-finds.htmlYou don't think people know what to do without red and green lights? Lights go out here and we don't have accidents. One car goes then another and then another. They take turns. The lights don't go out and then suddenly everyone forgets how to drive and they start crashing into everything.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 20:19:08 GMT -5
They're all public... there's no black and white here. If you think masturbating in your front yard is any more appropriate, you have poor judgement. I swear you just like to argue, just for the sake of arguing. They are different. I don't know how you can't see the differences. The person's front yard is their private property. The street is public property (unless there is a person or business who owns the roads). The business is private property. When you're wrong, admit you're wrong. Poor judgement, bud. I really hope you don't use the logic you use here in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 20:23:27 GMT -5
They are different. I don't know how you can't see the differences. The person's front yard is their private property. The street is public property (unless there is a person or business who owns the roads). The business is private property. When you're wrong, admit you're wrong. Poor judgement, bud. I really hope you don't use the logic you use here in the real world. How am I wrong? I'm not saying how things are because if I was saying what I am saying and saying that is how things are then I'd be wrong. I'm saying how things should be. So I'm wrong for how I want things to be but others aren't wrong for how they want things to be? How do you draw the line between who is wrong and who is right in how they want things to be? Your opinion of course. So it's subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 20:26:51 GMT -5
When you're wrong, admit you're wrong. Poor judgement, bud. I really hope you don't use the logic you use here in the real world. How am I wrong? I'm not saying how things are because if I was saying what I am saying and saying that is how things are then I'd be wrong. I'm saying how things should be. So I'm wrong for how I want things to be but others aren't wrong for how they want things to be? How do you draw the line between who is wrong and who is right in how they want things to be? Your opinion of course. So it's subjective. you think i should be able to sit on my front porch and masturbate? it's pretty sad that people can open a thread with you in it, and expect an argument to be happening. never fails. admit that you're wrong sometimes, it's okay.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 20:30:22 GMT -5
How am I wrong? I'm not saying how things are because if I was saying what I am saying and saying that is how things are then I'd be wrong. I'm saying how things should be. So I'm wrong for how I want things to be but others aren't wrong for how they want things to be? How do you draw the line between who is wrong and who is right in how they want things to be? Your opinion of course. So it's subjective. you think i should be able to sit on my front porch and masturbate? it's pretty sad that people can open a thread with you in it, and expect an argument to be happening. never fails. admit that you're wrong sometimes, it's okay. You can go to many threads on here that I've posted in that I am not "arguing". You only see the "arguing" because you pop into debate threads like this, dismiss what I say and when I respond you scream and shout that I'm arguing. Do you know the difference between a discussion and an argument? Clearly you don't. I'm discussing, you are arguing. It's funny that I only seem to get in "arguments" is when you constantly reply to what I say. No other threads do you pop in when I reply with what figure I want or posting a death in the sports board. You don't say anything because then YOU can't argue with me in those situations. I am wrong sometimes. I know that. No person is correct 100% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 20:33:58 GMT -5
They're all public... there's no black and white here. If you think masturbating in your front yard is any more appropriate, you have poor judgement. I swear you just like to argue, just for the sake of arguing. They are different. I don't know how you can't see the differences. The person's front yard is their private property. The street is public property (unless there is a person or business who owns the roads). The business is private property. If a person does something in their yard, again without hurting anyone, they can. If the street is public then the people can force him away from the street. Then in the business, the business owner can kick the guy out for doing it. Here's a great joke. A performance artist tells his libertarian friend that he is going to perform nude in a city park. When his free market-loving friend seems disturbed the artists asks, "What, are you offended by public nudity?" The libertarian replies, "No, I'm offended by public parks." I'm the one arguing? I'm stating my opinion and all of you are attacking me for it. So how am I the one causing it? No, you can't masturbate in your front yard. Social contract man. Go read some John Locke my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 20:34:46 GMT -5
Not arguing at all. Bottom line is there is a thing called social etiquette, and even though its victimless, some rules are there for a reason. In this argument, victimless or not, i wouldn't want my son to be able to walk down the street with me and have a guy on his front line masturbating, just because it's his property.
I'm not going to look through all the threads you've posted in. I searched your last 100 posts and they're all in the last 48 hours. I'll leave that one alone.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 20:36:14 GMT -5
They are different. I don't know how you can't see the differences. The person's front yard is their private property. The street is public property (unless there is a person or business who owns the roads). The business is private property. If a person does something in their yard, again without hurting anyone, they can. If the street is public then the people can force him away from the street. Then in the business, the business owner can kick the guy out for doing it. Here's a great joke. A performance artist tells his libertarian friend that he is going to perform nude in a city park. When his free market-loving friend seems disturbed the artists asks, "What, are you offended by public nudity?" The libertarian replies, "No, I'm offended by public parks." I'm the one arguing? I'm stating my opinion and all of you are attacking me for it. So how am I the one causing it? No, you can't masturbate in your front yard. Social contract man. Go read some John Locke my friend. I didn't sign that contract. Though it's not like I have a choice since it's certainly not voluntary. It's coercion.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 20:38:38 GMT -5
Not arguing at all. Bottom line is there is a thing called social etiquette, and even though its victimless, some rules are there for a reason. In this argument, victimless or not, i wouldn't want my son to be able to walk down the street with me and have a guy on his front line masturbating, just because it's his property. I'm not going to look through all the threads you've posted in. I searched your last 100 posts and they're all in the last 48 hours. I'll leave that one alone. Etiquette is fine but forcing the person to follow the etiquette is something completely different. Oh no. I post a lot. I should be banned for posting so much. I think they should implement a system where you can post 25 times a week. After that you cannot post again until the next week. (Now that's arguing)
|
|
gwtpunk
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 20, 2011 12:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 1,898
|
Post by gwtpunk on Apr 18, 2013 20:43:59 GMT -5
Guys do you really need to continue all of this? It got from background checks on guns to public masturbation...Just let it go guys, neither of you are going to convince the other in this debate.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 20:45:48 GMT -5
Guys do you really need to continue all of this? It got from background checks on guns to public masturbation...Just let it go guys, neither of you are going to convince the other in this debate. You're right. I don't have time to continue arguing in here. I've got to get to the right or left handed thread and argue there about how being right handed is better and more Constitutional.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 20:46:11 GMT -5
Not arguing at all. Bottom line is there is a thing called social etiquette, and even though its victimless, some rules are there for a reason. In this argument, victimless or not, i wouldn't want my son to be able to walk down the street with me and have a guy on his front line masturbating, just because it's his property. I'm not going to look through all the threads you've posted in. I searched your last 100 posts and they're all in the last 48 hours. I'll leave that one alone. Etiquette is fine but forcing the person to follow the etiquette is something completely different. Oh no. I post a lot. I should be banned for posting so much. I think they should implement a system where you can post 25 times a week. After that you cannot post again until the next week. (Now that's arguing) lots of message boards do it. Rules are made to suit the best interests of society as a whole. You kinda have to follow them. You have an answer for everything cause you like to play devil's advocate. Go be a defense attorney
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 20:48:40 GMT -5
Etiquette is fine but forcing the person to follow the etiquette is something completely different. Oh no. I post a lot. I should be banned for posting so much. I think they should implement a system where you can post 25 times a week. After that you cannot post again until the next week. (Now that's arguing) lots of message boards do it. Rules are made to suit the best interests of society as a whole. You kinda have to follow them. You have an answer for everything cause you like to play devil's advocate. Go be a defense attorney Sometimes those rules are terrible. I'm sure you'd agree that at least one rule that was put into place was terrible. I have an answer for everything because I respond to what you all have been asking me. If I ignored what you asked you'd follow me into the next discussion and say I dodged your questions from this thread.
|
|