marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
wrightme wrote:
wrightme wrote:
You seem to feel this is relevant. You seem to feel rights come from authority.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Why doesn't Gun Control or Right to Carry affect the crime rate significantly?
- Thread starter Orygunner
- Start date
Gordie
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
I think he meant "authority" as in definitions 1 and 4, not 3, as you imply. If you could cite something solid, you would have more ofdefinition 2a.
Main Entry:
au·thor·i·ty
Pronunciation:
ə-ˈthär-ə-tē, ȯ-, -ˈthȯr-
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural au·thor·i·ties
Etymology:
Middle English auctorite, from Anglo-French auctorité, from Latin auctoritat-, auctoritas opinion, decision, power, from auctor
Date:
13th century
1
a (1): a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2): the source from which the citation is drawn
b (1): a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2): a decision taken as a precedent
(3): testimony c: an individual cited or appealed to as an expert
2
a: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior
b: freedom granted by one in authority : right
3
a: persons in command ; specifically : government
b: a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise <the transit authority>
4
a: grounds , warrant <had excellent authority for believing the claim> b: convincing force <lent authority to the performance>
By the way, any luck in finding any info on Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579 besides the one often quoted paragraph?
marshaul wrote:
I think he meant "authority" as in definitions 1 and 4, not 3, as you imply. If you could cite something solid, you would have more ofdefinition 2a.
Main Entry:
au·thor·i·ty
Pronunciation:
ə-ˈthär-ə-tē, ȯ-, -ˈthȯr-
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural au·thor·i·ties
Etymology:
Middle English auctorite, from Anglo-French auctorité, from Latin auctoritat-, auctoritas opinion, decision, power, from auctor
Date:
13th century
1
a (1): a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2): the source from which the citation is drawn
b (1): a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2): a decision taken as a precedent
(3): testimony c: an individual cited or appealed to as an expert
2
a: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior
b: freedom granted by one in authority : right
3
a: persons in command ; specifically : government
b: a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise <the transit authority>
4
a: grounds , warrant <had excellent authority for believing the claim> b: convincing force <lent authority to the performance>
By the way, any luck in finding any info on Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579 besides the one often quoted paragraph?
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
"Cite to authority" is specifically in reference to providing "citeable" references for your position in the discussion. Arguing opinions gets nowhere, as without evidence presented to support a position, the other person will likely NEVER change THEIR opinion to match yours.
Support for a position should also at least follow logic, and such logic flow should be able to be recreated by others.
As has been seen in this specific discussion, some of us here see big flaws in the logic attempted to cause driving to be a right. You can see that I have actually stated that driving might be shown to be a right, but that it has not been shown to be such in this discussion thread.
When I introduced "choice of exercise" into the discussion, showing that driving was only one of multiple possibilities for the exercise of the underlying freedom of assembly (via freedom of movement), I was grossly misunderstood as having stated that a choice of one method of movement "locked in" a method.
That is a very obvious misrepresentation of my position on the subject.
I have seen it many times where a person who wishes to impose their position on a subject onto others quickly resorts to personal attacks and insults (ad hominem argument), and overstatement of opposition position (strawman argument), as opposed to presenting referenced and reasoned discussion on topics.
When someone (in this cased AWD) argues that others are dense, and fail to comprehend simply because others have not fallen into lockstep with his statements, they are simply attempting to propagandize others into believing their position; but only by decreeing that their position is the correct one, not by providing proof that their position is the correct one.
marshaul wrote:
Your statement is a clear misrepresentation of my stated position.
"Cite to authority" is specifically in reference to providing "citeable" references for your position in the discussion. Arguing opinions gets nowhere, as without evidence presented to support a position, the other person will likely NEVER change THEIR opinion to match yours.
Support for a position should also at least follow logic, and such logic flow should be able to be recreated by others.
As has been seen in this specific discussion, some of us here see big flaws in the logic attempted to cause driving to be a right. You can see that I have actually stated that driving might be shown to be a right, but that it has not been shown to be such in this discussion thread.
When I introduced "choice of exercise" into the discussion, showing that driving was only one of multiple possibilities for the exercise of the underlying freedom of assembly (via freedom of movement), I was grossly misunderstood as having stated that a choice of one method of movement "locked in" a method.
That is a very obvious misrepresentation of my position on the subject.
I have seen it many times where a person who wishes to impose their position on a subject onto others quickly resorts to personal attacks and insults (ad hominem argument), and overstatement of opposition position (strawman argument), as opposed to presenting referenced and reasoned discussion on topics.
When someone (in this cased AWD) argues that others are dense, and fail to comprehend simply because others have not fallen into lockstep with his statements, they are simply attempting to propagandize others into believing their position; but only by decreeing that their position is the correct one, not by providing proof that their position is the correct one.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
wrightme wrote:
Throughout this entire "argument" neither you, nor Hawkflyer has even ONCE comprehended the stated position. You make statements about people lacking logic or being backed into corners, but how is that possible when you have yet to even understand the argument, let alone refute it? Your inability to understand what is being carefully, slowly, and logically spelled out at a pre-school level for you has, in fact, left YOU backed into a corner. The only way you see out is a repeated call for "citing to authority" in spite of the fact that we've stated many times there is no authority to "cite" to because the position is LOGIC based, not precedent, law, or common practice based. You then retort with the supposed "cited" "proof" of your own position, which amounts to nothing more than, "well the government says it's this way, therefore it's this way." I don't ever recall state law being an authority on anything Constitutional.
And it's all futile anyway, because when talking about natural rights the burden of proof is on the person claiming the right DOES NOT exist. It falls on you to prove that driving IS NOT a right, not on me to prove that it is. If you reverse the burden of proof, than suddenly the only things that are "rights" are those enumerated in the Constitution or law. Again, comprehend the position and arguments being made FIRST. After you thoroughly understand the position, then you can start crying because you don't like it.
wrightme wrote:
Throughout this entire "argument" neither you, nor Hawkflyer has even ONCE comprehended the stated position. You make statements about people lacking logic or being backed into corners, but how is that possible when you have yet to even understand the argument, let alone refute it? Your inability to understand what is being carefully, slowly, and logically spelled out at a pre-school level for you has, in fact, left YOU backed into a corner. The only way you see out is a repeated call for "citing to authority" in spite of the fact that we've stated many times there is no authority to "cite" to because the position is LOGIC based, not precedent, law, or common practice based. You then retort with the supposed "cited" "proof" of your own position, which amounts to nothing more than, "well the government says it's this way, therefore it's this way." I don't ever recall state law being an authority on anything Constitutional.
And it's all futile anyway, because when talking about natural rights the burden of proof is on the person claiming the right DOES NOT exist. It falls on you to prove that driving IS NOT a right, not on me to prove that it is. If you reverse the burden of proof, than suddenly the only things that are "rights" are those enumerated in the Constitution or law. Again, comprehend the position and arguments being made FIRST. After you thoroughly understand the position, then you can start crying because you don't like it.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
So by your logic, driving is a natural right because you have declared it so? "Driving" is not akin to a natural act at all. Such suggestion is a non-starter.
AWDstylez wrote:
And again you attempt to claim that if I do not agree that driving is a right, I somehow ONLY agree that those enumerated in the constitution and BoR are akin to rights.
For me to "comprehend" your position any more clearly than I already do, you should start by going back to the start of this discussion, showing your actual position, and then show where I "do not comprehend" it. Do not forget that your previous attempts by you to state that I "do not comprehend" were actually where I comprehended, but did not agree with you.
State your actual position.
Show where I failed to comprehend your position.
Discussion may follow.
You should also note that I am not "backed into a corner." :quirky
Moving about the country is a natural Right.
Driving as a method of exercise is not a specific separate Right, but a method of moving about the country. For your contention to be correct, driving would have to be the ONLY method of Right exercise available. It isn't the only method of exercise.
It isn't "natural." It isn't a "natural right."
Eating and breathing are natural. Driving isn't.
So by your logic, driving is a natural right because you have declared it so? "Driving" is not akin to a natural act at all. Such suggestion is a non-starter.
AWDstylez wrote:
As typical, you resort to insult instead of honest debate or discussion.
And again you attempt to claim that if I do not agree that driving is a right, I somehow ONLY agree that those enumerated in the constitution and BoR are akin to rights.
For me to "comprehend" your position any more clearly than I already do, you should start by going back to the start of this discussion, showing your actual position, and then show where I "do not comprehend" it. Do not forget that your previous attempts by you to state that I "do not comprehend" were actually where I comprehended, but did not agree with you.
State your actual position.
Show where I failed to comprehend your position.
Discussion may follow.
You should also note that I am not "backed into a corner." :quirky
Moving about the country is a natural Right.
Driving as a method of exercise is not a specific separate Right, but a method of moving about the country. For your contention to be correct, driving would have to be the ONLY method of Right exercise available. It isn't the only method of exercise.
It isn't "natural." It isn't a "natural right."
Eating and breathing are natural. Driving isn't.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
wrightme wrote:
Re-read like the last5 pages. :quirky
I honestly think you just fail at logic. Your problem is that you can't follow the flow of the logic trail through one of my or marshaul's posts. So what happens is you take the post as a bunch of individual statements, rather than as a whole, and you address each one while ignoring the others. Your repeated questions have been answered countless times already, we're both sick of repeating ourselves. Again, you need to read AND comprehend. The reading without the comprehending just doesn't work. It leads to your disconnected, irreverent, repetitive responses and continued questions that have already been addressed.
Take a deep breath... slowly now... go back, re-read, comprehend, understand, breath again, think, then reply.
wrightme wrote:
Re-read like the last5 pages. :quirky
I honestly think you just fail at logic. Your problem is that you can't follow the flow of the logic trail through one of my or marshaul's posts. So what happens is you take the post as a bunch of individual statements, rather than as a whole, and you address each one while ignoring the others. Your repeated questions have been answered countless times already, we're both sick of repeating ourselves. Again, you need to read AND comprehend. The reading without the comprehending just doesn't work. It leads to your disconnected, irreverent, repetitive responses and continued questions that have already been addressed.
Take a deep breath... slowly now... go back, re-read, comprehend, understand, breath again, think, then reply.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
wrightme wrote:
Precisely. Cite to authority is a term of art, not an opinion as to the source of rights. Perhaps it would be clearer to say "authoritative citations".
AWD) argues that others are dense, and fail to comprehend simply because others have not fallen into lockstep with his statements, they are simply attempting to propagandize others into believing their position; but only by decreeing that their position is the correct one, not by providing proof that their position is the correct one
[/quote]
[/quote]
Exactly. Moreover, pounding the figurative forum table and yelling that people here are single issue dullards, and only ask for support for opinions that fall outside the party line is ridiculous. There is no party line. Nobody here agrees on everything, that is why there is argument. But there are a number of arguments that have been settled by presentation of facts, citations, and logical presentation, and those are therefore accepted as settled by the membership.
This is not a general firearms forum, it is highly specific to OPEN CARRY of firearms, so naturally the discussion is focused. That does NOT make the membership single issue, that is simply an artifact of the forum itself. The fact is that ANY opinions are welcome here BUT ONLY IF you are willing to support that opinion by providing evidence of the truth of the opinion. If you are not then you can expect to be roundly sidelined and pressed for QUALITY citations. Supporting an opinion with citation to other unsupported opinions from unknown sources will not cut it.
Everyone here has had to go through this same process. The rules of engagement are that you can say what you want, but when confronted with a call for citation, you either pony up or expect to be dismissed. If your response is a personal attack then you can expect to becalled on that too. It is completely unreasonable to tell people to go research your opinions themselves. It is also not fruitful to change or distort someones opinion and then try to defeat the distorted position. That is a logical fallacy commonly called a straw man, and it does not settle the discussion.
Lastly, Just because you can creatively insult someone that does not give your opinions new weight in the discussion, it simply ends reasonable discourse.
wrightme wrote:
Precisely. Cite to authority is a term of art, not an opinion as to the source of rights. Perhaps it would be clearer to say "authoritative citations".
AWD) argues that others are dense, and fail to comprehend simply because others have not fallen into lockstep with his statements, they are simply attempting to propagandize others into believing their position; but only by decreeing that their position is the correct one, not by providing proof that their position is the correct one
[/quote]
[/quote]
Exactly. Moreover, pounding the figurative forum table and yelling that people here are single issue dullards, and only ask for support for opinions that fall outside the party line is ridiculous. There is no party line. Nobody here agrees on everything, that is why there is argument. But there are a number of arguments that have been settled by presentation of facts, citations, and logical presentation, and those are therefore accepted as settled by the membership.
This is not a general firearms forum, it is highly specific to OPEN CARRY of firearms, so naturally the discussion is focused. That does NOT make the membership single issue, that is simply an artifact of the forum itself. The fact is that ANY opinions are welcome here BUT ONLY IF you are willing to support that opinion by providing evidence of the truth of the opinion. If you are not then you can expect to be roundly sidelined and pressed for QUALITY citations. Supporting an opinion with citation to other unsupported opinions from unknown sources will not cut it.
Everyone here has had to go through this same process. The rules of engagement are that you can say what you want, but when confronted with a call for citation, you either pony up or expect to be dismissed. If your response is a personal attack then you can expect to becalled on that too. It is completely unreasonable to tell people to go research your opinions themselves. It is also not fruitful to change or distort someones opinion and then try to defeat the distorted position. That is a logical fallacy commonly called a straw man, and it does not settle the discussion.
Lastly, Just because you can creatively insult someone that does not give your opinions new weight in the discussion, it simply ends reasonable discourse.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Then on the other hand we have the guy that can't comprehend the argument because, throughout the course of the thread,he's taken three completely separate arguments (the original,credibility of John Lott, and driving asa right) and lumpedthem all into one.His statements from one argument have repeatedlyaddressed aspects of another when, in fact, they are completely unrelated.
Hawkflyer wrote:
Then on the other hand we have the guy that can't comprehend the argument because, throughout the course of the thread,he's taken three completely separate arguments (the original,credibility of John Lott, and driving asa right) and lumpedthem all into one.His statements from one argument have repeatedlyaddressed aspects of another when, in fact, they are completely unrelated.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
My questions have never been answered, only ignored. Each time I have tried to pin you down, you avoid the question and simply restate your original failed position. You have just done so again. You have stated that I supposedly "do not comprehend," but you cannot and have not shown where I "do not comprehend."
Now seriously, IF I "do not comprehend" what you already wrote, do you now believe I will magically "comprehend" by reading it again? :quirky
Get over yourself. You are wrong. Each time someone requests clarification of your logic, OR points out the flaws in your logic, you do not address the inconsistency. You simply insult for avoid. Try addressing the logic flaws pointed out. Your position IS not supportable with the argument you used.
Driving is a method for exercise of the underlying Right.
Thus, it is NOT a separate "natural right."
Should you actually wish honest debate or discussion, address that prior to moving forward.
AWDstylez wrote:
No, my "problem" is that you and marshaul are using flawed logic to reach your erroneous conclusion that driving is a right. You have tried to claim I did not "comprehend" before. You have never shown what part of your position I supposedly do not "comprehend."
My questions have never been answered, only ignored. Each time I have tried to pin you down, you avoid the question and simply restate your original failed position. You have just done so again. You have stated that I supposedly "do not comprehend," but you cannot and have not shown where I "do not comprehend."
Now seriously, IF I "do not comprehend" what you already wrote, do you now believe I will magically "comprehend" by reading it again? :quirky
Get over yourself. You are wrong. Each time someone requests clarification of your logic, OR points out the flaws in your logic, you do not address the inconsistency. You simply insult for avoid. Try addressing the logic flaws pointed out. Your position IS not supportable with the argument you used.
Driving is a method for exercise of the underlying Right.
Thus, it is NOT a separate "natural right."
Should you actually wish honest debate or discussion, address that prior to moving forward.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
wrightme wrote:
What you fail to realize is that your "position" was, is, and will forever be logically contradictory. You're one of those people that doesn't refute or even address arguments, you just repeatedly ask for clarification and "proof" (none of which is evergood enough, thorough enough, or something you can understand, which triggers the demands all over again)until the opposition is so sick of repeating themselves that they give up. You destract from the actual argument by making the opposition repeat and "show" or "prove"every implied, inter-argument (meaning the filler crap, nothing relevant to the actual argument)statement or position down to the most insignificant level. You wear down the opposition as opposed to actually addressing it. Since page 4 you've repeated the same @#$%, "cite it, cite it, cite it, cite it, where did I say that, where did you say, where did he say that, clarify this, clarify that" etc etc etc. Don't be sad that no one takes the bait on the wear down technique, it's been around while. I've been around the internet fora long time. I know how it goes. You know what they say, arguing on the internet is like the special olympics... You can sit here all day and do as you've done since page 4 and cry for citation on logic based positions and cry for clarification on things a blind person can see, but I'll keep doing what I've done and restating the position at a pre-K level for you so that maybe, when you're not scared to address the actual argument, I can make you and your contradictory arguments look even more stupid.
This one is a real winner... after each one of these points has already been addressed to the point that a five year old could understand them, you ask for them all again...
Either you're just really really dense, you really really need a critical reading lesson, or (the most likely) you're using the wear-down technique. Internetz at their finest.
wrightme wrote:
What you fail to realize is that your "position" was, is, and will forever be logically contradictory. You're one of those people that doesn't refute or even address arguments, you just repeatedly ask for clarification and "proof" (none of which is evergood enough, thorough enough, or something you can understand, which triggers the demands all over again)until the opposition is so sick of repeating themselves that they give up. You destract from the actual argument by making the opposition repeat and "show" or "prove"every implied, inter-argument (meaning the filler crap, nothing relevant to the actual argument)statement or position down to the most insignificant level. You wear down the opposition as opposed to actually addressing it. Since page 4 you've repeated the same @#$%, "cite it, cite it, cite it, cite it, where did I say that, where did you say, where did he say that, clarify this, clarify that" etc etc etc. Don't be sad that no one takes the bait on the wear down technique, it's been around while. I've been around the internet fora long time. I know how it goes. You know what they say, arguing on the internet is like the special olympics... You can sit here all day and do as you've done since page 4 and cry for citation on logic based positions and cry for clarification on things a blind person can see, but I'll keep doing what I've done and restating the position at a pre-K level for you so that maybe, when you're not scared to address the actual argument, I can make you and your contradictory arguments look even more stupid.
This one is a real winner... after each one of these points has already been addressed to the point that a five year old could understand them, you ask for them all again...
Either you're just really really dense, you really really need a critical reading lesson, or (the most likely) you're using the wear-down technique. Internetz at their finest.
les_aker
Regular Member
imported post
That in a nutshell is why it is a waste of time to even bother responding to someone who's stated objective is not to contribute anything to this discussion. It isn't hard to identify who is interested in arguing or making unsubstantiated statements simply for the sake of getting attention online that apparently can't be found otherwise in real life.
Looking at the things you've posted, I am reminded of a couple of things I've personally experienced that I think mirrors why "crime statistics" are largely uneffected in this case. I have had a variety of shot up targets tacked up on the walls of my office for years (the most recent being the big one from where I took pourshot's Utah permit class). People have made comments about them, some of them very negative or bordering on abrasive.
Then came 9/11. All of a sudden many of those same people were worried about their safety. The ones I found most amusing were the people who decided to tell me that if civil order broke down as a result of another attack they were coming to my house. They were more than willing to talk trash about people who owned or carried guns, but still thought I would go out of my way and risk my family's safety to protect them. I believe that it's that basic mindset that creates the resulting "crime statistics" at the core of this issue.
[/quote]
That in a nutshell is why it is a waste of time to even bother responding to someone who's stated objective is not to contribute anything to this discussion. It isn't hard to identify who is interested in arguing or making unsubstantiated statements simply for the sake of getting attention online that apparently can't be found otherwise in real life.
Looking at the things you've posted, I am reminded of a couple of things I've personally experienced that I think mirrors why "crime statistics" are largely uneffected in this case. I have had a variety of shot up targets tacked up on the walls of my office for years (the most recent being the big one from where I took pourshot's Utah permit class). People have made comments about them, some of them very negative or bordering on abrasive.
Then came 9/11. All of a sudden many of those same people were worried about their safety. The ones I found most amusing were the people who decided to tell me that if civil order broke down as a result of another attack they were coming to my house. They were more than willing to talk trash about people who owned or carried guns, but still thought I would go out of my way and risk my family's safety to protect them. I believe that it's that basic mindset that creates the resulting "crime statistics" at the core of this issue.
[/quote]
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Once againg with simple insult, and "declaration."
Try actually refuting and responding to the points I present. You are incorrect. I have presented the logic points where you are incorrect. I have presented that the underlying right is the Right To Assemble, which is not restricted. I have presented that your contention of "driving=right" is only a method used to exercise Freedom of Movement to exercise the Right to Assemble. You have failed to address this inconsistency in your "logic." Present the case that shows me to be in error, and you MIGHT have a point. Deny my point and insult me, and it is clear that you have no grounds for your point.
Address the points I present. You haven't.
AWDstylez wrote:
Once againg with simple insult, and "declaration."
Try actually refuting and responding to the points I present. You are incorrect. I have presented the logic points where you are incorrect. I have presented that the underlying right is the Right To Assemble, which is not restricted. I have presented that your contention of "driving=right" is only a method used to exercise Freedom of Movement to exercise the Right to Assemble. You have failed to address this inconsistency in your "logic." Present the case that shows me to be in error, and you MIGHT have a point. Deny my point and insult me, and it is clear that you have no grounds for your point.
Address the points I present. You haven't.
AWDstylez wrote:
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Once again you only seem capable of insults instead of discussion. Disagreeing with your position does not make me dense, if it did then we could all conclude that you are dense for not agreeing with my position. But adults do not inject insult where discussion wil lead to better understanding.
I have certainly read ALL of your posts. I do take them in context, but it has been clear that you do not extend the same courtesy, and when you wrote those poets you did not have a contextual plan for them. Only NOW do you claim such a master plan. The evidence is that you do not read the posts of others and understand the clear untwisted words, because you repeatedly misstate and distort peoples positions when you attempt to spit them back, and you usually argue the first part of each post, and almost never the middle. You repeatedly attribute positions to people that they never stated. Moreover any reasonable reading of your posts shows that rather than argue a point to ground, you change the shape and scope of the discussion to avoid proof, cast a few insults and dismiss what has been presented to you for discussion. You have never confronted a citation with a citation to a counter source. This sir is NOT logical discussion, and if you think it is then you need your money back from whoever taught you the rules of logic and debate.
Writeme is correct when he states that driving in and of itself for the sole and unique purpose of driving, has not been shown in this discussion to be a "RIGHT" by your arguments. It might well be such a right, but you have not shown it to be such. Marshual has come far closer to this mark than you. There is ample information to show that if such a right exists it is not recognized as such. We have tried to show you why that is the case. That SHOULD have opened the door for you to support your position but alas it did not. Your contention that it is we who must show that driving is not a right is fallacious and just more obfuscation on your part. But we have provided some citations along those lines and you have refused to discuss them, instead inserting a new fresh proposition. When a person asserts a position it is their responsibility to support the position BEFORE it is anyone else's responsibility to refute it.
So lets settle that point first. Since you put forward the concept that the burden of proof is on us, please provide citation to a source for logical argument or debate that shows thatyou have no responsibility to provide proof for your position when you assert it, or when challenged.
All of your opinions are based and supported solely by your opinions. Nothing said in this discussion limits you to citations from the law of the state or federal government as you have asserted. Yet another example showing that you do not read our posts. You are either lazy or have no support for your view. For all I care you can use the bible, the federalists papers, Science Newsletteror recognized philosophers and we can discuss the quality of the reference if you can find any. But you offer nothing and claim it is up to us to find it. You disclaim any responsibility to support your orphan opinions. That is just pure crap and anyone who knows anything about logic, debateor discussion knows it.
As Writeme has said, you are just upset because you have no support for your position, and you don't like it when people don't just do what you tell them to do and take your words as fact.
AWDstylez wrote:
The problem is that your position IS VERY WELL UNDERSTOOD. I just disagree with you, and I am not alone in taking that view. We might agree if you could show any basis even for your so called "logic based position". In order to hold such a position you would have to have SOMETHING that lead you there. If that path is totally within your head, then say so. If there is outside information that lead you there and supports your conclusionthen show it to us. I have no responsibility to simply accept your undocumented views fact.
Once again you only seem capable of insults instead of discussion. Disagreeing with your position does not make me dense, if it did then we could all conclude that you are dense for not agreeing with my position. But adults do not inject insult where discussion wil lead to better understanding.
I have certainly read ALL of your posts. I do take them in context, but it has been clear that you do not extend the same courtesy, and when you wrote those poets you did not have a contextual plan for them. Only NOW do you claim such a master plan. The evidence is that you do not read the posts of others and understand the clear untwisted words, because you repeatedly misstate and distort peoples positions when you attempt to spit them back, and you usually argue the first part of each post, and almost never the middle. You repeatedly attribute positions to people that they never stated. Moreover any reasonable reading of your posts shows that rather than argue a point to ground, you change the shape and scope of the discussion to avoid proof, cast a few insults and dismiss what has been presented to you for discussion. You have never confronted a citation with a citation to a counter source. This sir is NOT logical discussion, and if you think it is then you need your money back from whoever taught you the rules of logic and debate.
Writeme is correct when he states that driving in and of itself for the sole and unique purpose of driving, has not been shown in this discussion to be a "RIGHT" by your arguments. It might well be such a right, but you have not shown it to be such. Marshual has come far closer to this mark than you. There is ample information to show that if such a right exists it is not recognized as such. We have tried to show you why that is the case. That SHOULD have opened the door for you to support your position but alas it did not. Your contention that it is we who must show that driving is not a right is fallacious and just more obfuscation on your part. But we have provided some citations along those lines and you have refused to discuss them, instead inserting a new fresh proposition. When a person asserts a position it is their responsibility to support the position BEFORE it is anyone else's responsibility to refute it.
So lets settle that point first. Since you put forward the concept that the burden of proof is on us, please provide citation to a source for logical argument or debate that shows thatyou have no responsibility to provide proof for your position when you assert it, or when challenged.
All of your opinions are based and supported solely by your opinions. Nothing said in this discussion limits you to citations from the law of the state or federal government as you have asserted. Yet another example showing that you do not read our posts. You are either lazy or have no support for your view. For all I care you can use the bible, the federalists papers, Science Newsletteror recognized philosophers and we can discuss the quality of the reference if you can find any. But you offer nothing and claim it is up to us to find it. You disclaim any responsibility to support your orphan opinions. That is just pure crap and anyone who knows anything about logic, debateor discussion knows it.
As Writeme has said, you are just upset because you have no support for your position, and you don't like it when people don't just do what you tell them to do and take your words as fact.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
You would do well to verse yourself upon these two terms, and remove them from your posting style. Should we do that with your posts in this thread, the word count for your posts would markedly diminish.
I call you out when you claim I take a position that I did not take. I request you cite the post where I have done so, and explain how you feel I have done so specifically so I can adequately address your misunderstanding. When you do not present this information, you leave others with no way to evaluate your claim.
AWDstylez, I will make this larger so you can comprehend it.
You have continually avoided the logical responses you have received.
You have continually responded with insult instead of information.
You have continually misconstrued and misrepresented the positions of those in disagreement with you.
HF and I have continually presented logical responses to you which go unanswered, except for your insults and misrepresentations of our positions.
Should you desire the chance to be taken seriously, you really need to change your stylez.
AWDstylez wrote:
As long as you make baseless claims about the position of others, I WILL call you on it. When you claim a position for me that I did not take, you are committing a strawman fallacy. Your use of strawman argument in this thread is an ad hominem argument that fails to address the point presented, and instead attacks the presenter with the intent to discredit.
You would do well to verse yourself upon these two terms, and remove them from your posting style. Should we do that with your posts in this thread, the word count for your posts would markedly diminish.
I call you out when you claim I take a position that I did not take. I request you cite the post where I have done so, and explain how you feel I have done so specifically so I can adequately address your misunderstanding. When you do not present this information, you leave others with no way to evaluate your claim.
AWDstylez, I will make this larger so you can comprehend it.
You have continually avoided the logical responses you have received.
You have continually responded with insult instead of information.
You have continually misconstrued and misrepresented the positions of those in disagreement with you.
HF and I have continually presented logical responses to you which go unanswered, except for your insults and misrepresentations of our positions.
Should you desire the chance to be taken seriously, you really need to change your stylez.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
I think I see the problem:
AWDstylez wrote:
I think I see the problem:
AWDstylez wrote:
You forgot to post your disclaimer before claiming driving was a right.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Here I am, preparing to exercise my right to travel (not motoring), without risking hurting anyone else, for 800 miles in 23 days around Lake Michigan.
Here I am, preparing to exercise my right to travel (not motoring), without risking hurting anyone else, for 800 miles in 23 days around Lake Michigan.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Very sharp!
3-wheel recumbent? I don't think I have ever heard of those.
Looks like a good time in the making.
Very sharp!
3-wheel recumbent? I don't think I have ever heard of those.
Looks like a good time in the making.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Thank you. We did it last year. The 435 day old incomplete ride journal is at crazyguyonabike.com
Here is a URL link to another image of me 2/3 of the way down the page but at a bicyclist's advocacy site http://www.labreform.org/who.html Edit it back to labreform.org for hints at how others with deeper experience speak about bicycling rights.
Thank you. We did it last year. The 435 day old incomplete ride journal is at crazyguyonabike.com
Here is a URL link to another image of me 2/3 of the way down the page but at a bicyclist's advocacy site http://www.labreform.org/who.html Edit it back to labreform.org for hints at how others with deeper experience speak about bicycling rights.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Exactly right. I tried to make this point before. But they insist upon reversing the burden of proof onto me in a most unreasonable fashion.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
Bwahahahaha. I could do that trip in less than a day in a car. Bwaaaahahahahahahaha.