Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Kavanaugh assassination thwarted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post

    Depends on how old the kid is.

    The better analogy is a dog. It's your dog and your responsibility. It bites someone, you pay for it.

    Unless they are abusing the dog, in which case, it's their responsibility.

    You are responsible for the bullets coming out of your gun. What that entails should depend on why they are coming out in the first place. Drunk and too stupid to not play with a gun - see you when you get out. Defending someone's life - I'll pay for the medal.

    Honestly? The car or dog analogy isn't really a good one. You do not have a right to a either. they are privileges, not rights, and as such, the government is free to make them as onerous and expensive as it wants, so long as it does so fairly and doesn't infringe on other rights as it does so. Instead, the ownership of a gun should be compared to exercising another right.

    Let's take free speech. I believe that the 2020 riots, the attempted baseball shooting that injured Scalisce, and attempted assassination of Kavanaugh, and the Jan 6th, have shown how dangerous unregulated speech should be. So, let's apply the regulations from gun control/abolitionists perspective to speech.

    1. Licensing. To discuss politics in public, you must first be licensed. This would mean passing a test showing you can tell disinformation from truth. It means showing that you can demonstrate the ability to debate without inflaming the emotions of others. It also means that some states will require you to show an "actual need" to speak in public. Finally, you must maintain your permit. This requires you take 24 hours of public speaking classes every year. These classes will be provided by for-profit businesses, and you are responsible for paying for the classes.

    2. Large crowds. In order to keep things safe, the capacity of audiences must be limited. I propose a limit of 100 in-person audience members. Public speaking to an in-person audience of more than 100 people is considered highly dangerous and will be banned.

    3. Insurance. The 2020 riots caused billions in dollars of damage. January 6th riots cause millions. These came as a result of public speaking/protests. As such, the organizers of those protests should be required to carry insurance and be responsible for any damage that results from their speech.

    4. Absolute Legal Responsibility. Again, the 2020 riots had dozens of people killed. Those who spoke at those riots and protests must be held legally responsible for those deaths.

    5. Taxes. The permit in #1 will be met with a very large tax, say $1000 per person annually to maintain the license. In addition, ongoing training will be taxed at 1000% of the price of the class itself.

    6. Background Checks. For each public speaking engagement you wish to engage in, the venue must perform a background check. It costs $50. You will be denied the permit if you have violated speech requirements in the past, if you have been convicted of harassment, incitement, or disruptive behavior. There will be no back-yard or private venue loophole. Any crowd greater than 15 people constitutes a public speaking engagement.

    7. Red Flags. People may monitor your speech. If they suspect that you are too emotionally unstable, and may engage in emotionally charged speech while public speaking (creating a danger to those around you), then those people may report your to local authorities. At which point, a court will remove your license and bar you from speaking in public.

    8. Non protected speech. Online speech is covered by it's own regulation scheme. You have no right to free speech on line, and the government may choose to regulate online speech how it wants. The founders could not have imagined the internet, tv, radio, or audio/visual recordings. As such, the 1st amendment does not cover them, and only applies to print publications and physical public speaking.

    With all of the above in place, you will now be able to exercise your right to free speech. It's not burdensome, after all, no rights are absolute. Nobody wants to take your speech rights away from you.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

      Classic example of logic chopping.

      Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Logic-Chopping


      Description: Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute. Irrelevant over precision.

      Pay close attention to this fallacy, because after reading this book, you may find yourself committing this fallacy more than any others, and certainly more often than you did before reading this book.

      Logical Form:


      A claim is made.
      An objection is made regarding a trivial part of the claim, distracting from the main point.


      Example #1:

      John: Can you please help me push my car to the side of the road until the tow truck comes?

      Paul: Why push it to the side of the road? Why not just leave it?

      John: It is slowing down traffic unnecessarily where it is.

      Paul: Many things slow down traffic—do you feel you need to do something about all them?

      John: No, but this was my fault.

      Paul: Was it really? Were you the direct cause of your car breaking down?

      John: Are you going to help me move this damn car or not?!

      Explanation: You can see here that Paul is avoiding the request for assistance by attempting to make a deep philosophical issue out of a simple request. While Paul may have some good points, not every situation in life calls for deep critical thought. This situation being one of them.

      Example #2:

      Service Tech: Your car could use some new tires.

      Bart: You have a financial interest in selling me tires, why should I trust you?

      Service Tech: You brought your car to me to have it checked, sir.

      Bart: I brought my car to the shop where you work.

      Service Tech: So should we forget about the new tires for now?

      Bart: I never suggested that. Are you trying to use reverse psychology on me, so I will buy the tires?

      Explanation: This kind of fallacy could easily be a result of someone with paranoid behavioral tendencies -- thinking the world is out to get him or her.

      © Copyright Original Source

      Dang. That does sound like H_A. She uses that one a LOT. Must be the first tip in the Troll manual she has.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post


        Honestly? The car or dog analogy isn't really a good one. You do not have a right to a either. they are privileges, not rights, and as such, the government is free to make them as onerous and expensive as it wants, so long as it does so fairly and doesn't infringe on other rights as it does so. Instead, the ownership of a gun should be compared to exercising another right.

        Let's take free speech. I believe that the 2020 riots, the attempted baseball shooting that injured Scalisce, and attempted assassination of Kavanaugh, and the Jan 6th, have shown how dangerous unregulated speech should be. So, let's apply the regulations from gun control/abolitionists perspective to speech.

        1. Licensing. To discuss politics in public, you must first be licensed. This would mean passing a test showing you can tell disinformation from truth. It means showing that you can demonstrate the ability to debate without inflaming the emotions of others. It also means that some states will require you to show an "actual need" to speak in public. Finally, you must maintain your permit. This requires you take 24 hours of public speaking classes every year. These classes will be provided by for-profit businesses, and you are responsible for paying for the classes.

        2. Large crowds. In order to keep things safe, the capacity of audiences must be limited. I propose a limit of 100 in-person audience members. Public speaking to an in-person audience of more than 100 people is considered highly dangerous and will be banned.

        3. Insurance. The 2020 riots caused billions in dollars of damage. January 6th riots cause millions. These came as a result of public speaking/protests. As such, the organizers of those protests should be required to carry insurance and be responsible for any damage that results from their speech.

        4. Absolute Legal Responsibility. Again, the 2020 riots had dozens of people killed. Those who spoke at those riots and protests must be held legally responsible for those deaths.

        5. Taxes. The permit in #1 will be met with a very large tax, say $1000 per person annually to maintain the license. In addition, ongoing training will be taxed at 1000% of the price of the class itself.

        6. Background Checks. For each public speaking engagement you wish to engage in, the venue must perform a background check. It costs $50. You will be denied the permit if you have violated speech requirements in the past, if you have been convicted of harassment, incitement, or disruptive behavior. There will be no back-yard or private venue loophole. Any crowd greater than 15 people constitutes a public speaking engagement.

        7. Red Flags. People may monitor your speech. If they suspect that you are too emotionally unstable, and may engage in emotionally charged speech while public speaking (creating a danger to those around you), then those people may report your to local authorities. At which point, a court will remove your license and bar you from speaking in public.

        8. Non protected speech. Online speech is covered by it's own regulation scheme. You have no right to free speech on line, and the government may choose to regulate online speech how it wants. The founders could not have imagined the internet, tv, radio, or audio/visual recordings. As such, the 1st amendment does not cover them, and only applies to print publications and physical public speaking.

        With all of the above in place, you will now be able to exercise your right to free speech. It's not burdensome, after all, no rights are absolute. Nobody wants to take your speech rights away from you.
        My point is that those who seek to compare cars with firearms haven't thought it through and would not like it a bit if cars were treated like guns.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

          Dang. That does sound like H_A. She uses that one a LOT. Must be the first tip in the Troll manual she has.
          It does!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            If the dog bites someone who climbed over a fence in order to come on the property, you don't pay for it.

            The point is that in the case of a firearm, if your (minor) child takes it without your permission and hurts someone with it you can be in serious trouble. Not so with a car. You could have even left the keys in the ignition and if your (minor) child goes out joyriding you are not legally responsible. Subject to a lawsuit -- yes.

            In order to treat a car like a gun, in many states you would be required to keep it secured in a locked garage. And just like leaving the gun loaded can get you in trouble if someone starts messing with it, you would have to disable the car so it cannot simply be driven out of the garage. Maybe remove a tire or the battery or something like that.
            Actually, trespass doesn't guarantee that you aren't responsible. Especially not with a dog.

            And if Junior kills someone because you were irresponsible enough to leave the keys in the ignition your lawyer will be boning up on depraved indifference.

            Not locking your car is a great way to screw up your insurance claim. Unlike dogs or guns cars provide a (legal sense) necessity which is why the analogy breaks down more quickly than the dog analogy.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post

              Actually, trespass doesn't guarantee that you aren't responsible. Especially not with a dog.

              And if Junior kills someone because you were irresponsible enough to leave the keys in the ignition your lawyer will be boning up on depraved indifference.

              Not locking your car is a great way to screw up your insurance claim. Unlike dogs or guns cars provide a (legal sense) necessity which is why the analogy breaks down more quickly than the dog analogy.
              Way back when I was a young man, there was a series of PSAs about crime that would be part of the evening news.
              One of them was "don't forget to lock your car - don't help a good boy go bad".

              I always thought, "what's a GOOD boy doing looking in my car?"

              good boy.jpg
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post

                Actually, trespass doesn't guarantee that you aren't responsible. Especially not with a dog.

                And if Junior kills someone because you were irresponsible enough to leave the keys in the ignition your lawyer will be boning up on depraved indifference.

                Not locking your car is a great way to screw up your insurance claim. Unlike dogs or guns cars provide a (legal sense) necessity which is why the analogy breaks down more quickly than the dog analogy.
                Around here when a dog bites someone the moment it is determined that the dog was enclosed in a fenced area and the person bit entered inside the fenced area, the investigation is pretty much over. Of course, putting up warning signs of the fence is still probably a smart idea.

                Law suits and insurance claims are not the same as criminal prosecution.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Around here when a dog bites someone the moment it is determined that the dog was enclosed in a fenced area and the person bit entered inside the fenced area, the investigation is pretty much over. Of course, putting up warning signs of the fence is still probably a smart idea.

                  Law suits and insurance claims are not the same as criminal prosecution.
                  Yeah, we've seen those cases where a burglar is injured on the victim's property, and manages to find a lawyer and judge who will grant civil damages.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                    Way back when I was a young man, there was a series of PSAs about crime that would be part of the evening news.
                    One of them was "don't forget to lock your car - don't help a good boy go bad".

                    I always thought, "what's a GOOD boy doing looking in my car?"

                    good boy.jpg
                    If we were all good we wouldn't need law.

                    Although I think that if Junior is over ten he's probably up to something if he's exploring peoples cars ...
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      If we were all good we wouldn't need law.
                      HEY! I read that somewhere!!!

                      Although I think that if Junior is over ten he's probably up to something if he's exploring peoples cars ...
                      Yup.

                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Around here when a dog bites someone the moment it is determined that the dog was enclosed in a fenced area and the person bit entered inside the fenced area, the investigation is pretty much over. Of course, putting up warning signs of the fence is still probably a smart idea.

                        Law suits and insurance claims are not the same as criminal prosecution.
                        One weakness in the fence and a young enough child will end up in criminal court. Civil or criminal, it's still your responsibility to minimize the risk to others posed by your property. The principle remains true despite poor applications - which is why trespass isn't always mitigation.

                        Often the only differences are in severity of outcome and egregiousness of actions - it can be a very short distance between insurance claim and manslaughter.
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                        16 responses
                        159 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post One Bad Pig  
                        Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                        53 responses
                        400 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Mountain Man  
                        Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                        25 responses
                        114 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                        33 responses
                        198 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Roy
                        by Roy
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                        84 responses
                        377 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post JimL
                        by JimL
                         
                        Working...
                        X