- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS (9-0): You can now own firearms and weed without reprecussions...
Posted on 6/19/26 at 6:29 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 6/19/26 at 6:29 pm to wackatimesthree
Weather delay.
quote:Why are you so fixated on labels? I didn’t say I’m not populist. I didn’t say I am a populist. I don’t find these labels useful but if it helps you to call me a populist, I’ve certainly been called worse here.
Which is exactly what a populist would say. It's why people proudly announce that they are "independent" even though they've never once in their life voted for any party but the same one they've always voted for. It's another way to reject foundational principles. And to virtue signal that one is "above it all."
quote:The application of a principle? One court said the government can forcibly sterilize people. Another court said the government cannot forcibly sterilize people. What exactly was the agreed upon principle between the courts?
They disagreed about the application of the principles in a particular incidence
quote:how so? What did a right angle measure in 1,000 BCE? What does it measure in Indonesia?
Neither are mathematical principles
quote:Legislation. Court opinions.
And if you do say they only exist in our heads, that necessarily means that we could change them at will. Do you see any evidence that that is true?
quote:Criticism of government is the most fundamentally American activity a person can engage in, yet you seem very irritated by it.
You said you thought we might need to ditch the one we have now, so which one seems better?
1
Posted on 6/19/26 at 7:24 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
such a low bar.
I guess, but again, I feel like I respond to what you say.
And I don't patronize you by going any harder or easier on you than I do anyone else here, which I would think would be of value to you as a feminist.
Those posters that you flirt with who melt and get all nice when you do? That's not respect. If a guy did the same thing they would likely tell him to frick off and stop brown nosing.
Which brings me to this: You're the one who got personal here, not me. I'd rather just keep it to the ideas. If I come across as consistently being mildly condescending—on this board—I can live with that.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 7:42 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Why are you so fixated on labels?
Because they enable all communication. Nouns are labels. At most, they are the foundation of language and literally provide the basic ability to communicate ideas. At the very least, they streamline communication and make it unnecessary to provide long explanations of things by defining them only by what they do.
quote:
I don’t find these labels useful
Sure you do. Communicate to me how a trial and a prison sentence works without using any single word nouns.
quote:
What exactly was the agreed upon principle between the courts?
That the state doesn't have absolute free reign to control citizen's lives and that there are guidelines for determining when it is and is not allowable for the state to do so based on the principle that people have inalienable rights that the government cannot violate.
You may scoff at that because in your "privileged" American experience, that seems like a self-evident principle. But go to Africa. Go to Gaza, for that matter. North Korea. It's not a universally accepted principle. By a long shot.
quote:
how so? What did a right angle measure in 1,000 BCE? What does it measure in Indonesia?
Those are the observations of the principles of mathematics, not the principles themselves. A right angle is still a right angle and all of the entailments of it being a right angle still remain valid and still work even if no one ever measures it in the physical world.
quote:
Legislation. Court opinions.
No, I was asking about mathematics. If those principles only exist subjectively, why can't we decide that one and one makes three?
As to your answer, it's the same as above. Legislation and court opinions are applications of the principle of inalienable rights, not the principle itself. To your example of the right angle, you can measure that right angle incorrectly in the physical world. That doesn't mean you've changed the principle. It just means you've applied it incorrectly.
quote:
Criticism of government is the most fundamentally American activity a person can engage in, yet you seem very irritated by it.
LOL. O.k. are we going here now? Have you reached the point at which you're going to start mischaracterizing? Seems so. It may be quick or it may take a while, but we always get here.
YOU are the one who said it was time to ditch the system. That implies that you think there's a better alternative. All I've done is ask what that alternative is, in your mind. I've posted exactly nothing that would indicate that I am irritated when asking that question.
YOU may be irritated that I won't let it drop, but I am the opposite of irritated. I'm entertained.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 9:00 pm to wackatimesthree
Political labels. You took what I said completely out of context. Words are useful. Language is useful. Calling someone a Democrat or Republican or communist or populist, etc on this message board is basically meaningless. I personally don’t care. I come here to discuss ideas, not place posters in imaginary buckets.
I didn’t say that. I questioned the logic behind revering a 300 year old document as some sacred and prophetic gospel.
quote:This is the principle the court upheld when it ruled that the government can forcibly sterilize a citizen?
That the state doesn't have absolute free reign to control citizen's lives and that there are guidelines for determining when it is and is not allowable for the state to do so based on the principle that people have inalienable rights that the government cannot violate.
quote:I never said math is subjective. I said rights are subjective. They are contingent on geography and time. Math is not. Rights are not objective facts of the universe.
No, I was asking about mathematics.
quote:speaking of mischaracterizing..
YOU are the one who said it was time to ditch the system.
I didn’t say that. I questioned the logic behind revering a 300 year old document as some sacred and prophetic gospel.
quote:there’s that condescension again. I’m not irritated. I enjoy analysis.
YOU may be irritated that I won't let it drop, but I am the opposite of irritated. I'm entertained.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 9:24 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:You’re patronizing in other ways.
And I don't patronize you by going any harder or easier on you than I do anyone else here, which I would think would be of value to you as a feminist.
I’m rolling my eyes at the flirting accusation. I’m not sure I’d communicate differently if I were a man speaking to other men. There is a level of familiarity with certain posters and I feel comfortable bantering with them. I’m very much the same way in person.
Respect is not something I associate with this place.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 10:31 pm to BFIV
quote:
You have made a deliberative decision to NOT own a firearm. What is that reason?
Primarily, I’m a pacifist.
Additionally, owning a gun significantly increases one’s chances of being killed by a firearm.
Lastly, I have children, including a toddler. Any storage arrangement I would consider safe around my children would likely make the firearm too inaccessible for the purpose I’d be buying it for.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 10:34 pm to 4cubbies
Primarily you are an idiot.
Posted on 6/19/26 at 11:22 pm to 4cubbies
He's saying those things precede law. That laws don't create them. That laws can't create them. The law, in it's proper role, is created to secure those things, not to usurp them.
About assimilation and liberty; You can't have liberty w/o private property. That concept does need to be learned over time, but even if they don't know how to articulate it, people understand innately that having your stuff taken is wrong.
About assimilation and liberty; You can't have liberty w/o private property. That concept does need to be learned over time, but even if they don't know how to articulate it, people understand innately that having your stuff taken is wrong.
Posted on 6/20/26 at 12:45 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Calling someone a Democrat or Republican or communist or populist, etc on this message board is basically meaningless.
It's no more meaningless than any other noun.
Or if not, why?
quote:
I come here to discuss ideas, not place posters in imaginary buckets.
Yet you are the one departing from the discussion to make a personal observation and air a personal opinion about the tone of my posts that has nothing to do with an ideas being discussed (you even said so yourself...you said it was an aside).
quote:
This is the principle the court upheld when it ruled that the government can forcibly sterilize a citizen?
Yes. Why do I have to keep spelling this out for you? The court ruled that although citizens have rights that the government can't violate, this circumstance did not qualify as being a violation.
I refuse to believe you do not understand this. Why do you keep making me explain it like I'm explaining it to a child? Just trying to tire me out so you win by default? What's the strategy here?
quote:
They are contingent on geography and time. Math is not.
Neither are. The enforcement of rights is what you are talking about, just like the application of mathematical principles. Prior to 2000, Derived Algebraic Geometry wasn't understood. The principles were just as valid as they are now, but people didn't understand them yet and hadn't discovered them yet.
Just like prior to any given time, people didn't recognize certain inalienable rights. Doesn't mean they didn't exist any more than it meant that Derived Algebraic Geometry didn't exist. People just didn't understand them.
quote:
I didn’t say that.
Am I going to have to go back and copy and paste? You said you "wondered" if it wasn't time to ditch the system. Right?
quote:
there’s that condescension again
I told you that your opinion on whether my posts are condescending or not doesn't bother me the slightest bit. Nor does it invalidate any point that I have made.
Posted on 6/20/26 at 12:48 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
You’re patronizing in other ways.
O.k. Like what?
quote:
I’m rolling my eyes at the flirting accusation.
That's fine.
I'm rolling mine at your repeated accusations that have nothing to do with the ideas being discussed. I'm sure we both know why you're making them.
quote:
Respect is not something I associate with this place.
Then why is it so significant that I supposedly am mildly condescending? Why are you fixed on that all of a sudden if you don't have higher expectations for this board?
Posted on 6/20/26 at 12:50 pm to stuntman
quote:
He's saying those things precede law. That laws don't create them. That laws can't create them. The law, in it's proper role, is created to secure those things, not to usurp them.
Now let's see what she says to this.
Because this is the same thing I say to her every time she starts denying the existence of rights and she doubles, triples, quadruples down on it every time. It just happened again just above this post.
Let's see if her flirting with you will change the formula.
This post was edited on 6/20/26 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 6/20/26 at 1:37 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:For 15 years the court ruled that it wasn’t a violation. You’re saying that the court saying the government has the right to forcibly sterilize citizens then saying the government does not have the right to forcibly sterilize citizens 15 years later is evidence that our rights have never changed since the Constitution was ratified.
Yes. Why do I have to keep spelling this out for you? The court ruled that although citizens have rights that the government can't violate, this circumstance did not qualify as being a violation.
quote:I can’t help noticing that you keep bringing it up.
I told you that your opinion on whether my posts are condescending or not doesn't bother me the slightest bit.
Posted on 6/20/26 at 4:51 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
You’re saying that the court saying the government has the right to forcibly sterilize citizens then saying the government does not have the right to forcibly sterilize citizens 15 years later is evidence that our rights have never changed since the Constitution was ratified.
Yes.
YES.
What do you not understand about the sixteen times I have explained that (not just on this thread)? It's the same explanation that you got from your flirt buddy above.
quote:
I can’t help noticing that you keep bringing it up.
These are the times when I think you really are SFP just trolling, trolling, trolling.
YOU keep bringing it up. I respond to YOU bring it up repeatedly. I haven't said one word about it on my own.
This post was edited on 6/20/26 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 6/20/26 at 4:55 pm to stuntman
quote:
You can't have liberty w/o private property. That concept does need to be learned over time,
The freest humans are babies and kids who own nothing of meaningful value.
Seems like all of these philosophies may be sophisticated intellectual systems built around protecting and elevating the individual self. Ego protection.
If anything, private property limits our freedom because we have to maintain and protect it.
This post was edited on 6/20/26 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 6/20/26 at 5:59 pm to wackatimesthree
You just posted that you give me respect on the previous page. Then be respectful.
I’m not discussing anything with someone who is calling me a troll, accusing me of flirting with posters, and repeatedly implying that I’m too stupid to understand his argument.
I’m not discussing anything with someone who is calling me a troll, accusing me of flirting with posters, and repeatedly implying that I’m too stupid to understand his argument.
Posted on 6/20/26 at 6:06 pm to finchmeister08
Potheads are traditionally non-violent.....
Alcohol turns some people into animals....
So, I'm good with the rule...
Alcohol turns some people into animals....
So, I'm good with the rule...
Posted on 6/20/26 at 6:09 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The freest humans are babies
Babies are entirely dependent on others. That's not the freedom I want.
Posted on 6/20/26 at 6:34 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
If anything, private property limits our freedom because we have to maintain and protect it.
How so?
For instance, if you didn't have property rights to your house, how would that make you freer? Anyone could move in at any time. People would constantly be on the run, robbed, we'd be scavengers all day every day.
I'll refer back to an earlier post as well; Wherever the society is that protects property rights the most, you have the most individual liberty. I don't see how you can have one w/o the other. There may be a way of doing it, but from what I've read, I've never seen an instance of it.
And as always, thanks for the reply.
Posted on 6/20/26 at 6:50 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Because this is the same thing I say to her every time she starts denying the existence of rights and she doubles, triples, quadruples down on it every time. It just happened again just above this post.
I've actually been in her spot. Back in the day I was an egalitarian. Basically a socialist. I wish I had a "come to Jesus" moment where I realized how flawed my views were, but I didn't. Took a lot of time, because I'm one hell of a stubborn guy. But, over time, as I kept reading, listening, watching debates, it became clear that my views were way off.
When people are asking fundamental questions about human nature, what rights are, what justice actually means, those are the people who I think would be willing to change their minds and/or adjust how they see how the world works over time. Cubbies seems to be one of 'em. Can't know for sure, but the questions being asked are ones where you know someone is trying to open something else in their mind. Some of the best and brightest on the side of individualism ever had that same kind of transition. Sowell, Hayek, MIses (although very brief, but still..).
Posted on 6/20/26 at 7:14 pm to stuntman
quote:
I've actually been in her spot. Back in the day I was an egalitarian. Basically a socialist. I wish I had a "come to Jesus" moment where I realized how flawed my views were, but I didn't. Took a lot of time, because I'm one hell of a stubborn guy. But, over time, as I kept reading, listening, watching debates, it became clear that my views were way off.
You know I can see your posts right?
You’re not hostile but it all appears very condescending. I’m skeptical of anyone who stops questioning their assumptions.
This post was edited on 6/20/26 at 7:31 pm
Page 8 of 11
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News