|
Sub Par posted:While I agree I guess with where you're going here, I'm not sure I'd like this same level of pedantry applied to say, the first amendment. "It says press not server." I'm just asking people to substantiate their argument using evidence: The argument, to wit: Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Guns are part of the constitution, and the constitution cant be changed easily, for good reasons. I asked that poster where, and they were unable or unwilling to provide evidence and never replied back. Another poster: Fuschia tude posted:Amendment II I asked them to point out where guns are mentioned and they quoted the Amendment text, adding ilkhan posted:keep is own/possess and bear means carry. Its a complicated sentence. Now, I don't know about standards of pedantry, I just know that in D&D we're supposed to back up our assertions with evidence and so far a relay of 3 different posters have failed to do so. Maybe a 4th can throw their hat in the ring and find the line?
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
ilkhan posted:If you're unwilling to admit that arms = guns in the 2A then you are deliberately acting in bad faith. It doesn't say guns, it says arms. If you are unable to support your claim, please admit you cannot. Or find evidence to support it. I'm aware what you would like the evidence to be, but this is D&D. You need to support your claims. Additionally, you continue to ignore the presence of militias in your "evidence". You need to address that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The second amendment, what do you think it means? I've asked you to support your argument with evidence and your first response to me is a question but no evidence? If you don't have evidence, please just say so. quote:The militia phrase in the 2nd Amendment is reasoning for the right to bear arms but it is not a limiter or restrictor. What about it? That's your interpretation, where does it say it's not a limiter or restrictor? And if it's the reasoning, how is that not relevant in all applications?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
moths posted:What restrictions on abortion existed in 1791? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/ quote:Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era. Of course, it's not mentioned in the constitution at all...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:My evidence that guns are included in the 2nd amendment? The definition of arms: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms, includes firearms, synonyms gun. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. If you have a contemporary dictionary that would be helpful. Further, it being inclusive of guns doesn't mean it guarantees guns. Any number of devices or tools could satisfy that wording. quote:That's the point, it doesn't have a limiter or restrictor! Its very clearly stated "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". If it was limited, it would say "... Shall not be infringed, except in cases of x, y z". or maybe "The people have the right to bear arms in a well regulated Militia" if that was the intention. For example you see this in the fourth amendment. There's an absolute statement, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue.." then if there's an exception they add a clause for that exception "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be". Nobody is infringing your rights to bear arms by regulating guns. You can simply carry other arms, if you choose to participate in a militia. If you are not participating in a militia, not sure how it's relevant. You stated specifically about guns. quote:Let me know if you have any further questions! Sure, can you show me the part that mentions guns? That's my original question and you seem to be saying that you can't provide evidence but that the evidence you have provided, that does not meet the claim you originally made, should be accepted in lieu of actual evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Here's a 1785 dictionary. The word "arm" or "arms" appears on page 178. I do feel maybe I shouldn't be doing the work for someone else to provide their own evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Where does it say the amendment "only applies to militias"? Here: quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The ammendment concerns militias, as stated. If you'd like to make the argument that it doesn't only apply to the one thing mentioned, then please feel free to provide evidence to support that idea. Fuschia tude posted:The word "arms" is on page 180. Indeed, thanks! And more accurately, "arm" appears on 179.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:You may be aware that the first thirteen words have been determined to be prefatory and carry no legal weight because sure why not. I'm talking about a claim that a poster made, backed by 2 others, that none of them have been able to back up. I'm looking at D&D Rules 1.3 and 1.4
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
Devor posted:Logical reasoning-based arguments are cool for convincing your uncle Bob but don't mean anything to SCOTUS SCOTUS isn't this thread. But posters making arguments they can't back up are. The USA's complete inability to pass universal healthcare doesn't make it a bad idea or not effective.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Well we've established guns are included in arms in contemporary dictionaries, so that has been backed up. That would be evidence for your interpretation on an amendment written in 2022, or whenever that dictionary was updated. It wasn't written in this century, let alone this year. So we must use relevant dictionaries if you're going to make that argument. If you have a relevant dictionary to cite, please do. Otherwise, I've already provided more evidence on this front than you. quote:The rest should be simple; which does the 2nd amendment say. Let me know 1 or 2. Version 1 is the text, which does not contain the words guns. The constitution makes several references to "people" while not referring to all people living in the US. It includes a specific set of people, Militias, in the same sentence. That makes it reasonable to assume it applies to people in militias. If you have evidence of it being broader than that, please post it. quote:If that's not clear, maybe some additional understanding of your English might help me. If I was dictator and made a constitutional amendment saying "Pineapple on pizza, being an abomination to culinary taste, pineapples are now banned in the USA". Would you argue that hypothetical only bans pineapple on pizza, or all pineapple? I'm referring to the statement you made regarding "guns" in the constitution. Please stay on subject. If you can't back up your assertion, or you lack further evidence that would support your claim, please just say so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:No, you didn't say it "concerns militias". You said it "only applies to militias". Fair point! I concede it does not say "only" anywhere in there. Please provide evidence it applies to anyone besides the only group of people specifically mentioned in the sentence. quote:By my count, the text mentions seven different things: "Militia", "security", "state", "right", "people", and "Arms". It seems clear to me that it concerns all of those things, not "only" one of them, as you keep insisting. Cool, where does it mention guns?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:'People' and 'militia members' were synonyms, given that people mostly meant white men back then. The constitution, at the time of writing, is an especially absurd document to claim that "people" is an unlimited word in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
OldMold posted:At this point it feels like you are being intentionally obtuse. The debate on the interpretation of the 2A has been going on for hundreds of years from many angles, with various rulings falling on either side of the extent of the definition of "arms" or whether or not these rights are granted to individuals, states, or militias. One has a smorgasbord of opinions that can be cherry picked to support one point or another. What evidence would you like to see produced that you would consider to be satisfactory that has been missing from judicial arguments and rulings to date? I'm asking a poster to back up a statement they made about the constitution. So far they have been unable to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
Javid posted:Because nobody cares about your personal disagreements/difficulties with the legal definition of the term "arms". The people you need to convince do not read this thread Who am I trying to convince? I am simply asking a poster to give evidence for an assertion they've made. Fell Fire posted:I'm confused by your wording in the first paragraph. Do you think we should be basing our definitions on 2022 meanings, or the 18th century ones used in the dictionary you linked? If were are are attempting to make an argument that words are interchangeable in an 18th century document, we should be using 18th century definitions. quote:That dictionary describes "arms" as, "weapons of offense" (or cruelty/injury, to pull from the definitions given for that word). It also defines "gun" as, "the general name for the fire-arms, the instrument from which shot is discharged by fire." Pretty clearly, what we describe today as guns is included in that meaning. The amendment says "arms", not "large", "small" or "fire". The assertion was that it says "guns"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:I recommend that you look up the entry for "firearms" in that dictionary. (It's actually really easy! The text has been OCRed, so the search function works.) "Arms which owe their efficacy to fire; guns." The 2nd does not use the term "firearms". Javid posted:it's because he's trolling and not engaging in good faith. Trying to understand it logically is a fool's errand If you think I'm acting in bad faith or trolling, report it. If you don't like that I'm holding someone to statements they make, this might be the wrong forum for you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I’m not sure I understand your point here. If firearms are guns, and firearms are a subset of arms, doesn’t that answer whatever question you’re trying to get answered? A person made a claim that "guns" were in the constitution. They are not. You could make an argument that guns might be referred to when "arms" was said, but arms doesn't include just guns. They're not directly synonymous. I agree the original claim was bad, I'm not the one who made it. OldMold posted:Your implication that "arms" should be interpreted to exclude firearms is a much more extraordinary assertion than the opposite, and it is you who must provide burden of proof. I never made or implied that. Burden of proof rests on the original claim. quote:Interpreting "arms" to include firearms, given the colloquial usage of "arms" in contemporary writing at the time (and for hundreds of years since) to include all offensive weapons is quite reasonable. The examples given in the contemporary dictionary generally reference quotes from before guns were widespread. You can try to make this argument but you'll need more evidence. quote:Example, from Madison's own writings on militias: I agree he's referring to all sorts of weapons. Not specifically guns. But "guns" was the claim. quote:If you have an interesting take that the interpretation SHOULD NOT include firearms, please elaborate. Just saying "nuh-uh" on a commonly accepted definition is trolling. I've asked for proof for a claim, and I'm getting a lot of "you should accept my interpretation of the only evidence I have" which isn't good enough to support the claim. Kalman posted:And the First doesn’t use the term “writing” or “wearing a jacket saying gently caress the Draft”, it says “speech”, but because we’re not idiots and understand that “speech” includes writing and expressive actions, we apply the speech clause to written words and expressive actions. The claim was that guns are part of the constitution. At best we can say that guns may be part of the constitution, and that the amendment is unclear. Per the rules of D&D precision is important.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 00:43
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:As I understand your reasoning, your assertion is that guns are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. This claim is inaccurate because the 2nd Amendment refers to "arms" of which "firearms" or "fire-arms" is a subset and implicitly included. This is supported by the definition for the term "arms." Gun is a synonym for "firearms" or "fire-arms". Given that, the term "arms" in the amendment includes guns. If the 2A had said "firearms", this might be a slightly different conversation. Alas, it does not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I’m completely lost by what you’re hoping to accomplish here. What is the point you’re making? For what aim? Who are you trying to convince of what exactly? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just asking someone to support a claim they made, with evidence. My argument is that that poster cannot support the claim they made. And so far, they and a whole group of other people have had a real problem doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:But again, its such a wide meaningless term that it could mean literally anything that can be used as a weapon. Yep. ilkhan posted:Im pretty sure Im the person you're referring to, and I will concede the string "gun" does not appear in the constitution. Its superset "arms" which refers to guns and more does. No it wasn't you. You just jumped in on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Ok great. "leftists" can't come in here and say really its the Democrats fault when they made their choices too. It's great that literally the only people that folks are vocally getting mad at(other than maybe Thomas), is liberals. I mean, absolutely they bear lots of responsibility but lol that conservatives don't even get mentioned other than to praise their use of power. Absolutely opposite of most social media.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Whenever people make this complaint I wonder what they even want to see. Would these threads really be better if it was discussions about how much Republicans suck and we all hate them? Anything about what you wish they would do is absolute wishcasting because they're explicitly the Christian fascist party. At least when people complain about Democrats they're also talking about actions and policies that could be taken by the party who says they want to prevent abortion rights and taking about possible actions seems way more appropriate and relevant for D&D than a five minutes of hate even if Republicans deserve the hate. People are more vocally angry at their failing allies even if it's their enemy that they truly hate. Literally anything we talk about is wishcasting because Democrats don't do anything. Whatever good policy you want to talk about is worthless discussion, they will not or cannot do it. My point is not that people shouldn't be angry at failing "allies", but that it is the only people they are visibly angry with. And I think this reflects their internal dialogues as well. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Danger posted:Democrats aren't your allies I think is the lesson that should be internalized. Certainly not on abortion rights I agree. Not on most other things either. Hence the quotes. This reply does not address my point, it just reinforces it. Gumball Gumption posted:What's the dream Republican hate post you want to see? Because in my head posting about how much you hate Republicans is the most boring thing you could put here because it will just be a bunch of hate when D&D is supposed to be a place to discuss politics and policy. I don't have a dream hate post. I'm just noticing there's almost nothing said about the fascist party actually doing the fascism. Do you see antifa actions that only mention the supposed allies they're angry at? quote:And if it's all worthless why post? Especially why post about how the aesthetics of worthless posts don't please you enough? I'm commenting on the discussion being had. If you think that it's not noteworthy, good for you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm seeing memes on Facebook with his alleged home address. I've seen all of their home addresses posted. Would you say they have a right to privacy with regards to that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I would not but there's a lot of stochastism going around. Well the security of their residences is now up to the states they live in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
I mean, what explanation do they need? It helps their side. That's all that's needed. The time of pretending has passed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:The thing is we're already seeing absolutely massive swings in the polls just from kicking it back to the states. LegalTwitter is really dragging them over Louisiana, their credibility as an institution is dropping like a stone even among their peers (even Dershowitz called them out for judicial activism lol), the more decisions they release, the worse it gets. I don't see how they keep up this momentum if they want things to stabilize. Especially on Abortion, if they try to go national things are going to get heated. The only justice who cared about their institutional credibility was Roberts and he became irrelevant the moment it went 6-3, which is why you're seeing all of this poo poo roll out so quick. The masks are off, the time of pretending has passed. You're talking about a game that is no longer even being played.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
Everyone posted:Document as you will. The problem as I see is that the first Probed person was calling for the publication of the home address of SC Justices. What in the gently caress are you talking about? Those addresses are already public, they don't need to be posted here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 07:45
|
|
|
Gorsuch finishing the job at the EPA that his mom started, I see.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Cap and trade should always have been just cap and no trade.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:The President is going to make a political appointment based on ideology, and it was Biden's job to make sure Thomas got vetted and the other senators knew what they were voting for. Do you think the other senators didn't believe Anita Hill? Everyone knew what was up. Biden sucks but you'd have to put him at like 53rd most responsible, but that doesn't make for a feel good post huh?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:A lot of liberals say that banning abortion is really about controlling women, but how so? If it's about men controlling women, where is the control? That's literally already what they do. Conservatives still get abortions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:A lot of liberals say that banning abortion is really about controlling women, but how so? Well, it literally takes control over your own body from you, and gives it to someone else. Effectively giving you less autonomy then a corpose. HTH!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Now, let's not be hyperbolic. It gives you no more bodily autonomy than a corpse. No, I was correct. I was referring to what the poster below you said. A dead man has more right to bodily autonomy than a live woman.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2022 07:32
|
|
|
Murder, no. Manslaughter? Yeah that poo poo is already happening. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544 quote:When a 21-year-old Native American woman from Oklahoma was convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage, people were outraged. But she was not alone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Keeping in mind, a woman changing her mind at 8mos is something she should be allowed to do, even if it's not realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
I like how for women we have all sorts of devil advocates and edge case arguments so we can decide exactly where we take away a woman's body from her. Meanwhile, rotting corpses of men go "lol can't do poo poo".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Brute Squad posted:https://twitter.com/ItsMattsLaw/status/1570943387335000067 This is why I have issues with "congress can just pass a law and reinstate this". Apparently nope not if they're feeling sufficiently Federalist Societyish
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Either that or gigantic areas of the government that are outside the appropriations process are also unconstitutional Not to be glib, but yes now you're getting it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I was kind of shocked when I found out what quiet quitting was, having read a few headlines in my news feed. In Europe I'd describe working within your job description and contracted work hours working, not some insidious form of leaving employment. yeah US companies are built on employees doing poo poo that's not their job.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Oh that silly Alito! https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1599804428382371852
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2022 21:44
|
|