Because they appear to me to be entirely rhetorical, designed to score points rather than illuminate the issue. Duh.
I am not a member of the legislature. I do not have legal advisors to help craft such legislation. However I did give you examples of other issues that have been resolved without destroying the first amendment. And of course you ignored them.
And the people who we do charge to craft such laws have failed to do so in a manner that does not offend the Constitution. Maybe, just maybe, that's because it can't be done, no matter how many legislative experts you throw at it.
Oh yes, another fall back position for person who has no valid position. I never said I was your master. This just gets better and better, and more childish and more childish.
Of course you didn't, but you're perfectly willing to live with that as the practical result, obviously.
So I take it then that you have no justification for banning, and you therefore prefer to force people to satisfy your demands, and prove that they should have some freedom?
Bud, you can't help me because you can't answer the most elemental questions even for yourself. Blaming it on something else is fine by me, if that gives you peace of mind, but don't expect me to miss the implications of your actions.
Ah. And which actions did you have in mind, exactly?
You're a riot. You post my comment then completely ignore it to make this type of a response, which describes exactly what you are doing. I refered to a number of your points in my post. The issue of Romeo and Juliet, the issue of rights that might be damaged, the nonsensical issue of child porn of just being nothing more than a genre of art were each addressed.
Why should I bother responding? You're more than happy to put words in my mouth about slander and the like. You don't really need me for this conversation, do you?
Why don't you tell us who is dying for our rights instead of making vacant comments that neither explain your point of view or buttress any arguement with substance? But then if you're going to make another stupfying attempt to equate an implied risk like experiencing an accident while driving to the death of a young child, please save yourself the wasted effort.
Yes, I see this is wasted effort. I tell you what - why don't you compare the number of gun deaths in this country with the number in, say, the UK? See if you can reach some conclusions about people dying as a consequence of the freedoms of the Second Amendment...
Well, could it be that you didn't ask me the question? I merely addressed your asking it of someone else. Duh. Now, why didn't you answer the questions I did ask you?
Because they appear to me to be entirely rhetorical, designed to score points rather than illuminate the issue. Duh.
Yet another example of your inability to separate fact from fantasy.
I am not a member of the legislature. I do not have legal advisors to help craft such legislation. However I did give you examples of other issues that have been resolved without destroying the first amendment. And of course you ignored them.
And the people who we do charge to craft such laws have failed to do so in a manner that does not offend the Constitution. Maybe, just maybe, that's because it can't be done, no matter how many legislative experts you throw at it.
Once again you have failed to take into account laws conserning perjury, slander and defamation. Was that because it shot down your whole aruguement, because you were simply unable to comprehend the finer points of this issue or because you thought it was a rhetorical point?
Oh yes, another fall back position for person who has no valid position. I never said I was your master. This just gets better and better, and more childish and more childish.
Of course you didn't, but you're perfectly willing to live with that as the practical result, obviously.
So I take it then that you have no justification for banning, and you therefore prefer to force people to satisfy your demands, and prove that they should have some freedom?
So my affirmation of perjury, slander and defamation laws also puts you into servanthood doesn't it. Is that your arguement? Well, yes I am willing to live with the pactical results, obviously. I guess this is forcing you and others to satisfy my demands, but I fail to see damage on your part. All I am asking is that you come up with a valid damage to you, by the implementation of these laws. So far you've been loathe to do so.
Bud, you can't help me because you can't answer the most elemental questions even for yourself. Blaming it on something else is fine by me, if that gives you peace of mind, but don't expect me to miss the implications of your actions.
Ah. And which actions did you have in mind, exactly?
If you're having a problem keeping up, please reread the thread.
You're a riot. You post my comment then completely ignore it to make this type of a response, which describes exactly what you are doing. I refered to a number of your points in my post. The issue of Romeo and Juliet, the issue of rights that might be damaged, the nonsensical issue of child porn of just being nothing more than a genre of art were each addressed.
Why should I bother responding? You're more than happy to put words in my mouth about slander and the like. You don't really need me for this conversation, do you?
Each time you make a comment like this, it has nothing to do with the paragraph you're responding to. Please provide an example in my paragraph of me putting words in your mouth. As for me not needing you, I could say the same thing with regard to your avoidance of questions that were asked and avoided.
Why don't you tell us who is dying for our rights instead of making vacant comments that neither explain your point of view or buttress any arguement with substance? But then if you're going to make another stupfying attempt to equate an implied risk like experiencing an accident while driving to the death of a young child, please save yourself the wasted effort.
Yes, I see this is wasted effort. I tell you what - why don't you compare the number of gun deaths in this country with the number in, say, the UK? See if you can reach some conclusions about people dying as a consequence of the freedoms of the Second Amendment...
Once again you have provided a nonsensical example to compare with child pornography. And yes it was wasted. There are positive aspects of using vehicles for transportation and guns for defense or hunting. Once before I asked you to provide any possible positive aspect of child pornography. So far you have failed to do so. In light of that, why do you defend child porn with such ferocity?
As for your neon colors, I guess that's your way of putting down my efforts to make a neat easily read response to you. Yet more evidence that you are unable to discuss this issue on point in an adult manner.
66 posted on 7/17/02 8:18 AM Pacific by general_re