OT: The Avalounge: No Politics in the Lounge

[Papa Francouz]

tweet (separation) tweet (separation) tweet (separation)

It’s also really terrible advice, on top of lacking anything of note. People who attack the form of others do so because their own arguments lack any substance. It’s a very easy out.

This person is also following the playbook to the letter: control the conversation, never play defense, the card says moops. It’s kind of strange actually seeing it in the wild like this.

 

[Moosehead1]

It’s also really terrible advice, on top of lacking anything of note. People who attack the form of others do so because their own arguments lack any substance. It’s a very easy out.

This person is also following the playbook to the letter: control the conversation, never play defense, the card says moops. It’s kind of strange actually seeing it in the wild like this.

Agreed, but I don't think that any of these points matter (they should, to any sane person), really the only strategy is mental fatigue. With nothing to add to it. It is very strange and equally intriguing in an obvious kind of way.

 

[John Mandalorian]

It’s also really terrible advice, on top of lacking anything of note. People who attack the form of others do so because their own arguments lack any substance. It’s a very easy out.

This person is also following the playbook to the letter: control the conversation, never play defense, the card says moops. It’s kind of strange actually seeing it in the wild like this.

That’s not true. The form is important.

As for the rest, it’s like military tactics. Everyone strives for the high ground.

 

[Foppa2118]

If the right to bear arms is black and white, and should never factor in the advancement in weapons making it easier and easier to kill larger and larger numbers of people quicker and quicker, then follow that logic through to its natural conclusion and answer the following.

Say we get to a point where everyone can make their very own nuclear bomb very easily at home.

Are we going to restrict the ability for every American citizen to own a nuclear bomb, or are we going to point to the 2nd amendment and say something like, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke, is a good guy with a nuke" on our way to nuclear holocaust?

It makes no logical or rational sense to think the 2nd amendment should provide the right to bear any and all arms for all of eternity. A lot changes in 230+ years. You have to be able to change with the times, which is why the constitution is specifically designed to be amended.

Even if you have to pass an additional amendment to modify or even repeal another amendment, like we saw with the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote, even though the 15th amendment didn't specify this. Or with the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment.

 

[Papa Francouz]

That’s not true. The form is important.

As for the rest, it’s like military tactics. Everyone strives for the high ground.

It is true. If your goal is to argue ideas, then argue ideas. Pointing out logical fallacies is easy, anyone can do it, and it adds nothing to an argument.

And sure, Obi-Wan, people want the high ground, but you’re pulling your tactics from a much different playbook than everyone else in this thread, and I’m pretty sure most people in this thread can intuit which playbook that is.

 

[John Mandalorian]

It is true. If your goal is to argue ideas, then argue ideas. Pointing out logical fallacies is easy, anyone can do it, and it adds nothing to an argument.

And sure, Obi-Wan, people want the high ground, but you’re pulling your tactics from a much different playbook than everyone else in this thread, and I’m pretty sure most people in this thread can intuit which playbook that is.

What you’re doing is fake assimilation. Posturing. You pretend that you’ve annexed some knowledge from others in an attempt to win some internet argument.

Congratluations!

 

[Papa Francouz]

What you’re doing is fake assimilation. Posturing. You pretend that you’ve annexed some knowledge from others in an attempt to win some internet argument.

Congratluations!

Thank you for telling me what I’m doing...again. Yet another instance of “control the conversation.”

My DMs are still open if you ever want to have an actual conversation.

 

[John Mandalorian]

It is true. If your goal is to argue ideas, then argue ideas. Pointing out logical fallacies is easy, anyone can do it, and it adds nothing to an argument.

And sure, Obi-Wan, people want the high ground, but you’re pulling your tactics from a much different playbook than everyone else in this thread, and I’m pretty sure most people in this thread can intuit which playbook that is.

This is a fair comment. So let’s argue ideas. I’ve done that. The alternatives suggested are inadequate to what currently exists. That’s my burden, if I’m defending the status quo.

If you void the constitution, then what?

 

[Islay1989]

This kind of behaviour is a perfect example of what they teach when you study politics. Attack the person, attack the form, but say nothing of substance or meaning. Pull out complicated constructs that you know no meaning off in an attempt to sound well read or of higher education. In the end it translates to verbal sewage that bears no purpose rather than to waste everyone's time.

I do love it though, makes it far easier to decide if you need to continue the discourse or not.

 

[Papa Francouz]

This is a fair comment. So let’s argue ideas. I’ve done that. The alternatives suggested are inadequate to what currently exists. That’s my burden, if I’m defending the status quo.

If you void the constitution, then what?

I’ve never advocated for voiding the Constitution. I also don’t want to argue for doing so because that’s not a position I support.

What I do support is the original intention of the Constitution, as it was meant to be an evolving document that changed over time to better reflect new societal norms and values.

 

[John Mandalorian]

This kind of behaviour is a perfect example of what they teach when you study politics. Attack the person, attack the form, but say nothing of substance or meaning. Pull out complicated constructs that you know no meaning off in an attempt to sound well read or of higher education. In the end it translates to verbal sewage that bears no purpose rather than to waste everyone's time.

I do love it though, makes it far easier to decide if you need to continue the discourse or not.

Are you even able to argue against form? It requires knowing rules. Many people engaging in these conversations arrogantly liken themselves to jazz musicians,

 

[Moosehead1]

Are you even able to argue against form? It requires knowing rules. Many people engaging in these conversations arrogantly liken themselves to jazz musicians,

Granola.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Granola.

Well then, how are the other fruits and nuts?

 

[Moosehead1]

This kind of behaviour is a perfect example of what they teach when you study politics. Attack the person, attack the form, but say nothing of substance or meaning. Pull out complicated constructs that you know no meaning off in an attempt to sound well read or of higher education. In the end it translates to verbal sewage that bears no purpose rather than to waste everyone's time.

I do love it though, makes it far easier to decide if you need to continue the discourse or not.

It's hilarious to watch the rinse and repeat of this dude

 

[Moosehead1]

Well then, how are the other fruits and nuts?

Probably much like jazz music

 

[Islay1989]

It's hilarious to watch the rinse and repeat of this dude

Yeah, it's funny as hell. Like a circus act

Keeps rambling on about tyranny, overreach, anarchy, completely glossing over what people are saying.

 

[John Mandalorian]

This kind of behaviour is a perfect example of what they teach when you study politics. Attack the person, attack the form, but say nothing of substance or meaning. Pull out complicated constructs that you know no meaning off in an attempt to sound well read or of higher education. In the end it translates to verbal sewage that bears no purpose rather than to waste everyone's time.

I do love it though, makes it far easier to decide if you need to continue the discourse or not.

It’s not as simple as what you say. Just expose the logic by way of succumbing to pitfalls. I’m not sure you’re capable of avoiding those pitfalls.? It all seems so easy until you see countermoves.

 

[Foppberg]

 

[dahrougem2]

How do people like this function on a day to day basis lol

 

[SirLoinOfCloth]

What is even happening here?

Argument: The constitution has an amendment process whereby changes to the document can be voted upon and written into law.

Counter-argument: Why would the constitution void itself? The 2nd amendment is sacred and cannot be amended.



DAFUQ?

 

[John Mandalorian]

How do people like this function on a day to day basis lol

Right. Everyone should wish that they're more like you.

 

[S E P H]

What is even happening here?

It's just proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States here, we're not supposed to understand it.

 

[McMetal]

1. There’s no such thing as “we” or “us”. People use these words as tools for manipulation.

2. It is sacred because it’s specifically mentioned. This is obvious.


Your argument that the constitution can void itself is argumentum ad ansurdum. What document asserts to void itself?

You clearly have no idea how the amendment process works...

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As you can see, the one and only limitation on the amendment process is that it can't mess with the number of senators per state in a way that limits the representation of one state. Otherwise, any amendment has the full power of any other clause of the Constitution. There is no amendment that is "special" or otherwise immune to modification according to the text of the document.

And if the Amendments have the full power of any other clause in the Constitution, and the 18th amendment has been voided by the 21st... Then yes, very clearly the Constitution can void parts of itself if the amendment process is undertaken. It's not difficult to understand, especially when I spoon feed the text to you.

 

[dahrougem2]

You clearly have no idea how the amendment process works...



As you can see, the one and only limitation on the amendment process is that it can't mess with the number of senators per state in a way that limits the representation of one state. Otherwise, any amendment has the full power of any other clause of the Constitution. There is no amendment that is "special" or otherwise immune to modification according to the text of the document.

And if the Amendments have the full power of any other clause in the Constitution, and the 18th amendment has been voided by the 21st... Then yes, very clearly the Constitution can void parts of itself if the amendment process is undertaken. It's not difficult to understand, especially when I spoon feed the text to you.

No but you see, MOAR GUNS. How can you possibly counter that?

 

[John Mandalorian]

You clearly have no idea how the amendment process works...



As you can see, the one and only limitation on the amendment process is that it can't mess with the number of senators per state in a way that limits the representation of one state. Otherwise, any amendment has the full power of any other clause of the Constitution. There is no amendment that is "special" or otherwise immune to modification according to the text of the document.

And if the Amendments have the full power of any other clause in the Constitution, and the 18th amendment has been voided by the 21st... Then yes, very clearly the Constitution can void parts of itself if the amendment process is undertaken. It's not difficult to understand, especially when I spoon feed the text to you.

The process by which a bill becomes a law isn’t as relevant to what we’re discussing. If you void the first 5 amendments, it’s questionable whether you still have a constitution.

This conversation, like a lot of things, is mostly about matters of degree. Modifying limits. If you infringe on the first 5 amendments, you’re going to get enormous pushback and rightfully so. At that point many of the objections may not even be about guns but about the gvt seizing more power.

The way you casually defend doing this is laughable. It’s a practical matter. The volatility at the moment is enormous. What you’re talking about is lighting a match.