"Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Almost everything applies to persons, not citizens."
And this proves what exactly?
If you'd bothered to venture into the realm of Constitutional law beyond the oh-so-typical-for-slashdotters "I can quote the Constitution so I's a expert" level of debate, you'd come to a point where you realize the laws of one country, cannot be evenly applied to non-citizens.
I don't know why "read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" is any kind of argument, when if you'd actually read and understood them you'd realize there are practical reasons that they often don't apply to non-citizens.
"To conclude: I got the message loud and clear and here's hoping you're having a nice, slightly fascistic police state that makes all of you feel right at home.
Just to be clear: I'm not pissing on Americans here."
"Abuse of word "actually", requires that following sentence is factually accurate."
You failed to demonstrate that it was not accurate.
" What you mean is that science still can't explain it to you."
No, I think he means that it can't be explained beyond what are considered, at best, marginal hypotheses. YOu have yet to demonstrate that he is inaccurate, yet are still assuming so.
"Don't assume that knowledge doesn't exist just because you don't possess it personally."
So where is it? As far as I'm aware, "marginal hypotheses" more accurately reflects the state of thinking on the subject, and you still haven't done anything other that accuse GP of being ignorant. You've berated him plenty, now where is the actual information?
I hope you're seeing my point now, mods. This guy pandered to your biases, provided nothing beyond a thinly veiled attack, and you modded him to +5.
Your point is wrong, Gp os correct, at right now, the state of science does NOT have an explanation about the origin of DNA that rises above a very weak hypotheses. Any researcher who works in the area will tell you that.
Of course, this in no way supports creationism, but you don't get to jump all over the guy when you're demonstrably wrong.
Torturing kittens wasn't my line and has nothing to do with the point. Bringing it up is more evidence that you're a moron.
And that thing you and I are doing RIGHT NOW BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES, where I am DISCUSSING THE AD POSITIVELY, that's called a "discussion". and when I di it before? Yeah that was a discussion too.
And it appears that yes, you are exactly that fucking stupid
there aren't any strawmen and your points are all wrong.
If you had actually read the discussion you decided to trample all over, you'd see that the discussion was about whether the definition of "crook" applies to people who use illegal drugs.
This was clear from the beginning and even more clear by the time you posted.
Additionally, the statement was not "possessing drugs" it was specifically
"it may be ILLEGAL to own certain drugs, but that doesn't make drug users CROOKS"
I'd read past the first sentence in the future, that way you won't look stupid like you did this time.
I do find it ironic that you cry like a baby about strawmen (and you can't find one you fucking liar, I assigned NO arguments of any kind to anyone, so you're either using a word you don't understand or are lying) when that's pretty much your entire argument style.
And I'm not even going to bother pointing out that you attacked me exactly like you have anyone who disagrees with you for ten years.
Thanks for proving you're everything I said you are, I'm going to go back to improving myself, you keep screeching the same tired crap to your echo chamber.
And last, "hall of mirrors" doesn't even make any sense you idiot.
Of course, I explained it thoroughly, so when you say "I don't see it" what you mean is "fuck I'm wrong, I'll pretend the obvious and irrefutable prrof I'm wrong isn't there"
"blah blah blah My guys can do no wrong blah blah blah, anyone who doesn't agree with me is irrevocably evil, as are all republicans ever blah blah blah"
Get a new schtick guy, ten years of the same Hillary-like screeching from you gets tiresome.
I guess it's a good thing you've got this echo chamber, god knows the real world thinks you're a kook.
Cue personal attack because he can't stand anyone disagreeing and will angrily shout down anyone who tries...
Hate to break it to you, but if you check the post I made to OP, you'll see a definition that clearly applies to illegal drug users.
Now, do you really want to argue definitions when everry definition of "crook" would have to be inapplicable to illegal drug users for you to be right, while I only need one (which I've already found) to be right?
Don't argue definitions (especially of slang and vernacular) it just makes you just sound like a tool (and yes, I'm including myself in that right now).
"a person who engages in criminal activity for personal gain"
and since "getting high" is inarguably "personal gain", it appears I didn't make an ass of myself.
I bet you wish now that you could say the same.
Next I don't care why you brought up alcohol, it's a dead end argument and you should dump it. You don't sound intelligent when you make it, you sound like every other 12 year old when they realize laws are sometimes hypocritical and contradictory.
The reat of your post isn't worth addressing, but I have to say you look pretty silly making a claim that is refuted by the very post you're replying to.
No. Not more trivial than walking down to the store.
In fact, it would take a particularly ignorant, intentionally disingenuous person to argue that getting pot is anywhere near as easy as getting booze.
Next, the reason people think pot is a gateway drug is the same reason people think running around in the cold causes the flu (I SAID FLU THERE PEDANTS, SO FUCK OFF). they're ignorant and are repeating bullshit they've had drilled into them.
It of course never occurs to you people that it may in fact have nothing to do with the drug and simply be a consequence of well ingrained patterns of behavior that lead to drug taking.
No way!
Last, I don't need to "know where to look" for booze, as they have whole stores devoted to it. I could even ask someone I don't know while I'm passing them on the street.
It really is no surprise that someone with the screename "lysergic acid" takes issue with being a crook because of illegal drug possession, but how the fuck did this get modded up?
YES possessing illegal drugs makes one a crook. Deal with it, because it's reality. I really don't see how an intelligent person could openly wonder how doing the very thing that makes one a crook could cause one to be called a crook.
Now, you can argue over whether you should be a crook, but that's not what was done here.
Second, save the vacuous "alcohol" argument. I'll wager anything you want that in a random survey, the majority of respondents will indeed say alcohol is a drug, so I don't know who you think is deluding themselves besides you.
Next, why are you even bringing up alcohol? If you want to decriminalize drugs, then make the case. Aim for what you want, and save the attempts at drawing equivalence. Saying "a drug that is easily and readily available does more damamge than drugs that are much more rare and difficult to obtain" isn't much of a point outside of a smoke filled dorm room.
The ad is being discussed positively in non-MS hating circles, and it's not about torturing kittens or any other such nonsense, so none of your points apply.
"And it took Micheal Jackson what, 20 years to become olive white instead of black? "
No, actually it didn't.
" And your attempting to make the case that being denied a job or some other opportunity open to anyone else for 20 years of more is as just as someone who picks up some hair dye and has a different color of hair in the same day."
NO actually, that would be you using a strawman to attack a point I never made. The "20 years" figure came from you and isn't accurate anyway.
"You right, the rest of my post created an arbitrary line."
I know. You'd have been beeter off if that was your whole post.
"Well, it isn't the same thing and if you can't see that, you just an idiot who needs to pull their head out of their ass."
Where did I say it was "the same thing" at all? How many strawmen do you need to make yourself look correct? And is being an asshole and using logical fallacies the sum total of your debate technique?
Your last post seems to make the case that it is. Save your reply I won't read it, you're a dick and we're finished.
"So what does it mean when you hate people of your own race then?"
That your opinion isn't worth listening to and that you're not terribly bright.
I'm serious, by the way. And before you mod me down, I'd feel that way if you hated anyone (with the possible exception of people who are intentionally ignorant).
So I guess that means, in light of the fact that I despise people who remain ignorant by choice, that I in fact despise you. Thanks for the insight.
So much for that point, and frankly, there isn't much to the rest of your points either. You're drawing an arbitrary line where none really exists. The difficulty of the procedure is no measure of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
In the common usage of "Americans", which is vernacular, the most common usage by far is "Americans = People from the USA".
Regardless of this, USisans is not in any way a word. Argue with that until you realize I'm right.
"Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Almost everything applies to persons, not citizens."
And this proves what exactly?
If you'd bothered to venture into the realm of Constitutional law beyond the oh-so-typical-for-slashdotters "I can quote the Constitution so I's a expert" level of debate, you'd come to a point where you realize the laws of one country, cannot be evenly applied to non-citizens.
I don't know why "read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" is any kind of argument, when if you'd actually read and understood them you'd realize there are practical reasons that they often don't apply to non-citizens.
"To conclude: I got the message loud and clear and here's hoping you're having a nice, slightly fascistic police state that makes all of you feel right at home.
Just to be clear: I'm not pissing on Americans here."
Yes you are.
And I edited "USians" because it's stupid.
You seem to think I give a fuck about your opinion, and will waste time listening to you make stupid excuses and equivocations.
"Abuse of word "actually", requires that following sentence is factually accurate."
You failed to demonstrate that it was not accurate.
" What you mean is that science still can't explain it to you."
No, I think he means that it can't be explained beyond what are considered, at best, marginal hypotheses. YOu have yet to demonstrate that he is inaccurate, yet are still assuming so.
"Don't assume that knowledge doesn't exist just because you don't possess it personally."
So where is it? As far as I'm aware, "marginal hypotheses" more accurately reflects the state of thinking on the subject, and you still haven't done anything other that accuse GP of being ignorant. You've berated him plenty, now where is the actual information?
I hope you're seeing my point now, mods. This guy pandered to your biases, provided nothing beyond a thinly veiled attack, and you modded him to +5.
Your point is wrong, Gp os correct, at right now, the state of science does NOT have an explanation about the origin of DNA that rises above a very weak hypotheses. Any researcher who works in the area will tell you that.
Of course, this in no way supports creationism, but you don't get to jump all over the guy when you're demonstrably wrong.
You got played mods. Own it.
We get that you are all about criticising Americans based on your own ignorant biases and stereotypes. We get that.
I just wonder why people think it's funny since you've been making the same basic joke for years.
Torturing kittens wasn't my line and has nothing to do with
the point. Bringing it up is more evidence that you're a moron.
And that thing you and I are doing RIGHT NOW BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES, where I am DISCUSSING THE AD POSITIVELY, that's called a "discussion". and when I di it before? Yeah that was a discussion too.
And it appears that yes, you are exactly that fucking stupid
"Which, if I am correct..."
You're aren't correct.
there aren't any strawmen and your points are all wrong.
If you had actually read the discussion you decided to trample all over, you'd see that the discussion was about whether the definition of "crook" applies to people who use illegal drugs.
This was clear from the beginning and even more clear by the time you posted.
Additionally, the statement was not "possessing drugs" it was specifically
"it may be ILLEGAL to own certain drugs, but that doesn't make drug users CROOKS"
I'd read past the first sentence in the future, that way you won't look stupid like you did this time.
Like I said, ten years of the same.
I do find it ironic that you cry like a baby about strawmen (and you can't find one you fucking liar, I assigned NO arguments of any kind to anyone, so you're either using a word you don't understand or are lying) when that's pretty much your entire argument style.
And I'm not even going to bother pointing out that you attacked me exactly like you have anyone who disagrees with you for ten years.
Thanks for proving you're everything I said you are, I'm going to go back to improving myself, you keep screeching the same tired crap to your echo chamber.
And last, "hall of mirrors" doesn't even make any sense you idiot.
Me.
I am discussing the ad positively and don't hate MS.
Now, could you provide some proof you'rwe not a retard to counter your last post, which seems to prove that you are.
"Any evidence..." seriously, are you really that fucking stupid...
Not so sadly I didn't bother to read anything past your ridiculous attempt to fabricate a definition for the word crook.
Argue with the dictionary dude, it will care more about your verbose spewing far more than I do.
I wasn't trying to do anything other than insult the idiot mod for their moronic moderation.
If you weren't such an idiot yourself you would have realized that.
You don't see it because it proves you wrong.
Of course, I explained it thoroughly, so when you say "I don't see it" what you mean is "fuck I'm wrong, I'll pretend the obvious and irrefutable prrof I'm wrong isn't there"
But it is.
"blah blah blah My guys can do no wrong blah blah blah, anyone who doesn't agree with me is irrevocably evil, as are all republicans ever blah blah blah"
Get a new schtick guy, ten years of the same Hillary-like screeching from you gets tiresome.
I guess it's a good thing you've got this echo chamber, god knows the real world thinks you're a kook.
Cue personal attack because he can't stand anyone disagreeing and will angrily shout down anyone who tries...
Hate to break it to you, but if you check the post I made to OP, you'll see a definition that clearly applies to illegal drug users.
Now, do you really want to argue definitions when everry definition of "crook" would have to be inapplicable to illegal drug users for you to be right, while I only need one (which I've already found) to be right?
Don't argue definitions (especially of slang and vernacular) it just makes you just sound like a tool (and yes, I'm including myself in that right now).
I did look in a dictionary, and it said
"a person who engages in criminal activity for personal gain"
and since "getting high" is inarguably "personal gain", it appears I didn't make an ass of myself.
I bet you wish now that you could say the same.
Next I don't care why you brought up alcohol, it's a dead end argument and you should dump it. You don't sound intelligent when you make it, you sound like every other 12 year old when they realize laws are sometimes hypocritical and contradictory.
The reat of your post isn't worth addressing, but I have to say you look pretty silly making a claim that is refuted by the very post you're replying to.
No. Not more trivial than walking down to the store.
In fact, it would take a particularly ignorant, intentionally disingenuous person to argue that getting pot is anywhere near as easy as getting booze.
Next, the reason people think pot is a gateway drug is the same reason people think running around in the cold causes the flu (I SAID FLU THERE PEDANTS, SO FUCK OFF). they're ignorant and are repeating bullshit they've had drilled into them.
It of course never occurs to you people that it may in fact have nothing to do with the drug and simply be a consequence of well ingrained patterns of behavior that lead to drug taking.
No way!
Last, I don't need to "know where to look" for booze, as they have whole stores devoted to it. I could even ask someone I don't know while I'm passing them on the street.
In short, everything you said is wrong.
That was my bad I was too drunk to realize that...
Gp made the point that if this ad was about "x", it being discussed could be bad.
The problem, as I noted, is that it isn't about "x" and so his points don't apply.
So which one of you basement dwelling MS hating fuckwits decided "sorry but it's not about torturing kittens" is flamebait?
God you people are fucking pathetic in your irrational hatred sometimes...
It really is no surprise that someone with the screename "lysergic acid" takes issue with being a crook because of illegal drug possession, but how the fuck did this get modded up?
YES possessing illegal drugs makes one a crook. Deal with it, because it's reality. I really don't see how an intelligent person could openly wonder how doing the very thing that makes one a crook could cause one to be called a crook.
Now, you can argue over whether you should be a crook, but that's not what was done here.
Second, save the vacuous "alcohol" argument. I'll wager anything you want that in a random survey, the majority of respondents will indeed say alcohol is a drug, so I don't know who you think is deluding themselves besides you.
Next, why are you even bringing up alcohol? If you want to decriminalize drugs, then make the case. Aim for what you want, and save the attempts at drawing equivalence. Saying "a drug that is easily and readily available does more damamge than drugs that are much more rare and difficult to obtain" isn't much of a point outside of a smoke filled dorm room.
The ad is being discussed positively in non-MS hating circles, and it's not about torturing kittens or any other such nonsense, so none of your points apply.
"And it took Micheal Jackson what, 20 years to become olive white instead of black? "
No, actually it didn't.
" And your attempting to make the case that being denied a job or some other opportunity open to anyone else for 20 years of more is as just as someone who picks up some hair dye and has a different color of hair in the same day."
NO actually, that would be you using a strawman to attack a point I never made. The "20 years" figure came from you and isn't accurate anyway.
"You right, the rest of my post created an arbitrary line."
I know. You'd have been beeter off if that was your whole post.
"Well, it isn't the same thing and if you can't see that, you just an idiot who needs to pull their head out of their ass."
Where did I say it was "the same thing" at all? How many strawmen do you need to make yourself look correct? And is being an asshole and using logical fallacies the sum total of your debate technique?
Your last post seems to make the case that it is. Save your reply I won't read it, you're a dick and we're finished.
"So what does it mean when you hate people of your own race then?"
That your opinion isn't worth listening to and that you're not terribly bright.
I'm serious, by the way. And before you mod me down, I'd feel that way if you hated anyone (with the possible exception of people who are intentionally ignorant).
So I guess that means, in light of the fact that I despise people who remain ignorant by choice, that I in fact despise you. Thanks for the insight.
"You can't... dye the color of your skin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_jackson
So much for that point, and frankly, there isn't much to the rest of your points either. You're drawing an arbitrary line where none really exists. The difficulty of the procedure is no measure of anything.