I don't expect you to be perfect, but I don't think it's far-fetched for a certain consistency in ones stated beliefs to be expected. I was only trying to understand how you could use one argument to try and support one position while using what appears to be the opposite argument to support another position. You'd clarified what you'd meant nicely and I thank you for it. Probably should have thanked you in the first post, but it slipped my mind.
It's pretty obvious you are a pro-big government person, from your previous comments.
If you want to be taken seriously, you really need to stop lying. Or at least provide some sort of proof to back up your assertions, something more substantial than "I said so".
I'd love to know what comments I've said in the past that make you think I'm "pro-big government" so that I can either a) more clearly express myself in the future, or b) better understand myself.
So do you also think police coverage should be optional as well?
Not the same thing. [...] police protect my person which is obviously far more valuable
Did you ever stop to think that maybe I WANT to die, and not buying insurance is a way to make that happen?
Do you see it now? Unless you'd like to argue "protect your person" does not include keeping you from being killed.
In the case of police I don't see how "opt out" would be workable, anymore than I can decide I'd rather have "Pennsylvania Power & Light" instead of BGE.
I wasn't really trying to argue for an opt-in situation for police protection. I was only trying to understand how you could use one argument to try and support one position while using what appears to be the opposite argument to support another position. Had you used the above argument originally, I'd prolly not have given it a second glance. But since we're here now, what the hell, I'll give it a whirl.
Would they stop chasing a thief when he drove past my house? And then resume the chase once the guy was in front of my neighbors' home?
Obviously they wouldn't stop the chase. The suspect is being chased because of something the police suspect was performed elsewhere. Your house has nothing to do with the chase except as a background piece.
Furthermore how would they know my home did not pay the "police tax".
The same way the firefighters know if you've opted-in?
whereas you seem to believe in maximum chains and almost no individual freedom
Ok, now you're just making shit up. All I'm doing is asking questions, I've not stated any opinion regarding any of this.
(Please note that I am not trying to defend/dismiss C64's point about this being racial profiling, I just find it not quite accurate to say C64 is themself doing racial profiling)
Did you ever stop to think that maybe I WANT to die, and not buying insurance is a way to make that happen? Can't commit suicide (illegal)... so instead you just get sick and die.
And just to head it off, I know you are talking about a hypothetical "I", I'm just trying to understand why you think the hypothetical person who wants to die by not buying health insurance should not also be allowed to opt-out of paying for police coverage.
So by your definition and her experience the US is suppressing its women.
I have no idea what a normal Brasilian bathing suit looks like, but men are allowed to go topless more places than women are. That can most definitely be called suppression.
Also, the fee had been previously waived in other cases in the same area.
Citation please. The article is rather lite on specific details (Had he previously paid the fee? For how many years?) and something like what you're claiming could definitely help illuminate the situation better.
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. I never clammed I dont make spellinf mistakes.
Looked to me like melikamp was simply using it as an example of another claim that on the face of it looks to be absurd. No where that I can see are they accusing you of making that specific claim.
Same reason why when I bought Walmart "O's" instead of Cheerios, I immediately knew it was a mistake when I ate the first bite. Better ingredients == higher cost but also better taste.
I can scan and pay much faster when doing everything myself.
Unless for every item you scan, the voice messages just keep queuing up.
"One apple, 49 cents."
"Yes yes, I scanned that apple 5 items ago."
"One orange, 50 cents."
"That's great, can you just get to the total already?"
"One banana, 33 cents."
"Stop speaking and just let me pay!"
Yes actually. In order to install Win7 I needed a floppy so that the install could find the drivers it needed for my faux-RAID. There may have been other options had I not had a floppy drive, but since a floppy was already installed that was definitely the easiest.
If my mother aborted me, I wouldn't be around to care. So I can safely say that I have no opinion on the matter and you are likely simply a creationist trying to thinly disguise themself as an atheist in order to make your anti-abortion argument appear more valid than it is.
A MD state trooper once rode my ass for 7 miles in the so-called "passing lane". I was doing 60 in a 55 (normally I do much faster, but was going that slow precisely because of the trooper), and aside from following me right up until I turned into the parking lot outside my work, the trooper did nothing.
If I had actually broken a law, surely the trooper would have pulled me over? Even if he was waiting to try and get me for speeding, once he realized I wasn't going to go any faster why wouldn't he have gotten me for the law you claim I was breaking?
Or you could defend your position with a citation, instead of making claims and then ignoring citations to the contrary. I want to believe you, but it's not looking good.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty obvious you are a pro-big government person, from your previous comments.
If you want to be taken seriously, you really need to stop lying. Or at least provide some sort of proof to back up your assertions, something more substantial than "I said so".
I'd love to know what comments I've said in the past that make you think I'm "pro-big government" so that I can either a) more clearly express myself in the future, or b) better understand myself.
I don't see any contradiction there.
Then allow me to point it out to you.
So do you also think police coverage should be optional as well?
Not the same thing. [...] police protect my person which is obviously far more valuable
Did you ever stop to think that maybe I WANT to die, and not buying insurance is a way to make that happen?
Do you see it now? Unless you'd like to argue "protect your person" does not include keeping you from being killed.
In the case of police I don't see how "opt out" would be workable, anymore than I can decide I'd rather have "Pennsylvania Power & Light" instead of BGE.
I wasn't really trying to argue for an opt-in situation for police protection. I was only trying to understand how you could use one argument to try and support one position while using what appears to be the opposite argument to support another position. Had you used the above argument originally, I'd prolly not have given it a second glance. But since we're here now, what the hell, I'll give it a whirl.
Would they stop chasing a thief when he drove past my house? And then resume the chase once the guy was in front of my neighbors' home?
Obviously they wouldn't stop the chase. The suspect is being chased because of something the police suspect was performed elsewhere. Your house has nothing to do with the chase except as a background piece.
Furthermore how would they know my home did not pay the "police tax".
The same way the firefighters know if you've opted-in?
whereas you seem to believe in maximum chains and almost no individual freedom
Ok, now you're just making shit up. All I'm doing is asking questions, I've not stated any opinion regarding any of this.
And yet they shouldn't be allowed to opt-out of paying for police.
Still wondering how that's any different from your argument about why someone should be allowed to opt-out of health care.
I didn't realize "US Government" was a race now.
(Please note that I am not trying to defend/dismiss C64's point about this being racial profiling, I just find it not quite accurate to say C64 is themself doing racial profiling)
Did you ever stop to think that maybe I WANT to die, and not buying insurance is a way to make that happen? Can't commit suicide (illegal)... so instead you just get sick and die.
And just to head it off, I know you are talking about a hypothetical "I", I'm just trying to understand why you think the hypothetical person who wants to die by not buying health insurance should not also be allowed to opt-out of paying for police coverage.
Something tells me houghi meant freedom fighters / terrorists, who probably aren't going to care what the government they are fighting has outlawed.
So you're saying you have proof that God exists or does not exist? Please, share it with the rest of us.
I suspect, however, that you have no proof, and I would appreciate it if you would kindly stop trying to deny me my constitutional rights.
That post has a single reply, and it is by MichaelKristopeit 20. MichaelKristopeit 20 != Captain Splendid.
Now here's the post where Captain Splendid accused someone of being unable to follow a thread. If you click the "Parent" button, you get *gasp* MichaelKristopeit 20's post!
Now if you're trying to make the claim that the one is a sockpuppet of the other, you didn't do a very good job of it.
So by your definition and her experience the US is suppressing its women.
I have no idea what a normal Brasilian bathing suit looks like, but men are allowed to go topless more places than women are. That can most definitely be called suppression.
Also, the fee had been previously waived in other cases in the same area.
Citation please. The article is rather lite on specific details (Had he previously paid the fee? For how many years?) and something like what you're claiming could definitely help illuminate the situation better.
My state doesn't have a county government
Also just wanted to add, what?
If I were to sue you for not protecting my home, and I wasn't paying you, I'd get laughed out of court. Why should this be any different?
Just the same as my car is not insured
I thought that was illegal in Maryland?
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. I never clammed I dont make spellinf mistakes.
Looked to me like melikamp was simply using it as an example of another claim that on the face of it looks to be absurd. No where that I can see are they accusing you of making that specific claim.
Same reason why when I bought Walmart "O's" instead of Cheerios, I immediately knew it was a mistake when I ate the first bite. Better ingredients == higher cost but also better taste.
So does that mean you buy Cheerios?
Wow, nice to see you've changed your mind on that.
Ever notice how, as a passenger, you're always a lot more worried about driving than you are as the driver?
At least for me, it depends on the driver. Curiously, my experienced father makes me nervous, while my inexperienced younger brothers do not.
I can scan and pay much faster when doing everything myself.
Unless for every item you scan, the voice messages just keep queuing up.
"One apple, 49 cents."
"Yes yes, I scanned that apple 5 items ago."
"One orange, 50 cents."
"That's great, can you just get to the total already?"
"One banana, 33 cents."
"Stop speaking and just let me pay!"
Yes actually. In order to install Win7 I needed a floppy so that the install could find the drivers it needed for my faux-RAID. There may have been other options had I not had a floppy drive, but since a floppy was already installed that was definitely the easiest.
If my mother aborted me, I wouldn't be around to care. So I can safely say that I have no opinion on the matter and you are likely simply a creationist trying to thinly disguise themself as an atheist in order to make your anti-abortion argument appear more valid than it is.
Yeah, but it balances out against the act of sending it upstairs, or something.
They had their reasons.
and in violation of state law
A MD state trooper once rode my ass for 7 miles in the so-called "passing lane". I was doing 60 in a 55 (normally I do much faster, but was going that slow precisely because of the trooper), and aside from following me right up until I turned into the parking lot outside my work, the trooper did nothing.
If I had actually broken a law, surely the trooper would have pulled me over? Even if he was waiting to try and get me for speeding, once he realized I wasn't going to go any faster why wouldn't he have gotten me for the law you claim I was breaking?
Twist it? Laziness? What are you talking about?
1) You make claim.
2) Someone asks for citation.
3) You say look it up.
4) I say I did, provide link to what I found, and ask again for citation.
No twisting required, no laziness present (except from yourself).
Or you could defend your position with a citation, instead of making claims and then ignoring citations to the contrary. I want to believe you, but it's not looking good.
I wouldn't expect one. I tried asking for one not too long ago, providing my own reference against C64's claim, and C64 ignored me.