Winnabago's messages

You’re perfectly clear, DarkBaron’s just kind of a jerk sometimes. I think he considers it his duty to be that guy who stands at the sidelines and points out how much you suck, no matter if there’s a problem.

Or does it? If you’re so unsure of your own existence wouldn’t that make you irrational and me smarter than you? One case compared to a lifetime of no life? I’ve got to be smatrer than you.

I thought about those, but figured you wouldn’t find them offensive.

Again, I don’t do anything other than support the party that most closely represents my ideals. I don’t care whether these people are smart, I just want them to do what I want.

I thought that, for a while. But people don’t seem to like explaining it. In fact, according to different people, I have vastly different problems. Spaghedeity, for example, thinks I have the reading comprehension of an autistic, legally blind giraffe. He thinks that about anyone he considers dumb, but explaining why would be lowering himself to their level.

Get WHAT? Are you going to explain this to me, or just call me stupid?

Being a raging anything shows emotion, and someone should never be emotional about practical issues.

You don’t seem to understand (what a phucking surprise). PEOPLE DO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU (especially me) ALL THE PHUCKING TIME. You just refuse to hear any of it because it appears as though you have somehow placed yourself in a complete state of naivety, ignorance, and general unwillingness to learn. It’s like you don’t live on this planet.

Actually, you just say “You have this problem” over and over. I’m not really sure how I have this problem, and this problem varies depending on who you ask. It is so obvious that I have this problem, and everyone knows I have this problem. You shouldn’t have to explain how I have this problem, because I have this problem.

You most certainly can. And in that situation, assuming this is a small child, would violate child labor laws along with minimum wage laws. At the same time, you can’t have sex with people under a certain age because their lack of rights make them not responsible for their own actions, and thus unable to make such decisions for themselves without it being technically rape.

Women just walking around at night, for example. Alone. It doesn’t matter how implausible it is: it could still happen, and such an instinct is a very primal thing. If a rapist was encouraged by his friends, and the friends may be prosecuted, then then it follows that the rapist cannot be prosecuted, as his friends words somehow forced him to do something illegal (Similar to the tramplers). In the trampler situation, the trampler performed the action but is not at fault. In this situation, the rapist is still at fault.

Every private company has the same goals, but the public has different goals for what is normally public property. Privatizing it hinders those goals.

“If you say something when a person is offended, when the person tells you he is, and when you don’t even seem to try to tell the person it wasn’t meant like that but only go on even harder, then yes, it’s your only goal.”
Debatable.

Why should someone be prosecuted for being rude?

This person is offended whenever someone says “the”. If you say “the” after his warning, you get to be prosecuted, correct?

South Park is the first show in history to depict a child projectile defecating on his mother (Source: World of Warcraft episode). They have also made a musical, with one of the songs being called “Shut your f***ing face, uncle f***er”. This is probably offensive to someone. The fact that they have done stuff like this more than once clearly means they should be prosecuted, correct?

Because regardless of whether it’s hate speech, he hasn’t hurt anyone. You just won’t see any Jews giving him money in the 2012 election. Why does it deserve to be banned?

That doesn’t change how your law will either have an incredible amount of trouble (and government money) convicting someone, or easily have an unjust conviction. It’s so utterly subjective.

That’s just because of laws already in place. That’s not justifying the laws. Again, I agree with such laws, due to emotional reasons. Children have less rights .. for what? I’d say only emotional reasons too. (For anyone else reading this shout, please note I’m playing devil’s advocate, in no way do I condone child pornography, as I find it an emotionally terrible thing.)

You’d still have to be out, you’d still have to be alone with the woman, and you’d still have to make a lot of decisions for this rape to occur. That’s far more difficult than trying to run away the moment you think your life is in danger. If your friends ENTIRELY forced you, then yes, only they can be prosecuted, but there is also a possible group effort involved. Something which needs to be investigated, and judged. If it is found that the shouting person was working in cooperation with the tramplers, all should be prosecuted. It is not group effort if they did not work together. Again, not black and white here.

You’re assuming this is the only originally public firm which was privatised. If you have a problem with all public firms moving to private firms, it is still a more global issue than you think it is. So, the reason I’m not arguing on this point is because I don’t think it belongs to this issue alone. You’d have to argue on a more global level, which would require a new topic. It would be the same as, say, you would argue there should be no laws at all (so you would be against my suggestion, but not on a limited scale, it wouldn’t be a valid argument).

How is that debatable? If I say “I like the colour red” and someone goes on in a rage, I certainly think he’s an idiot, but I would first try to tell him I did not mean to offend (but it’s still something I think is silly to feel bad about). However, if it truly offends him, I would not talk to him any more. To continue on talking to such a person is just bullying. It doesn’t restrict my rights not to talk to him, as I obviously wouldn’t want to. If, however, he’s offended by me being in broad daylight, it would restrict my rights more than it would restict his if he’s not allowed to be offended. Then again, this is a side discussion, I do not intend to ban offensiveness on a limited scale. Or being rude.

I’ve made it clear. If they offend everyone on a limited scale only once in a while, there is no prolonged harassment taking place. One episode against religious people, another against WoW players, a third against Canadians and a fourth against blacks. I’ve stated it above, I do not intend to ban offensiveness. It only becomes a problem when it is prolonged to a single group or person.

Are you kidding me? You’re saying if a nation stands for the discrimination of an individual, a group, or a race, that should be perfectly fine? I’m thinking it’s a bad thing when religious people constantly protest against homosexuals, but it is outright absurd to allow an entire nation to hate on a group of people (such as the Jews) with the president talking them into it. No, honestly, are you serious here? And you’re still pretending “hurt” just means physical.

No, it is in your eyes because you still do not seem to understand what I’m saying here. I’m not trying to ban you from saying poopoohead. I’m trying to ban you from prolonged harassment at a group or individual. That is easy to research, easy to find, easy to convict and, frankly, easy as a case of a mass murderer (I do not know the expenses of a lawyer, but I’ll expect them both to have the same costs, no exceptions).

The reason minimum wage laws exist is for the sake of worker’s rights. The same way, the reason you can’t work under a certain age is to increase the value of labor for adults, and so that children can be educated so that they can have actual job opportunities. Again, in the attempt to prevent slavery, which is pretty easy with a human you’ve raised from birth.

Why is it 100% impossible, and something that will never happen ever in the history of the world, for someone to just run up and rape someone else? If this happened, however unlikely, shouldn’t the rapist not be prosecuted, under your logic? Just as a rapist is not entirely forced by his friends, a trampler is not entirely forced by a shouter. If the shouter did not intend to cause harm, would you still want him prosecuted?

No, I am not. I am saying that it is one of the public firms that should not be privatized. Some firms should stay public, some should stay private. It’s very easy.

Please cite how you know that talking to someone offended by you talking after a warning MUST, 100% of the time, mean you are trying to hurt them. I’d say it most definitely restricts your rights to just deal with it, because people should be able to say what they like. It’s why I want to be able to depict Muhammad. Not because I want to hurt Muslims, but because I feel I should be able to depict a historical figure. It’s simply ridiculous for you to say I would be prosecuted for doing so. I shouldn’t have to subject myself to the belief systems of others. If you don’t want to ban offensiveness, then what the hell are you trying to ban? You’re being incredibly vague. Is it intention to harm now, or something else?

Fundies are stupid fundies are wrong fundies need to stop being fundies fundies need to keep god out of our schools fundies are stupid fundies are wrong. I go to prison now?

Of course not. If you want to ban blacks from working at Incredicorp, that’s another thing entirely from saying “You know, black people are kind of annoying” even after Jesse Jackson gets mad at you. That might make you a racist jerk, but that’s all. For example, if a nation wants to make Jewish jokes (which I find funny), that’s different from sending them to death camps.

And any jury could decide that if you say “negro” one too many times, off to prison you go. You’re simply being ridiculous to ban people from being offensive, which, like it or not, is exactly what you are doing under a new title. How do you expect to harass an entire ethnic group, anyway? That’s not even goddamn possible, unless you got every Jew in the same room, and then yelled at them.

This is good advice. I tend to flag most of Spag’s and DB’s posts when they get needlessly insulting, and their posts usually get hidden as a result. They can complain about mod bias all they want, but when you act like a SOB 24/7, you should expect it to come back to bite you.

But why do that? If everyone were like you, we’d be nowhere – we’d all believe whatever we wanted to. Why not attempt to disprove or show at least contradictions/errors in believing in a creator? I always start off asking about conflicting religions and which one is right as it brings out the bias in the person in that their religion is always right and I work from there.

I see nothing wrong with attempting to disprove a creator. I see nothing inherently wrong with disbelieving God, as long as the conclusion is logical or based on evidence. There’s certainly nothing wrong with conflicting with organized religion.

But there is something wrong with making assumptions you can’t be sure of.

Nah. If we discover God exists, then he presumably existed before we discovered him. The same way, species exist before we discover them.

We simply shouldn’t assume a species exists and has existed until we know it’s around.

I try not to classify myself. While I am somewhat Democrat, I like Ron Paul for his individualistic and anti-war views.

Generally, I am in favor of individual rights when possible, but I feel not restricting the rights of corporations can easily lead to restriction of the rights of workers. So I go for a balance in that respect, but not in most others.

Thanks for your support :3

Thanks. It’s mostly because people like Jantonaitis, Aiorarex, Spagedeity, VikaTae, and DarkBaron all seemed to have left a thread with me in the past. They then tended to show up at random times and yell at me. Luckily, almost all of them have stopped, but for a while, they just would make up a unique insult (they each had their own) and use it even when it did not apply. Thanks for your support.

1. People who have not committed crimes don’t seem to actually IMPROVISE WEAPONS from random objects just so they can hurt each other. If I was denying a certain group a certain tool “just because I felt like it”, that would be accurate. But I’m not. Anyway, I thought you did mind if anything occurred that caused one group to have more rights and/or abilities than another.
2. There actually isn’t always voluntary euthanasia, unless you’re 18. And what’s the point of having someone exist, be sad, and kill themselves for the sake of flimsy moral principle?
3. Offended? No. Amused and slightly irritated? Yes. If you meant it as a comparison, then that’s not what you actually said. And then you somehow decided to bring up dictators. No idea why.
4. It wasn’t a comparison, but feel free to imagine it was. Anyway, what you were doing, as I explained, matched the Reductio Ad Hitlerum page exactly. I’ll go in more detail again if you like.
5. I do believe I already have gone over this with you. You have said that people are obligated not to inflict damage upon other persons. Now, if a genetically disabled person has a baby, that baby is damaged, because otherwise, it would not exist, and obviously a couple never having a baby is not damaging to the baby. So no baby=no damage, and baby=damage. Of course, baby does not necessarily equal damage, because there is never a 100% chance of a disabled child. If a couple engaged in this hypothetical crime and a child turned out to be healthy, they would not be prosecuted. If it WAS genetically disabled, they would be prosecuted. That essentially solves the issue.

First, the slippery slope is a fallacy that you have used three times. All three times made you look silly. Second, I’ve already shown you have arbitrary lines everywhere in your life, like in the arbitrary line at which you would decide not to jump out of the way of a meteor.

1. Yes, if I felt the reasoning is inappropriate. Again, you see it all over the place. I have inherently more rights when I have a job over someone who doesn’t. A person of old age has more rights than someone younger. These are all reasonable. What I don’t think is reasonable is denying someone the ability to have children, even if you talk about disabled people. I think it’s reasonable to deny criminals weapons in prison, but you could argue that those who haven’t abused weapons yet are not likely to suddenly do so in the future.
2. I believe parents can decide that for their children (again, you probably need a lot of legal papers for this). Also, you’re at fault by assuming people know beforehand if someone is going to be sad. Not sure why you like to call that “flimsy”. I call it suggestive at best calling the future children of disabled people “sad”.
3. Yes, my point is that you keep hammering on what I said before and don’t actually care about me explaining what I meant. That point is over with now.
4. What? You’re not the one who knows best what I meant. Again, I explained you afterwards what it was. Don’t keep bashing on the past when I’ve already corrected it. It was meant as a comparison.
5. No, it doesn’t solve anything and just promotes arbitrary prosecution. “Hey, look, that kid has glasses! KILL THEIR PARENTS!” Oh, and then you say “well, glasses are fine”. How about thick glasses? How about not fully being able to speak? How about being blind? How about missing a finger? You see where this arbitrary line is going? You’re going to randomly prosecute people based on a certain arbitrary line of disability. Even worse, you’re admitting that even though a disabled couple above the treshold of a high chance of delivering disabled children that for some holy reason did not have them will not get prosecuted, even though they were dangerously certain of that. Your last paragraph is silly (see what I did there?). That things exist in real life does not mean I agree with them. That things exist in real life does not mean we should just add more. I should hope that is obvious. Plus, a “fallacy” is not a fallacy when it is used correctly, or when you just think it is a fallacy.

1. “If you feel the reasoning is inappropriate”? Your feelings aren’t really what we should focus on. Okay, so all these things are reasonable, but you think disallowing people from having children, inherently is not. This would be important information, if you hadn’t yet expressed your position on the subject, but you definitely have. Also, prisoners can and do suddenly attack each other, almost by nature of being locked in a box with people who tend not to be nice.
2. I don’t see how parents being able to have their children die is somehow okay, but them idiotically having children in the first place is wrong. I call it flimsy moral standard because it appears to be your moral standard that everyone have the same abilities, except that you tend not to think this. Are the futures of disabled children necessarily sad? No. Are the lives of the ones who kill themselves probably sad? Yes. Are people with disabilities more likely to live sad lives? Yes. This is exactly as bad as cutting the arms off a fetus before it was born, and it surviving. Should you be prosecuted if you do that? I think so.
4. “One is that by disallowing any person from having children, you’re itching towards a nazi regime intent to only keep the “pure blood” alive.”
“If you disagree that your way of handling who’s allowed to breed in society and who isn’t itches towards a dictatorship (lolololol), or something along those lines, then argue against it.”
^Neither one of these use “like” or “as” at any time. They do use the slippery slope fallacy, however.

5. As I said, there’s an arbitrary line. And as we have discussed, you have arbitrary lines in your life as well. And really? The death penalty? Of course not. Would the arbitrary line be, as you appear to think it must, in a random spot? Also, of course not.
“Even worse, you’re admitting that even though a disabled couple above the treshold of a high chance of delivering disabled children that for some holy reason did not have them will not get prosecuted, even though they were dangerously certain of that.”
Um…disabled couples not having children is kind of the GOAL. Why would I prosecute people for that?

So what WOULD you do, if there was a 10% chance of a meteor hitting you, and a standard chance if you jumped out of the way? Please explain how you are the first person to get the slippery slope fallacy correct, especially when you did it with nazis, dictatorships, and the assumption that an unreasonable percentage would be used.

However, here’s a reasonable place to put our arbitrary line: when people can live normal standard lives with whatever technology they are given. For example, if you put some kind of special contact lens on a blind person that made it possible for them to see, then they would be off the list. If you could give a guy with no hands fully moving, realistic prosthetic, hands, he would be off the list. If you couldn’t give a guy with most of his skull missing bone-growth therapy or something, he stays on the list.