http://i.imgur.com/jVD0EoV.jpg You think that cop supports that man he's protecting? You think he supports his ideology?
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying we should think before we act. There are consequences to every action, and the effects must be the desired ones.
What consequences? No one was harmed and these folk exercised their rights. Whose pocket was picked, whose leg broken? - - - Updated - - - So you think when a cop is at a westboro baptist protest keeping people from rioting, that means he supports westboro baptist?
It looks like the cop supports the KKK. Is that what your point is? Do you think the cop should be arrested for supporting "hate speech" or some such nonsense?
A person can also say that anyone who is a communist is an idiot. But what happens when it starts to stop discussion on the merits of communism? The same thing applies here, what happens when people are too scared to argue against them because they fear of what will happen to them? - - - Updated - - - Perception of the truth matters more then the actual truth. What is the cop doing? Seperating the two crowds or are they actively supporting one side or the other? - - - Updated - - - You seem to mistake my position, they can support the KKK. It just doesn't give off the "serving the community" vibe they're supposed to have.
What a crock...you are just fumbling around trying to not look ignorant. Actual truth always matters more. Sheesh!
1. The communist part is actually referring to one of the effects of McCarthyism. People didn't get into politics because they feared their lives would be ruined because of it. 2. I'm actually arguing against the notion that 2+3=5. I'm taking more of a Descartes approach minus the god argument approach to life.
You should be forced to read your own convoluted posts. Here is where your argument falls apart. You talk about "perception" being everything, but perception is different for everybody. Whose perception controls the law? We can't have a civilized, organized society where the law is based on and enforced with random "perceptions". The law controls "actions". If being armed in public is legal, who are you to declare it wrong because you are offended by their existence or afraid of their scary guns? Change the law or run away. Quit spouting nonsense that you were indoctrinated with in school and expecting us to bow to your "perceptions".
So you're asking how perceptions are "proven". Does 2+2=4? Yes? Then you have proven my point. We test our perceptions against each other because we want to be sure in our knowledge. We use logic and reason to come up with our conclusions. They might be different, but if we can justify our beliefs that holds up to each other, then we can be safe and secure in our knowledge. Hence why laws can change, because the people change their perceptions all the time. - - - Updated - - - I need to start reading whom I'm talking to, you got me there.
2+2=11 in base 3. 10 people can witness an incident and have 10 different perspectives. Who's perspective is right in your world? People have different backgrounds, fears, and preferences. 2 people can both use logic and can come up with different outcomes because they start with different perceptions. 2 people can have the same 130 IQ and one is a conservative and the other is liberal. One can be good and the other can be evil. That is why the law is based on "actions" and not touchy feely nonsense.
It's actually not. How do you know 2+2=4? What if some demon from another world is actually manipulating you to think it's true though in reality it's false? This is why I say you can never know something for sure, because it's all based upon your beliefs. You don't know 2+2=4, you think it does because there has been no real alternative that holds up. Not right or wrong, but acts. How do they act? Morals are subjective to each person, so it's better to think of it in terms of what will the group believes is best. People can come to different arguments about why murder should be outlawed, but at the end of the day, they're arguing that murder is wrong. Society says what is right and wrong and holds each other to uphold this agreement.
Read where I altered my previous post before you posted. The answer to 2+2 isn't always 4. In base 10 2+2 always equals 4. If it didn't the laws of physics wouldn't work. You are convoluting the argument with useless tangents about aliens and nitpicky definitions of irrelevant words. Laws can't work in your world. You just won't admit it.
Instead of talking about perceptions and trying to muddy the water, why don't we just take it for how it was intended. The reason they were there is because if they weren't, many passerbys would have called the police about the people with guns. Their presence stopped that problem. It is for this reason that the police asked the group to notify them in advance of all their public gatherings.
But we're not here to talk about their intentions. We're here to argue what was the effect of their actions. Maybe their presence did have a good effect, but if there was intimidation then there is the problem of rights going too far. - - - Updated - - - And what happens if people doesn't want to use rights because of how intimidated they feel?
That's just rude to me. It also doesn't explain what I said about the evil demon. What if an evil demon is actually manipulating physics so 2+2=4? What if physics is just something a demon came up with because he wanted us to lose our faith in god?
They can't predict nor control others perceptions. So police did what they are supposed to do. Ensure public safety. These ladies would have to be paranoid, delusional, and conspiracy theorists to believe the police were conspiring with the open carry folks to intimidate them. Police have no reason to do this. They were none of the above. They knew they were safe with police there. They just said to the press they were intimidated to discredit the group.
I defined "knowing" just for you..................... if you are un-knowing, then sit down, be quiet, and learn. - - - Updated - - - this guy has gone of the rez...........He just went on ignore.
There's no right that states someone else can not offend you. That's probably the worst argument I've ever heard. Terrifying? A piece of metal/plastic? That's ignorant. It's an inanimate object making it an irrational fear. The document our country was founded upon was meant to be a slap in the face.
What merits of communism? And I do say that. He's separating the two groups. It's a rather famous photo. Google it. Serving the community by stopping a riot. That's their (*)(*)(*)(*)ing job
