Is this truly necessary?

[PALO]

I WAS,,, glad your were here... Now not so much..
When I saw this post I KNEW your time here would be very short,
just like other statist LEO that have come before,
your training and proffessional bias would overwelm
whatevber good sense you at first tried to comport!
FAIL;;; facepalm...



+111111111111111111

ad homs. how typical


*i* am a statist?

let me let you know what my positions are. if i am a statist, then so is ron paul

i am FOR legalization of drugs, and thus agaisnt the war on drugs
i am for legalization of prostitution
i am against many aspects of the war on domestic violence (since they infringe on rights to free association and due process
i am against the (what i see as) vast overuse of tasers
i am against the rampant overmilitarization of police forces
i am against the gross overusage of SWAT
i support open and concealed carry for all , apart from those with violent felony convictions etc. - NATIONWIDE
i am against the now legal executiton of US citizens based on obama's determination they are a terrorist
i oppose many aspects of the patriot act
i strongly support vigorous self defense rights for all (WA law is pretty good on this)
i support food rights- right to consume and sell raw milk
i am against deep pocket laws and for tort reform
i oppose criminalization of poker (WA makes it a C felony online)
i am against laws that tell private businesses they can't allow smoking
i am for vouchers
i am against federal oversight of lots of stuff the feds think they can due to gross expansion of commerce clause interpretation
i am for state autonomy, vis a vis medical MJ, etc.
unlike all too many conservatives and liberals, i support the ENTIRE bill of rights - not selectively, like most libs and conservatives do
i am against "bullying laws" and other overbroad first amendment violating laws (see also WA state's cyberstalking law)
i am for assisted suicide etc.
i am for the right of people to sell organs
i think the drinking age shouild be lowered to 18

etc.
and you call me a statist?

that is HILARIOUS

if you disagree with somebody , then make an argument. name calling is childish. see, i can be childish too. although, i didn't call YOU childish, i called your ACTIONS childish

hth

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

ad homs. how typical


*i* am a statist?

let me let you know what my positions are. if i am a statist, then so is ron paul

i am FOR legalization of drugs, and thus agaisnt the war on drugs
i am for legalization of prostitution
i am against many aspects of the war on domestic violence (since they infringe on rights to free association and due process
i am against the (what i see as) vast overuse of tasers
i am against the rampant overmilitarization of police forces
i am against the gross overusage of SWAT
i support open and concealed carry for all , apart from those with violent felony convictions etc. - NATIONWIDE
i am against the now legal executiton of US citizens based on obama's determination they are a terrorist
i oppose many aspects of the patriot act
i strongly support vigorous self defense rights for all (WA law is pretty good on this)
i support food rights- right to consume and sell raw milk
i am against deep pocket laws and for tort reform
i oppose criminalization of poker (WA makes it a C felony online)
i am against laws that tell private businesses they can't allow smoking
i am for vouchers
i am against federal oversight of lots of stuff the feds think they can due to gross expansion of commerce clause interpretation
i am for state autonomy, vis a vis medical MJ, etc.
unlike all too many conservatives and liberals, i support the ENTIRE bill of rights - not selectively, like most libs and conservatives do
i am against "bullying laws" and other overbroad first amendment violating laws (see also WA state's cyberstalking law)
i am for assisted suicide etc.
i am for the right of people to sell organs
i think the drinking age shouild be lowered to 18

etc.
and you call me a statist?

that is HILARIOUS

if you disagree with somebody , then make an argument. name calling is childish. see, i can be childish too. although, i didn't call YOU childish, i called your ACTIONS childish

hth

I generaly lump all the bold above, into one stinky pot of abuses of our rights and liberties.

When you say that snipers at stadiums is OK in your mind, it is an opinion...
When you say it over and over, in different ways, in multible posts.
When you use every kind of arguement under the sun to back up that opinion.
When you encourage the Exchange of Liberty, For some tempory percieved Safety.

YOU get to be a STATIST

 

[PALO]

I generaly lump all the bold above, into one stinky pot of abuses of our rights and liberties.

When you say that snipers at stadiums is OK in your mind, it is an opinion...
When you say it over and over, in different ways, in multible posts.
When you use every kind of arguement under the sun to back up that opinion.
When you encourage the Exchange of Liberty, For some tempory percieved Safety.

YOU get to be a STATIST

except despite your ridiculous claim, having snipers at the superbowl involves NO exchange of liberty

again, you are EXACTLY like an anti-gunner

an anti-gunner often says that it makes him feel unsafe when he sees people OCing, therefore it infringes on his liberty

it's lulz, but that's their logic

imagine two diferent scenarios


200 cops at the superbowl.. none are snipers
200 cops at the superbowl. 4 are snipers

please explain to me how the second scenario in any way, results in an exchange of liberty from the former

here's a hint. it doesn't.

note also, as best i understand it, this event is being put on by the NFL.

iow, it is a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION HIRING COPS AS security (like is done here in seattle at mariners and seahawks games)

or a movie theater hiring security (private or off duty cops)

this isn't a PUBLIC FORUM. it's a private sporting event.

thus, among other reasons why your argument doesn't hold water, you aren't recognizing that attendance at a private sporting event necesasrily means complying with rules and dealing with stuff that would infringe on yuor rights IF it was a public thing

iow, they can impose dress code restrictions, behavior restrictions, and all sorts of stuff on you within the confines of the superbowl that are not rights restrictions, since it is not the govt. being the actor, it is a PRIVATE COMPANY

if a movie theater said you can only attend a showing if you wore a t-shirt expressing support for handgun bans, that wouldn't infringe on your rights

if the govt said you must wear such a shirt if you want to walk down the sidewalk, it would

so, despite the fact that even if the superbowl was NOT a private event, the sniper issue is still not liberty restricting, it's also largely irrelevant since this is a private event anyway.

( i am hedging here on THIS, because for all i know the superbowl is being held at one of those QUASI public venues, supported by taxes etc. not sure about that)

that's kind of a minor tangent, though

i really WANT TO KNOW

what liberty interest does a sniper infringe upon that the same event without snipers would not infringe upon?

it's simply staggering how deeply you will devolve into nonsense and 'yea buts' out of fear of just admitting you are being ridiculous

it is nice for the lulz though

 

[marshaul]

what liberty interest does a sniper infringe upon that the same event without snipers would not infringe upon?

As someone pointed out earlier:

In a vacuum? None.

But nothing exists in a vacuum. And this is, whether you care to admit it or not, part and parcel of a trend which has many concerned -- and not for emotional reasons, but out of recognition that the militarization of police and all that entails has already led to statistically significant wrongs.

Is the Super Bowl private? Yes. Does that mean that its owners have the right to employ security, and to leave its attendees with a choice of either not going or having a sniper around? Yes, it sure does.

Does that mean it's a good idea? Does that mean its necessary? Does that mean that it is worthwhile in consideration of a cost/benefit analysis rendered not in a vacuum?

Obviously, many of us say no. Many of us have provided logical, non-falacious reasoning.

In contrast, your method is to reiterate that "you think" it's a good idea, and to declare "lulz" on all who disagree. Because that's not an emotional response, or anything.

 

[Gil223]

unlike all too many conservatives and liberals, i support the ENTIRE bill of rights - not selectively, like most libs and conservatives do

You must have a much wider circle of friends and acquaintances than I. I cannot claim to know most libs or most conservatives, much less most of both! As for your opinions, you're as entitled to them, as are those who disagree with you. Statistics don't impress me, because everybody has their own agenda... and it's generally to prove or disprove a claim. What the statistics tell you is which side of the fence the one who paid for the statistical study is on. Quotes are sometimes fun, but rarely convincing. Besides, ascribing to, and relying upon the thoughts of others who are well-known, is much simpler and safer than thinking for oneself. But, that's just my opinion. Pax...

 

[PALO]

As someone pointed out earlier:

In a vacuum? None.

But nothing exists in a vacuum. And this is, whether you care to admit it or not, part and parcel of a trend which has many concerned -- and not for emotional reasons, but out of recognition that the militarization of police and all that entails has already led to statistically significant wrongs.

Is the Super Bowl private? Yes. Does that mean that its owners have the right to employ security, and to leave its attendees with a choice of either not going or having a sniper around? Yes, it sure does.

Does that mean it's a good idea? Does that mean its necessary? Does that mean that it is worthwhile in consideration of a cost/benefit analysis rendered not in a vacuum?

Obviously, many of us say no. Many of us have provided logical, non-falacious reasoning.

In contrast, your method is to reiterate that "you think" it's a good idea, and to declare "lulz" on all who disagree. Because that's not an emotional response, or anything.

iow, you lied

there is no ceding of liberty interests in this case. thanks for admitting (without doing so) that you lied

 

[marshaul]

iow, you lied

there is no ceding of liberty interests in this case. thanks for admitting (without doing so) that you lied

Do you think you're convincing anybody? Or winning objectively?

Because you aren't.

Cherry-picking what you think makes you look smart and ignoring everything else isn't a winning strategy.

Incidentally, this last post represents a devolution to abject trolling. Don't expect to get a rise out of me.

 

[Gil223]

Cherry-picking what you think makes you look smart and ignoring everything else isn't a winning strategy.

Incidentally, this last post represents a devolution to abject trolling. Don't expect to get a rise out of me.

Hey! That strategy works for politicians and lawyers, why not for normal people?

Could it be that the "everything else" which was ignored may be a sign that:
a. Palo has no problem with the issues put forth in "everything else", or

b. Palo felt that the "everything else" was so insubstantial that it elicited no response from him, or

c. None of the above

Regardless, I am grateful that somebody finally took an opportunity to put an end to the "My opinions are better than your opinions" battle. The only common ground here seems to be in :idea: agreeing to disagree - (if you can even agree upon that). Pax...

P.S. I tried abject trolling once when I was living in Mississippi, but at the end of the day I had only caught 3 apologia, and a sunfish.

 

[PALO]

Hey! That strategy works for politicians and lawyers, why not for normal people?

Could it be that the "everything else" which was ignored may be a sign that:
a. Palo has no problem with the issues put forth in "everything else", or

b. Palo felt that the "everything else" was so insubstantial that it elicited no response from him, or

c. None of the above

Regardless, I am grateful that somebody finally took an opportunity to put an end to the "My opinions are better than your opinions" battle. The only common ground here seems to be in :idea: agreeing to disagree - (if you can even agree upon that). Pax...

except that's not the pointof contention

clearly, good people of conscience can and will disagree on the propriety (note: i repeatedly disavow they are NECESSARY) of snipers at the superbowl

the previous poster i called out on his lie, which he retracted without admitting it, that having snipers at the SB vs. not having them means that rights are being diminished in the former case

that is simply false, he (sideways) admitted it was, but didn't have the intellectual honesty to outright admit it, because this is the internet, where such a sophist could never admit error

again, i completely accept that there are good arguments on both sides of the issue vis a vis the propriety of snipers

but the fallacious claim that if there are snipers are the superbowl, that rights are being diminished .... i called that out and he skulked away, cowardly, but at least wasn't silly enough to press the issue

 

[Gil223]

Again, i completely accept that there are good arguments on both sides of the issue vis a vis the propriety of snipers

but the fallacious claim that if there are snipers are the superbowl, that rights are being diminished .... i called that out and he skulked away, cowardly, but at least wasn't silly enough to press the issue

Fortunately, there is nothing in the Constitution which restricts an individual's right to be stupid. If there were such a restriction, we would need to quadruple our confinement facilities. Is it prudent to have additional security at events which draw tens of thousands of spectators? Sure it is. As the size of the crowd increases, the number of hotheads, criminals and loonies per capita will also increase. Is there a "need" for any of them to be armed? Based upon our anecdotal experiences, no... at least not up to this point in time. On the other hand, most everybody here agrees than an armed presence can deter criminal actions. Perhaps that is the reason there has been no "need" for all their security teams to be armed - many of them are armed. A firearm is a firearm - handgun or long gun - in a practical sense it makes no difference. Basically they all do the same thing - propel a metallic projectile at a high rate of speed over a given distance, and poke holes in that which may be in alignment with their particular trajectory. If it goes UNUSED (as has been the case thusfar), how does the mere presence of a manned "sniper rifle" (which [I suppose technically] could be any rifle aimed by a qualified sniper) infringe upon any LAC's rights? Especially if the presence of that "sniper" is unknown to the vast majority of the spectators?

I doubt that they made an announcement - "How about a nice round of applause for our Super Bowl Sniper, Sgt. Dan Jones, of the Indianapolis PD!" Or, perhaps, "Okay folks, it's HALF-TIME!! (applause and cheers) Today our special guest artist is Indianaoplis PD SWAT Sergeant, and trained sniper, Dan Jones, who will shoot an apple off the heads of each of the Giants cheerleaders!" (gasps and groans). I see it like any other kind of insurance - if it ain't there when you need it, it's too late to sign up for some. But that's just my opinion. Pax...

 

[Jack House]

I WAS,,, glad your were here... Now not so much..
When I saw this post I KNEW your time here would be very short,
just like other statist LEO that have come before,
your training and proffessional bias would overwelm
whatevber good sense you at first tried to comport!
FAIL;;; facepalm...

You don't seem to be very floor at picking them.


Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,,

You don't seem to be very floor at picking them.


Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk

you are soo right,,,,
I am not very floor about picking them,,,,
how would i know about being very floor when i pick them?

What is very FLOOR???

 

[marshaul]

the previous poster i called out on his lie, which he retracted without admitting it, that having snipers at the SB vs. not having them means that rights are being diminished in the former case

Perhaps you can share where I said "having snipers at the super bowl is a diminishment of right".

I didn't say whatever you think I said, and I haven't retracted anything. I merely made a qualification of scope and context.

Let's do this. Prove to me that I lied. If you're going to call someone out in such a fashion, put your money where your mouth is. Man up. Show me that I lied, not just that you think I lied.

You've cleared graduated from the LEO school of ad hominem debate. You've literally contributed nothing other than assertions, accusation of emotional appeals, accusation of lies, and other sundry methods of attacking, but not addressing the argument.

Literally all I hear from you is an endless torrent of claims about the style of argument you're facing. You've yet to make a single defended claim regarding the substance of any argument with which you've been presented.

You're not nearly as good at this as you think you are. If you're trying to troll, you're not making anybody upset. And if you're actually trying to have a debate, you're neither presenting nor refuting arguments. As you are no doubt aware, simply declaring "fallacy" doesn't necessarily imply that an argument is incorrect, even if the fallacy was correctly identified. A correct argument may be presented illogically. For this reason, one cannot rest solely on challenging the style of others' arguments; he must challenge their substance as well, or present substantial arguments of his own.

Once again, "the boy who cried fallacy".


To the forum: I am going to stop engaging this poster unless he ceases the baseless, unsupported ad hominem attacks. I suggest you all do the same. As long as he continues to address everything but the arguments themselves, he's not worth anybody's time.

 

[1245A Defender]

Wow just Wow!!!

except that's not the pointof contention

clearly, good people of conscience can and will disagree on the propriety (note: i repeatedly disavow they are NECESSARY) of snipers at the superbowl

the nessessity was never questioned, or implied,,, by anyone..

the previous poster i called out on his lie, which he retracted without admitting it, that having snipers at the SB vs. not having them means that rights are being diminished in the former case

Who, what, when? lied, retracked, admitted?

that is simply false, he (sideways) admitted it was, but didn't have the intellectual honesty to outright admit it, because this is the internet, where such a sophist could never admit error

What is false?

again, i completely accept that there are good arguments on both sides of the issue vis a vis the propriety of snipers

You have only argued in favor of snipers...

but the fallacious claim that if there are snipers are the superbowl, that rights are being diminished .... i called that out and he skulked away, cowardly, but at least wasn't silly enough to press the issue

No one here has cowardly skulked anywhere, unless it was you, you are changing your tune,
and I and, no one else has been silly enough to change our tune, or stop pressing the issue, except YOU!

And I will add this,,, When my government, or my municipality, or my sports stadium,
is allowed or permitted to HIRE snipers to train GUNS on me or my friends,
in the name of SAFETY!!,,, I am sure that me LIBERTY has been Sacrificed!!!!

 

[Gil223]

Originally Posted by marshaul: "To the forum: I am going to stop engaging this poster unless he ceases the baseless, unsupported ad hominem attacks. I suggest you all do the same. As long as he continues to address everything but the arguments themselves, he's not worth anybody's time."

The Great and Terrible Oz has spoken!

 

[.40S&W]

In other words, he has a difference of opinion so he's wrong lol.

 

[marshaul]

In other words, he has a difference of opinion so he's wrong lol.

Yeah, I disagree with his opinion. But where I take issue is being called a "liar".

Minor issue, considering the source. But issue nonetheless.

 

[Jack House]

you are soo right,,,,
I am not very floor about picking them,,,,
how would i know about being very floor when i pick them?

What is very FLOOR???

LMAO

"You don't seem very good at picking them"

Alluding to your belief that I was an anti.

 

[Gil223]

...where I take issue is being called a "liar".

Minor issue, considering the source. But issue nonetheless.

I can understand that! Nobody likes to be called a liar. But folks in here seem to get wound real tight, real quick whenever they perceive they are being the least bit challenged, when in reality it's usually nothing more than a difference of opinion. How boring would this world be if we all shared a single opinion on everything? Pax...

 

[marshaul]

How boring would this world be if we all shared a single opinion on everything? Pax...

Oh, I agree. I love a good debate.

What I especially like is a debate where both sides engage, and actual thinking occurs. What I especially dislike, however, is an argument where participants do nothing more than levy ad hominem attacks and, in this case, argument ad logicam distractions.

Basically, instead of a rational exchange of perspective, we've got a **** measuring contest. Real mature.