Acts like this or the Patriot act or anything else have been passed numerous times in American history. The moment that someone uses them in an unconstitutional manner, the case reaches the Supreme Court and the act is repealed. America is not going to radically change over night, ya fuckin' retards. You sound like fanatics preaching that the world is coming to an end.

If that is indeed what he meant (which I thought originally, but it's such a poor point I thought he meant something else) then I do have a rebuttal:

The Patriot Act (I don't know about the Military Commission Act, sorry) has been accused of violating the right to privacy (that whole point is debatable). This topic is about free speech.

Right to privacy != right to free speech


Furthermore, "that clause" applies only to that Act. To say that the clause in Bill A will be ignored because Bill B does not follow the guidelines of "that clause" in Bill A is completely illogical.
If an identical clause in Bill B were ignored, one could argue that things will be the same in Bill A, but that is not the case.

Well Mr. Suspicious! Words are meant to transfer meanings. If thats the only meaning you can find, you go with it. Theres no need to try to understand your opponent, as long as you have his point in his words.

was it not you who said that I don't even try to understand? Well, that's what I was doing.

However, your lack of a rebuttal admits your defeat.


Edit: I'll just assume that Kellimus was trying to make such an idiotic point, unless he actually posts.

Edit: Looks like I win!!!

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 11 2007, 12:16 am by frazz.

So let me get this straight.

Because I have a life, and hardly have time to post on this redundant public forum, you win? Where are your valid arguments to refute my claims?

Sorry, but you haven't won.

BeDazed put it into the most simplest of forms that anyone could conceive, and you still think you won.. Honestly, that's pretty sad.

Sorry, but your trolling isn't going to work. You can go ahead and ignore my very valid point and just continue to show the forum how inane you truly are if you wish. Go ahead and claim (like you have many times before) that I'm publicly defaming you, you're only doing it to yourself honestly.

So yes Frazz GG at trying to Troll me, and GG at showing us how inane you are.

Oh, here is some "public defamation" for you:


Great Ad Hominem Abusive! I couldn't have done it any better myself! You truly are a master at Logical Fallacies, I applaud you!

Good enough "public defamation" for you Frazz?


Don't post here again until you can provide a decent, plausible, and logical argument in retort to my point. Logical-Fallacies aren't good enough.


Good-day.

Alright, I guess you haven't given up. However, you still have yet to give a rebuttal.

Please tell me, what is it that you meant by that post in question? I'm afraid my meager comprehension must be too low to grasp such vague arguments. Go ahead.

Are you really that inane?

Read the below quote:


I don't need to tell you my point, BeDazed already did... But judging by your continuous lack of the conscious ability to see points, I feel like you're doing this to try to rile me into flaming you, which is a very pathetic Troll tactic.

Leave now. You've proven to everyone time and time again that you have no ability to debate, so stay away.

Good-day.

Oh, ok then. If you had read my posts in the first place, you would have realized I had already addressed that.
To add onto that...
Your point would only be valid if a similar clause existed in the patriot act that was blatantly ignored.

Since you basically admitted that that IS what you meant, this rebuttal should suffice.

Edit:
I honestly thought it would be better to let you explain than to assume BeDazed hit it head on (even though he did, but I could not have known). It is not my desire that you flame me or, for that matter, call me a troll. If you could try to maintain some general kindness and respect in your rebuttals, as I (usually) try to do, it would be very much appreciated. [/no sarcasm or smarmy this time]

Kellimus, I would much appreciate it if you would stop this manner of posting you so like to enact. Frazz has truly made some fair points, and you have ignored them in order to continue the personal disputes you guys have over varying topics.


I completely disagree. I wish every single topic didn't immediately turn into a "who wins" contest. That is not what this should be about. Try to learn some rhetoric. It's about persuading, not winning. I wouldn't bother writing "gg" at the end of every post, for it doesn't make your arguement any stronger. Regardless-- argue, discuss, whatever you like, but try not to bastardize the topic in the process, please.

Also, Kellimus, here's a fallacy that puts you a bit at fault here. For, frazz has asked you to go by it (without realizing it, I'm sure), and yet you have refused to in order to instead tell him he's a troll. If you really do have a life, as so you often claim as an excuse for not keeping up with topics, you could have gotten to the point with a lot less time spent by simply stating what you are assuming, or what your premises are, instead of telling frazz he's an idiot (ad hominem, omg) for not knowing it.

Altera pars

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 13 2007, 2:47 am by Dapperdan.

Because of his constant inability to form stable arguments, I must reply in the only way I see that he could possibly understand. Why should I have to repeat something that has already been stated by another person earlier within the thread? That's redundant, and I dislike redundancy.

If he still cannot honestly see my point, then he shouldn't even be here.

And is it wrong to be long winded within replies? I didn't think there was a rule against taking your time...

Thank you Dapperdan.

Kellimus, I recognized your point and formed a rebuttal. If you still care to debate, perhaps you could reply to my last post?

I was simply saying it would be have been easier and faster to just make your point more clear instead of telling frazz he should understand it as it is.

If you ask me, the fault is at both of them. To me, the points are crystal clear.
The Fault of Kellimus

The Fault of Frazz
The biggest fault for frazz is that he relys on the opponent's explanation (overthinking much?) to respond. His rebuttals are fine, but questions in my opinion shouldn't be so direct. Makes us think you're just being an idiot, also sometimes repeating an argument to a completely different statement.

Up to here, all frazz did wrong was not understand something. It happens. It's not that bad to ask your opponent to state their premises flat out if you think he should be required to in the particular discussion. Then, this happens.

Here was his only real flaw, and it was a little inconsequential dig to Kellimus that he should have left out of it. Otherwise, he then goes on to give a good rebuttal. Kellimus still hasn't responded to it. He has just flamed frazz.


I think until this point is rebuttaled, it is a really fair point. Kellimus seems to have ignored it on purpose, because he cannot rebuttal it.


Another unnecessary pleasantry from frazz. I just don't see these few things as much of a big deal, though. And it is a pretty common thing that Kellimus would say to frazz in different words, all the time, in fact. Yet, somehow when Kellimus does it, it's not trolling, only when frazz does. According to Kellimus that is.


Well, every single other post from Kellimus in the topic from my last frazz quote on just turned into worse trolling and flaming. He is at fault via altera pars, ad hominem, and I'm sure some others that I see no reason to mention. They're both at fault, but Kellimus far worse so. Also, Bedazed, why haven't you responded to frazz's point either?

Is it obligatory?