The_Wicked_Man
Vladimir_Lenin
The way I look at it is this;
You could call Buddhism Christianity, a Rose a Tulip or a rock a cloud; does that make those things what you're calling them? ******** no. My point being that I may use the word "theory", does that mean it's what I truly think it is?
You could call Buddhism Christianity, a Rose a Tulip or a rock a cloud; does that make those things what you're calling them? ******** no. My point being that I may use the word "theory", does that mean it's what I truly think it is?
Thank you for confessing your love of ******** and raping 8-year-olds. Your statements have been forwarded to the proper authorities.
But did you really confess to that? ******** no. My point being that, contrary to what every single person on Gaia with socialist and communist ideals I've happened to cross paths with wants to argue, language cannot be this subjective. If words and language could be interpreted this freely on an individual level and any word can mean, literally, anything, then communication between two or more people and the sharing of ideas would be completely impossible, and if I can't subjectively interpret everything you just said as a criminal confession, then we can't supply any definition we want to the words "Buddhism," "rock," "rose," and "theory" other than the ones recognized in an English dictionary.
Quote:
Again, by the same coin, by using the name "Commie" I've given the connotation that I'm anti-American or in the least more supportive of a foreign power.
Does that mean I am? No. Does that mean it's the title I like? No. Will the majority recognize it? Yes.
Does that mean I am? No. Does that mean it's the title I like? No. Will the majority recognize it? Yes.
This is a non-issue and completely irrelevant. The impressions (that's what the word "connotation" implies--a personal impression) people have of something based on individual preferences, values, and experiences has absolutely nothing to do with what a word REALLY means and fails to explain ANYTHING being discussed here.
Quote:
If you're going to peck and prod at the terminology that society has deemed and my use of it to give people a better idea of my beliefs (in a non-religious sense), then I doubt this will develop into anymore than a vocabulary-based pissing-contest.
Of which I do not care to partake.
Of which I do not care to partake.
You're replacing the definition for the term "theory" with the one for "fact" and are very likely using the word (in the way you're using it) to describe events which lack sufficient evidence in order to be called "fact" in the first place. Quite frankly, if any word you are using can potentially mean something other than what it means in English, I'm not sure if anyone you're trying to convey an idea towards, myself included, can determine what your beliefs actually are. If you want people to properly understand you, cut the bullshit and use English words the way they're intended to be used.
You're trying to prove to me that I don't believe what I do because of what English says?
Ok.
I'll admit, I use the wrong term; does that mean I'm lieing, or that I'm wrong?
I'll leave that open to your perception and discretion.
Quote:
Quote:
With governmental actions slowly seeping into our personal lives and becoming no better than the Totalitarian states we faced off with in the 40s and 50s, how do we have any guarantee that our current lives won't be disrupted tomorrow?
The Constitution of the United States of America and the system of checks and balances detailed within it, for one. The only reason why the Executive Branch managed get anything done was because of support from both the House of Representatives and Senate, but with a Democratic majority in both Houses now, we have a divided government, and with the president's approval rating hovering around 25%, the Executive Branch is less likely to get any support from Congress.
Quote:
. . . the only thing that's assuring tomorrow's freedom today is the government's whimsy.
This system of government was intentionally designed to prevent something like this from ever happening! The president can't just wake up one morning and say, "You know, I think I'm going to persecute everyone who speaks negatively of me today." One, it's against the Constitution so he can't decide on a whim to do such a thing without being tried with treason. Two, he would need support from 3/4 of Congress to amend the Constitution to give him this kind of authority, and he would never receive that much support from the legislature so he could do something as selfish as that.
Quote:
My main example is that of the Patriot's Act. This Act (now in effect) allows the government with so much as the suspicion you're a "Terrorist", which is just this generation's go-to-guy, they can override your fourth Amendment rights allowing them full access to all your items, information and otherwise without warrant or consent.
The key phrase here is "with so much as the suspicion that you're a terrorist." Are you conspiring to commit mass murder on US soil for the sole purpose of dismantling the United States government? If not, then the government isn't interested in your phone calls and e-mail.
Also, if one of the key requirements for issuing a warrant is suspicion of a crime, as stated in the 4th Amendment, and the USA PATRIOT Act requires such suspicion in order for these powers to be exercised, how exactly is this overriding my 4th Amendment rights? Additionally, consent is irrelevant if they have suspicion and a warrant.
I'm well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the American system of government, please don't attempt to lecture me on such things.
Give that yes, a warrant does not "override" the fourth amendment give that it has a specifically states that the warrant is the end of the Amendment's protection, and that a warrant cannot be obtained until reasonable suspicion is given; it also states the warrant must be specific here it's open to the authorities translation what an item that terrorists would us is.
As for the monitoring, if I make the wrong joke I can be watched?
If I mention the news which might involve terrorist activities I could be?
Anyway, I can see this is an argument rooted in political views and upbringing-morals, such are those fought throughout the world for far too long.
Let's face it, we both think we're right, and whatever the other side says won't budge.
Call this a cop-out, call it a back-down, call it a surrender
because I don't care.
