mechoman444

So you agree with me that you don’t know what a straw man is?

RATM were anarchists. They didn’t like the left as much as the right.

Yeah that pretty much sums it up right there…

Huh… Sounds like the National Socialist German Workers’ Party Right before the Nuremberg trials.

To be fair!

She’s not trying to do the right thing. She was perfectly happy being compliant with the current administration as long as her back was scratched. Now that they’ve thrown her under the bus, she wants to piss in as many teacups as possible!

At no point did I obfuscate the argument into something more easily defensible this is exactly what people were saying under his original comment.

Then again, most people who use the term straw man don’t know what it is… That goes doubly for you.

He’s right, though. Isn’t he? All you saw was “states’ rights,” and your immediate reaction was, “He supports slavery,” even though his comment had nothing to do with slavery. States’ rights are a legitimate constitutional concept. They exist independently of racism.

You were so locked into your presuppositions that the only response you could imagine was satire.

You advocate for federal authority when it suits you, and then invoke states’ rights when that is more convenient.

The logical fallacies just keep stacking higher.

The bandwagon effect is strong here. They condemn Trump for “rigging” elections, yet they’re perfectly comfortable downvoting anything that doesn’t fit their paradigm regardless of how correct it is. That undermines the intended purpose of upvoting and downvoting.

I believe the word for that is hypocrisy.

Then you’re going to get in trouble

Ok

👊

Marketers are seeing a trend in people disliking billionaires and they are capitalizing on it.

There are three prime evils in the world: creditors, banks, and insurance companies.

Above them all is marketing.

I fully understand. I’ve lived here my whole life and I am disgusted at our current leadership.

They really need to make Puerto Rico a full-fledged state at this point.

School zones don’t have to exist. Roads near schools could simply have permanent reduced speed limits instead of time-restricted ones. The issue is that children are more likely to be struck by vehicles where they congregate most, namely in school zones and residential areas.

Because of that, this is the one area of traffic law I fully support. That does not mean I oppose other traffic rules. I do not have to personally endorse traffic lights, stop signs, or road signs in order to follow them.

I’m not sure where the idea of anarchy comes from. I am explicitly agreeing to follow the rules established by the government.

My point is that I don’t need the government to tell me to stop at a red light. It is obviously in my own best interest to do so.

By contrast, there is no inherent self-interest in slowing down in a school zone. That is precisely why specific laws exist to mandate it.

I do not need a law or rule to tell me to stop my car at a red light or to drive at a safe speed on the freeway. I do that because I want to be safe on the road. School zones are special traffic rules that exist only during certain times. They are enforced strictly by law and are not primarily for the safety of the motorist. They exist solely for the safety of pedestrian children within the school zone.

I did, however, notice the glibness of your comment. I apologize that this runs contrary to your original statement, which is ultimately incorrect, but it is what it is.

School zones and stopping for the school bus are probably the only traffic laws I truly and fully support.

Children are most vulnerable to being hit by cars near schools and in residential areas.

If you like being broke, Warhammer 40000

😯 good nuff.

Definitely uninstalling discord. I hardly use it anyway.

One that sailed right over your head. Thankfully op isn’t as dense as you are.