What's a hill you 100% die on? (Please refrain from political subjects)

[Representing_Tromba]

Please stop fighting

 

[RepresentingWrath]

This is my hill I'm willing to die on. I've been posting like this for over two years.
What I'm hearing from you is that I've been making this place worse the entire time. Well, maybe i should just get banned or leave, after all that would be an improvement wouldn't it?

Or you can just stop breaking rules. Or at the very least do the thing I am asking for, to stop accusing me of following rules. ?‍

 

[Anonjohn20]

Currently no time to reply, but why is the comma there before shall not be infringed?

Great question. It separates the prefatory clause and an operative clause. According to the Supreme Court, the prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," does not limit the scope of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This interpretation supports the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, not just the collective right of states to maintain militias.

In the Spanish language, one would have used hyphens back then rather than commas; while both are correct, the English preferred commas at the time. Nowadays some people like to use parentheses on the prefatory clause to avoid confusion. I hope this won't get me banned; at this point it's more about grammar than politics. LOL

Speaking of hills I am 100% willing to die on. Manga, Manhwa, and Manhua do not become better as time passes. In fact they regress drastically, especially manhwa. After transition from actual printed comics to webtoon format it turned to an equvivalent of dime novels.

You are 100% correct.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I hope this won't get me banned; at this point it's more about grammar than politics. LOL

I'm fairly sure you didn't break the rules enough to worry about it... yet...

 

[Rezcore]

18. Coca Cola should still be allowed to have coccaine in it or be force to change its name.

It's flavored from an extract of the Coca leaf
Also. Country music is good, sometimes. Unfortunately Bro country and Emo with twang has taken hold, but there is objectively good country music.

 

[Gray_Mann]

Also. Country music is good, sometimes. Unfortunately Bro country and Emo with twang has taken hold, but there is objectively good country music.

The last good country songs I listened to and enjoyed were:
1) No Shoes, No Shirt, No Problem by Kenney Chesney
2) Friends In Low Places by Garth Brooks
3) Five O'Clock Somewhere by Alan Jackson
4) Margaritaville by Jimmy Buffet

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Great question. It separates the prefatory clause and an operative clause. According to the Supreme Court, the prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," does not limit the scope of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This interpretation supports the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, not just the collective right of states to maintain militias.

In the Spanish language, one would have used hyphens back then rather than commas; while both are correct, the English preferred commas at the time. Nowadays some people like to use parentheses on the prefatory clause to avoid confusion. I hope this won't get me banned; at this point it's more about grammar than politics. LOL


You are 100% correct.

Look, I know that you are supporting the individual theory for obvious reasons, but the fact that is a contentious topic with strong dissenting opinions on this matter should be indicator enough that the formulation is more than just a little bit ambiguous, which is only reinforced by the fact the Supreme Court has ruled differently in the past.

 

[Anonjohn20]

that is a contentious topic with strong dissenting opinions on this matter

It wasn't while the founding fathers were alive, during the 18th and 19th century it was pretty clear. It wasn't until the late 20th century that the dissenting opinions came about. I believe the side that doesn't have to spread lies like:
"The tyranny aspect is a recent invention that cannot be traced back to the founding of this country."

The only reason this country exists is because the populace stood up against what they believed to be a tyrannical government. John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, etc., spoke up against tyranny on multiple occasions. If what you said was true about army organization, then the 2A would be the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that ensured a power for the government, while all the other ones ensured a power for the people. No one who is honest claims that they made 9 rights for the people and 1 for the state; they know that the original Bill of Rights made 10 rights for the people.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

It wasn't while the founding fathers were alive, during the 18th and 19th century it was pretty clear. It wasn't until the late 20th century that the dissenting opinions came about. I believe the side that doesn't have to spread lies like:
"The tyranny aspect is a recent invention that cannot be traced back to the founding of this country."

The only reason this country exists is because the populace stood up against what they believed to be a tyrannical government. John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, etc., spoke up against tyranny on multiple occasions. If what you said was true about army organization, then the 2A would be the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that ensured a power for the government, while all the other ones ensured a power for the people. No one who is honest claims that they made 9 rights for the people and 1 for the state; they know that the original Bill of Rights made 10 rights for the people.

Look, on your side, it is obviously all clear, so the entire debate is senseless, as usual, but I will admit that you know your federalist playbook well. Time will show on whose side history will stand.

 

[Anonjohn20]

Look, on your side, it is obviously all clear, so the entire debate is senseless, as usual, but I will admit that you know your federalist playbook well. Time will show on whose side history will stand.

Can I just point out that the last time we debated, the hill you were willing to die on was that there must be some good marxist/socialist economists

Spoiler: Recap

(after failing to point out one despite multiple people asking for an example, you said that you don't care what we think and ran away)

. What does the OG on Marxism believe about arms? Let's find out...

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."
-Karl Marx in his address to the Central Committee of the Communist League in 1850, where he was advising the proletariat to arm themselves against potential bourgeois interference.

Look at that, even your political deity was pro-arms. LOL

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Can I just point out that the last time we debated, the hill you were willing to die on was that there must be some good marxist/socialist economists

Spoiler: Recap

(after failing to point out one despite multiple people asking for an example, you said that you don't care what we think and ran away)

. What does the OG on Marxism believe about arms? Let's find out...

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."
-Karl Marx in his address to the Central Committee of the Communist League in 1850, where he was advising the proletariat to arm themselves against potential bourgeois interference.

Look at that, even your political deity was pro-arms. LOL

Your resort to insults is noted.

 

[Anonjohn20]

Your resort to insults is noted.

Where was the insult? When I pointed out that you never gave us one successful Marxist economist? When I sarcastically called your idol a deity? It was probably that second one; Marx was an atheist after all. Whichever one upset you, I apologize.

 

[Gray_Mann]

Your resort to insults is noted.

I don't see an insult here.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I don't see an insult here.

You are a funny one. Not that it matters, at this point, I guess.

 

[Gray_Mann]

You are a funny one. Not that it matters, at this point, I guess.

Funny "haha" or funny "hehe"?

But please do explain though.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Funny "haha" or funny "hehe"?

But please do explain though.

Excellent reply. You are good.

As for your question, do the insinuations escape you?

 

[Gray_Mann]

Excellent reply. You are good.

As for your question, do the insinuations escape you?

I would like my question answered first before I answer yours. It's the polite thing to do.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I would like my question answered first before I answer yours. It's the polite thing to do.

It depends, is it a question in good faith?

 

[Gray_Mann]

It depends, is it a question in good faith?

You said I was funny. Now, I would like to understand your view as to what makes me funny. I've never considered myself particularly humorous. I've been told I'm charming in quieter settings. I've even been called "pleasantly taciturn" by friends, which is an odd expression. But I can honestly say, no one has ever deemed me funny.

Me personally, I believe I would find it hard to convince even The Joker himself to laugh at any of my attempts to crack a joke.

So yes, while I question you're good faith in referring to me as funny, since this is a new thing for me in all seriousness and therefore arouses my suspicions, I myself was genuinely curious.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

You said I was funny. Now, I would like to understand your view as to what makes me funny. I've never considered myself particularly humorous. I've been told I'm charming in quieter settings. I've even been called "pleasantly taciturn" by friends, which is an odd expression. But I can honestly say, no one has ever deemed me funny.

Me personally, I believe I would find it hard to convince even The Joker himself to laugh at any of my attempts to crack a joke.

So yes, while I question you're good faith in referring to me as funny, since this is a new thing for me in all seriousness and therefore arouses my suspicions, I myself was genuinely curious.

I will give you then an equally honest reply. It was a sarcastic remark commenting on your question, which I perceived as slighting and hostile. Especially, after previous encounters with certain individuals here.

As for insults, the insinuations and implications are there. It confuses me that you do not see them.