Remove ads

Did you know the US First Amendment is evil?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Farmerbob1 said:
You are still referring directly to the qualities of the item itself. You are not referring to the act of putting whipped cream on steak, you are referring to the actual current state of the whipped cream on the steak. This is not difficult to comprehend.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The qualities it gains in certain contexts, yes. Contexts such as 'when implemented or put into practice'.

Please stop butchering my mother tongue. I am English, this is meant to happen to other people.
 
Threnodist said:
Cream by itself =/= cream on steak

Context matters buddie
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes it does. And there was no context in LordSquishy's statement that clarified his words, nor has there been any statement since then to apologize or clarify.

Maugan Ra said:
The qualities it gains in certain contexts, yes. Contexts such as 'when implemented or put into practice'.

Please stop butchering my mother tongue. I am English, this is meant to happen to other people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I speak American English. Maybe in England the usage is different, I'll bend that much.
 
Last edited:
Farmerbob1 said:
Yes it does. And there was no context in LordSquishy's statement that clarified his words, nor has there been any statement since then to apologize or clarify.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's no reasonable assumption of clarification being needed, since no else has managed to weaponize stupidity in such a spectacular way to get as triggered as you are.

Literally everyone else managed to understand what the words meant on the first go. You've managed to misunderstand despite a dozen attempts to clarify it for you. At a certain point you have to accept that you're the problem, not the sentence.
 
Last edited:
Farmerbob1 said:
Yes it does. And there was no context in LordSquishy's statement that clarified his words, nor has there been any statement since then to apologize or clarify.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
10ebbor10 said:
Okay, you have repeatedly demonstrated that your powers of comprehensions are unparalleled. Let me try to settle it.

We have a law.
Person A says : "In implementation, this law is evil"

Do they mean :

A : The Act of writing the law itself was evil
B : The Law is evil
C : The police officers/court officials/whatever who implement the law use it for evil.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
The first amendment is a law that has literally never been implemented or taken to mean exactly what it says. So yes, it is badly drafted. Evil, though, is a bit of a stretch, could mean any number of distinct things and would need Squishy to actually explicate what the hell that's supposed to be in the first place to get things across.

Fernandel said:
Look, anybody trying to tell me that a nation's interpretation and implementation of free speech is not "evil" when said nation had a federal agency literally called the Office of Censorship in the middle of the 20th century and later allowed McCarthy and HUAC to run amok with impunity is gonna result in me pointing a finger and laughing like a kindergartener, because claiming otherwise is just that silly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It seems rather odd to blame HUAC on the first amendment, given that it was so profoundly against the intent of the law, and that it was anti-Vietnam groups protesting under the first amendment that eventually helped break it.
 
Farmerbob1 said:
Yes it does. And there was no context in LordSquishy's statement that clarified his words, nor has there been any statement since then to apologize or clarify.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why would he apologize? It's pretty understandable, and he's right.

The First Amendment, for all it's vaunted holiness in the eyes of my fellow Americans, is used by people to protect and justify hate speech and just being a massive dickhead. It really needs a massive revision, but the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) is too sacred to the American people for any politician to even consider it.
 
This feels like the start of an unfunny joke. People from all over the world united together simply to explain what "implementation of something is evil, while the object being implemented is not" even means. Beautiful.
 
Farmerbob1 said:
Did you know the First Amendment is evil?

This amazing statement was made by one of the lead staff members of the forum site Sufficient Velocity, by one of the Directors, LordSquishy. At the time of this posting, there has still been no apology.

I think it might be a good idea for a few thousand folks to stop by Sufficient Velocity and politely advise them that an apology would be appropriate.

Please be polite, but firm, if you choose to express your displeasure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Bob, there are only 89 people here. I've only seen like, 500 max in announcement threads. Why do you need a few thousand?

Perhaps you want to create your own little safe space colony here on SV?
 
Last edited:
Private Lee O'Malley said:
"Did you know the First Amendment is evil?

This amazing statement was made by one of the lead staff members of the forum site Sufficient Velocity, by one of the Directors, LordSquishy. At the time of this posting, there has still been no apology.

I think it might be a good idea for a few thousand folks to stop by Sufficient Velocity and politely advise them that an apology would be appropriate.

Please be polite, but firm, if you choose to express your displeasure."

Bob, there are only 89 people here. I've only seen like, 500 max in announcement threads. Why do you need a few thousand?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"I-It's not like I want to bring traffic to this site, you baka!"
 
Isil`Zha said:
Welcome to a new program we're developing.

"The Joy of Painting Strawmen with Farmerbob."

Seriously, every argument made here is disingenuous, at best. When you start warbbling over basic dictionary definitions that no one else has trouble understanding, there's no productive argument or discussion to be made; that's sidelined by bob's stubborn refusal to understand English.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I will respond when attacked. I will defend myself and what I believe.

Look at how I have responded to others, and how they have responded to me.

Who has been respectful and who has not?

If all you want to do is throw insults, I'm sure there are other places where you can do that.
 
Farmerbob1 said:
Yes it does. And there was no context in LordSquishy's statement that clarified his words, nor has there been any statement since then to apologize or clarify.



I speak American English. Maybe in England the usage is different, I'll bend that much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nah - I'm American. No one uses the word that way.


Also, what do you even want an apology for? The constitution can't get offended by Squishy's comments
 
ManusDomine said:
You know, I've seen less asinine debates over substance and form in debates about Christian transubstantiation and Aristotlean physics than this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Now you're just using made-up words.

Also,
Threnodist said:
Also, what do you even want an apology for? The constitution can't get offended by Squishy's comments
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Guys, I think I have an idea. A dating sim, but all heroines are constitutions of various nations... or at least a quest.
 
Honestly, this thread is more of a farce than the entire comedy of errors.
ManusDomine said:
You know, I've seen less asinine debates over substance and form in debates about Christian transubstantiation and Aristotlean physics than this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Look, the bread is of the substance of the lord, but it doesn't take his form. Or something.
 
Last edited:
Shadell said:
It seems rather odd to blame HUAC on the first amendment, given that it was so profoundly against the intent of the law, and that it was anti-Vietnam groups protesting under the first amendment that eventually helped break it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's what people here mean with implementation vs intent. Allowing HUAC to exists counts as a way in which the first amendement was implemented.

Not stopping something is as much an action as stopping it is.
 
Farmerbob1 said:
I will respond when attacked. I will defend myself and what I believe.

Look at how I have responded to others, and how they have responded to me.

Who has been respectful and who has not?

If all you want to do is throw insults, I'm sure there are other places where you can do that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Taking out-of-context sentence fragments to fabricate someone "agreeing" with you is not remotely respectful.

PS: Pointing out the flaws in your arguments, such as they are, is not "throwing insults."
 
Last edited:
16 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads
Back
Top