Why Harry Potter Should Have Carried A 1911

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What exactly do you support?

You seem to support Authoritarian Traditionalism, but you act like a social liberal at times.

Are you just a dedicated troll?

*leans in close*

Just who exactly is Patriam, hmm?

pat is a glowing example of integrative thought. it is often a natural consequence of age given sufficient degrees of openness and pride. the degree of inclusivity attainable is always hobbled by our life experiences, the delusions we cling to and our tolerance to pain. The result is seldom perfect, but always more inspiring, enlightened and all around better than we'd be left with if we hadn't found ways to resolve conflicts hobbling our walk along the path.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh, that I had more than 1 upvote to give.

It's not just Harry Potter, either. I can't count the number of times I tell my wife, as we're sitting there watching a movie, "you know, this would never happen to us. Why? EDC, that's why." She nods and smiles to shut me up, of course.

So that's how you solo all those mobs.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

SC intuitively understands that people need to be innocent until proven guilty, and since Kavanaugh was on trial in the court of public opinion reasonably applied this standard. Meanwhile your argument was semantics bullshit about whether or not he was actually on trial.

P.S. Have you read the wikipedia page on false rape accusations? They devote 3 full paragraphs to the critics of Kanin's 1990 study that showed 40% of rape allegations were false, and the best the critics can do is 'Kanin did not massage the police department's statistics to make feminists look better - that asshole!'

My "semantic bullshit" just shows I understand a fundamental concept of the law works in our country and you don't.

And as for Kanin, there's this thing called "cherry-picking". It's when you fixate on a single data point that proves whatever it is you want to believe, and ignore all the other data points that don't fit your beliefs.

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My "semantic bullshit" just shows I understand a fundamental concept of the law works in our country and you don't.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My "semantic bullshit" just shows I understand a fundamental concept of the law works in our country and you don't.

And as for Kanin, there's this thing called "cherry-picking". It's when you fixate on a single data point that proves whatever it is you want to believe, and ignore all the other data points that don't fit your beliefs.

it ain't about law, you big cuddly goober. it's about the principles of decency and fairness upon which law is based. we could abolish laws against theft tomorrow, but it wouldn't make theft right.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it ain't about law, you big cuddly goober. it's about the principles of decency and fairness upon which law is based. we could abolish laws against theft tomorrow, but it wouldn't make theft right.

Right, well obviously we have had this whole "President nominates a potential justice" and "Senate confirms the potential justice" system since 1916 (well actually since well before then, but the actual confirmation hearings didn't start until then; before confirmation was a simple yes/no vote).

It's preserved the "principles of decency and fairness" from back then until now (despite Republicans recently undoing some of the very rules that used to be in effect to help ensure those principles). Nothing about Kav's experience suggests that it's stopped working. Even if he'd gotten a real investigation, and it had found something that lead to him not getting confirmed, there'd still be nothing.

But look, those principles, and the legal concept of "due process", are not the same thing. Getting confirmed by a publicly elected body is not the same thing as going into a court room, even though the two have similarities. Eating and drinking are similar too, but if I talk about drinking a hamburger (when my mouth isn't wired shut) you're going to look at me funny.

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it ain't about law, you big cuddly goober. it's about the principles of decency and fairness upon which law is based. we could abolish laws against theft tomorrow, but it wouldn't make theft right.

Appeal to emotion. How quaint. No, it wouldn’t be right. It’d be legal.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Appeal to emotion. How quaint. No, it wouldn’t be right. It’d be legal.

we agree on the last two points, but chocking up principles of decency and fairness as an appeal to emotion is silly. they are pre-requisite for order (^.~)v

*pats Cecile on her head*

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

we agree on the last two points, but chocking up principles of decency and fairness as an appeal to emotion is silly. they are pre-requisite for order (^.~)v

*pats Cecile on her head*

Order in what sense?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right, well obviously we have had this whole "President nominates a potential justice" and "Senate confirms the potential justice" system since 1916 (well actually since well before then, but the actual confirmation hearings didn't start until then; before confirmation was a simple yes/no vote).

It's preserved the "principles of decency and fairness" from back then until now (despite Republicans recently undoing some of the very rules that used to be in effect to help ensure those principles). Nothing about Kav's experience suggests that it's stopped working. Even if he'd gotten a real investigation, and it had found something that lead to him not getting confirmed, there'd still be nothing.

But look, those principles, and the legal concept of "due process", are not the same thing. Getting confirmed by a publicly elected body is not the same thing as going into a court room, even though the two have similarities. Eating and drinking are similar too, but if I talk about drinking a hamburger (when my mouth isn't wired shut) you're going to look at me funny.

im gonna look at you funny either way. i do liek seeing how you seek to direct the dialogue though. there's some artisan level wordwar in there.