First side effect of the gay marriage ruling

So I went and checked. I think you made a mistake.CS's summary of the argument is best summarized in Message 12:

quote:

---

If the 14th means that the state of Illinois must recognize other state's marriage licenses, then the same argument could apply to other state's Conceal Carry Licenses and then Illinois would have to recognize those too.

---

He expands in Message 14:

quote:

---

A big portion of this ruling was just determining that marriage was a fundamental right...Now, we already know that having guns is a fundamental right.

---

If I am issued a marriage certificate in State X, is State Y obligated to recognize this marriage?
If so, then
If State X issues a CCL is State Y obligated to recognize this licence?Let us say that Open Carry is heterosexual marriage and is the norm for licences in the USA. But one state decides one should be able to Concealed Carry, against the notions of the other States. This is a queer carry method. If Marriage has to be recognized whether it is straight or gay, can we apply the same reasoning to the different forms of firearm licence?Catholic Scientist has been fairly consistent in arguing this. However, Message 19 seems almost designed to confuse you, but may have been Catholic Scientist's assumptions about what you understood about his argument fooling him into thinking it was sufficient to clear things up.What do you make of that particular argument, incidentally?

Thankfully, you make the mistake clearer in this very post. No, discussion started earlier. The context of the discussion was set in the earlier part of the discussion. You are still looking at the discussion too narrowly. The discussion was about how 'having guns' might equate to 'concealed carry universality' in the context of the marriage ruling. It's not my argument, and I'm not sure its Catholic Scientist's argument either. This is just Cat Sci's understanding of the argument from the OP. Meta-arguments are fun, right?In any case, the point of the argument in the OP is that the reason all States have to recognize the gay marriages should apply to all States having to recognize CCLs. So your argument might have legs against it, but I imagine it would take some lifting to achieve that. It's not my question, it's the question of debate/discussion we're supposed to be having in this thread. Which is the correct reason the OP is nonsense. Hurray. A lot less fun than meta-arguing but at least we're agreeing.

Your mistake was thinking that the sub-discussion you started having had something to do with the discussion Cat Sci was having. Cat Sci's mistake was assuming the sub-discussion you were starting was related to the discussion he was having. Unfortunately for you Message 19 contains a preposition, two nouns, an abbreviated conjunction and a quote, so your trying to say that what Catholic Scientist's argument in Message 14 is from this is 'clear' or 'making a claim' must be incorrect.The messages where Cat Sci does in fact use his own words and complete English grammar, what he is saying falsifies your hypothesis that his thesis was that concealed carry is a fundamental right when in fact he explicitly said that carrying was a fundamental right.It seems you interpreted message 19 as a rebuttal to your challenge regarding concealed carry distinction when Cat Sci was interpreting your Message 17 as challenging the ownership and carrying distinction.Cat Sci made an error in Message 19, which should be made clear by looking at the full context of what he said in other posts, and which he has since conceded (while pointing at your message 17, which missed his point so much he erred in understanding your counter-point). You have focussed on this to the exclusion of his other words despite your interpretation being anomalous in the face of everything else Cat Sci said.Here are the posts, which Catholic Scientist mentioned the fundamental right: Message 14: Now, we already know that having guns is a fundamental right.
{Message 40: They were just talking about carrying}
Message 50: The fundamental right is to carry.You replied to Message 14 challenging Cat Sci to show concealed carry was a fundamental right. Cat Sci, thinking you were challenging his actual position that carrying weapons is a fundamental right responded thusly - and so the confusion and subsequent snarking began.Look Paul, I have no horse in this race. I literally do not care who is right in this, I had hoped I could persuade you to see where in the discussion a communications breakdown occurred and to help you identify how you helped cause and exacerbate this problem. I am really only trying to do you a favour by typing all this crap out.

That was a mistake, for sure. An easily made one, but one that should have been easy to rectify - something that has not been the case. Seeing CS' words in their full context reveals this was an error of communication on both parties. But this mistake began when you replied with a point that was not relevant to CS' posts, and CS providing further support for the claims he was actually making which confused you meaning you made a further error here. I think answers to this question have been given to you already. Unfortunately he showed too much charity to begin with, assuming you were addressing his point rather than something irrelevant. Nevertheless, your message 21 and 39 was pretty condescending so I think you lose the right to expect charity. Nevertheless, he did explain your error in message 40. Well he asked you for further clarification initially in message 44, you just quoted CS back at himself so he dismissed you in Message 47, Message 48 was just replying in kind to the increased snark of the discussion. CS made it explicit in Message 50. CS told you he was talking about carry in message 50: "The fundamental right is to carry. " and in reply to your Message 52 with Message 55: There is a fundamental right to carry a firearm, period...The argument was about how licenses to carry should be handled.So your claim that he didn't try to clear things up is false. You played a part in the discussion turning unpleasant which delayed the explanation a couple of posts. It was a joint enterprise. I hope this has done likewise.

Great. What would you like me to do about this?

he did explain your error in message 40. Well he asked you for further clarification initially in message 44, you just quoted CS back at himself so he dismissed you in Message 47, Message 48 was just replying in kind to the increased snark of the discussion. CS made it explicit in Message 50.CS told you he was talking about carry in message 50: "The fundamental right is to carry. " and in reply to your Message 52 with Message 55: There is a fundamental right to carry a firearm, period...The argument was about how licenses to carry should be handled.So your claim that he didn't try to clear things up is false. Care to explain? It wasn't a choice but both CS and myself have already stated that this was a mistake. I don't follow what you are trying to communicate here, but I am not asking for your apology - just explaining to you how things became unpleasant. Other humans cannot tailor their responses to you and your current state of mind - you have to be expected to do some work when comprehension is clearly at issue. I'm sure from your perspective that is fine, but CS already knew that the case was about what he had said, because he had said it. The charitable response at this juncture is not that CS is insane or stupid, but that CS wasn't asking you to explain something he had already himself expressed but was asking for you to make plain what your point was. Assuming I am being unreasonable is harmful to us having a reasonable discussion.I am not taking his side. You invited readers to go see for themselves that you were right. I did, and did not see this. I pointed this out. I have criticized CS' role in the confusion along the way. I am not spending much time on that because he already conceded the error and I'm talking to you about yours.I have not horse in this race, honestly. I couldn't care less. I'm just providing you with the report from your invitation to check whether CS was a liar in Message 66. My conclusion: No lie occurred, a communication malfunction was detected. One sector has been repaired, one sector remains slightly corrupted, one process is working to repair. Or maybe you don't think what you did was as nasty as other people might see it, and you should just concede that the lesser nastiness you may have given out might possibly have exacerbated a communications problem by instigating escalation. But no, let's just point fingers and yell tu quoque! Feels like I've fallen into a J. Swift book.No, the misunderstanding you were talking about was partially your work. The part you were talking about was CS' fault, but the misunderstanding was a joint enterprise in that you played a part.And good lord, if you were tempted to ask at this point: What part are you talking about? You are only confirming that you aren't reading for comprehension but for rebuttal.I just said it: '...when you replied with a point that was not relevant to CS' posts, and CS providing further support for the claims he was actually making which confused you meaning you made a further error here.'

I was having a meta-discussion with one party in this debate about how he and another party in this debate were having an issue communicating their points to one another. Now you have made this a meta-meta-discussion. Congratulations.You seem to be talking about the correctness of one of party's argument. I don't know how that plays into the discussion, hence why I asked what I should do with the information you clearly felt I should do something with this information as you had tried to bring it to my attention twice.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No need to repeat that you didn't find it was clear enough to cause you to reconsider the situation. I disagree as explained already. No need to repeat that you think that what you did was clarifying, nor is there a need to repeat my response to this, you can just go read it again if you like. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate with this, but it doesn't look right whatever interpretation I'm trying. No need to repeat that this is your opinion. I've already explained why I disagree with it. He claimed SCOTUS made a ruling regarding issuing CCLs in his State. How does this affect the argument? You weren't challenging him about a SCOTUS ruling regarding some State policy he raised, you challenged about fundamental rights. The fundamental rights of course that CS was talking about, was the right to carry weapons, which he supported, resulting in further confusion. Do you enjoy merry-go-rounds? Again, this assumption is more likely to cause the problem you are complaining of than it is to solve it. What am I doing that is not reasonable? Pointing out an error that you don't think is an error? It is not unreasonable of me to have made a mistake, so I don't see how that would count. What else? No problem, you were just repeating yourself and ignoring what I had said in your repetition. I understand what you think happened, I was just trying to show you that your charge of calling CS a liar was not the case and in fact it was a breakdown in communication. I'm not clear what errors you have corrected of mine, but I agree there doesn't seem any utility in continuing into the oblivion of repetition.You have a choice, look back on your discussion and try to falsify the hypothesis that you were near flawless...or you could look back and try to prove that you were near flawless. The good news is that you will be successful whichever option you choose!

I'm not in court, so omission is absurd given the posts are right there, have been regularly linked to and this is a short thread at the moment. I thought everyone was on the same page as to where PaulK got the notion about concealed firearms with regards to Catholic Scientist's post and didn't see the need to reveal it. It's kind of a central aspect of the thread.I don't see how it helps this meta discussion though, PaulK still challenged CS to prove concealed carry was a fundamental right when CS's argument was that carrying is a fundamental right. This still confused CS who defended a different point, which still confused PaulK leading to confusion and snarkiness which still resulted in PaulK accusing CS of lying. Erroneously in my view, as I have explained. All you seem to have proven is that PaulK is not entirely detached from reality, which I hadn't suspected to begin with. Perhaps so, though in fairness if you were criticising me I didn't notice so whatever reaction you have read into my words it hasn't been because I am reacting poorly to criticism. I genuinely had no idea why you were raising it.

That's what I just said I have no idea why you think I would want to do this. If you would explain rather than assert my unreasonable attitude maybe I can take corrective action.

quote:

---

You have a choice, look back on your discussion and try to falsify the hypothesis that you were near flawless...or you could look back and try to prove that you were near flawless. The good news is that you will be successful whichever option you choose!

---

Success!