Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First side effect of the gay marriage ruling
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 76 of 98 (761499)
07-02-2015 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Modulous
07-01-2015 6:32 PM


quote:
Thankfully, you make the mistake clearer in this very post.
Apparently the "mistake" is recognising that there can be sub-discussions dealing with narrower topics.
quote:
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.
Unfortunately for you Message 19 as written clearly claims to be making an argument for concealed carry as a fundamental right.
In the face of that simple and obvious fact your argument fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 07-01-2015 6:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 1:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 77 of 98 (761500)
07-02-2015 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2015 7:13 PM


quote:
Exactly, I didn't/don't think the concealed part really matters to the argument that I was making. And I hastily replied with Message 19 without really thinking much about it because the message I replied to didn't have any quotes and it didn't make much sense.
I can't buy that. How hard would it have been for you to SAY that the concealed/open issue wasn't important ? Given that both the OP and the part of Message 17 you quoted singled out concealed carry that would seem to be both obvious and necessary.
quote:
The argument isn't claiming that concealed carry is a fundamental right.
Given that the concealed/open distinction is obviously disanalagous to the straight/gay distinction then I think the argument has to make that claim, unless it is firmly clarified that it is NOT talking about concealed carry.
quote:
So I threw down the fact that SCOTUS ruled that the bearing part of having arms means that the people get to carry them to see what angle the poster was coming from.
When I got back a simple: "neener-neener, that didn't say concealed", then I realized that I was wasting my time.
If we look at what is written that is hardly an honest assessment. You argued that concealed carry was a fundamental right - again I am pointing to is what is written, and it is not at all ambiguous. I pointed out that the argument obviously failed.
quote:
If this ruling had been saying that a state couldn't refuse another state's marriage license at all, because the 14th makes it unconstitutional, then that would have been a pretty big precedent.
As it turns out, yes. Because it is currently the case that States do NOT have to recognise every marriage license issued by other States. But that point was not made clear either. The fact that the 14th Amendment is not easily read as justifying such a decision further confuses the issue. (The "full faith and credit" clause could be read that way but that requires overturning a lot of precedent)
Equally importantly neither the OP, nor the article referenced in it was able to establish that the Court HAD said that. Let alone showed that the reasoning behind the decision applied to gun licenses. Those are pretty big holes in the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2015 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 78 of 98 (761517)
07-02-2015 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Theodoric
07-01-2015 4:15 PM


Sorry but it seems we have different definitions for what a fundamental right is. I most certainly have never asserted or believe that fundamental rights cannot be regulated, that is your strawman.
Sorry charlie, it really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 07-01-2015 4:15 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2015 10:27 PM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 98 (761525)
07-02-2015 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Modulous
07-01-2015 6:32 PM


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.
I did add a little nuance to the argument in the OP.
That argument concluded that every other state would have to recognize his state's conceal carry license.
I think that fails because not every state allows for conceal carry.
I adjusted it from every other state having to allow my state's CCL to my state having to recognizes the license from the other states who also have CCL's.
I thought that was justified by the court's opinion that other states' refusal to recognize same-sex marriages was undermined by the constitution requiring them to issue those licenses in their own state.
Since the constitution required Illinois to at least give the people CCL's in this state, then I figured the same precedent undermined their justification for refusing to recognize CCL's from other states.
If Illinois had passed open carry, then the argument would have concluded that they were required to recognize other states' open carry licenses instead of the concealed carry ones.
The fundamental right, to me, is the carrying, and having either open or concealed carry satisfies that right, but neither open or concealed carry, themselves, are where the fundamental right lies.
So I didn't, and still don't, think the concealed part of it really has any impact on the argument. Certainly not to the extent of having to justify concealed carry, itself, as being a fundamental right. That's why I keep saying its irrelevant, and that's why I didn't care to refute that "rebuttal".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 07-01-2015 6:32 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 98 (761539)
07-02-2015 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
07-02-2015 1:07 AM


Apparently the "mistake" is recognising that there can be sub-discussions dealing with narrower topics.
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 as written clearly claims to be making an argument for concealed carry as a fundamental right.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2015 1:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2015 2:38 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2015 2:50 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 2:55 PM Modulous has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 81 of 98 (761545)
07-02-2015 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Modulous
07-02-2015 1:55 PM


quote:
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.
No, my "mistake' was assuming that Catholic Scientist was directly replying to the point he quoted, and despite his missing several opportunities to correct that. I mean how can you quote a paragraph consisting of two short sentences, both of them specifically referring to concealed carry without realising that it is talking specifically about concealed carry ?
If he'd shown a little charity in answering Message 21 or Message 39 even accepting the possibility that I thought I was making a valid point he could have cleared it up. He didn't.
I clarified what I was arguing for in Message 42 and he still didn't clear it up. .
And Message 47 and Message 49 and Message 52 I clarified my view of the argument. And he still didn't try to clear up the misunderstanding he created.
I hope that this has cleared up your view of the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 1:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 3:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 98 (761548)
07-02-2015 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Modulous
07-02-2015 1:55 PM


Thanks Mod. Your unbiased assessment is 100% correct.
I put a minimal effort in my replies to them because their posts were of such poor quality.
Edited by Cat Sci, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 1:55 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 98 (761549)
07-02-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Modulous
07-02-2015 1:55 PM


Modulus writes:
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.
Here is what Cat Sci actually said in message 14:
And the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for my state to refuse to issue people CCLs.
Therefore, if they have to issue this license in this state then that should also undermine their justifications for refusing to recognize licenses from other states.
It turns out that the first statement is wrong. Even if we accept the error about citing wrong court, the court ruled only that Illinois had to allow some version of carry outside of the home. Illinois ultimately went with concealed carry.
The easiest "fix" for this bad reasoning is a court case that requires what Cat Sci claimed this one says, namely that it is unconstitutional not to issue concealed carry permits. That also happens to be what PaulK has said is lacking.
Even if that is found, that would leave some gaps in the reasoning. But Cat Sci has already acknowledged most of that problem.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 1:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 3:59 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 84 of 98 (761552)
07-02-2015 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
07-02-2015 2:38 PM


No, my "mistake' was assuming that Catholic Scientist was directly replying to the point he quoted
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 mean how can you quote a paragraph consisting of two short sentences, both of them specifically referring to concealed carry without realising that it is talking specifically about concealed carry ?
I think answers to this question have been given to you already.
If he'd shown a little charity in answering Message 21
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.
I clarified what I was arguing for in Message 42 and he still didn't clear it up
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.
Message 52 I clarified my view of the argument.And he still didn't try to clear up the misunderstanding he created.
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.
the misunderstanding he created.
It was a joint enterprise.
I hope that this has cleared up your view of the discussion.
I hope this has done likewise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2015 2:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2015 4:37 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 85 of 98 (761553)
07-02-2015 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by NoNukes
07-02-2015 2:55 PM


It turns out that the first statement is wrong...But Cat Sci has already acknowledged most of that problem.
Great. What would you like me to do about this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 2:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 5:03 PM Modulous has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 86 of 98 (761555)
07-02-2015 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Modulous
07-02-2015 3:55 PM


quote:
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.
As I pointed out, CS had plenty of opportunities to clarify his position and didn't take them.
quote:
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.
NoNukes has already pointed out that the situation is not as clear as you are making out.
quote:
Unfortunately he showed too much charity to begin with, assuming you were addressing his point rather than something irrelevant.
That cannot be described as charity. I made a clear point - and one certainly relevant to the broader discussion. If CS chose to interpret it differently - without giving any notice at all, that is an error.
quote:
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.
Given that his message 39 is worse than either I really don't think I have must to be sorry for there. And his message 40 is hardly a clear correction.
quote:
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,
He asked for clarification of a particular phrase. I quoted his words back at him because they meant the same - to avoid misunderstanding. The answer was honest and as constructive as it could be given the limits of the question. Dismissal was not an appropriate response.
Unreasonably taking his side like this is not helpful.
quote:
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.
Not really - he didn't provide anything as clear as my message Message 42 And his only response to that was to question the meaning of one phrase - and when I told him he just dismissed the whole thing, in a nasty way.
And it is pretty clear that most of the nastiness came from him.
It was a joint enterprise.
Not the misunderstanding I am talking about. That's all his work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 3:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 5:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 98 (761556)
07-02-2015 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
07-02-2015 3:59 PM


Great. What would you like me to do about this?
I don't ask that you do anything. But I didn't respond to empty air. I responded to your message. Why did you write your message?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 3:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 5:17 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 88 of 98 (761557)
07-02-2015 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by PaulK
07-02-2015 4:37 PM


As I pointed out, CS had plenty of opportunities to clarify his position and didn't take them.
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.
NoNukes has already pointed out that the situation is not as clear as you are making out.
Care to explain?
I made a clear point - and one certainly relevant to the broader discussion. If CS chose to interpret it differently - without giving any notice at all, that is an error.
It wasn't a choice but both CS and myself have already stated that this was a mistake.
Given that his message 39 is worse than either I really don't think I have must to be sorry for there.
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.
And his message 40 is hardly a clear correction.
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.
He asked for clarification of a particular phrase. I quoted his words back at him because they meant the same - to avoid misunderstanding. The answer was honest and as constructive as it could be given the limits of the question. Dismissal was not an appropriate response.
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.
Unreasonably taking his side like this is not helpful.
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.
And it is pretty clear that most of the nastiness came from him.
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!
It was a joint enterprise.
Not the misunderstanding I am talking about. That's all his work.
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.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2015 4:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2015 5:45 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 98 (761558)
07-02-2015 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by NoNukes
07-02-2015 5:03 PM


I don't ask that you do anything. But I didn't respond to empty air. I responded to your message. Why did you write your message?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 5:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2015 7:14 PM Modulous has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 90 of 98 (761563)
07-02-2015 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Modulous
07-02-2015 5:12 PM


quote:
he did explain your error in message 40.
Certainly there is no clear explanation there.
quote:
Well he asked you for further clarification initially in message 44,
He asked for clarification of one phrase, and he got it.
quote:
you just quoted CS back at himself so he dismissed you in Message 47
No, I used his words to answer his question to be sure that he understood.
He got the clearest answer to his question I could give.
quote:
Message 48 was just replying in kind to the increased snark of the discussion
Which he increased in message 46.
And you're claiming he did that because his question was answered.
That doesn't exactly speak well of him.
quote:
So your claim that he didn't try to clear things up is false.
That he missed a good number of opportunities to correct his mistake is a clear fact.
quote:
Care to explain?
As NoNukes quoted him, CS claimed:
And the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for my state to refuse to issue people CCLs.
So there he is claiming a right to concealed carry.
quote:
Assuming I am being unreasonable is harmful to us having a reasonable discussion.
Sadly we are not having a reasonable discussion. Because you are not being reasonable.
Look, let me extract the relevant parts of the posts.
Here is my explanation:
It means that they were not restricting themselves to concealed carry. Unfortunately for you that is all I need. So long as a state can follow the ruling without permitting concealed carry for all, the ruling does not establish concealed carry as a fundamental right.
Here is his request for clarification(complete post)
It means that they were not restricting themselves to concealed carry.
What do you mean?
As you see he asks only for an explanation of the first sentence, not the argument or anything else. He does not ask for instance, for the significance of the point which had already been explained anyway.
And here is my answer (complete post)
To put it in your words:
They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that
I explained exactly what the phrase meant in his words so he would understand.
And really I'm not going to answer the rest of it because I've spent too much time correcting your errors already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 5:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2015 6:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024