Eegore wrote on 05/04/20 at 15:53:37:


Well in that case, I would suggest that you are making a fundamental error regarding living peacefully in the world. It is not possible to change anyone, you can help them to change if indeed change is required but no one will change unless they themselves choose to do so.

Many people do not understand this and you appear to have fallen into this trap in the mistaken belief that your logic and plainly obvious reasoning will be enough. It won't. JoG has made it patently clear that he is perfectly happy with the extreme positions he takes, even going so far as to claim to 'love' president Trump. And as they say, love is blind.

The question that I have for you, is that you obviously feel that everyone should be logical and reasonable, so do you believe that JoG needs to change with regard to his attitude of ignoring your simple statements, in order to continue his blithe disregard of the truth. In other words you may have thought at one time that you could change him. Do you still think you can in spite of it being obvious that he does not wish to change.

I would suggest that if you are unable to accept someone as they are, no matter how unreasonable they may be, then you're in for a tough time and perhaps you need to examine your own reasons for expecting unreasonable people to change.

You see Eegore, you may think that others need to change, but they think the same of you, that you need to change. Logic, truth, fairness, or what is plainly right, doesn't come into it.

eau de sauvage wrote on 05/04/20 at 16:39:30:

You've completely missed the point of the story,

I believe the, 'point' of the fable,
was that a group of Ultra Liberal,
Fairy Dust Sprinkling, Progressive Socialists,
came up with a idea that could not be accomplished.

To which a Wise, Experienced, Conservative,
pointed out the, 'idea', was good,
but with no way to implement that idea,
it would not work.

       
       
       
       

@Eegore, I have indicated multiple times that my intent is not typically to change anyone's mind...

Yes, you have said that multiple times, but your actions indicate the opposite. You appear to be bewildered as to why JoG, provide obvious bs, or phantom claims or quotes, yet refused to back them up, or even acknowledge this when you challenge him. You've already agreed that he just keeps doing this and you keep trying to even get him to acknowledge what he's doing. You also agree he's been doing this for a long time.

Therefore, why do you keep asking him the same type of leading questions. Do you think it's accidental on his part, that one day he'll slap his thigh and exclaim "I see the light".

If you don't expect him to change, and that's a fair expectation, to not expect him to change, then why do you persist in pointing out to him the same types of errors he makes.

Why? It is for fun, I mean, if you said that I'd get it. It is amusing to see these types of Trumpeteers do this, but it's much more amusing to see Trump do this, live on the world stage. It's why I have mixed emotions about his eventual removal from office by the people in seven months, it will be a blessed relief from the endless bs, but at the same time we be losing an almost untapped source of golden comedy that will last for generations.

And a Trump unencumbered by needing to win a third term will certainly be an otherworldly comedy experience. Not for those in the US to be sure, but definitely for the rest of the world.

@Eegore, yes I get all that. In fact when I first made the error of getting involved in this part of the forum, I sort of played it with a straight bat, but it quickly became clear to me that there was something very wrong. Nevertheless I'd drop it and go back to the straight bat, which is why I made the (ludicrous in hindsight) suggestion that we cut out the mindless personal abuse, which for a while worked in that the dare I say it liberal fcuktards, i.e. me and other thinking people, just copped the abuse without retaliation.

After a little more of this, it was readily apparent that the people like, well you know who, were never ever going to engage in good faith as a matter of principle. I have to admire your persistence though. However in case you're wondering why I still persist albeit without trying to waste my time by taking them seriously, it is because they give me a window on a whole class of Brietbarty type people, without having to deal with more than a few. In fact after a bit of a recent tour of Breitbart, especially the comments section I see that these types of non thinking individuals are commonplace. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it does surprise me.

But yes they do predate Trump and in fact Trump probably worked out that this was the group that he'd have most success playing up to. Them and the extreme Christian lobby whose desire for the subjugation of women by forcing them to have children instead of abortions, also benefit from a symbiotic relationship with Trump. At least they have a plan, or an ideal, unlike Lindsay Graham who just craves power for its own sake.

Eegore wrote on 05/04/20 at 17:57:14:

 I have also indicated multiple times that I am not attempting to change anyone's mind.  
... my intent is not typically to change anyone's mind,...:  

So glad you use the word, "... typically ...",

A sizeable portion of the country supports Trumps platform as the electoral college reveals.

You must have had an irony transplant. The electoral college is an archaic remnant designed to appease the governors when the Constitution was drafted and the Founders would be horrified at it's effect 200 years later.

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
November 7, 2012

Back to my original post,, Ive been bust A.F. the lAST FEW DAYS, grandkids and real life intruded,,
Now,, I know heads will explode,, BUYT,, The nannyism of
OHH, But we MUST have licenses, else How will we ever Protect Everyone else?? BULLSHIT, thats not Why licenseing started.. It was to make commercial haulers Pay for the Priveledge of Using the roads Built By the taxes from the public, For the public,,Naturally that mutated..
Nope. No Licenses required for public use,, None Zero,,

OHH, BUt you cant DO that,, Thats Dangerous,,

REally? And just how HARD is driving? Seriously,, A damm five year old can drive,, Saw it on the news,, He made it quite a ways before he was stopped.. NOT Crashed, Stopped..
Prior Restraint,, OHh thats how we accomplish Keeping people Saaafe,, Its for your Saaafety,,,
No,, You hold people REsponsible for Their Behavior.. Thats what the Law is for. Not to keep people from doing things, but to hold them accountable..

Driver traiining otta be Part OF school.. Everyone who is about to be the age they can get a license should be able to sign up for a class and get a certificate. Possession of said certification not required,, Like your diploma,, You dont carry that around.. Just because peple are trained to accept it all as Right doesnt mean reimagining things couldnt be better.
But, movement towards individual freedom is met , always, by nanny staters, with Gasps, clutching of pearls, and cries of Ohh, NOOO,,
Kinda like when Texas said it was okay to CC your gun in the restaurant /bar,,, Gonne Be BLOOD in the Steeets!
Nope,,
CC started getting more and more common..

Gun VIOLENCE will Skyrocket!!!
Nope,, Not just wrong, but the exact opposite was true.

So, since Ive been wrong so often,, I am probably wrong here, too..

REally? And just how HARD is driving? Seriously,, A damm five year old can drive,, Saw it on the news,, He made it quite a ways before he was stopped.. NOT Crashed, Stopped..

 Thats a really poor argument.  Lets get 100 5 year old kids, put them on public roads and see what happens.  By your logic driving is easy based off of how far "quite a ways" is and if a person will crash a car.  

 Lets compare that to how many car accidents there are a day and see if you want to stick to that formula.

 You select what you want and discard evidence you don't like and expect us to do the same.  You reference court cases you wont even read as proof and conveniently leave out the parts that indicate opposite of what your claims are.


"So, since Ive been wrong so often,, I am probably wrong here, too.."

 I'd say you are right about the gun assessment but are using very incorrect methods of assessment to calculate how difficult driving is, and are referencing documents very selectively to only show the parts you like and not the whole document.  So the Constitutionality argument for licensing may be right, but you are using a terrible method of proving that.