- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
read the thread. its pretty darn clear who the NYC-haters are.
I have been reading the thread. But obviously I am not percieving what you are. So why don't you just state a name? Let them defend themselves.
I don't call out forum members. Its not my style.
In otherwords...(said in my best imitation Thunder voice....) "I'm probably wrong but I don't want to be proven that I am wrong so that I can hold onto my belief which makes it easier for me to dismiss actual arguements"
Gotcha. :coffeepap
If it is a legal product and is provided by the company then yes in relation to this case, people do have a right to buy X size of a product.
Why not????
Because it's not a right. They only have a right to buy that which is available for legal purchase.
So now you are moving the goal posts.
There either is a chance of success or there isn't.
And some people believe that there are times when even the slightest bit of a chance is better than no chance.
interesting POV. Never thought about that before.
you are correct. we don't have a right to buy EVERYTHING, only that which is for sale.
hmmm.
It's not just that which is available for purchase. It's that which is available for legal purchase. Drugs are available for purchase, but they are not legally available for purchase.
The government's duties include regulating commerce. People have a right to have legislation on the commerce in their local region that differs from other regions.
This law is no different from a town banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays, or even being a dry town altogether.
Not to those who comprehend what they read. I was pretty clear in my post what I meant. I'm not responsible for your inability to comprehend what it meant. You specifically said that we don't know if it has worked. that means the calculation is performed with a 0 in the known successes column and thus, we can conclude the likely probability of success is therefore 0.
You changed your argument from no known successes to possibly being able to cite one single success. That doesn't change the fact that you are not basing your fallacious argument on probability. It just means you are really bad at calculating probabilities.
If there are no known instances of success and numerous known instances of failure, the only probability of success that can be calculated is zero probability.
If there are very very few known instances of success and a plethora of known instances of failure, the probability of success that can be calculated will be about zero.
That means, if one or two instances can actually be found,t the probability of success for pissing and moaning is about the same, but not quite the same, as the probability of success for taking a **** on a wildebeest's vagina.
And if people use that "logic" to employ methods that have only the slightest chance of success instead of employing ones that have a much, much greater chance of success, then they are exceptionally stupid. It's much smarter to take one of the plethora of approach that has a significantly greater chance of success.
It's not just that which is available for purchase. It's that which is available for legal purchase. Drugs are available for purchase, but they are not legally available for purchase.
The government's duties include regulating commerce. People have a right to have legislation on the commerce in their local region that differs from other regions.
This law is no different from a town banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays, or even being a dry town altogether.
No, they don't. Saying something false doesn't make it true.
It's not just that which is available for purchase. It's that which is available for legal purchase. Drugs are available for purchase, but they are not legally available for purchase.
The government's duties include regulating commerce. People have a right to have legislation on the commerce in their local region that differs from other regions.
This law is no different from a town banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays, or even being a dry town altogether.
just buy two sodas. problem solved.
another mountain out of a molehill, from folks who are totally unaffected by the problem.
If it's that simple to get around the ban, what's the point of the ban in the first place? Why is your state government wasting time and effort trying to pass laws that are entirely impotent?...
a ban on 64 oz sodas is stupid..... but I really don't care what they do in New York... it's New Yorkers problem, not mine.
i respect your honest view.
i respect you not being a busy-body. Thank you.
:lamo
Oh man the hypocrisy in this post is just overflowing!
yeah, how the **** is it hypocritical????
i respect you not being a busy-body. Thank you.
What was your stance on guns again? No need to really answer as just about everyone here knows.
what the **** does this have to do with guns?????????????
you're comparing sugary drinks...to guns????
holy **** that's a retarded analogy.
what the **** does this have to do with guns?????????????
you're comparing sugary drinks...to guns????
holy **** that's a retarded analogy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?