Thread: When life gives you lemons, better get a permit

Originally Posted by Xei

It is public property, and the public, embodied by the government and the laws they pass, has decided that they want to keep private businesses off of their national heritage sites.

What if Macdonalds set up a huge tent on that lawn?

Do you see how stupid this argument is now?

Jeez, I had thought from then - http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/life-i...4/#post1565324 - that you'd know what an argument was by now. How can I find an argument where there is none? As for my statements, Xei, can you find any fault in them?

Originally Posted by Somii

Jeez, I had thought from then - http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/life-i...4/#post1565324 - that you'd know what an argument was by now. How can I find an argument where there is none? As for my statements, Xei, can you find any fault in them? Can you refute them or prove them stupid?

Xei, your constant display of stupidity is becoming a nuisance now. When will you ever be right? Continuation of such is unacceptable.

What an awesome debating tactic. Simply pretend the counterargument doesn't exist. It's impenetrable!

You haven't provided an argument. You said that not being able to set up private businesses on a public monument is a 'restriction of rights', and that's basically all you said. It's semantic nonsense. You haven't defined 'rights'. Implicitly you're defining a right as the ability to do anything you want. In reality many rights are actually defined by the inability of others to do certain things. This is obvious.

I'd like to hear what Philosopher and Blueline have to say.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Been drinking tonight?

Hah, I can see why you may have thought that, but no, I wasn't - just stressed. Such behavior isn't likened to me, and for that, I have retracted any negativity towards Xei, and shall give a proper response to you. It's the least I could do

Xei, your problem probably arises from my gamble of the terms 'permitted code of conduct'. When typing this I was well aware of the gamble of using it, for our code of conduct isn't permitted if the laws enacted restricted certain rights, as can be inferred from the enforcement of such probable laws seen in the video. However, in the case that such enforcement was out of regulation, then, such code of conduct may have been permissible.

Spartiate, my point was that my idea about whether or not I considered it a good idea, shouldn't matter, for I respect the rights of other people to carry out what freedoms they may have, without anyone restricting them. Good or bad, deciding one, while unaware of the many factors that are involved, couldn't be well thought out. Besides, the answer probably wouldn't be of both extremes.

This is about as much of an assault on our freedoms as not letting pedestrians roam inside the White House is.