Man kills self at Dicks Sporting Goods

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you do in fact think that in some cases a third party can be held liable for another's actions. Fascinating.
No, you have intentionally misstated my answer: "another" and a "child" are not the same thing... Children hold a very strange and fluid place in our society with all adults being _more_ responsible for ensuring they don't come to harm than they are for some random adult. There is no black and white answer to that which gets back to WHY I OPPOSE LEGISLATING WHAT A JURY MUST DECIDE.

Also, I had answered various of your questions before with the simplest of answers, but you kept changing the question. You asked if I supported such a law, I said no. You asked if I would find him liable, I said yes taking your facts strictly as stated. I never dodged your question, I just gave an answer you did not like.

Also, as I predicted, you made erected a straw man of whether an adult is responsible for what a child does and then burned it down by connecting that to what an adult thief (or a juvenile committing an adult crime) does with something they stole from me.

Not even remotely the same situation.
 
As a matter of fact, I kneed to have them custom made extra thick, or I wind up dragging. I was picking up a mouth guard.

Obviously you weren't buying a cup, but you should have picked up a helmet too. You must have taken too many shots in the face.
 
I appreciate the answer. It's really easy to be "intellectually honest" and answer the question and then say "but I'd never support a law.... blah blah" than to dodge it for a week.

So you do in fact think that in some cases a third party can be held liable for another's actions. Fascinating. That goes against every single other thing you've said on the issue. I'm sure you'll try to think of a way to refute that, but whatever.

So we've accomplished two things in the thread: That all rights an individual has may be violated by the government with your blessing as long as they apply due process, and that third parties can be held liable for the actions of others.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

I think I'll take a break now for a bit if that's ok.

Can you name your logical fallacy?
Here I will make it easy for you:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
When you become crazy you lose that right. You forfeit the right when you become a nut, or mentally ill. You can't drive blind, so you shouldn't carry crazy.
While I agree with you, driving is a privilege, not a right. Comparing the privilege of driving, to the right of gun ownership, is a slippery slope.
 
While I agree with you, driving is a privilege, not a right. Comparing the privilege of driving, to the right of gun ownership, is a slippery slope.

Its also a strawman argument. What does blindness and driving have to do with RKBA?
Answer: absolutely nothing!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
What a worthless thread. Has anybody brought up the Natural Rights of Down's Syndrome sufferers yet? Spare me the tedium of reading through the last 250 posts.
 
2ir8c5y.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom