Arguing With NephilimFree

[The Watcher]

Trying to argue with NephilimFree is like trying to teach a cat to do magic tricks. He's just NOT LISTENING. It's not that he's too stupid to grasp what I'm saying, he's too stupid to try. It's like he has his hands over his ears and his eyes closed while shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!"

We're not having a difficult, complicated argument. I just keep presenting him with one clear, simple, cited fact after another, and he answers as if I said something completely different. Is he illiterate or just a moron?

Here's our little discussion, from Youtube. I'm Amigone201.

NephilimFree
People have freedom of speech without freedom to be profane. I know of no law that sayas it's legal to be profane in public, and plenty of them that state it's not ok.

amigone201
Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971). "bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."

NephilimFree
So California calls public profanity a misdemeanor. Whoopie.

amigone201
No, California CALLED public profanity a misdemeanor until the US Supreme Court ruled that you can't criminalize profanity. You said you'd never heard of a law that said profanity was legal--there's a Supreme Court ruling. It outlaws the criminalization of profanity. So now you know.

NephilimFree
It's still a misdemeanor in California. The law you quoted says it should not be a crime. There is a difference between a misdemeanor and a crime. It may not be criminal, but it's still a misdemeanor in every US state. There is no state in the US where public profanity is not illegal.

NephilimFree
What that means is, you can get fined for it, but not arrested for it.

amigone201
California Penal Code Section 2-24(17)(b): When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, by imprisonment in the state prison or by fine or imprisonment in the
county jail, it is a misdemeanor for all purposes..."

So now that I've proven you wrong on two of your last three assertions, perhaps you'd like to quote the section that criminalizes profanity? Or would you just like to go for the hat trick?

NephilimFree
You just posted a law which states it's a misdemeanor. That's what I told you it was. What don't you get? Public obscenity is currently illegal in all states of the US. Why is that hard for you to grasp? You post a law that states it is, then say it's not? Honestly, what is wrong with you?

NephilimFree
You will be arrested if you fail to pay the fine for a misdemeanor too.

amigone201
That's incorrect. You said that A) a misdemeanor is not a crime, and B) that you can't be imprisoned for a misdemeanor. I posted a law saying that a misdemeanor is a crime, and that you can be imprisoned for it.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to quote me the penal code of any state that makes profanity a crime. Not "obscenity," "profanity," as you asserted in your initial post.

[wackadoodle]

Here's our little discussion, from Youtube.

their's your first problem, the second was thinkng a guy named nephilim was capable of a thought more complex than 'bible=right', I'm guessing this talk about profanity being illegal is leading up to something about how the its constitutional *they always say the constitution agrees with them* to arrest athiests for being 'profane' against christ or some other stupid crap.

[Hades]

Nephy was never up for open debate, even though he says he is. There's a million videos on YT refuting his shit but he never responds to them because he doesn't like profanity, or anything he deems disrespectful towards his religion. Which I guess includes refutation.

[The Watcher]

Jun 24, 2009 13:33:44 GMT -5 @wackadoodle said:

Here's our little discussion, from Youtube.

their's your first problem, the second was thinkng a guy named nephilim was capable of a thought more complex than 'bible=right',

I know. Why do I bother? I guess I just thought it was so damn basic. I quote the law to him, he realizes he was wrong, end of story. Yeah, I know, it's nearly impossible to get a fundie to admit that he's wrong. But it's just so blindingly obvious that the law says the exact opposite of what he's spouting. How much easier could I possibly make it?

I'm guessing this talk about profanity being illegal is leading up to something about how the its constitutional *they always say the constitution agrees with them* to arrest athiests for being 'profane' against christ or some other stupid crap.

Almost. He's using profanity in the usual sense, i.e. it's illegal to swear in public.

Never mind that I presented him with a US SUPREME COURT RULING stating that profanity constitutionally protected speech. Gah. I just can't dumb it down any more than that!

[Old Viking]

Fundies are immune to facts. Actually, they are highly suspicious of facts. Don't waste your time.

[Distind]

Arguing With NephilimFree

And here I was thinking my repeated arguments with Metacrock and Supersport where like cracking my head against the wall.

[wmdkitty]

Wow.

That guy's thicker than clay!

[lonelocust]

YouTube comments are even more of the asshole of the internet than 4chan is.

Of course, I sometimes bother to make reasonable statements to people's inanity on there, but if you don't go in knowing that it's about as likely to get a reasonable response on YouTube as on RR, you're setting yourself up to lose all of your hair.

[The Watcher]

Yeah, I know. What was I thinking in there?

NF seems to have no idea how the law works. There doesn't need to be a law that says you CAN do something. Legal rights aren't negative and this isn't a totalitarian police state. You're allowed to do anything you want unless it's specifically prohibited by law. SOMETIMES you'll see "X is prohibited, but nothing in this chapter can be construed to apply to Y." But no, NF doesn't "know of any law" that allows profanity because we don't need laws to make things NOT crimes.

Then later, this guy Boomya555 shows up and at least TRIES to present some coherent legal arguments.

Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication - FCC phone number - [phone].

I don't know why he gave me the FCC's phone number, but anyway, that's actually a somewhat intelligent argument...except it only applies to radio communications.

Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 ,1969

That's a case about a guy who muttered some obscenities and insults at a political rally. The Supreme Court ruled doing that was permitted, so I'm not really sure why Boomya bothered with this case, since it supports my side.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 1986

This case says it's okay for a public school to punish a student for profane outbursts at school assemblies. Closer, but doesn't have anything to do with crime.

US Military Justice - UCMJ, Articles 117 and 134 govern such language. Section 917, Article 117

The UCMJ only applies to members of the armed forces. And anyway, 117 only has to do with "provocative speech and gestures," i.e., you can't incite riots or fights. 134 is huge, and says you can't do anything to shame the military.

Right, all close, but nothing quite what I wanted. Because there can BE no such law without overturning the case I posted at the top! (headdesk!)

I'm still waiting for NephilmFree to apologize for failing first year law school, though. The shit he pulled was beyond defensible.

[dasfuchs]

You're stuck in an eternal loop now, give up any life you had outside youtube, you'll refute these bozos till either of you die.

Youtube comments are where the most retarded people that exist go to comment, that and YA

[Thejebusfire]

This is why I don't argue with youtube users.

[RavynousHunter]

Nor do I. I just argue with people on Guild Wars.

[booley]

It's argument by pigheadedness, a common fallacy.

You are not right as long as Nephilim doesn't admit you are right.

You waste time backing up your argument over and over. All Nephillim has to do is cover his ears and "not get it"

There is also this....

[The Watcher]

Thanks. I enjoyed that video.

Put succinctly: the stupider someone is, the harder it is to convince him that he's stupid.