Okay. I'll test that theory. Here goes. Just because you have a right to do something, and you can do it, doesn't mean you should do it. Now, did I just tell you what you should not do?
Yes, because you are directing your statement personally to me.... you did just tell me what I should not do. You just told me that "Just because I can doesn't mean you think I should."
And if you were to make that as a general statement then you are telling everyone "Just because you can doesn't mean I think you should."
No. Did I just tell you to adhere to my beliefs or principles? No. Did I just disapprove of any action by you by saying those words?
You just told me that you disapprove of my doing something, in general, just because I can but you don't think I should since your principle says so.
No. I stated a principle.
No. You told me that just because I can do something that doesn't mean I should.
A principle that is not tied to any specific action or event.
Incorrect. By using the word "something" instead of a specific it made the statement a general statement that still means... "just because you can doesn't mean I think you should."
You're still attaching a context I wasn't using.
Because the word "you" is used within the statement the judgmental context is contained within the statement itself since the meaning of the statement is a judgment of what I should not do according to your principle.
And for the umpteenth time, I wasn't the one who first posted those words. All I said was that the principle itself is valid and logical, which it is.
The principle itself is valid and logical if you, as an individual, accept that logic and wish to apply it to your life. But when you direct that statement to me, (or anyone) even in general terms, then you are expecting the validity and logic that you accept to also apply to me/them. Only I don't accept either the logic or the validity and therefor reject the principle entirely.
And we've since been expending seemingly endless time arguing because you and Blue keep trying to attach meanings to my remarks that I never stated, implied or intended, despite the fact that I've told you that over and over again.
Words have meaning... words strung together contain meanings. The statement "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." whether a specific action is mentioned or not carries the meaning of judgement that there are things people should not do even if they can. Thing is... who is passing judgement on whom? If you say it to yourself... fine. If you say it to me... not so fine.
I already said the cop had a motive, and a context I wasn't using. I've said that repeatedly. If the cop had said "A place for everything, everything in its place.", and I had said it was a sound, logical principle, would we still be arguing about that 51 posts later too?
If the cop was referring to open carry when he made that statement to the open carrier then it would not have been used as a principle but would have been used to denote that, in the cop's opinion, the park was not the place for open carry. And yes, we would still be having this discussion.
Then it will have to remain contentious, because people voice principles to each other every day. You've voiced the principles of individual rights and freedom repeatedly in this thread. Should we now say you should keep those principles to yourself instead of trying to control us? Sorry, but I'll voice any principle I feel like voicing. It's not my fault if you can't understand them, or refuse to.
