Trellania wrote:And yes, lithium is a relatively dense metal. All atoms heavier than helium are metals.
Hold on! So oxygen is a metal?
No. This is what
Advertisement
by Araraukar » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:29 pm
Trellania wrote:And yes, lithium is a relatively dense metal. All atoms heavier than helium are metals.
Hold on! So oxygen is a metal?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wallenburg » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:34 pm
by Trellania » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:36 pm
by Goobergunchia » Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:28 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Amazing how you can simply dismiss an argument without any reasoning whatsoever. I see you haven't changed a bit. Anything you agree with has a strict narrow interpretation. Anything you are trying to pass has the most broad definitions possible.
Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.
by Wrapper » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:04 am
the definition of "Toxic Heavy Metals" is incredibly broad and problematic as the resolution does not require that toxic heavy metals actually be toxic, only "potentially toxic"
Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:05 am
by Herby » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:09 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ok I've tried to post a reply to this challenge and some points made in the thread like four times but my phone ate all of them and my thumbs really hurt now, so I'm gonna say I agree with IA for now and circle back later.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:14 am
Herby wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Ok I've tried to post a reply to this challenge and some points made in the thread like four times but my phone ate all of them and my thumbs really hurt now, so I'm gonna say I agree with IA for now and circle back later.
LOL wut? You agree with IA but you marked it legal? That needs an explanation.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:18 am
Wrapper wrote:Admittedly the repeal does gets a little hyperbolic in the next paragraph:Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,
That is arguably incorrect, but, it is stated as a Believing clause. As such, it is up to the electorate as to whether they believe it or not, given the set of circumstances laid out. Therefore, while one may argue against this statement's veracity, such a hyperbolic statement of belief should be considered embellishment or exaggeration; as such it would not be subject to the Honest Mistake rule.
by Herby » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:19 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Herby wrote:LOL wut? You agree with IA but you marked it legal? That needs an explanation.
I marked it legal before reviewing this thread. Control panel rulings are custodial. Where something isn't overtly illegal, it generally gets a pass. This got a pass before I got to review the challenge.
by Jedinsto » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:19 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Wrapper wrote:Admittedly the repeal does gets a little hyperbolic in the next paragraph:Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,
That is arguably incorrect, but, it is stated as a Believing clause. As such, it is up to the electorate as to whether they believe it or not, given the set of circumstances laid out. Therefore, while one may argue against this statement's veracity, such a hyperbolic statement of belief should be considered embellishment or exaggeration; as such it would not be subject to the Honest Mistake rule.
That belief is identical to the the justification which you give for the claim that the WA committee would in fact do that. If wrapping anything into a 'Believing' clause or something of the like would mean we can put anything we want into repeals, I mean, sure I guess that'd be great. I'll get on repealing lots of stuff for entirely bogus reasons.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:20 am
Herby wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:I marked it legal before reviewing this thread. Control panel rulings are custodial. Where something isn't overtly illegal, it generally gets a pass. This got a pass before I got to review the challenge.
We’ll that’s bad news then. I was hoping you meant you agreed with Wrapper, not IA. Which, you should agree with Wrapper, because, you know, he’s da man!
Ehhh not very convincing, is it?
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:22 am
Herby wrote:Ehhh not very convincing, is it?
by Jedinsto » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:28 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Herby wrote:We’ll that’s bad news then. I was hoping you meant you agreed with Wrapper, not IA. Which, you should agree with Wrapper, because, you know, he’s da man!
Ehhh not very convincing, is it?
Wrapper makes a convincing argument but it involves findings of fact. GenSec doesn't do that. Otherwise we would need advanced degrees in everything. I can only bullshit so much.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:31 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ok I've tried to post a reply to this challenge and some points made in the thread like four times but my phone ate all of them and my thumbs really hurt now, so I'm gonna say I agree with IA for now and circle back later.
by Vikanias » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:38 am
by Wrapper » Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:15 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:I can only bullshit so much.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:That belief is identical to the the justification which you give for the claim that the WA committee would in fact do that. If wrapping anything into a 'Believing' clause or something of the like would mean we can put anything we want into repeals, I mean, sure I guess that'd be great. I'll get on repealing lots of stuff for entirely bogus reasons.
Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to noteevery "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be aevery "potentially toxic" metal, including relatively low toxicity heavy metals such as gold, bismuth and tin, as a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,
by WayNeacTia » Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:00 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Wrapper wrote:Admittedly the repeal does gets a little hyperbolic in the next paragraph:Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,
That is arguably incorrect, but, it is stated as a Believing clause. As such, it is up to the electorate as to whether they believe it or not, given the set of circumstances laid out. Therefore, while one may argue against this statement's veracity, such a hyperbolic statement of belief should be considered embellishment or exaggeration; as such it would not be subject to the Honest Mistake rule.
That belief is identical to the the justification which you give for the claim that the WA committee would in fact do that. If wrapping anything into a 'Believing' clause or something of the like would mean we can put anything we want into repeals, I mean, sure I guess that'd be great. I'll get on repealing lots of stuff for entirely bogus reasons.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Herby » Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:07 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:52 am
Trellania wrote:We could just let it go to vote and see what the general assembly thinks. It might fail to pass for reasoning similar to the challenge.
by Jedinsto » Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:34 am
Trellania wrote:We could just let it go to vote and see what the general assembly thinks. It might fail to pass for reasoning similar to the challenge.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:03 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Wrapper makes a convincing argument but it involves findings of fact. GenSec doesn't do that. Otherwise we would need advanced degrees in everything. I can only bullshit so much.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: The Ice States
Advertisement