*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

This isn't semantics, not unless by "punsihment" you mean "an unfavourable outcome".

You can't just go abusing the meaning of words and then crying "semantics" when someone argues the point you're making. Find better language.

[CoccoBill]

This isn't semantics, not unless by "punsihment" you mean "an unfavourable outcome".

You can't just go abusing the meaning of words and then crying "semantics" when someone argues the point you're making. Find better language.

I said "getting punished for crimes that haven't happened is not ok" as a general anecdote. It's you who's been trying to implant a specific scenario to that. I still maintain that comparing a literal punishment for a crime to a declining a benefit due to a criminal record is not entirely inapt.

But all of this is of course meaningless to the discussion, as you well know. It is not ok to e.g. deny a person access to a country based on their beliefs, whether you call that a punishment or not.

[BananaStand]

I said "getting punished for crimes that haven't happened is not ok" as a general anecdote..

WRONG. In post 3132 you quoted Ong talking about keeping strangers out of his house and you claimed that it would be reasonable for that stranger to feel punished. Post 3132. You just misquoted your damn self man.

I still maintain that comparing a literal punishment for a crime to a declining a benefit due to a criminal record is not entirely inapt.

Holy shit man, you are just cooked. Do yourself a favor. Go on Amazon.com, and order yourself some American textbooks. In there, you'll find words like "earn" and "privilege" and "responsibility". Educate yourself.

You keep using words like "decline" and "benefit" that just show you're brainwashed drone of the nanny state. Wake the fuck up.

But all of this is of course meaningless to the discussion, as you well know. It is not ok to e.g. deny a person access to a country based on their beliefs

That's not how you use e.g.

And yes it is ok to do that.