Passenger killed by air marshall

Upchurch said:
If I weren't so attached to my title, I would consider changing it to "Zen Master of Argumentation".

Of course, a Zen Master who is attached to something is a contradiction anyway.
Click to expand...

Papa Funkumentation


oh yeah!
 
Upchurch said:
I'm too attached to "Funkosophy". I know it was a spoof of "Foolosophy", but for the life of me, I can't remember who I was spoofing.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. I meant Zen Master of .....
Sorta provides consistancy ....
 
Just so I'm clear (and to get us back on topic with our derail of a derail), is there something wrong with Grammy's argument/evidence*, has Claus not had enough time to respond**, or is this a case of conceeding through abandonment?




* I don't think there is, it was very concisely put.
** Which is entirely possible. I know my own life can get quite hectic at a moment's notice.
 
Upchurch said:
Just so I'm clear (and to get us back on topic with our derail of a derail), is there something wrong with Grammy's argument/evidence*, has Claus not had enough time to respond**, or is this a case of conceeding through abandonment?




* I don't think there is, it was very concisely put.
** Which is entirely possible. I know my own life can get quite hectic at a moment's notice.
Click to expand...

I would like to know this too.
 
CFLarsen said:
A link to a post where I repeatedly say that I don't argue that the DoI is a legal document.

That's your "evidence"?

Try a bit harder.
Click to expand...
Look again. It is a post that points out a number of times when you argued that US citizens have the rights described in the DoI. Unless you know of another basis for members of a legally oriented body to have rights under that body, I'd say that is evidence that you have treated the DoI as a legal document.

There is, of course, a difference between what you actually do and what you say you do. Therein lies the (well, "a") problem.
 
CFLarsen said:
A link to a post where I repeatedly say that I don't argue that the DoI is a legal document.

That's your "evidence"?

Try a bit harder.
Click to expand...

Along with my comment in the inherent and unavoidable contrudiction that position, coupled with your quotes -- sometimes in the very same sentance -- carries.

I am not sure if you are ignoring on purpose my and Upchurch's(I believe his position is the same) question as to how you can view something not being legal and official but at the same time have any sort of power to endow anyone with anything.

If you argue that DoI has no legal and offical standing then you CAN NOT argue it can endow people with rights.

Is that clear enough?
 
Grammatron said:
I am not sure if you are ignoring on purpose my and Upchurch's(I believe his position is the same) question as to how you can view something not being legal and official but at the same time have any sort of power to endow anyone with anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that we are arguing the same position. i.e.:
Grammatron said:
If you argue that DoI has no legal and offical standing then you CAN NOT argue it can endow people with rights.
Click to expand...

eta: The corollary is that:

If you argue that the DoI can endow people with rights then you CAN NOT argue that it has no legal and official standing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom