View Full Version : Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism
So intimidating.
I’m not trying to be, but sorry I scared you David Hume.
I’m not trying to be, but sorry I scared you David Hume.
:lol legal weenie trying to flex online
:lol legal weenie trying to flex online
Says the guy needling over the word “law” because he got caught with his pants down.
But please, go on about my flexing David
Says the guy needling over the word “law” because he got caught with his pants down.
But please, go on about my flexing David
You'd like to catch a guy with his pants down.
See how that works?
You'd like to catch a guy with his pants down.
See how that works?
No I wouldn’t and no I don’t. But your inability to have an adult conversation has been noted Dave.
If we just get rid of all the white nationalists we can finally have Sharia Law in the United States.
There already is Sharia Law in the US and it's no problem. Lots of religions have laws that believers are consensually bound by. If you're not a member, they don't apply.
Just to calibrate lawyer boy, here's how the goalpost was moved originally...
If you think Chris was talking about a personal code of religious ethics, you're too stupid to have this argument.
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 09:20 PM
Btw..
law
Noun
4 The body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religions text.
New Oxford American Dictionary
:lol DMC
spurraider21
04-02-2019, 09:22 PM
Just to calibrate lawyer boy, here's how the goalpost was moved originally...
If you think Chris was talking about a personal code of religious ethics, you're too stupid to have this argument.
you're the one who busted out the dictionary... which seems pointless given the stance you've now taken
If we just get rid of all the white nationalists we can finally have Sharia Law in the United States.
There already is Sharia Law in the US and it's no problem. Lots of religions have laws that believers are consensually bound by. If you're not a member, they don't apply.
Btw..
law
Noun
4 The body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religions text.
New Oxford American Dictionary
:lol DMC
Wow Th'Pussy with a news flash that there's more than one definition for "law", ignores the fact that Chris was using a different one and that it was obvious.
:lol has to go to the 4th definition in the list
you're the one who busted out the dictionary... which seems pointless given the stance you've now taken
What stance have I taken? Be more specific.
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 09:27 PM
Wow Th'Pussy with a news flash that there's more than one definition for "law", ignores the fact that Chris was using a different one and that it was obvious.
:lol you just argued your singular definition of the word law for two days.
:lol you just argued your singular definition of law for two days.
I argued the version Chris implied in his post. The rest is just random ankle biters who don't know the context. This is why I asked for their definition of "law" in Sharia law.
Just to calibrate lawyer boy, here's how the goalpost was moved originally...
If you think Chris was talking about a personal code of religious ethics, you're too stupid to have this argument.
WH23 is right. What you and Chris are too stupid to understand is that he never suggested that it had been codified by statute or somehow adopted as a matter of common law. There are Muslim, Jewish, fundamentalist Christian, Hindi, etc ... communities that follow the precepts of their religion as a matter of law (in their own minds).
As for the issue of whether those laws can carry penalties, it’s a much more open issue than you’d think. I’d say take a look at Employment Division v. Smith, but we both know you won’t because you’re too much of a coward to have an actual conversation on the topic.
What stance have I taken? Be more specific.
:rofl
Too scared to give his take
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 09:35 PM
I argued the version Chris implied in his post. The rest is just random ankle biters who don't know the context. This is why I asked for their definition of "law" in Sharia law.
And when explicitly asked by winehole whether you agreed with Chris’ implication, you punted becase he left out a word. Why? Because you didn’t want to take a side. You wanted to have an argument based on semantics. It’s kind of your thing.
WH23 is right. What you and Chris are too stupid to understand is that he never suggested that it had been codified by statute or somehow adopted as a matter of common law. There are Muslim, Jewish, fundamentalist Christian, Hindi, etc ... communities that follow the precepts of their religion as a matter of law (in their own minds).
As for the issue of whether those laws can carry penalties, it’s a much more open issue than you’d think. I’d say take a look at Employment Division v. Smith, but we both know you won’t because you’re too much of a coward to have an actual conversation on the topic.
WH23 never suggested it had not. Chris' history here has established that he isn't worried about what individuals believe on their own but harbors an irrational fear of Sharia Law being applied to the judicial system of the United States. This is why he prefaced with the comment about white nationalism. Obviously Chris looks across the globe at countries where sharia plays a role in adjudicating criminal cases.
And when explicitly asked by winehole whether you agreed with Chris’ implication, you punted becase he left out a word. Why? Because you didn’t want to take a side. You wanted to have an argument based on semantics. It’s kind of your thing.
A) My belief doesn't matter to the fact of the argument and B) I asked him to clarify (which he never did).
:rofl
Too scared to give his take
Why, because I want Philo to actually state what he thinks my stance is?
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 09:43 PM
No, I was saying eventually the argument would devolve into nothing more than solipsism. You keep moving back into the nebulous.^^^emotive prose break
WH23 never suggested it had not. Chris' history here has established that he isn't worried about what individuals believe on their own but harbors an irrational fear of Sharia Law being applied to the judicial system of the United States. This is why he prefaced with the comment about white nationalism. Obviously Chris looks across the globe at countries where sharia plays a role in adjudicating criminal cases.
That wasn’t WH burden. He’s right. Sharia law is here. It was incumbent on Chris to show that either a) it’s allegedly deleterious effects can be felt sans codification or b) there ain’t no sharia law.
You love playing semantic games. So use your words. We can’t see inside your minds.
And when explicitly asked by winehole whether you agreed with Chris’ implication, you punted becase he left out a word. Why? Because you didn’t want to take a side. You wanted to have an argument based on semantics. It’s kind of your thing.
By the way, you abandoned your previous claim after I stated my case, are you relinquishing that claim now? (your claim that I spent the last two days arguing for a specific definition).
Why, because I want Philo to actually state what he thinks my stance is?
Yes. You won’t say what you stand for/what your take is. That’s cowardly.
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 09:46 PM
A) My belief doesn't matter to the fact of the argument exactly. This fact is what enables your engagement in the semantic virtual rodeo.
B) I asked him to clarify (which he never did).
Too bad. It might have put an end to your 8 seconds...
^^^emotive prose break
You think he meant to say relativism?
That wasn’t WH burden. He’s right. Sharia law is here. It was incumbent on Chris to show that either a) it’s allegedly deleterious effects can be felt sans codification or b) there ain’t no sharia law.
You love playing semantic games. So use your words. We can’t see inside your minds.
Chris has no such burden. It's WH's burden to clarify what Chris means when he says "Sharia law". Otherwise we can, from now through forever, argue that a law exists already since two or more people can practice it - even if the bill is defeated in Congress.
You make your living from semantics. You shouldn't bitch.
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 09:49 PM
Just to calibrate lawyer boy, here's how the goalpost was moved originally...
If you think Chris was talking about a personal code of religious ethics, you're too stupid to have this argument.What you think Chris is talking about is truly touching.
Maybe you should dip back in the thread to see where Chris is at.
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 09:49 PM
By the way, you abandoned your previous claim after I stated my case, are you relinquishing that claim now? (your claim that I spent the last two days arguing for a specific definition).
You absolutely argued a specific definition for two days.
Chris has no such burden. It's WH's burden to clarify what Chris means when he says "Sharia law". Otherwise we can, from now through forever, argue that a law exists already since two or more people can practice it - even if the bill is defeated in Congress.
You make your living from semantics. You shouldn't bitch.
WH23 made a claim - sharia law is already here. He supported that with an example (Christians/annulment; binding arbitration).
The burden swings back to someone who takes issue with that. If you wanna negate it, it’s yours or Chris’s burden to show that is not the same as what you meant with your “sharia law.” He’s not in your head; it’s your burden to clarify your definition of what sharia law is vis a vis his.
And you wouldn’t know what I do since you can’t afford my fee, solipsism.
What you think Chris is talking about is truly touching.
Maybe you should dip back in the thread to see where Chris is at.
You should post your daily avalanche of scattered thoughts as they come between phenobarbital doses.
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 09:54 PM
You think he meant to say relativism?The contents of DMC's braincase, is a mystery not for me to penetrate. Hopefully.
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 09:55 PM
You should post your daily avalanche of scattered thoughts as they come between phenobarbital doses.GaslightingMC.
Been your style for awhile.
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 09:57 PM
I like wine. DM me for more details.
WH23 made a claim - sharia law is already here. He supported that with an example (Christians/annulment; binding arbitration).
To which I scoffed since Chris was referring to something completely different.
WH's comments could easily be taken to mean that, since other religions practice their beliefs, it's the same as Sharia, since the second sentence in the statement could be taken to support the 1st.
The burden swings back to someone who takes issue with that. If you wanna negate it, it’s yours or Chris’s burden to show that is not the same as what you meant with your “sharia law.” He’s not in your head; it’s your burden to clarify your definition of what sharia law is vis a vis his.
This is why I asked for the definition being used. There was no response.
However WH took issue with what Chris was saying, so the burden moves back to WH.
And you wouldn’t know what I do since you can’t afford my fee, solipsism.
I don't have to hire you to know what you do. You make it obvious.
To which I scoffed since Chris was referring to something completely different.
WH's comments could easily be taken to mean that, since other religions practice their beliefs, it's the same as Sharia, since the second sentence in the statement could be taken to support the 1st.
This is why I asked for the definition being used. There was no response.
However WH took issue with what Chris was saying, so the burden moves back to WH.
I don't have to hire you to know what you do. You make it obvious.
The whole point was to argue that they are not *completely different* doubling down on semantics is what ChrisMC did to deflect away from arguing the merits of the point. Your quibbling for several days reinforces this point.
Fact still stands, you can’t lay my fee.
You absolutely argued a specific definition for two days.
I already said I argued the definition Chris was using because the rest of you refused to offer an alternative.
The whole point was to argue that they are not *completely different* doubling down on semantics is what ChrisMC did to deflect away from arguing the merits of the point. Your quibbling for several days reinforces this point.
Fact still stands, you can’t lay my fee.
You're wrong. You entered into the fray wrong and you'll leave that way, and you'll take your fee with you since I've taken your time free of charge.
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 10:08 PM
I already said I argued the definition Chris was using because the rest of you refused to offer an alternative.
Glad we agree you argued a singular definition of the word law for two days.
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 10:10 PM
You're wrong. You entered into the fray wrong and you'll leave that way, and you'll take your fee with you since I've taken your time free of charge.
Do you realize that you, and maybe Chris, are the only people here that think you’re right?
You're wrong. You entered into the fray wrong and you'll leave that way, and you'll take your fee with you since I've taken your time free of charge.
Saying it doesn’t make it so, babycakes. Your concession here, along with the fact that you can’t pay my fee, is nevertheless noted.
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 10:33 PM
Not really, you just drank too much.
I wasn't saying Sharia law was the civil code here, it never could be; but Sharia Law does apply to believers anywhere in the world, as spiritual law, no different from Jewish or Christian law.
There is Sharia Law anywhere there are Muslims just like you find Halacha wherever you find observant Jews. The fear that any religious law will become the civil code in the US is rank fearmongering.
Do you think Muslims are trying to get Islamic spiritual law instituted as a civil code of law in the US, DMC (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=20665)?
Can you rephrase that? Not sure if you're asking me what I think or what I know.
Btw- notice winehole edited his post to add the word “think” which answered your question.
You avoided that edit, because it would have required you to provide an opinion. And, god knows you’d hate to take a position at the expense of a good online argument over semantics.
The fence-riding you continue to attribute to spurraider is pure projection. You’re the one that never takes a position. I’d also argue you enjoy the online rodeo as much as, if not more than, CD. Your tactics difffer in that they’re pedantic or semantic and frequently both... as has been pointed out here by multiple posters.
^^^emotive prose break
I've remained consistent in my approach. You just don't have a firm grasp of reality.
Saying it doesn’t make it so, babycakes. Your concession here, along with the fact that you can’t pay my fee, is nevertheless noted.
Getting your Pavlov on.
Btw- notice winehole edited his post to add the word “think” which answered your question.
You avoided that edit, because it would have required you to provide an opinion. And, god knows you’d hate to take a position at the expense of a good online argument over semantics.
The fence-riding you continue to attribute to spurraider is pure projection. You’re the one that never takes a position. I’d also argue you enjoy the online rodeo as much as, if not more than, CD. Your tactics difffer in that they’re pedantic or semantic and frequently both... as has been pointed out here by multiple posters.
I don't recheck old posts to see if they were edited. I did provide an opinion just a few post up. Regardless, the common "lashing out" tactic here is to try to pin the poster to a stance instead of arguing the point that's being made. If you can vilify or marginalize the opinion of your opponent, you feel you're closer to winning some invisible internet trophy.
You're so sloppy in your approach that any attempt to debate you ends up with you eating crow and walking back most of what you say. It's pointless. Your reputation here is less than stellar.
Do you realize that you, and maybe Chris, are the only people here that think you’re right?
Do you realize that "thinking you're right" has no real meaning in a debate? Popularity contests are in the next room.
Glad we agree you argued a singular definition of the word law for two days.
Then you came in and posted the 4th version of the definition as if I didn't see that when I copied and pasted the 1st version.
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 11:02 PM
Over 21, goes without saying. Legal adults only, please.
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 11:05 PM
I've remained consistent in my approach. You just don't have a firm grasp of reality.You seem to have a sensitive grasp of your own opinion. Please follow that.
Over 21, goes without saying. Legal adults only, please.
Being legal doesn't necessarily make them real people.
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 11:14 PM
I don't recheck old posts to see if they were edited. I did provide an opinion just a few post up. Regardless, the common "lashing out" tactic here is to try to pin the poster to a stance instead of arguing the point that's being made. If you can vilify or marginalize the opinion of your opponent, you feel you're closer to winning some invisible internet trophy.
You're so sloppy in your approach that any attempt to debate you ends up with you eating crow and walking back most of what you say. It's pointless. Your reputation here is less than stellar.
You offered an opinion after 2 days of arguing against a definition winehole had pretty well defined as illustrated below:
I wasn't saying Sharia law was the civil code here, it never could be; but Sharia Law does apply to believers anywhere in the world, as spiritual law, no different from Jewish or Christian law.
There is Sharia Law anywhere there are Muslims just like you find Halacha wherever you find observant Jews. The fear that any religious law will become the civil code in the US is rank fear mongering
You're so sloppy in your approach that any attempt to debate you ends up with you eating crow and walking back most of what you say. It's pointless. Your reputation here is less than stellar.
I’d argue sloppy could be defined as not doing your due diligence in reading edits to original posts.
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 11:22 PM
Lazy!
Th'Pusher
04-02-2019, 11:25 PM
Then you came in and posted the 4th version of the definition as if I didn't see that when I copied and pasted the 1st version.
Tbh, it wasn’t clear you’d seen the 4th definition as you’d argued the 1st so fervently on Chris’ behalf even after winehole had clarified the distinction between his and Chris’ point.
Even the local lawyers were confused by your semantic approach to debate. At some point, you have to look at this introspectively.
Tbh, it wasn’t clear you’d seen the 4th definition as you’d argued the 1st so fervently on Chris’ behalf even after winehole had clarified the distinction between his and Chris’ point.
Even the local lawyers were confused by your semantic approach to debate. At some point, you have to look at this introspectively.
So when you found the 4th version, did you have to bypass the 1st 3 to get there? If so, how was it not clear?
The local lawyers are playing partisan politics. The same people fall on the same sides of the arguments here, it indicates nothing about being right or wrong, just being right or left.
Winehole23
04-02-2019, 11:31 PM
dZV-4tW5lKY
You offered an opinion after 2 days of arguing against a definition winehole had pretty well defined as illustrated below:
I’d argue sloppy could be defined as not doing your due diligence in reading edits to original posts.
I answered the post (you decided to omit my answer to try to prove some misguided point).
It's a huge stretch to call self imposed rules "laws" since they cannot be enforced. Who in the US is issuing fatwas? Don't conflate Sharia with Sharia law. Do we have Christian law since Christians also have the 10 Commandments?
Since we already have Christian law in the US, why do people worry about Christian values affecting the law in the US?
dZV-4tW5lKY
http://www.e5pharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Phenobarbital-820x490-32.4mg.jpg
Th'Pusher
04-03-2019, 12:14 AM
So when you found the 4th version, did you have to bypass the 1st 3 to get there? If so, how was it not clear?
The local lawyers are playing partisan politics. The same people fall on the same sides of the arguments here, it indicates nothing about being right or wrong, just being right or left..
You’re so full of shit. You infer meaning into shitposter Chris’ post while calling me sloppy, whinehole a substense abuser and accusing the local lawyers of partisan politics? You’re in bed with a provocateur/shitstain for the sole purpose of arguing semantics anonymously on the internet while providing value in the form of actual opinion as infrequently possible.
Winehole23
04-03-2019, 12:58 AM
http://www.e5pharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Phenobarbital-820x490-32.4mg.jpgif you don't like Zam Rock, I'm not sure you like rock. JMO.
It's worth once through, lazybones, what else have you got to do?
Winehole23
04-03-2019, 01:03 AM
Post silly memes and narratives about me?
How dull and ordinary.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 01:32 AM
:lol "lawyer boy" as some kind of attempt at an insult
Winehole23
04-03-2019, 01:51 AM
Anti-intellectual nisus.
Punch up at the cultural and political elite.
Have you seen DEATHWISH recently?
Disclosure: Eight years old at the time, my parents liked middlie aged serial vigilante Charles Bronson for some reason.
The hardcore old hollywood ugly film star trope was jarring at the time for a tender and relatively inexperienced me,, but watching it now is a nostalgic idyll for the look of the world in my early childhood, when I was first becomimg accustomed to it
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 02:04 AM
Anti-intellectual nisus.
Punch up at the cultural and political elite.
Have you seen DEATHWISH recently?
Disclosure: Eight years old at the time, my parents liked middlie aged serial vigilante Charles Bronson for some reason.
The hardcore old hollywood ugly film star trope was jarring at the time for a tender and relatively inexperienced me,, but watching it now is a nostalgic idyll for the look of the world in my early childhood, when I was first becomimg accustomed to it:lol I don't even remember the first much. One sequel or another was just ridiculous with the amount of indiscriminate killing that old ugly dude limping around was doing.
I saw a bunch of movies I was too young for back then to be sure.
So when you found the 4th version, did you have to bypass the 1st 3 to get there? If so, how was it not clear?
The local lawyers are playing partisan politics. The same people fall on the same sides of the arguments here, it indicates nothing about being right or wrong, just being right or left.
Hot take
P:lolrtis:loln p:lollitics
Lotta argument about everything except substance ... deflectmc in full effect
It’d be fine to play words with friends, but you ain’t no Derrida babycakes
Hot take
P:lolrtis:loln p:lollitics
Lotta argument about everything except substance ... deflectmc in full effect
It’d be fine to play words with friends, but you ain’t no Derrida babycakes
Living in your firm, pro bono :lol
.
You’re so full of shit. You infer meaning into shitposter Chris’ post while calling me sloppy, whinehole a substense abuser and accusing the local lawyers of partisan politics? You’re in bed with a provocateur/shitstain for the sole purpose of arguing semantics anonymously on the internet while providing value in the form of actual opinion as infrequently possible.
I was actually quite lenient with you. Truth be told you're borderline mentally retarded.
Anti-intellectual nisus.
Punch up at the cultural and political elite.
Have you seen DEATHWISH recently?
Disclosure: Eight years old at the time, my parents liked middlie aged serial vigilante Charles Bronson for some reason.
The hardcore old hollywood ugly film star trope was jarring at the time for a tender and relatively inexperienced me,, but watching it now is a nostalgic idyll for the look of the world in my early childhood, when I was first becomimg accustomed to it
:lol
Trolling on ST is so culturally elite.. maybe throw in a big word here and there and multi post unprompted just to show how eccentric you are.
So elite
:lmao
Winehole23
04-03-2019, 01:27 PM
Paul Kersey read Harper's Magazine in the first DEATHWISH.
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 01:35 PM
dmc busted out the dictionary defintion, performed all sorts of mental gymnastics to assume that "community" as used in the definition must refer to a state, etc...
and then pretends all he cared about all along was what chris initially meant. so why go through that earlier exercise? makes no sense.
what makes more sense is that he tried to "win" the argument over what law is, realize he was caught with his pants down, and then moved the goalposts to "well thats not what chris meant"
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 01:49 PM
dmc busted out the dictionary defintion, performed all sorts of mental gymnastics to assume that "community" as used in the definition must refer to a state, etc...
and then pretends all he cared about all along was what chris initially meant. so why go through that earlier exercise? makes no sense.
what makes more sense is that he tried to "win" the argument over what law is, realize he was caught with his pants down, and then moved the goalposts to "well thats not what chris meant"
Yeah sure, LAWYER BOY.
Living in your firm, pro bono :lol
No, you're not. You can't afford the fee.
dmc busted out the dictionary defintion, performed all sorts of mental gymnastics to assume that "community" as used in the definition must refer to a state, etc...
and then pretends all he cared about all along was what chris initially meant. so why go through that earlier exercise? makes no sense.
what makes more sense is that he tried to "win" the argument over what law is, realize he was caught with his pants down, and then moved the goalposts to "well thats not what chris meant"
And in all this, Chris is nowhere to be seen ...
No, you're not. You can't afford the fee.
It's been free for two days :lmao
dmc busted out the dictionary defintion, performed all sorts of mental gymnastics to assume that "community" as used in the definition must refer to a state, etc...
and then pretends all he cared about all along was what chris initially meant. so why go through that earlier exercise? makes no sense.
what makes more sense is that he tried to "win" the argument over what law is, realize he was caught with his pants down, and then moved the goalposts to "well thats not what chris meant"
There are several different discussions.
One with WH
One with Pavlov who just had to be involved
One with Th'Pusher
One with Lawyer 1
One with Lawyer 2
The last 4 pop in and out with comments and pretend that it's one discussion when all the while you are all using misdirection and either didn't know the initial conversation or you are playing catch up and feel appeal to popularity makes you right. None of you have offered anything of substance to counter the fact that WH moved the goalpost initially.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 04:21 PM
It's all one discussion.
You want everyone in the world to use your definition of law -- which was hilariously contradicted by the dictionary definition you actually posted.
I called exactly what you were going to do in my second post. I'm just here to see how many days you can whine about your self-owning.:lol
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 04:25 PM
:cry
none of that explains why you busted out dictionary definitions if your intent the whole time was just "whatever chris meant"
you shit yourself and had to backtrack
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 04:33 PM
SAYS YOU LAWYER BOY
It's been free for two days :lmao
Not at all, but I think it's cute you don't even know what it is I do babycakes.
The last 4 pop in and out with comments and pretend that it's one discussion when all the while you are all using misdirection and either didn't know the initial conversation or you are playing catch up and feel appeal to popularity makes you right. None of you have offered anything of substance to counter the fact that WH moved the goalpost initially.
Says the guy who wants to play words with friends and avoids substantive discussion like the plague.
Says the guy who wants to play words with friends and avoids substantive discussion like the plague.
So words don't matter?
none of that explains why you busted out dictionary definitions if your intent the whole time was just "whatever chris meant"
you shit yourself and had to backtrack
Dictionary bad now?
It's all one discussion.
You want everyone in the world to use your definition of law -- which was hilariously contradicted by the dictionary definition you actually posted.
I called exactly what you were going to do in my second post. I'm just here to see how many days you can whine about your self-owning.:lol
:lmao "I'm just here to"
You're here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Who are you kidding?
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 04:59 PM
Dictionary bad now?
Says the guy who wants to play words with friends and avoids substantive discussion like the plague.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 05:01 PM
:lmao "I'm just here to"
You're here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Who are you kidding?LAWYER B:cryY
:cry
Now the dictionary is bad, using words is bad and Pavlov has reasons for being here.
All this happened in the past couple of days.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 05:05 PM
Now the dictionary is bad, using words is bad and Pavlov has reasons for being here.
All this happened in the past couple of days.Reason for being ITT, sorry you're too flustered to figure that out. Tough couple of days for you, tough guy.
BTW your dictionary definition shit on you. So dictionary bad now?
Reason for being ITT, sorry you're too flustered to figure that out. Tough couple of days for you, tough guy.
BTW your dictionary definition shit on you. So dictionary bad now?:lol You kept chirping hoping someone would ask you to dance, you sittin' up in your room waiting for the meals on wheels.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 05:16 PM
:lol You kept chirping hoping someone would ask you to dance, you sittin' up in your room waiting for the meals on wheels.:lol no. I've been mocking you ever since I predicted exactly what you were going to do.
You're even more pissy and defensive than I thought you would be. Props.:tu
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 05:21 PM
Now the dictionary is bad, using words is bad and Pavlov has reasons for being here.
All this happened in the past couple of days.
no, dictionary isn't "bad." in fact, in confirmed my position as to what a "law" is and contradicted your own position to the point you had to argue that "community" must refer to a "city, state, or jurisdiction" with no basis to make such claim
your use of the dictionary also contradicts the notion that all along you were only referring to "what chris meant"
no, dictionary isn't "bad." in fact, in confirmed my position as to what a "law" is and contradicted your own position to the point you had to argue that "community" must refer to a "city, state, or jurisdiction" with no basis to make such claim
your use of the dictionary also contradicts the notion that all along you were only referring to "what chris meant"
:lol No Philo, you cherry picked one word, then took an alternate definition of that word to try to show that any group of people with similar interests constitutes a community, therefore any set of rules used by any group of people constitutes laws, so obviously that's what Chris meant when he stated his fear that Sharia Law would begin to exist in the US if white nationalism was exiled.
Is it a prerequisite to not be a straight shooter, if you want to be a lawyer? Did you study rules of small groups and religious organizations to become a lawyer? Since you needed to confirm the definition of "law" I mean.
Not like you're going to actually participate in a discussion though, you're a sniper.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 05:32 PM
This is the Cliff's Notes version of DMC's three-day "discussions" rodeo.
What is the definition of "law" in how it's being used in "Sharia law"?
So you're not going to explain yourself and want to drag me into another semantic quagmire.
Figures.
Your question alone makes it obvious that there are multiple definitions. If you find one fits what I said, use it.
Easy.
It really would have been easy for you to just do that.
Instead....
https://i.gifer.com/HpnT.gif
Ya'll look at me! Someone please talk to me!
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 05:34 PM
https://i.gifer.com/HpnT.gif
If Qhris is scared his mom is going to be executed for adultery, then he's an idiot for reasons already stated by everyone.
Not much else to say.
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 05:35 PM
:lol No Philo, you cherry picked one word, then took an alternate definition of that word to try to show that any group of people with similar interests constitutes a community, therefore any set of rules used by any group of people constitutes laws, so obviously that's what Chris meant when he stated his fear that Sharia Law would be exist in the US.
Is it a prerequisite to not be a straight shooter, if you want to be a lawyer? Did you study rules of small groups and religious organizations to become a lawyer? Since you needed to confirm the definition of "law" I mean.
Not like you're going to actually participate in a discussion though, you're a sniper.
it said rules of a particular "country or community"
that one word (community) accounts for quite a bit of the meaning. that's not cherry-picking. i dont see how that's an "alternate definition." its the very definition you provided. you're the one who made the absurd claim that "community" is referring specifically to a state, city, or jurisdiction.
why dont you go ahead and post the definition of community from that same source.
it said rules of a particular "country or community"
that one word (community) accounts for quite a bit of the meaning. that's not cherry-picking. i dont see how that's an "alternate definition." its the very definition you provided. you're the one who made the absurd claim that "community" is referring specifically to a state, city, or jurisdiction.
why dont you go ahead and post the definition of community from that same source.
Of course it said that. It didn't say "of a particular society or community"
Federal, state, local. Community represents local. It doesn't indicate religious groups or any other gathering of like minded people, not in that definition.
Consider the following:
Why do communities need laws?
Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help provide for our general safety. These exist at the local, state and national levels, and include things like: Laws about food safety.
Consider Wiki definition:
Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.[2] It has been defined both as "the Science of Justice" and "the Art of Justice".[3][4] Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.
Obviously I recognized that there are other definitions for the word "law" otherwise I wouldn't have asked for the definition in use at the time, since it was obvious what definition Chris was using, and trying to contradict his statement by using a different definition of the word "law" was moving the goalposts.
Now I expect a couple word response and some memes.
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 05:50 PM
so you didnt like the definition that you yourself provided and are now moving on to a different source for a more favorable definition. talk about shitting yourself. you're now deciding what you think community means based on what is convenient for your argument, not what it is actually defined as.
again, i urge you to post the definition of community from the same source where you got the definition of law
of course, this all makes no sense if all along all you cared about is what chris meant by law
so you didnt like the definition that you yourself provided and are now moving on to a different source for a more favorable definition. talk about shitting yourself. you're now deciding what you think community means based on what is convenient for your argument, not what it is actually defined as.
The definition was fine. I was showing you that the term "community" has usage where law is defined that doesn't necessarily mean what you claimed it meant. I wasn't redefining law. I don't know what's hard to understand about that unless you're being intentionally naive.
again, i urge you to post the definition of community from the same source where you got the definition of law
of course, this all makes no sense if all along all you cared about is what chris meant by law
It won't make sense to someone who doesn't care for the entire conversation, and only pops into try to score points now and then.
I didn't expect you to consider anything I posted, because you're dead set on getting your forum credits from pointing out your daily contradictions even if you have to make something up.
Chris
04-03-2019, 06:00 PM
makes more sense is that he tried to "win" the argument over what law is, realize he was caught with his pants down, and then moved the goalposts to "well thats not what chris meant"
Makes more sense for Winetroll to admit he was wrong and call it a day. : )
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 06:02 PM
:lol now there's no true Scotsman
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 06:04 PM
Makes more sense for Winetroll to admit he was wrong and call it a day. : )
he and i were pretty clear all along that we didnt find it realistic or possible for sharia law to ever become a law of the US or any state. we just noted that sharia or sharia law (there is no distinction) is already observed by many muslims here.
Otherwise it's just another way of saying "belief". If that's what you (Winehole) mean then you're being obtuse to suggest anyone here would be against it.
he and i were pretty clear all along that we didnt find it realistic or possible for sharia law to ever become a law of the US or any state. we just noted that sharia or sharia law (there is no distinction) is already observed by many muslims here.
I didn't think it's possible for aliens to exist, but here there are illegal aliens all over the place.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 06:13 PM
:lol DMC responding to every post I make.
Of course you can't address anything I've said anymore. I told you you were done from the very start.
Is the sun going down? I wish someone would open the blinds so I can see outside.
he and i were pretty clear all along that we didnt find it realistic or possible for sharia law to ever become a law of the US or any state. we just noted that sharia or sharia law (there is no distinction) is already observed by many muslims here.
Definition of state (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : mode or condition of being
a state of readiness
b(1) : condition of mind or temperament
in a highly nervous state
But Sharia law is already the law of some states based on that primary definition of "state".
Aren't words cool?
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 06:23 PM
Ima move det goalpost again! Please think I'm as smart as I want you to think I am!
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 06:25 PM
I didn't think it's possible for aliens to exist, but here there are illegal aliens all over the place.
Definition of state (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : mode or condition of being
a state of readiness
b(1) : condition of mind or temperament
in a highly nervous state
But Sharia law is already the law of some states based on that primary definition of "state".
Aren't words cool?
lol flailing angrily
Chris
04-03-2019, 07:03 PM
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1113547331360542720
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 07:06 PM
Remember when you weren't told to care about these things, Qhris?
Chris
04-03-2019, 07:16 PM
Remember when you weren't told to care about these things, Qhris?
Yes, I remember the feel good mockingbird media whispering sweet nothings into my ear:
"Islam is a religion of peace!"
"You can keep your doctor!"
"We found weapons of mass destruction!"
The good ol' days...
Chris
04-03-2019, 07:18 PM
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1113591067851489280
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 07:21 PM
Yes, I remember the feel good mockingbird media whispering sweet nothings into my ear:
"Islam is a religion of peace!"
"You can keep your doctor!"
"We found weapons of mass destruction!"
The good ol' days...So now you believe everything a government official says.
:rollin Qhris
Chris
04-03-2019, 07:33 PM
Refresher:
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1113495224033193986
spurraider21
04-03-2019, 07:35 PM
he specifically said he's talking about eliminating bots, not "conservative tweets"
Chris
04-03-2019, 07:47 PM
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1113573739730481153
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 07:48 PM
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1113573739730481153How fucked up are his finances that he's under audit for three years?
So words don't matter?
I'm not at all surprised you think that's what I said.
https://twitter.com/TigerLetsRoll/status/1112360033650655232
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Still running away from this
Chris
04-03-2019, 08:04 PM
Still running away from this
Nah, I just ignore you because you're a piece of trash.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 08:05 PM
:lmao Chris waves his white flag.
I've been demonstrably proven wrong by VY again so I'll run away now
Cool cool
Chris
04-03-2019, 08:42 PM
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1113127206170001408
Chris
04-03-2019, 08:46 PM
https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1113583561351864321
Winehole23
04-03-2019, 08:53 PM
how is it abusive for Dems to make POTUS show the tax returns the candidate promised us?
put up or shut up. how much is DJT really worth?
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 08:56 PM
https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1113583561351864321
Nixon was president.
Congress isn't the president.
lol Fitton
how is it abusive for Dems to make POTUS show the tax returns the candidate promised us?
put up or shut up. how much is DJT really worth?
If someone has to explain that to you, I am not sure you'll get it.
I'm not at all surprised you think that's what I said.
Then my response is what you expected when you complained about words.
lol flailing angrily
moar narratives
:lol can't handle turnabout
Then my response is what you expected when you complained about words.
You’re pretty bad at putting words in people’s mouths while pretending not to
Says the guy who wants to play words with friends and avoids substantive discussion like the plague.
Then my response is what you expected when you complained about words.
You’re pretty bad at putting words in people’s mouths while pretending not to
Still complaining about words.
:lmao
You forgot to bold the other two words there baby cakes
Chris
04-03-2019, 09:40 PM
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1113629618379022337
:lmao
Chris
04-03-2019, 09:41 PM
baby cakes
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FcQtlhD4 8EG0SY%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1
Sorry you feel left out chris. You can be my baby cakes too if you want
pgardn
04-03-2019, 09:48 PM
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1113629618379022337
:lmao
Yessir.
A real gut wrenching knee slapper.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FcQtlhD4 8EG0SY%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1
He already said he want to catch me with my pants down. Philo said the same thing.
Jackson Browne was on to something.
BEULVyg1O_8
:lmao
You forgot to bold the other two words there baby cakes
They are just words to me, Borat.
pgardn
04-03-2019, 10:21 PM
He already said he want to catch me with my pants down. Philo said the same thing.
Jackson Browne was on to something.
BEULVyg1O_8
Appealing to Chris.
This is how alone really feels...
Well, onward Christian soldiers.
Appealing to Chris.
This is how alone really feels...
Well, onward Christian soldiers.
Except I am atheist
:lmao
Am I the only one having a will they/won’t they with Chris and DMC?
Am I the only one having a will they/won’t they with Chris and DMC?
I'm straight and married. Not mad at you, but I don't putt from the rough.
I'm straight and married. Not mad at you, but I don't putt from the rough.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
pgardn
04-03-2019, 10:46 PM
Except I am atheist
:lmao
Well you need to go all in partisan.
Get thee to a nunnery.
Well you need to go all in partisan.
Get thee to a nunnery.
I don't feel the desire to pick a side. I'll argue what I feel to be true without respect to the score.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
Not protesting. If you think suggesting I am Gay offends me you're wrong. I have nothing against Gays and don't feel they are any more or less "decent" than anyone else. Keep at it though.
Not protesting. If you think suggesting I am Gay offends me you're wrong. I have nothing against Gays and don't feel they are any more or less "decent" than anyone else. Keep at it though.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
pgardn
04-03-2019, 11:07 PM
I don't feel the desire to pick a side. I'll argue what I feel to be true without respect to the score.
Next.
This smells.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 11:09 PM
Not protesting. If you think suggesting I am Gay offends me you're wrong. I have nothing against Gays and don't feel they are any more or less "decent" than anyone else. Keep at it though.Why do you try to use homosexuality as an insult then?
Why do you try to use homosexuality as an insult then?
I'm not going to entertain your false narrative. Have fun though :lol
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to entertain your false narrative. Have fun though :lolI shut you the fuck up good this time, didn't I?
:lmao DenialMC
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5hqTXwZldBA/hqdefault.jpg
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 11:28 PM
:lmao tough guy DenialMC retreats, has to make moar narrative to distract
:lmao tough guy DenialMC retreats, has to make moar narrative to distract
Calling it a retreat when someone refuses to joust with your alt = :lol
DarrinS
04-03-2019, 11:34 PM
So glad I ventured into this thread
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 11:37 PM
Not protesting. If you think suggesting I am Gay offends me you're wrong. I have nothing against Gays and don't feel they are any more or less "decent" than anyone else. Keep at it though.
Why do you try to use homosexuality as an insult then?
I'm not going to entertain your false narrative. Have fun though :lol
Old broken down faggot Larry Joiner and his 280lbs of spring steel was so exposed here he went all in and just gave up the asshole for the forum.
With all these wealthy faggots paying their little drug and cum bucket darlings through ivy league schools, I'd love to see some poor black kid take the entire system for everything.
Lakers fans mysteriously (not really) absent these days. Where's that paki faggot and that other whitewater rafting queer?
I did not read that faggots statements. Too bad you played along.
Could have sworn Kori came in here not too long ago and told you faggots to stop posting in here with alts.
Let's advertise and regurgitate everything these faggots said as obviously they were worthy of being studied. That should stop anyone else from trying it.
He'll be playing for Brooklyn soon.
I'll be so glad when the Lebron class of faggots retires and we get a bunch of pipe hitting homies that want to rip each other apart instead of sharing a sleeping bag.
You fucking faggot.
For being a faggot
OP is a faggot who still thinks getting posts in his thread indicates social stature.
Dude your life alert goes straight to the grim reaper.
plus I live in Austin... :lol fatneck horsetooth faggot could eat cabbage through a barbed wire fence.
More than half the teams don't even run plays out of timeout. They just inbound the ball. That eliminates 15 coaches right away. Those who do run plays out of timeout often have a superstar to go to. We don't have Manu or Tony now, and Pop has always been a great "out of timeout" play guy. The highlight reels are full of those kinds of plays that won games for us, big games in fact. So I'd say Pop ranks near the top all time, and this one game isn't the deciding factor regardless how faggot neophyte trolls like you want to pretend it is.
Oh the irony coming from the biggest bandwagonning faggot on the forum.
So I could have answered "no shit" to your "duh" comment that basically said "it is what it is"?
You didn't have a point then (since you never answered that question). It's my fault for giving you too much credit for stepping out of your faggot role. You didn't.
There's a difference between protesters who are united against the government vs protesters who are partisan and mostly paid and there for photo ops.
Antifa = paid protesters plus assorted goobers and faggots.
White man march (whatever the fuck it's called) is a group of idiots not against anything except whatever gets them lulz for the moment.
BLM = paid protesters and assorted opportunists looking for a free case of Heineken.
National riot =/= interest group protests
I used to think Bruce said "he could throw that speedball by you, making love like a school boy" I thought Bruce was a faggot and a pedophile. For some reason, when it came out, I didn't Google it.
Getting a 50+ and a 36pt output from two starters and still losing.
Chris Paul's pussy hurting again. That faggot should endorse Tampax.
Why wouldn't you be proud that someone like MJ cursed at you? You got to him, he spoke to you. Stop being a faggot (impossible for you, i know).
That's just from the first page of search results. I guess you can start a new semantic argument over the meaning of words....
You're not fooling anyone Rumphumper
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 11:45 PM
You're not fooling anyone RumphumperFooling anyone about what?
What do you mean by the term "Rumphumper"?
Explain.
Fooling anyone about what?
What do you mean by the term "Rumphumper"?
Explain.
I'm not going to entertain your false narrative. Have fun though :lol
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 11:49 PM
If you're not insulting people with homosexual slurs then and now, what were/are you doing?
Correct my narrative.
I'm open to reading your explanation.
All you have to do is explain yourself.
If you're not insulting people with homosexual slurs then and now, what were/are you doing?
Correct my narrative.
I'm open to reading your explanation.
All you have to do is explain yourself.
faggot[fag-uh t]
noun Slang.
2. Offensive . a contemptible or dislikable person.
Doh!
:lmao
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 11:55 PM
faggot[fag-uh t]
noun Slang.
2. Offensive . a contemptible or dislikable person.
Doh!
:lmaoCalled it.
That's just from the first page of search results. I guess you can start a new semantic argument over the meaning of words....
Now, you're saying that every time you've use that word, you only meant in in that way?
Called it.
Now, you're saying that every time you've use that word, you only meant in in that way?
Alternate definitions bad now :cry
We can discuss each based on context if you wish.
Pavlov
04-03-2019, 11:59 PM
Alternate definitions bad now :cry
We can discuss each based on context if you wish.Sure.
Start here:
Well, if he didn't call you a faggot, allow me. You are a faggot. Fat people can lose weight, but you cannot unsuck a cock.
What did you mean using that word in this context?
Sure.
Start here:
What did you mean using that word in this context?
Definition 2
Keep searching for something that indicates I hate Gays. :lol
not even addressing the quotes you worked so hard to find... :lol
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:05 AM
Definition 2It's your opinion that an oral sex act between men make those men offensive, contemptible or dislikable as persons.
OK.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:06 AM
Keep searching for something that indicates I hate Gays. :lolYou just made a straw man.
not even addressing the quotes you worked so hard to find... :lolI simply added a keyword.
Sorry.
It was really easy.
Blake
04-04-2019, 12:07 AM
Code and law are not the same things.... Would you be ok with that since you're here pretending "law" and "code" are the same things.
um, the code is quite literally a collection of the existing laws in a given area. they are the same thing.
:lol dmc
johnsmith
04-04-2019, 12:16 AM
:lmao tough guy DenialMC retreats, has to make moar narrative to distract
You accuse people of pretending to be “tough guys” a lot. Eventually it turns into the same thing and makes you appear to be a gigantic pussy irl.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:17 AM
You accuse people of pretending to be “tough guys” a lot. Eventually it turns into the same thing and makes you appear to be a gigantic pussy irl.Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I prefer they own it, that's all.
It's your opinion that an oral sex act between men make those men offensive, contemptible or dislikable as persons.
OK.
Only between straight men.
You just made a straw man.
I simply added a keyword.
Sorry.
It was really easy.
What about the quotes you actually posted, the ones you asked about?
Aren't you going to go through those one by one and prove anytime the word "faggot" is used on ST it means the poster saying it is homophobic?
You accuse people of pretending to be “tough guys” a lot. Eventually it turns into the same thing and makes you appear to be a gigantic pussy irl.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I prefer they own it, that's all.
Damn you straightened your act pretty quick there Cochise.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:23 AM
Only between straight men.
Oh.
If the cover has some homo sucking a cock on it, you can bet the book is about faggotry.. i.e. you.
Definition 2?
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:24 AM
Damn you straightened your act pretty quick there Cochise.What act?
I still think you're a fake tough guy, tough guy.
You can't even own your own insults.
:lol dmc
A library is a collection of books. A book is not a library.
Oh.
Definition 2?
Yes
However there was nothing derogatory stated about the homosexual.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:30 AM
YesSo what did you mean by "homo" in that sentence?
What act?
I still think you're a fake tough guy, tough guy.
You can't even own your own insults.
Sure I can. I told you we could go over each of them one at a time. You've yet to discuss any of them.
So what did you mean by "homo" in that sentence?
homosexual
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:34 AM
Sure I can. I told you we could go over each of them one at a time. You've yet to discuss any of them.Let's just cover it all at once.
So you never used a homophobic slur on this site?
Never said someone engaged in homosexual acts as an insult?
Let's just cover it all at once.
So never once did have you ever used a homophobic slur on this site?
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5]
Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.[1][2][6] Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.
Are you using this definition?
Or do you just mean any word that you can intentionally misrepresent as indicating some form of fear toward Gays?
Are you Gay?
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:41 AM
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5]
Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.[1][2][6] Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.
Are you using this definition?
Or do you just mean any word that you can intentionally misrepresent as indicating some form of fear toward Gays?
Are you Gay?Yeah, I'll reword it since you accepted the earlier definition without much squirming and semantically shitting yourself.
So you never used a homosexual slur on this site?
Never said someone engaged in homosexual acts as an insult?
Yeah, I'll reword it since you accepted the earlier definition without much squirming and semantically shitting yourself.
So you never used a homosexual slur on this site?
Never said someone engaged in homosexual acts as an insult?
Make up your mind. Is it homosexual or homophobic. Those are two completely different things.
I already showed you which version of the definition of "faggot" I was using. I can basically prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone without an axe to grind here. For example why would I call married couples "faggots" for bribing their kids into ivy league colleges? Do you think I meant that these married folks with kids are actually homosexuals?
So stick with what you quoted. Do you think any of those are actually homophobic in nature?
Again.. are you Gay?
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:48 AM
Make up your mind. Is it homosexual or homophobic.I changed it to homosexual slur, meaning derogatory terms for homosexuals.
All you have to say is you have never used one on this site and never said someone engaged in homosexual acts as an insult.
I changed it to homosexual slur, meaning derogatory terms for homosexuals.
All you have to say is you have never used one on this site and never said someone engaged in homosexual acts as an insult.
So you're going to ignore the rest of my post? :lol
Yeah when you address the actual quotes you posted then I will answer that none of those were towards actual homosexuals, of if they were it was a coincidence and not related to them actually being homosexuals.
So you ask me a question then you want to tell me how I should answer that would allow you to move even closer to labeling me as homophobic (something you just tried to do and was thwarted)?
If you're Gay, I can understand why you get offended by someone using the word "faggot" so freely, but rest assured I do not look down upon you for preferring the touch of same sex hands over those of the opposite sex, nor do I feel disgusted if you mention your Gay partner in conversation. If you're not Gay, then you're just playing a game of semantics, trying to trap me into a corner. You're doing a bang up job. Keep going.
Blake
04-04-2019, 12:53 AM
A library is a collection of books. A book is not a library.
:lol what a ridiculous analogy.
:lol what a ridiculous analogy.
First you argue with Wiki, then with PBS, now with Webster.
You're doing swell Blake. She'll come a runnin' back any day now.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 12:55 AM
Yeah when you address the actual quotes you posted then I will answer that none of those were towards actual homosexuals, of if they were it was a coincidence and not related to them actually being homosexuals. We're addressing all of them at once.
If you never used a homosexual slur on this site, that takes care of all of them.
If you say you never said a poster engaged in homosexual acts as an insult, that takes care of all of them.
"muh conditions" is yet another derp tactic. It looks jsut as stupid when you use it.
We're addressing all of them at once.
If you never used a homosexual slur on this site, that takes care of all of them.
If you say you never said a poster engaged in homosexual acts as an insult, that takes care of all of them.
"muh conditions" is yet another derp tactic. It looks jsut as stupid when you use it.
As honest as I am being with you, you are still trying to tailor my responses to suit your narrative. This is why no one takes you seriously and likely you'll pass away without ever having had a real conversation on here.
You keep ignoring my answers and insisting I partake in your inquisition. I will not be pawed at. If you want dialogue you'll have to adjust your angle of attack.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 01:02 AM
As honest as I am being with youDoesn't seem that way tbh.
All you have to say is you have never used one on this site and never said a poster here engaged in homosexual acts as an insult.
If that is, in fact, an honest answer.
That's all I'm going to ask.
Doesn't seem that way tbh.
Have you ever used a homosexual slur on this site or suggested an adult here engaged in homosexual acts?
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 01:05 AM
Have you ever used a homosexual slur on this site or suggested an adult here engaged in homosexual acts?Yes.
Have you?
Yes.
Have you?
Then you have no right to question me.
Blake
04-04-2019, 01:06 AM
First you argue with Wiki, then with PBS, now with Webster.
You're doing swell Blake. She'll come a runnin' back any day now.
Me and Webster agree:
Synonyms for code
Synonyms: Noun
canon, constitution, decalogue, law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code#synonyms
Lol keep trying, professor.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 01:07 AM
Then you have no right to question me.You just questioned me and I answered, tough guy.
I never expected you to own up to anything.
Such a coward on an anonymous message board.....:lol
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 01:09 AM
Me and Webster agree:
Synonyms for code
Synonyms: Noun
canon, constitution, decalogue, law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code#synonyms
Lol keep trying, professor.Just remember he will never say or suggest you are a homosexual as an insult.
:rollin
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 01:11 AM
.
Me and Webster agree:
Synonyms for code
Synonyms: Noun
canon, constitution, decalogue, law
If code and law are the same things, then all codes are laws.
Are all codes laws?
You came in right in the middle and grabbed a post and tried to make something of it. The discussion was about flag protocol code. Burning the flag is against that code, but it's not against the law.
Also
https://law.justia.com/codes/
Here is says "US Laws, Codes and Statutes"
Why would they use both Law and Codes if they mean the same thing?
You just questioned me and I answered, tough guy.
I never expected you to own up to anything.
Such a coward on an anonymous message board.....:lol
You just admitted to being a homophobe and you want to cast aspersions at me?
Yeah.. no.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 01:14 AM
You just admitted to being a homophobe and you want to cast aspersions at me?
Yeah.. no.I simply asked you a question.
If you didn't make any such insults there would be no aspersions to cast.
Have you ever made any such insults on this board?
Yes or no.
I simply asked you a question.
If you didn't make any such insults there would be no aspersions to cast.
Have you ever made any such insults on this board?
Yes or no.
You have no right to ask anyone that. Because you are an admitted homophobe I refuse to answer your questions.
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 01:18 AM
You have no right to ask anyone that. Because you are an admitted homophobe I refuse to answer your questions.So you're offended by such insults?
Seems like you'd have used the slur less than 300 times if you're so offended.
:lol DenialMC
A code of conduct is a set of rules outlining the social norms, religious rules and responsibilities of, and or proper practices for, an individual. In its 2007 International Good Practice Guidance, "Defining and Developing an Effective Code of Conduct for Organizations", the International Federation of Accountants[1][better source needed] provided the following working definition:
Are these laws?
Since we were first discussion laws, then codes of conduct then back to laws again, which is being denied now?
A code of conduct isn't a law of conduct.
Ergo not all codes are laws
/Blake
So you're offended by such insults?
I am out of time. I could have spent another hour discussing this with you before I found out you're a homophobe.
have fun keeping the crickets company
Pavlov
04-04-2019, 01:21 AM
I am out of time. I could have spent another hour discussing this with you before I found out you're a homophobe.
have fun keeping the crickets companyJust remember that the next time you use a homosexual slur.
You sure hate the disabled for some reason. :lmao
If code and law are the same things, then all codes are laws.
Are all codes laws?
You came in right in the middle and grabbed a post and tried to make something of it. The discussion was about flag protocol code. Burning the flag is against that code, but it's not against the law.
Also
https://law.justia.com/codes/
Here is says "US Laws, Codes and Statutes"
Why would they use both Law and Codes if they mean the same thing?
Jesus Christ you’re digging the hole deeper. Do you know what the U.S. code (one of the links above) is a collection of?
I’ll give you a hint. 28 US Code Section 1442 is a _________ regarding removal to federal court.
The Texas Penal Code isn’t a set of laws either, I guess
Or the business and organizations code, or the business and commerce code, or the civil practice and remedies code. Texas really is a lawless place.
The Texas Penal Code isn’t a set of laws either, I guess
Is a law a set of codes?
Or the business and organizations code, or the business and commerce code, or the civil practice and remedies code. Texas really is a lawless place.
Are all codes sets of laws?
Blake
04-04-2019, 08:10 AM
Lol dmc
Lol dmc
You still looking for a pizza delivery job?
Blake
04-04-2019, 08:29 AM
You still looking for a pizza delivery job?
No, why? Are you hiring?
Are all codes sets of laws?
Is a law a set of codes?
Also
https://law.justia.com/codes/
Here is says "US Laws, Codes and Statutes"
Why would they use both Law and Codes if they mean the same thing?
The point you were trying to make here was that because the terms laws, codes, and statutes are different, they implicate different things. That's what you're trying to do with your inane logic questions about not all codes being laws.
What you're running away from is that justia link you provided uses codes/laws/statutes to mean the same thing. That's why you wouldn't answer my question about the removal statute - because you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar again.
Winehole23
04-04-2019, 09:37 AM
DMC --> chain link fence --> corn cob
Blake
04-04-2019, 09:41 AM
DMC --> chain link fence --> corn cob
Can you find a chain link fence surrounding corn cobs? Is a corn cob a chain link fence?
Winehole23
04-04-2019, 09:44 AM
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/57372526.jpg (https://memegenerator.net/instance/57372526/mullet-girl-she-can-chew-a-corn-cob-through-a-chain-link-fence)
Blake
04-04-2019, 09:45 AM
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/57372526.jpg (https://memegenerator.net/instance/57372526/mullet-girl-she-can-chew-a-corn-cob-through-a-chain-link-fence)
If that kid's name is Webster it would explain some things
The point you were trying to make here was that because the terms laws, codes, and statutes are different, they implicate different things. That's what you're trying to do with your inane logic questions about not all codes being laws.
What you're running away from is that justia link you provided uses codes/laws/statutes to mean the same thing. That's why you wouldn't answer my question about the removal statute - because you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar again.
You didn't answer the questions.
Just because something is a code doesn't mean that it is a law. Otherwise all codes should be laws.
Is a dress code a dress law? Is a dress code a set of dress laws?
Blake
04-04-2019, 11:58 AM
You didn't answer the questions.
Just because something is a code doesn't mean that it is a law. Otherwise all codes should be laws.
Is a dress code a dress law? Is a dress code a set of dress laws?
All federal, state and local codes are law.
We're in a political forum, not a dress code forum.
All federal, state and local codes are law.
We're in a political forum, not a dress code forum.
We were discussing religious codes, Blake. Are religious codes laws?
Blake
04-04-2019, 12:59 PM
We were discussing religious codes, Blake. Are religious codes laws?
If the people adopt the code as law, yes.
You didn't answer the questions.
Just because something is a code doesn't mean that it is a law. Otherwise all codes should be laws.
Is a dress code a dress law? Is a dress code a set of dress laws?
I didn't answer the questions because they were irrelevant to the point being made. I took no issue other than your example/justia link proving the exact opposite of inane point you were trying to make.
I didn't answer the questions because they were irrelevant to the point being made. I took no issue other than your example/justia link proving the exact opposite of inane point you were trying to make.
You didn't want to fess up to the truth.
If the people adopt the code as law, yes.
What about if they don't?
If a code is a law, why the caveat?
You didn't want to fess up to the truth.
No actual response, eh? Cool cool
No actual response, eh? Cool cool
No you didn't respond to the questions I asked.
Blake
04-04-2019, 01:27 PM
What about if they don't?
If a code is a law, why the caveat?
Some religious code is just moral code not worth adopting as law. There are different types of code.
spurraider21
04-04-2019, 01:31 PM
DMSemantics first brings up dictionary definition on law, shits himself, now brings up justicia link to change discussion to what is a law or code
No you didn't respond to the questions I asked.
Yeah, because they weren't relevant to your chinese-padlocking yourself.
DMSemantics first brings up dictionary definition on law, shits himself, now brings up justicia link to change discussion to what is a law or code
The US Code obviously proves that codes and laws are totally different things. Jesus man, did you even go to law school?
DMSemantics first brings up dictionary definition on law, shits himself, now brings up justicia link to change discussion to what is a law or code
You never understand context Philo because you only do driveby posting like many others here. You pop in, make a cute comment and wait for some +1s. That's about it for you.
ChumpDumper
04-04-2019, 02:16 PM
No true code understanderer.
Yeah, because they weren't relevant to your chinese-padlocking yourself.
You're offering a digressing distraction, refusing to address the issue. Duly noted.
No true code understanderer.
The homophobe switches accounts, tries to re-enter the fray.
ChumpDumper
04-04-2019, 02:21 PM
The homophobe switches accounts, tries to re-enter the fray.Meh, you never denied posting homosexual slur on this board.
And you just repeat fallacy after fallacy.
Meh, you never denied posting homosexual slur on this board.
And you just repeat fallacy after fallacy.
I haven't had a reason to deny anything. I don't answer to homophobes.
ChumpDumper
04-04-2019, 02:31 PM
I haven't had a reason to deny anything. I don't answer to homophobes.You're a homophobe who used homosexual slurs hundreds of times here.
lol DenialMC
You're offering a digressing distraction, refusing to address the issue. Duly noted.
No, I was repeating your example that just so happened to make the exact opposite point you were attempting to make.
No, I was repeating your example that just so happened to make the exact opposite point you were attempting to make.
You said a code is a set of laws.
so to summarize then:
Code = (set of laws)
and
Code = law
therefore
Law = code
Law = (set of laws)
Law = (set of codes)
Correct or not?
spurraider21
04-04-2019, 02:40 PM
You said a code is a set of laws.
so to summarize then:
Code = (set of laws)
and
Code = law
therefore
Law = code
Law = (set of laws)
Law = (set of codes)
Correct or not?
the inevitable result of any discussion with DMSemantics
You're a homophobe who used homosexual slurs hundreds of times here.
lol DenialMC
You're a confessed homophobe.
the inevitable result of any discussion with DMSemantics
Care to take a stab at it or is sniping your only game?
spurraider21
04-04-2019, 02:41 PM
Care to take a stab at it or is sniping your only game?
define sniping
I missed one
Code = (set of codes)
define sniping
All sniping or how I was using it in that sentence?
spurraider21
04-04-2019, 02:43 PM
All sniping or how I was using it in that sentence?
both
both
snip·ing
/ˈsnīpiNG/
noun
1.
the action of shooting at someone from a hiding place, especially accurately and at long range.
"sniping assumed great importance during WWI, especially where trench warfare was prevalent"
2.
the action of verbally attacking someone in a sly or petty way.
"there has been some sniping about inept leadership"
The 2nd version is what I was referring to.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.