Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[DMC]

It's gauche to beg for attention.

this is a salient point.

If, subject to a contractual bond, people bind themselves to arbitration in disputes, this is a normal legal condition in our system

If halal for employment contracts and TOS for goods and services, why not in marriage and family law,, if all parties agree?
.

Ever talked to Roman Catholics about annulment?

It's an imperfect analogy, but works roughly the same.

Divorce isn't really a thing. You have to get it annuled if you want to be remarried and remain in the church.

This is the part where religious law can become the law in our system. When people agree to binding arbitration

In our system, it is an ordinary condition of employment to limit one's rights contractually. So it goes in family life, if one so chooses.

Holy

Gather your thoughts.

Of course people can agree to abide by a set of rules. They cannot impose punishments that violate US law in the process.

[Winehole23]

No one said they could, corncob.

[vy65]

No one even hinted at that last sentence.

In principle, the rules of Scrabble are also laws and every argument can devolve into a solipsism when you realize you've lost.

That's not what solipsism means.

[DMC]

That's not what solipsism means.

I know what it means.

[DMC]

No one said they could, corncob.

So you wanted to counter Chris' comment about Sharia law being adopted in the US by saying it already exists, then you want to claim you didn't mean it how Chris meant it, that you meant "law" as a set of religious rules not recognized by state or federal governments?

How exactly does that counter Chris' comment?

[Winehole23]

What's Chris's argument as you see it?

If it's that it's a bad idea to have a sectarian civil code, I agree with him. If it's that Islamic spiritual law is an incipient civil code in the USA, that's crazy talk.

[vy65]

I know what it means.

No, you don't.

[vy65]

Article I, Section II, Paragraph III: 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.

lol it doesn't

[DMC]

No, you don't.

Sure I do. When I need you I'll retain you.

[Chris]

Sure I do. When I need you I'll retain you.

He comes up yonder from the salt mines once in a blue moon.

[Winehole23]

That's not what solipsism means.

what DMC calls solipsism in this case is any idiom other than his own.

No one other than DMC and Chris had any problem with what I was saying or seemed to misunderstand it.

Coming from a humanities background with an emphasis on medieval and ancient reference to spiritual law isn't at all unusual. It isn't even that far away from contemporary usage: other posters got it.

[vy65]

Chris avoiding the cons ution like the plague ...

[Winehole23]

Policing usage is bull if people get what you're saying.

[vy65]

Sure I do. When I need you I'll retain you.

Sorry bud, ain’t no way you can afford me fee.

[vy65]

Policing usage is bull if people get what you're saying.

Agreed, but there’s a distinction between re-appropriation and flat out ignorance.

[Winehole23]

Chris avoiding the cons ution like the plague ...

of course.

He seems to want a sectarian civil code too. That precludes a rigorous insistence on the original compact.

[Winehole23]

Agreed, but there’s a distinction between re-appropriation and flat out ignorance.

That sounds fair to me, the pointy end was aimed at DMC, not you.

I thought what he was saying that my use of "spiritual law" was a solipsism. I do not think so, but DMC disagrees, and as we all know he's never wrong.

[Winehole23]

Agreed, but there’s a distinction between re-appropriation and flat out ignorance.

Magpie Chris is hilariously ignorant of the Consitution.

[Winehole23]

He puts it up on a pedestal, but is too shy to peek up its skirt to see its shame.

[DMC]

Sorry bud, ain’t no way you can afford me fee.

That's what the last said.

[vy65]

Magpie Chris is hilariously ignorant of the Consitution.

The last time he tried dabbing his feet in the water, things didn’t go so great for him.

[DMC]

That sounds fair to me, the pointy end was aimed at DMC, not you.

I thought what he was saying that my use of "spiritual law" was a solipsism. I do not think so, but DMC disagrees, and as we all know he's never wrong.

No, I was saying eventually the argument would devolve into nothing more than solipsism. You keep moving back into the nebulous.

[vy65]

That's what the last said.

Sure. But you still can’t pay my fee solipsist.

[DMC]

Sure. But you still can’t pay my fee solipsist.

So intimidating.

[vy65]

That sounds fair to me, the pointy end was aimed at DMC, not you.

I thought what he was saying that my use of "spiritual law" was a solipsism. I do not think so, but DMC disagrees, and as we all know he's never wrong.

Having read through his inane semantic prodding, nihilism would have been a more accurate term.