Reply With Quote
legal weenie trying to flex online
I’m not trying to be, but sorry I scared you David Hume.
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?
No I wouldn’t and no I don’t. But your inability to have an adult conversation has been noted Dave.
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.
Btw..
law
Noun
4 The body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religions text.
New Oxford American Dictionary
you're the one who busted out the dictionary... which seems pointless given the stance you've now taken
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.Btw..
law
Noun
4 The body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religions text.
New Oxford American Dictionary
What stance have I taken? Be more specific.
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.
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.
:rofl
Too scared to give his take
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 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.
A) My belief doesn't matter to the fact of the argument and B) I asked him to clarify (which he never did).
Why, because I want Philo to actually state what he thinks my stance is?
^^^emotive prose break
That wasn’t WH burden. He’s right. Sharia law is here. It was in bent 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.
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).
Yes. You won’t say what you stand for/what your take is. That’s cowardly.
exactly. This fact is what enables your engagement in the semantic virtual rodeo. Too bad. It might have put an end to your 8 seconds...
You think he meant to say relativism?
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 .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions