Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[Th'Pusher]

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.

[DMC]

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]

[DMC]

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?

[DMC]

[Th'Pusher]

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 . You infer meaning into poster 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/ stain for the sole purpose of arguing semantics anonymously on the internet while providing value in the form of actual opinion as infrequently possible.

[Winehole23]

if 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]

Post silly memes and narratives about me?

How dull and ordinary.

[Pavlov]

"lawyer boy" as some kind of attempt at an insult

[Winehole23]

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]

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

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.

[vy65]

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

Prtisn plitics

[vy65]

Lotta argument about everything except substance ... deflectmc in full effect

[vy65]

It’d be fine to play words with friends, but you ain’t no Derrida babycakes

[DMC]

Hot take

Prtisn plitics

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

[DMC]

.

You’re so full of . You infer meaning into poster 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/ stain 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 re ed.

[DMC]

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

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

[Winehole23]

Paul Kersey read Harper's Magazine in the first DEATHWISH.

[spurraider21]

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]

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.

[vy65]

Living in your firm, pro bono

No, you're not. You can't afford the fee.

[vy65]

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 ...

[DMC]

No, you're not. You can't afford the fee.

It's been free for two days

[DMC]

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]

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.