Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[Winehole23]

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]

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.

[vy65]

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 .

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.

[DMC]

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]

You think he meant to say relativism?

The contents of DMC's braincase, is a mystery not for me to penetrate. Hopefully.

[Winehole23]

You should post your daily avalanche of scattered thoughts as they come between phenobarbital doses.

GaslightingMC.

Been your style for awhile.

[Winehole23]

I like wine. DM me for more details.

[DMC]

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.

[vy65]

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.

[DMC]

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.

[DMC]

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]

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]

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?

[vy65]

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]

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 ins uted as a civil code of law in the US, DMC?

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.

[DMC]

^^^emotive prose break

I've remained consistent in my approach. You just don't have a firm grasp of reality.

[DMC]

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.

[DMC]

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.

[DMC]

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.

[DMC]

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]

Over 21, goes without saying. Legal adults only, please.

[Winehole23]

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.

[DMC]

Over 21, goes without saying. Legal adults only, please.

Being legal doesn't necessarily make them real people.

[Th'Pusher]

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]

Lazy!