Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
false I only brought up the possibility and used the to easiest examples and you like I anticipated, would try to make something from nothing.did you wear you name tag and helmet?
I reached no conclusions false or otherwise
jar head said" No law is written in stone"
so I posted the two most American laws..
Saying that no law is written is stone is equivilent to saying that any law could be changed. It does not suggest in any way that any specific law should be changed.
Would it be possible to eliminate either of those two amendments? Sure. Does that mean I would support eliminating them? Nope.
So... hearing "no law is set in stone" and replying with "so you'd bee [sic] ok with killing the first and second ammendments [sic]" is definitely jumping to false conclusions.
as I said I made no conclusions .
all conclusions have be made by you at every step...
still not my problem. If you are unable to connect the two ,then maybe you should not engage in debate that's outside your experience.false I only brought up the possibility and used the to easiest examples and you like I anticipated, would try to make something from nothing.Saying that no law is written is stone is equivilent to saying that any law could be changed. It does not suggest in any way that any specific law should be changed.
Would it be possible to eliminate either of those two amendments? Sure. Does that mean I would support eliminating them? Nope.
So... hearing "no law is set in stone" and replying with "so you'd bee [sic] ok with killing the first and second ammendments [sic]" is definitely jumping to false conclusions.
as I said I made no conclusions .
all conclusions have be made by you at every step...
Excuse me....
But you said to me...
So you would be OK with the elimination of the 1st and 2nd amendment.
And you based that on my saying that no law was written in stone.
And none of us, for the life of us, can see how one thing would mean the other.
I will debate anyway I choose, when I choose, and use any and all tactics and language I see fit.damn good melodrama....
No THAT is how a gentleman responds when he disagrees....
Not the way you have been in this thread.
You want to debate? Show respect. You want to argue like a child? Find another opponent.
your judgment of what's childish is laughable..as is what a gentleman is or does.
as to respect you've not earned any...
still not my problem. If you are unable to connect the two ,then maybe you should not engage in debate that's outside your experience.false I only brought up the possibility and used the to easiest examples and you like I anticipated, would try to make something from nothing.
as I said I made no conclusions .
all conclusions have be made by you at every step...
Excuse me....
But you said to me...
So you would be OK with the elimination of the 1st and 2nd amendment.
And you based that on my saying that no law was written in stone.
And none of us, for the life of us, can see how one thing would mean the other.
btw who the fuck is we?
speak for yourself...
false...for that to be true you'd have to prove intent...false I only brought up the possibility and used the to easiest examples and you like I anticipated, would try to make something from nothing.Saying that no law is written is stone is equivilent to saying that any law could be changed. It does not suggest in any way that any specific law should be changed.
Would it be possible to eliminate either of those two amendments? Sure. Does that mean I would support eliminating them? Nope.
So... hearing "no law is set in stone" and replying with "so you'd bee [sic] ok with killing the first and second ammendments [sic]" is definitely jumping to false conclusions.
as I said I made no conclusions .
all conclusions have be made by you at every step...
"you would be ok with..." is assigning a position to your opponent. When the position you assign is not supported by the previous statement, you are either jumping to a false conclusion or building a straw man. Pick your poison.
still not my problem. If you are unable to connect the two ,then maybe you should not engage in debate that's outside your experience.false I only brought up the possibility and used the to easiest examples and you like I anticipated, would try to make something from nothing.
as I said I made no conclusions .
all conclusions have be made by you at every step...
Excuse me....
But you said to me...
So you would be OK with the elimination of the 1st and 2nd amendment.
And you based that on my saying that no law was written in stone.
And none of us, for the life of us, can see how one thing would mean the other.
btw who the fuck is we?
speak for yourself...
more's the pity then...still not my problem. If you are unable to connect the two ,then maybe you should not engage in debate that's outside your experience.Excuse me....
But you said to me...
So you would be OK with the elimination of the 1st and 2nd amendment.
And you based that on my saying that no law was written in stone.
And none of us, for the life of us, can see how one thing would mean the other.
btw who the fuck is we?
speak for yourself...
Well, to be frank, "we" refers to anyone who does not see:
"no law is written in stone" as meaning "and I support any change to any law"
And I have to be honest with you DAWS.......not too many people will see them meaning the same thing.
that would be your personal understanding of logic and reason and nothing else.still not my problem. If you are unable to connect the two ,then maybe you should not engage in debate that's outside your experience.Excuse me....
But you said to me...
So you would be OK with the elimination of the 1st and 2nd amendment.
And you based that on my saying that no law was written in stone.
And none of us, for the life of us, can see how one thing would mean the other.
btw who the fuck is we?
speak for yourself...
"Us" is... well us. I agree with him and have posted as such several times. Two people being sufficient for the designation "us." (Or if you prefer to change it to "we" again, go ahead.) I have no problem being lumped into the grouping that cannot understand your arguments.
The debate that is "outside [his] experience" (and, incidentally, outside mine) that you seem to be speaking of is debate outside the framework of logic and reason. It should be outside his experience. I would have hoped it would be outside yours as well.
more's the pity then...still not my problem. If you are unable to connect the two ,then maybe you should not engage in debate that's outside your experience.
btw who the fuck is we?
speak for yourself...
Well, to be frank, "we" refers to anyone who does not see:
"no law is written in stone" as meaning "and I support any change to any law"
And I have to be honest with you DAWS.......not too many people will see them meaning the same thing.
who's frank?
more's the pity then...Well, to be frank, "we" refers to anyone who does not see:
"no law is written in stone" as meaning "and I support any change to any law"
And I have to be honest with you DAWS.......not too many people will see them meaning the same thing.
who's frank?
Frank is who I prefer to be.
That is why I often start of sentences with "To be Frank......"
false...for that to be true you'd have to prove intent...false I only brought up the possibility and used the to easiest examples and you like I anticipated, would try to make something from nothing.
as I said I made no conclusions .
all conclusions have be made by you at every step...
"you would be ok with..." is assigning a position to your opponent. When the position you assign is not supported by the previous statement, you are either jumping to a false conclusion or building a straw man. Pick your poison.
my only intent was to see if that was a throw away statement or an actual position or sentiment.
I did not, as you are so intently attempting to imply assign a pov to my opponent.
rimshot ! he's here all week..more's the pity then...
who's frank?
Frank is who I prefer to be.
That is why I often start of sentences with "To be Frank......"
Seawytch, our resident lesbian, said to her partner last night "let me be frank with you". her partner replied "no way, you were frank last night"
false it was a simple open ended question. But nice rationalizing!false...for that to be true you'd have to prove intent..."you would be ok with..." is assigning a position to your opponent. When the position you assign is not supported by the previous statement, you are either jumping to a false conclusion or building a straw man. Pick your poison.
my only intent was to see if that was a throw away statement or an actual position or sentiment.
I did not, as you are so intently attempting to imply assign a pov to my opponent.
What position did you think you were testing to see if it was a "throw away statement or an actual position?" And how did you imagine your statement enacting this test?
"No law is written in stone" is not a position. It is a statement of fact. It is fact that any law can be changed.
"You'd be ok with eliminating the 1st and 2nd amendments" is not a test of whether someone actually believes that laws are not written in stone. If it is a test of anything at all, it is a test of how someone feels specifically about the elimination of those two amendments, or, as a stretch, about how someone would feel about eliminating any law in general. Since "no law is written in stone" does not express an opinion about the merit of eliminating any law it cannot be tested by your statement.
So... again... if you intended to test his position with your statement you either believed that his statement did express an opinion about the merits of eliminating laws (a false conclusion), or you were setting up a straw man.
that depends on which direction the party wants to go..Anyway... we've wandered far afield so let's get back on track... Oops mixed my metaphors.
The OP is trying, I assume, to say that a lack of minority support is the GOP's biggest problem, and is using a picture of Republican teen agers as evidence.
It is probably true that a lack of minority support is a problem for the Republican party. If it is true, what do you propose the Republican party do to change it?
Anyway... we've wandered far afield so let's get back on track... Oops mixed my metaphors.
The OP is trying, I assume, to say that a lack of minority support is the GOP's biggest problem, and is using a picture of Republican teenagers as evidence.
It is probably true that a lack of minority support is a problem for the Republican party. If it is true, what do you propose the Republican party do to change it?
false it was a simple open ended question. But nice rationalizing!false...for that to be true you'd have to prove intent...
my only intent was to see if that was a throw away statement or an actual position or sentiment.
I did not, as you are so intently attempting to imply assign a pov to my opponent.
What position did you think you were testing to see if it was a "throw away statement or an actual position?" And how did you imagine your statement enacting this test?
"No law is written in stone" is not a position. It is a statement of fact. It is fact that any law can be changed.
"You'd be ok with eliminating the 1st and 2nd amendments" is not a test of whether someone actually believes that laws are not written in stone. If it is a test of anything at all, it is a test of how someone feels specifically about the elimination of those two amendments, or, as a stretch, about how someone would feel about eliminating any law in general. Since "no law is written in stone" does not express an opinion about the merit of eliminating any law it cannot be tested by your statement.
So... again... if you intended to test his position with your statement you either believed that his statement did express an opinion about the merits of eliminating laws (a false conclusion), or you were setting up a straw man.
btw "No law is written in stone" or any phrase like it can and often are a statement of fact and a position..
false! it was a test and an open ended question.. do you need to be spoon fed?false it was a simple open ended question. But nice rationalizing!What position did you think you were testing to see if it was a "throw away statement or an actual position?" And how did you imagine your statement enacting this test?
"No law is written in stone" is not a position. It is a statement of fact. It is fact that any law can be changed.
"You'd be ok with eliminating the 1st and 2nd amendments" is not a test of whether someone actually believes that laws are not written in stone. If it is a test of anything at all, it is a test of how someone feels specifically about the elimination of those two amendments, or, as a stretch, about how someone would feel about eliminating any law in general. Since "no law is written in stone" does not express an opinion about the merit of eliminating any law it cannot be tested by your statement.
So... again... if you intended to test his position with your statement you either believed that his statement did express an opinion about the merits of eliminating laws (a false conclusion), or you were setting up a straw man.
btw "No law is written in stone" or any phrase like it can and often are a statement of fact and a position..
A position that believes in a fact as opposed to a position the disbelieves a fact?
So it went from a test to being a simple open ended question. A question that had nothing to do with what you thought he was saying. Where did this simple open ended question come from then? Oblivion?
false! it was a test and an open ended question.. do you need to be spoon fed?false it was a simple open ended question. But nice rationalizing!
btw "No law is written in stone" or any phrase like it can and often are a statement of fact and a position..
A position that believes in a fact as opposed to a position the disbelieves a fact?
So it went from a test to being a simple open ended question. A question that had nothing to do with what you thought he was saying. Where did this simple open ended question come from then? Oblivion?
The Randy Report: The Republican Party's biggest problem in one photo
--------------------------------------------------------
Conservatives never learn do they? They much prefer the status quo. As long as they don't Fully Embrace Diversity they will never win the White House Again.
