Quote from: Mad Max on November 06, 2014, 03:15:00 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:14:08 PMAnd evolution is divided between mico and macromacro and micro evolution is bullshit made up by the creationist community. Evolution is evolution.lolnoI think that fedora is tight on your head. It's reducing the blood flow to your brain
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:14:08 PMAnd evolution is divided between mico and macromacro and micro evolution is bullshit made up by the creationist community. Evolution is evolution.
And evolution is divided between mico and macro
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:18:11 PMExcept Door never stated Constitutionalism isn't assumedExcept he quite implicitly did when he said this person wants a total ban on guns. You still haven't given a clear answer. Would you, or would you not, support an individual who agreed with absolutely everything you say except on the issue of guns, wherein they want a total ban?
Except Door never stated Constitutionalism isn't assumed
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 03:19:41 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:18:11 PMExcept Door never stated Constitutionalism isn't assumedExcept he quite implicitly did when he said this person wants a total ban on guns. You still haven't given a clear answer. Would you, or would you not, support an individual who agreed with absolutely everything you say except on the issue of guns, wherein they want a total ban?No
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:25:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 03:19:41 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:18:11 PMExcept Door never stated Constitutionalism isn't assumedExcept he quite implicitly did when he said this person wants a total ban on guns. You still haven't given a clear answer. Would you, or would you not, support an individual who agreed with absolutely everything you say except on the issue of guns, wherein they want a total ban?NoSo now you understand how I feel about Ron Paul. We took the long way to get there, but we got there.
Quote from: Mad Max on November 06, 2014, 03:26:46 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:25:53 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 03:19:41 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:18:11 PMExcept Door never stated Constitutionalism isn't assumedExcept he quite implicitly did when he said this person wants a total ban on guns. You still haven't given a clear answer. Would you, or would you not, support an individual who agreed with absolutely everything you say except on the issue of guns, wherein they want a total ban?NoSo now you understand how I feel about Ron Paul. We took the long way to get there, but we got there.>disregarding everything i said>twisting my wordsReally, I feel sorry for your students
>disregarding everything i said>twisting my wordsReally, I feel sorry for your students
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:27:27 PM>disregarding everything i said>twisting my wordsReally, I feel sorry for your studentsWhy are you refusing to understand that people can prioritise things differently to you? Max might rank science-denial up there with Constitution-denial.
Except I'm not refusing to understand. Comparing something in the Constitution to something not is not even a logical concept.
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:43:49 PMExcept I'm not refusing to understand. Comparing something in the Constitution to something not is not even a logical concept.It's like you think the Constitution is infallible, by virtue of being the constitution.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Ignoring that is no different than Congress enforcing laws, despite not their role to do so
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:48:12 PMThe Constitution is the highest law of the land. Ignoring that is no different than Congress enforcing laws, despite not their role to do soHas it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 03:50:08 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:48:12 PMThe Constitution is the highest law of the land. Ignoring that is no different than Congress enforcing laws, despite not their role to do soHas it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?Nope. Free speech, privacy, self-defense, fair trial, etc is far from wrong. The U.K can learn a thing or two from the U.S
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:51:39 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 03:50:08 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:48:12 PMThe Constitution is the highest law of the land. Ignoring that is no different than Congress enforcing laws, despite not their role to do soHas it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?Nope. Free speech, privacy, self-defense, fair trial, etc is far from wrong. The U.K can learn a thing or two from the U.SQuote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 03:50:08 PMHas it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?
Has it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?
Nope. Free speech, privacy, self-defense, fair trial, etc is far from wrong. The U.K can learn a thing or two from the U.S
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:55:16 PMSo what you're saying is it is right because you agree with it.
Quote from: TrussingDoor on November 06, 2014, 03:57:37 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:55:16 PMSo what you're saying is it is right because you agree with it.It's right because it is right
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:58:52 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on November 06, 2014, 03:57:37 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:55:16 PMSo what you're saying is it is right because you agree with it.It's right because it is rightOh my God, stop dodging the question. Is it right by virtue of being the constitution, or is it right because of its contents?
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:58:52 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on November 06, 2014, 03:57:37 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 03:55:16 PMSo what you're saying is it is right because you agree with it.It's right because it is rightQuote from: TrussingDoor on November 06, 2014, 03:48:01 PMwelcome to American law
welcome to American law
virtue of being the constitution
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 04:01:15 PMvirtue of being the constitutionWhich the amendment process shows to be self-evidently false. The fact that you'd place such stock in a document, regardless of what it says, says a lot about you. I wouldn't want you to be a citizen of an Orwellian State.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 04:02:24 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 04:01:15 PMvirtue of being the constitutionWhich the amendment process shows to be self-evidently false. The fact that you'd place such stock in a document, regardless of what it says, says a lot about you. I wouldn't want you to be a citizen of an Orwellian State.Well when you give a loaded question, I can only pick one of two I believe
Quote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 04:03:58 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on November 06, 2014, 04:02:24 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 06, 2014, 04:01:15 PMvirtue of being the constitutionWhich the amendment process shows to be self-evidently false. The fact that you'd place such stock in a document, regardless of what it says, says a lot about you. I wouldn't want you to be a citizen of an Orwellian State.Well when you give a loaded question, I can only pick one of two I believeHow on earth was it a loaded question? It was really quite simple. A constitution can only be valid in one of two ways. The first being by its own virtue; it being axiomatic. The second is that is codifies the correct content.
Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?
