Mr Laurier
Well-known member
The fact that you insinuated that I am a cult. Or that I am in one.Nor am.I, nor is the Christian faith. Not sure what made you suggest it was.. except as a tactic to avoid the issues being discussed
The fact that you insinuated that I am a cult. Or that I am in one.Nor am.I, nor is the Christian faith. Not sure what made you suggest it was.. except as a tactic to avoid the issues being discussed
Umm...no.So I will cite will cite the laws I agree with, which makes the laws you agree with wrong.
There is no such fact.It obfuscates the fact that murder does not depend on a law code existing.
Sorry, but wrong. You falsely claimed it to be the 'standard English definition' which it obviously is not. I provided six definitions; you provided one which you had to hunt for.It is thefreedictionary.com one of the first things that comes up in the search results. But however that may be, we know that this is a correct definition, and we know that it doesn't depend on their being alone code. So it refute your argument, the fact that it exists refutes your argument. The reader will note that you're not denying the truth of the definition, and that would be the only thing that would save your argument. You can't deny the truth of the definition, so your argument is blown to smithereens, it's extinct.
Of course it's blatantly false. Murder is a legal term; its common english definition requires an illegal act.No that's not blatantly false. Without the concept of "murder" which is an unjustified killing of a human, it would be impossible to write a law against murder. Obviously the concept preceded the law, making it the primary definition which in turn is used to draft the law.
Wrong, ad hominem.Are you believe you can disqualify valid definitions of a word. You can't. So until you figure that out you really don't understand how a dictionary works.
Wrong again. Six to one.Your statement "abortion can't be murder by definition" is false, because I've given you the definition of murder showing it to be false. The only way to save the truth of your statement is to show that the definition that I've demonstrated is false. You can't do that so your argument is extinct.
Of course it does.The truth of your statement never turned on whether there is a legal definition of murder. That's not in dispute, never has been, it's a relevant to the discussion.
wnrt.Do you understand that this is not a popularity contest? Because from this comment that's not clear.
No, you didn't.I'm address that above. And in so doing I showed very clearly there's nothing stupid or dishonest about it.
I am stating - correctly - that it is not the standard English definition.So you are denying the definition of murder that I cited from thefreedictionary.com website? Because that is the only way your negation here can be saved.
Correcting you.We just showed above that it's not so I don't know what do you think you're achieving with this comment.
No experts are involved here.The opinion of an expert… how did you put it? Oh yes, "vacuously stupid or simply dishonest."
No, it's not."Abortion can't be murder by definition" is not a fact.
You acknowledge the definition of murder that dispositiviely refuse your point. It's hard to see how contradicting yourself from one post to the next works, at least for you. Works for me great!There is no such fact.
You're changing the question and moving the goalposts and it's transparently absurd. But if you look in an English dictionary what you find your standard English definitions. So even for all your manipulating it still doesn't work.Sorry, but wrong. You falsely claimed it to be the 'standard English definition' which it obviously is not.
You are simply creating a story to sell your argument again transparently and that's not working either. But it doesn't matter because thedictionary.com is a very standard English language dictionary source. In my search engine it comes up at the top.I provided six definitions; you provided one which you had to hunt for.
Murder is an English term which has a legal definition, as one alternative. It also has a simple English definition.. . .Murder is a legal term;
Murders simple English definition requires no law.its common english definition requires an illegal act.
. . . my point is neither wrong nor is it ad hominem.Wrong, ad hominem.
Dictionary definitions are not competing with one another. And they certainly don't vote each other off of the island.Wrong again. Six to one.
You go around telling people that abortion can't be murder because murder is by definition illegal. That's flatly false because the people you were telling that to are using the simple English definition of murder, which is not a legal definition.Of course it does.
If that has a meaning I don't know it…wnrt.
That is a statement of obstinence. I can't see how it's even intended to be believed.No, you didn't.
Which is interesting because you state equally declaratively that it is a legal definition.I am stating - correctly - that it is not the standard English definition.
And aspirational comment that certainly won't be satisfied on this question.Correcting you.
You've made that clear though apparently unwittingly.No experts are involved here.
Because you voted the simple English definition of murder of the lexicographical island?No, it's not.
The 'simple English definition' of murder is the unlawful/illegal killing of a person by another person. Sorry if you don't like that. Finding ONE dictionary that gives ONE definition that leaves out the 'unlawful/illegal' aspect, when every other dictionary available, does not make that ONE dictionary's ONE definition the 'simple English definition'.You acknowledge the definition of murder that dispositiviely refuse your point. It's hard to see how contradicting yourself from one post to the next works, at least for you. Works for me great!
You're changing the question and moving the goalposts and it's transparently absurd. But if you look in an English dictionary what you find your standard English definitions. So even for all your manipulating it still doesn't work.
You are simply creating a story to sell your argument again transparently and that's not working either. But it doesn't matter because thedictionary.com is a very standard English language dictionary source. In my search engine it comes up at the top.
Murder is an English term which has a legal definition, as one alternative. It also has a simple English definition.
Murders simple English definition requires no law.
. . . my point is neither wrong nor is it ad hominem.
Dictionary definitions are not competing with one another. And they certainly don't vote each other off of the island.
You go around telling people that abortion can't be murder because murder is by definition illegal. That's flatly false because the people you were telling that to are using the simple English definition of murder, which is not a legal definition.
If that has a meaning I don't know it…
That is a statement of obstinence. I can't see how it's even intended to be believed.
Which is interesting because you state equally declaratively that it is a legal definition.
And aspirational comment that certainly won't be satisfied on this question.
You've made that clear though apparently unwittingly.
Because you voted the simple English definition of murder of the lexicographical island?
A definition that presupposes law is a legal definition.The 'simple English definition' of murder is the unlawful/illegal killing of a person by another person.
Well my apologies if I insinuated that.The fact that you insinuated that I am a cult. Or that I am in one.
Well that would depend on whether it is illegal to kill what people consider is a person. So where a law is passed by some people against the killing of an unborn human person, its murder by definition.The 'simple English definition' of murder is the unlawful/illegal killing of a person by another person. Sorry if you don't like that. Finding ONE dictionary that gives ONE definition that leaves out the 'unlawful/illegal' aspect, when every other dictionary available, does not make that ONE dictionary's ONE definition the 'simple English definition'.
Abortion, where it is legal, cannot be murder by definition.
It is the simple English definition, found in all but one definition in one dictionary.A definition that presupposes law is a legal definition.
It would depend on it, yes. So...Well that would depend on whether it is illegal to kill what people consider is a person. So where a law is passed by some people against the killing of an unborn human person, its murder by definition.
So its subjective.It would depend on it, yes. So...
No. Next?So its subjective.
Thankyou.Well my apologies if I insinuated that.
And firstly my view is God's view that sexual relations are for a faithful man woman union, so I dont go with this anyway.Thankyou.
Now here is the problem. The OP is trying to convince us that his "friend" was tricked unto having sex with a trans person. I'm not buying this for a moment.
If you are close enough to have sex with someone, you are close enough to figure out whether or not they are trans. The only way his "friend" could not tell, is if he was using a glory hole. A wall that prevents the customer from seeing any of the sex worker, with a small hole for the customer to insert his penis.
Anyone who is using a glory hole, already knows he will be serviced by an anonymous worker. And already does not care who that worker is.
So the OP has already told us enough about his "friend", that we dont need to take his belated concerns seriously.
A convoluted way to admit that you are God, and that God is you.And firstly my view is God's view
Yes but that was what I believe whether you like it or not; you dont need to comment on it when my question wasA convoluted way to admit that you are God, and that God is you.
I'm taking my best guess, based on the behavior of past evangelical fundamentalists.Yes but that was what I believe whether you like it or not; you dont need to comment on it when my question was
Are we assuming the trans person was the same sex? If so, say so and dont use the word 'trans' Seems the issue for the person was his friend was the same sex.
So yes or no?I'm taking my best guess, based on the behavior of past evangelical fundamentalists.
JJ most likely went to a creationist convention, and picked up a gay male prostitute. He then panicked the next morning when he realized that someone may have seen him., and might know his secret. His OP is an attempt to present himself as a hapless victim.
You want to boil it down to one word.So yes or no?
Ok the friend was the opposite sex thenYou want to boil it down to one word.
Ok. No.