Search results

Not to poo-poo Trump's early campaign gimmick, but,13 pallets of water is a pretty meaningless gesture. I can easily imagine Keanu Reeves doing that or more anonymously and completely without notifying any press or making any political statements in the process.

I loved Henry Hyde! I don't know the context of this quote....but, reading it, it sounds as though Hyde is essentially in agreement with me on this. It seems he is actually saying that "Declaration of War" is an obsolete concept altogether. I don't actually agree with that, but, if you read...

Quite the same direction....KY summed it up with "skin in the game".

I can't say, I'd insist on land-owning males, unless........all taxation was upon land ownership itself. Such a theory works and worked well enough when land ownership was genuinely an affordable reality. Even the poorest classes were land-owning subsistence farmers. In a wage-based and...

Agreed 100% I'm thinking it should be closer to about $10,000 but, that's exactly what's happening. In my State it's called "The Villages" and it's a cancer which is well on its way to destroying its third county. There's two things left: The Villages itself, and the run-down shacks and...

I tend to agree... But that doesn't mean to be involved in a conflict in any capacity they must declare a war. That is the distinction I'm making. Again, I agree. Agreed, and, furthermore, if they want to be involved in helping out a percieved ally or potential one that should be largely...

All that may be. I do not have a dog in this fight. I tend to agree that we should not be involved, but, I confess myself insufficiently informed on the current event to care to debate it. My post is only about the insistence that declarations of war must be issued to be involved in any...

You misunderstand that document, or rather, at least what a declaration of war means. The use or placement of U.S. troops or the lending of war materiel does not require a declaration of war. For all of Western history where official declarations of war were practiced, this was not assumed...

It is not Biblical. It is, however, rational. "Rational" does not mean "correct". It means that it follows from certain pre-suppositions. In the Calvinist schema (which I believe to be un-Biblical) un-conditional election follows as the necessary and rational way to explain why anyone at all...

Being neither strictly a Calvinist nor an Arminian...I will say this: The ONE thing BOTH systems absolutely are, is rational. Calvinism is logically and rationally flawless; so much so, that all points must be believed and cannot stand alone. If any one point fails, the system crumbles. As...

? He doesn't. No. It's "irrational" only if it is believed assuming the premises are untrue. You are over-thinking this: It MUST be true, he says: whenever the premises are true.... KJVO's assume the truth of their basic premise...therefore any conclusions they make must follow logically...

Yay....fight the good fight brother.

Your original question wasn't whether it was either "true" or even "plausible".... It isn't TRUE AT ALL! It was whether it was "logical"... Here's Again: perfect "logic": (I'm not thinking people are appreciating it's limitations) 1.) All frogs are street-fighters 2.) All street-fighters are...

No, an argument is "valid" even if their premises are false, actually. Clark's distinction is correct. No, I don't ignore it... Trust me, Spock did not rightly define "logic"...Clark is correct. An argument may be "logical" even if the conclusions are false. The Nazi "final solution" was based...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think you have some passing knowledge of Greek and Hebrew? If we began at Genesis 1:1......we both know the definite particle isn't there right? That would work to "disprove" every respectable English Translation.... What would be the good of that? I don't know...

This is precisely what I've been telling you: An argument is "Valid"....whenever the premises are true: You aren't paying attention to the terms Clark is using. Therefore most KJVO arguments are not "illogical"....of course they assume their premises are true. Don't you? So, when they draw a...

Actually, was just re-reading the initial question you asked: The answer is actually: MAYBE.

..

No, it isn't.

. It was never "demonstrated"... The only thing you could "demonstrate" would be a deductive logical "proof": And you don't know how to do that. I could show you, it's like math. You could LITERALLY "prove" their argument to be invalid, but, you've never tried. I could show you. They aren't...