Replies

Humor you? You recognize humor? OK...

You've persisted in engaging in a farce even when shown the error of your thought processes.

It was pointed out that you're engaging in logical fallacies leading to most illogical premises and conclusions.

Saying an analogy applies even when it's painfully evident it does not is just the beginning.

Having pointed out that this bill is apparently (according to the news article) the effort of a single dingbat in the legislature, and even having seen you admit that perhaps it would be more accurate to invoke the will of "some of the people" rather than the population in general, you have subsequently persisted in presenting this invalid argument as if it were valid. It is not.

The point is, Robert, that there is no similarity between the sale of sex toys and a crack house (which, in your previous post, you conveniently place next door to the poster's house that you were replying to);

That a bill introduced into the legislature by a single lawmaker, however unbalanced, however irrelevant, and however unimportant in the overall scheme of things, is not the same as the declared will of the people of that political entity.

If you simply want to state that you think this bill is a good idea - great! You've added something of import to this discussion. It's when you go off on illogical tangents that the basic instability of your arguments is revealed.

That's my point, Robert - you don't argue a good case.

CA....