Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OneWingedShark

Is English not your first language? Every single definition you posted makes my point. “A requirement for an an agreement” is always voluntary,as you aren’t being forced to agree. By your logic a person is forced to pay whatever the asking price is for a car, because the dealer refuses to come down on the price, but the reality is that you can decide not to buy that car. You are arguing that the dealer should be forced to accept what you believe is a reasonable price.
I don’t think anyone can be as obstinate as you are being without doing so on purpose, so let me put this more bluntly. One of the main reasons I have weapons is to prevent people like you from coming to my home and dictating your rules to me.


75 posted on 03/05/2011 5:26:03 AM PST by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: SampleMan

>don’t think anyone can be as obstinate as you are being without doing so on purpose, so let me put this more bluntly. One of the main reasons I have weapons is to prevent people like you from coming to my home and dictating your rules to me.

And where have I been dictating* rules to you? Your conditions ARE the rules being dictated.
*Citing laws which your requirements violate is not dictating rules, btw.

>Is English not your first language? Every single definition you posted makes my point. “A requirement for an an agreement” is always voluntary,as you aren’t being forced to agree.

I never said that I was being forced to agree. I *WAS* operating on the assumption that the proposition was taken, it is *ONLY* in that way that the consequent {the “then” part} has any relevance/impact. {As my math instructor put it: “’If John Lennon was president everyone would have free guitar-lessons’ is *always* true because John Lennon can’t be president.” (Being both dead and failing the Natural Born Citizen requirement makes it impossible.)}

This is supported by formal logic, *ANY* introductory writing [perhaps excluding the ancient 2000-year-old ones] on which will show that:
Given the antecedent “P” and the Consequent “Q” an implication-statement (that is if-then) is:
TRUE when P is false, regardless of the value of Q.
TRUE when P and Q are both true.
and
FALSE when P is true and Q is not.


79 posted on 03/05/2011 9:20:13 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson