Imagine the reaction that you'd give someone, who described an event that you also saw… but you found with this other person's comment didn't match what you saw. You react by popping your head back, crunching your eyebrows, and explain, "WHAT!" You've GOT to be fucking KIDDING me!"
That's precisely the reaction I constantly had while reading your recent drivel. I say, "BULLOCKS!"
Your analogies don't even come close to what's happening in this debate. You need to put the drugs aside, put the KoolAid down, and wait for their affects to wear off before attempting to describe what's going on in our debate… or even before you open your mouth to disengage your brains.
Prior to this post, I gave you ample time and opportunity to come to your senses, and to realize that I was giving you the facts, based on other facts that I've seen. You would've demonstrated integrity had you taken that opportunity.
However; I knew that you weren't going to take that opportunity, so I kept paying out more and more rope to you. Before I hang you a second time on this thread, this time with your arrogance, let me fix things to reflect what's actually going on.
thorough9: Imagine that we're in a court of law. I am the plaintiff and you are the defendant. I've presented my evidence. You are called to present yours and you tell the court, "Take my word for it. I'm really smart". You get laughed out of court, and I win by default.
That analogy doesn't come close to describing what we're debating. If your "marksmanship" were anything like your analogy, I'd hate to be the guy standing behind you as you fire at the targets in front of you. That's how far off you are.
First, we have to look at what this debate is about… what was actually going on in the night of Paul Revere's Ride, the night that saw the first shots of the American Revolution.
Sarah Palin made a statement that essentially had Paul Revere warning the British that they weren't going to take our guns.
Your side jumped down her throat, saying that she warned the Patriot's instead.
I jump in and explain the factors that were playing that night, to include the philosophy that drove both sides during that period… English Common Law. Under English Common Law, the Colonials, by continuing the alarm system, did so to send the Regulars a message… that they weren't going to take the Colonial's arms.
To advance your argument, you quote websites that talk about the surface of what happened that night. What you forgot, in your moves to hide behind other people's works, is the fact that I said this:
"By activating the alarm system, a system that has been in place since the medieval period. The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed." - herfacechair
Your major thrust, your major efforts, all hinged on you advancing a point that I had also advanced… a fact that Paul Revere activated an alarm system to get the colonials in action.
You see, we're not arguing about whether the alarm system was intended to warn the regulars or not. We're not arguing about whether the colonials were warned or not. We're arguing about whether activating the alarm system continued on as the colonials communicating a message to the Regulars or not.
Every single evidence that you advanced supported what I highlighted in red. But, that's not the crux of our argument. The crux of this debate is the continuation of the alarm system as a means for the colonials to send a clear message to the Regulars… mainly, that they weren't going to take the colonials' arms.
In this sense, your arguments, your presentation, represent an epic fail. Your proof, also supporting what I highlighted in red, in my quote, FAILED to address the other point that I advanced in that quote… the secondary purpose. None of your references mentioned the English Common Law aspect, whether that's what happened or not.
That's like saying that your vehicle doesn't exist, because it's not in the photo that I took of a parking lot in Nevada.
So how would we set up an analogy that captures how our debate went? Let's use your analogy, this time to reflect what's actually happening.
Imagine that we're in a court of law, you’re the defendant, and I'm the plaintiff. Both our clients were involved in a fight. You go up to present your argument…
"Guys are guys, and guys get into fights!" You throw one data after another describing what a male is, then you throw in fighting statistics showing that guys in the client's age group get into most fights. After addressing your evidence, I go up to present my argument…
That your client, 6' 2", prone to anger (he's slightly glaring at me as I present my argument) had followed my client, 4'11", to his apartment complex, because my client refused to move out your client's way on the slow lane, forcing your client to overtake mine on the left. This resulted in your client's attacking my client.
Then you come back… "Where's the video?" "Show me the video!" "Show me the video where my client had to overtake yours!" "Show me the video where my client follows your client to his apartment!" "Show me the video showing my client beating yours up!" "Show me!" "Where's the proof!"
My response, that my client is in crutches as we speak.
You reply, "Well, he fell down, and my client tried to help him, and called for help!" Then you push your evidence: "Look, I presented one fact after another, that both our clients are males, and that males their age get into fights, all you advanced is your argument that my client beat your client up… but where are the videos?"
Then you continue:
"Judge, I brought the facts, the plaintiff brought nothing, other than the claim that his client is in crutches because of my client, request you throw this case out!"
The judge, seeing that all you did was prove something that all sides didn't disagree with, but had nothing to do with what's being argued… also seeing your client glare at my client and me, throws your case out.
Do you see what you're actually doing, both in how I summarized our debate, and the analogy that follows? This analogy comes closest to what we're debating.
Being able to consistently keep your car at 55 miles per hour on a good day is fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean much if the speed limit is 70 miles per hour. Just like I told your alter ego, your debate tactics are like you playing chess against someone, hell-bent on capturing his bishop… while he maneuvers to keep his king out of sight while going for yours.
The only way that your analogy would work would be if this were taking place in a Kangaroo court, where the Judge and Jury are likeminded like you, and who are willing to accept red herring statements and strawmen arguments coming from you… over the facts and logic coming from me… simply because they agree with you no matter what you say.
Again, this isn't a debate on whether Paul Revere warned the colonials or not, I've repeatedly stated that as his primary mission. Your evidence supported what I bolded in red above. This argument is about the Common Law aspect, NONE of your evidence proved the English Common Law aspect of the debate wrong, HENCE, your evidence didn't prove me wrong.
thorough9: And please don't claim to be the "expert witness". Expert witnesses are established and are usually testifying about their field of expertise.
Actually, when it comes to the debate on this thread, I AM the expert witness.
No amount of knowledge is going to convince you of that fact, simply because my stance opposes yours. But, to the people that have known me a lot longer than you, both face to face and online, I'm seen, and respected, as an expert on matters dealing with history.
If you don't believe me, feel free to create an account on Mistress Destiny's Femdom Forums, go to the flame forum, and ask the posters there about me. You've known me for less than a year… they've known me for years.
thorough9: Now, If we start talking about spell-checking or grading papers, then step on up.
I attacked your writing when you attacked mine. That's been my policy on this on other message board… I'll leave someone's spelling, grammar and writing alone until they attack mine.
thorough9: Plagarism is purposely passing off someone else's work as yours. Any dumb-ass, with a search bar, can google the shit that i posted from Paul Revere's site and find the source, so using your implied English Common Law example, it's implied that it's not my work, not to mention that i've already credited the source - talk about horse blinders and head in posteriors.. Now, what the fuck kind of fallacy is that?
If you're not going to accept my English Common Law argument, you can't use it to get your point across… unless you're willing to admit that my English Common Law argument has merit, and that you were, after all, wrong in this argument.
However, let's look at what's actually seen as plagiarism:
From aresearchguide.com, definition of plagiarism: ( http://www.aresearchguide.com/6plagiar.html )
According to the definition given in the 1997 New Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, plagiarism is "the unauthorized use of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own" (508).
To avoid plagiarism, all students must document sources properly using Footnotes, Endnotes, or Parenthetical References, and must write a Bibliography, References, or Works Cited page and place it at the end of the research paper to list the sources used. Of the three ways to document sources - Footnotes, Endnotes, and Parenthetical References, the simplest is using Parenthetical References, sometimes referred to as Parenthetical Documentation or Parenthetical Citations.
You can't use English Common Law's "implied" meaning here, as universities, as well as organizations that produce written work, have established how you're to credit another author's work. Together, they've defined the English Common Law interpretation of how you should credit someone else's work when you use it in the body of your own work.
Now, how would your actions, under common law, show that you intend to show that you're not trying to use another author's work as your own?
By separating that other person's work from the rest of yours, and citing it to the proper writer.
One example is the quote above… I identified where I got those words from, and I enclosed them in a quote box, which separates them from the rest of my post. I'm making it clear, to the reader, that those aren't my words.
Here's another way that I do this:
"Regardless, we are talking about two different things." - Longermonger
Another way that I do this is by placing your username before your comment before I demonstrate how you're wrong.
You can't use the, "any tard with a search bar could search can find out that those aren't my words!" Then argue that you intended for the reader to know that specific words are from another writer.
Since guidelines have already been established, on how to credit someone's work when you use it… your failure to separate another's work, while using it in your own work, constitutes plagiarism. Even if you say, "From Paul Revere's Letter." Key here, you have to make it clear to the reader which words are someone else's and which ones are yours.
Under English Common Law, your failure to separate/flag someone's words within your work:
* Per consistent guidelines presented by more than one organization that produces written work…
* In a way that someone could tell which words are yours, and which words are from the source…
…constitutes you engaging in plagiarism.
I've even caught you using other's works without your giving even a half assed attempt to credit the proper authors.
thorough9: But, at least I've presented something to be considered plagarism.
First, just like I explained above, the support material that you used supported something that I also said. The problem is, that wasn't the main thrust, or essence, of our argument. Our argument isn't about whether Paul Revere warned the colonials or not. Both of us made statements (see my quote above), that agree with that fact.
You expanded calories supporting that point, you didn't expand calories presenting evidence that argued against, or for, English Common Law, and how it played in the events leading to the shot heard round the world.
Second, you conducted plagiarism. It's THAT simple.
thorough9: The only thing that you've presented is a wafer-thin, unsupported, "explanation" and "assessment" that you are unable to provide supporting evidence for - hence, you have no case.
INDUCTIVE FALLACY + REPEAT POINT
First, I HAVE presented the facts in my argument.
The bulk of my argument is fact. The reason to why you're not seeing that is that you have your head shoved so far up your ass that you need a glass belly button to see. Try removing your head from your ass, try removing those horse-blinders from your eyes, and try deactivating the anti-fact stress shields that you're using to protect your ego and one brain celled operation from all attacks of reason.
Do that, and the facts will become glaringly obvious to you.
Second, Like the others that I've debated with over the past few years, you find it easier to dismiss the facts that I've presented to you by calling them "opinions," "bullshit," etc. than it is for you to come to terms to the fact that you lost this debate from the start… that you don't have a valid argument.
thorough9: And, NO, we aren't going to take your word for it. Your expertise is nonexistent, and you have not presented any facts. You keep stating that your posts are chock full of facts- your posts are chock full of your opinions - I've yet to see one, single strand of evidentiary material presented by you, in any form other than, "take my word for it" or "I took a class".
REPEAT POINT
I've given you ample time to remove your horse-blinders so that you could embrace the facts that I presented, and accept the fact that I know what I'm talking about in this topic. You would've saved face had you had the integrity to accept my argument as the facts.
But, given your arrogance, I didn't expect you to. So I turned it into an opportunity to hang you with your own arrogance.
Since you want to dismiss the Common Law aspect of things, it's time to rub your face in the sewer cesspool that you call your argument:
From James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: ( http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/201...aw-of-nations/ )
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations.[/b] I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
What I said:
"Common sense… our founding fathers would've done things driven by English Common Law." - herfacechair
What I also said:
"Our concept of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derived from the British' philosophy. Prior to "pursuit of happiness," the colonials used the one from the British, which stated that we had the right to life, liberty and property. This concept is based on English Common Law." - herfacechair
Now, let's address property law per English Common Law,
from Investopedia ®: ( http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/...#axzz1QPdIIBUv )
What Does Common Law Property Mean?
A system used by most states to determine ownership of property acquired during marriage. In contrast to the community property system, the common law property system states that property acquired by one member of a married couple belongs solely to that person unless the property is specifically put in the names of both spouses.
Because, that's implied! If the husband hunts, and the wife doesn't hunt, if the husband purchases a rifle, it's obvious that he's doing so for his use. That's his property, not his wife's. He's the one using it, not his wife.
Now, due process of the law dealing with property:
From FindLaw… ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment05/ )
The Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Here's what officers of the court have said about the matter:
Substantive Due Process and Labor Law, By Barry W. Paulson, Department of Economics, University of Colorado: ( https://mises.org/journals/jls/6_3/6_3_4.pdf )
The first Supreme Court application of substantive due process was in the 1855 Hoboken Land decision, in which the court determined that due process relates to civil processes at common law. ' That made it possible for the court to invoke the due process clause as a protection of property rights and to restrain legislative infringement of those rights. State courts also turned to the due process clause in state constitutions as the basis for substantive protection of property rights. (Poulson, 82)
Did you catch the other way that you could credit another person's work? 
But he's talking about due process, and it belonging to common law. If you end up in court, as a defendant, and you face jail time, money loss, property loss, or even your life, you have a right to a jury trial. That's a common law/Natural Law concept. Due process of the law involves an investigation to determine if there's guilt, and a trial process to determine if there is, in fact, guilt. To make it legitimate, this process involves a jury of your peers. That's all based on English Common Law/Natural Law/God's Law.
The Colonials didn't have the benefit of that process, the Regulars were just going to take their property (their weapons) without giving the colonials due process. The Colonials reacted in the "man on porch with gun" manner… by continuing the ringing of the bells, and beating of the drums, to send a message to the Regulars that they weren't going to confiscate the colonial's weapons, thus rob them of a basic right entitled to Englishmen.
You see, your comment, refusing to take my word for it with regards to this argument… is as idiotic as someone telling me that he'll refuse to take my word about the Earth going around the Sun, as I don't have any documentation in my hands telling him that it does.
thorough9: Shit, I took an introductory piano class - that doesn't make me fucking Mozart.
RED HERRING
In order to be comparable to me, you would've had some very good piano playing skills before taking that class, and you would've continued to play piano after that class. I say that, because I started reading up on history during the late 1970s, and I still read and study about it now, in addition to the classes that I've taken.
I took the class, on the Founding Fathers, in 1996. I had continued my reading about the topic long after that.
Now, had had you been on a thread about playing pianos, you'd have a legitimate standing, and only an idiot would dismiss you as not having an advantage when it comes to talking about how to play the piano… had you been arguing with others who've never played the piano.
thorough9: You come here and expect to institute an instant double-standard: You go on and on about plagarism and "state your case" and , meanwhile, you have yet to present yours.
First, that's not a double standard. The sources that you presented failed to argue against, or for, the English Common Law aspect of my argument. All they did was say something that didn't counter one of the statements that I made. I did state, repeatedly, that the primary purposes of the alarm system, that Paul Revere caused to be activated, was to get the colonials in line. That was also the crux of your argument, which didn't address the real argument… what we were arguing… and that was the thrust of Sara Palin's argument.
Second, I did present my case, while countering your case.
Third, my argument against your plagiarisms was legitimate. In an act of desperation, you quoted other people's works, and incorporated them into your post as if they were your own words.
thorough9: You're stuck in the first paragraph of your presentation - all thesis and introduction with no body or bibliography.
And you're stuck with an angle in the debate that doesn't have anything to do with the actual debate.
Sarah Palin made a comment about Paul Revere warning the English, by ringing of the bells and firing the guns, that they weren't going to take our arms and rights.
I've argued, both by rebutting your argument and continuing mine, that not only did Paul Revere cause the alarm system to be activated… to primarily get the colonials in line… but also that, through English Common Law, caused the Regulars to be warned that they weren't going to take the colonials' arms.
You've continued to hold onto your first argument on this thread, with a death grip, that she was "wrong."
Again, the only evidence that you presented didn't address my argument… it addressed something that I wasn't arguing against… your evidence failed to argue for or against the English Common Law aspect of what happened the night the first shot heard around the world happened.
thorough9: You say that you only choose arguments that you are sure to win,
What I actually said:
"In order for me to debate someone, or a group of people, I have to know more about the topic that we're arguing than they do. For instance, go to the other forums, and tell me, which threads do you see me currently debating on?" - herfacechair
"Answer, just this one. Why? Compared to those that I've argued with on this thread, I know more about the American Revolution. It's that simple, that fact reflects on this thread." - herfacechair
"I never get engaged in a debate where the opposition knows more than me. That's stupid. I pick and choose which topics I debate in. I always pick a topic where I know more than the opposition." - herfacechair
What I said above still stands.
In order to prove me "wrong" in this debate, you have to prove that English Common Law "wasn't" a factor that drove our founding fathers' and the Regulars. You failed to do so, none of your "evidence" or "sources" proved me wrong, instead, they also supported what I've stated:
"By activating the alarm system, a system that has been in place since the medieval period. The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed." - herfacechair
How did Paul Revere accomplish what I highlighted in red?
"His actual words were, 'The regulars are coming!' - herfacechair
"... One of Paul Rever's messages was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army." - herfacechair
Again, none of your evidence argued against my Common Law argument, but they did support what I had also repeatedly stated.
Bottom line, I did win this debate, I won it the moment I jumped in. You've been losing it the moment you got into a debate with me.
thorough9: so that means that you come to argue,
That's another reason I'm here, you're slow, again what I said:
"First, I've always came out of a debate with the exact same assessment and position I had before getting into the debate. I've never changed my mind based on what the opposition has said. Why? See previous part of my response, about knowing more about the topic than the opposition. On the other side of the coin, it's never my intention to change the opposition's mind." - herfacechair
"I have absolutely no intentions of letting the opposition's arguments on this thread stand unchallenged. That's a given... I'm debating your side, on this thread, ad infinitum." - herfacechair
Let's be honest here. I'm not the only one that wants to argue. The mere fact that you're still debating with me speaks volumes to the fact that you also came here to argue, and that's all you want to do.
thorough9: and that you come with a false-bravado laced egotism that exists only in your head.
I came here knowing that I knew more than the opposition. So far, I've proven that over and over again. Your failure to argue against, or present any references against, the fact that English Common Law played a role in our Founders' actions, speaks volumes to the fact that I've won this debate.
Don't mistake my telling it like it is as, "ego" and "false bravado. Quotations used strongly.
thorough9: You'er the guy in the ugly-ass outfit - It looks good on YOU. LMAO!
You're the guy with the ugly head shoved up your ass… at least you're doing humanity a favor by not detracting from the background beauty. I guess Halloween is the only time you'd be able to pull your head out of your ass and not be seen as someone that looks awfully out of place.
Having said that, I still expect you to pull your head out of your ass so that you could see the facts.
thorough9: However shallow my view of history is, I have equally shallow evidence to support my theories.
Shallow is an overblown view of what you know, and have argued. Your evidence doesn't address English Common Law as I argue it. Also, I've used your evidence against you, as you failed to read through and understand what you're referencing. Your evidence supports a point that I did make, and it doesn't address the crux of this argument.
In debating circles, your evidence, all of them, represent a red herring.
thorough9: And if you've chosen an argument for which you can not present evidence, then don't expect any sympathy from me
So, if I decide to argue that the grass is green, yet refuse to present evidence, then you won't have any sympathy for me? Do you see how ridiculous you sound? This isn't about my not giving you something that you want to see. This is about your ego refusing to accept a reasoned, fact based logical argument, that you're wrong.
For example, if I quote something, or cite evidence, you're going to dismiss me as not being able to move beyond book knowledge. If I go beyond book knowledge and present my fact based analysis, I apply what I learned in the book "in a practical sense," you turn around and accuse me of doing nothing but presenting "opinions."
The bottom line is that you're not going to accept anything from me that contradicts your opinions. That's what you're really communicating.
thorough9: or anyone else
You don't speak for the whole board. You speak only for other likeminded posters, and yourself.
thorough9: who's had to wade thru pages and pages of shit just to find out that it's unfounded - an again, REPEAT POINT, if you have no evidence, then it's qualified as "unfounded".
Again, if I say that the grass is green, but present nothing, to your satisfaction, showing that the grass is in fact green, then you're going to dismiss my "the grass is green" statement as "unfounded."
I'm simply arguing based on the facts.
Don't dismiss a reasoned, fact/logic based argument, as "shit," simply because they counter your opinion about what happened.
thorough9: You've entered an argument, that you can not win because you have no ammunition other than "because i say so".
Wrong. I won the argument the moment I entered this thread. You lost the moment I countered your argument. What I'm doing is presenting an analysis, full of facts, based on the facts that I've read over the years. For example, my argument about things "unwritten" and "implied":
From Encyclopedia Britannica ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...386/common-law )
Common Law, also called Anglo-American law, Body of law based on custom and general principles and that, embodied in case law, serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute.
Did you see that? "customs and general principles," aka, things that weren't written… they're implied.
For instance, it's not customary to just walk up to someone and take their property. It's customary, that if you show an intent to resist any action to take your weapon, that you're communicating to the taker that they're not going to take your weapon… you know, kind of like what the Colonials' did when they continued to ring the bells, and beat the drums, as the Regulars approached.
It's like I said, you had ample time to come to your senses and accept the fact that between the opposition and me, I know what I'm talking about.
thorough9: That's like running into a battle with a M16 and two empty clips, shouting "BANG! BANG!" and running away, raising your hand in victory. "Trust me, you're dead; I shot the shit out of you.", you say - Well I don't believe you.......
INDUCTIVE FALLACY
What I've done on this thread is best described by this analogy:
I lead a fire team, each man with at least 7 mags, loaded with thirty 5.56 rounds, for a total of 210 five five six rounds, for those with an M4, and the Gunner (SAW) with one belt of 5.56 rounds loaded, at least two belts in reserve, for a total of 600, into a room where I know that if I were to meet resistance, I'd have overwhelming firepower against any resistance in the room.
What you're doing is equivalent to the actions of a terrorist, that took off on word that we were coming in, who subsequently argued that he met us in battle and prevailed… then dismisses any claim, that he fled, as bullshit.
Here's a better analogy to describe our performance…
The opposition, including you… the Aztects
Me… Hernado Cortez and the Conquistadores.
Or…
Me: The US Military
You: Saddam's army and Baghdad Bob.
thorough9: Either put up,
REPEAT POINT
You'll see the facts if you pull your head out of your ass and remove your horse-blinders. You'll get better results if you also deactivate the anti-fact defense shield that your ego is using to protect itself.
thorough9: or shut up.
REPEAT POINT
And you don't see how your posts guarantee that I provide counter posts?
Since you're too stupid to see the relationship here, I'll spell it out. Every time you post your rubbish, I post a counter rebuttal. Notice that? If you want this to stop, then common sense dictates that you "shut up." Otherwise, I'm having too much fun doing this to stop. I'm not going to "shut up," simply because a control freak wants this thread to turn out a certain way.
How dedicated am I to replying to you no matter what?
Expect me to reply to you, no matter how many times you scream for me to "shut up." If I don't get back with you tonight, I'll get back with you tomorrow. If not tomorrow, the next day. If not the next day, the next week, month, year, decade, score, or even lifetime… but I will get back with you.
It's like I said earlier, my replying to you is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.
So can it with your control freak "shut up" demands. That's almost like telling an alcoholic to stay away from the alcohol. Not happening with regards to this thread.
I take sadistic pleasure in dismantling drivel like yours, and watching the opposition's blood vessel popping reaction.
thourough9: If you can't provide evidence,
Want more? Here's more:
From "Vindicating the Founders" (http://www.vindicatingthefounders.co...colonists.html )
The Rights of the Colonists, Adopted by the Town of Boston on November 20, 1772:
Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can—Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature—
This event took place in 1772.
First, what I said:
"Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were 'unwritten.'" - herfacechair
What I also said:
"Our concept of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derived from the British' philosophy. Prior to "pursuit of happiness," the colonials used the one from the British, which stated that we had the right to life, liberty and property. This concept is based on English Common Law." - herfacechair
Now, for the icing on the cake:
"It served as a psychological reminder to the threat that the town was ready to fight. In the colonial's case, given my English Common Law philosophy explanation, a secondary purpose was to warn the regulars that they were not just going to walk up and take the colonials' arms." - herfacechair
And:
"The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed." - herfacechair
The events that we argued about took place after that quote.
The Colonials had a right to defend their weapons, per English Common Law/Natural Law/God's Law, which is what they did, an action that sent an implied message to the Regulars… that they weren't going to take the Colonials weapons…
Again, see my "man on porch with gun" example, then go back and re-read the above quote.
In the words of a chess player moving in for the final kill… CHECKMATE!
thorough9: then your case is thrown out of court.
Actually, your case would be the one thrown out of court on the grounds that your evidence is irrelevant to the trial. Remember, you beat your chest, gorilla style, with sources that supported one of the things that I said… a fact that we were actually in agreement on.
Like the guy in my chess playing example, you gunned for my bishop, again, while I went for your king.
thorough9: Until then, you sully your own intellectual reputation and no one will take you seriously.....
Again, you only speak for likeminded, liberal posters, not for the entire ECCIE community. My intellectual reputation still stands. As you could see from this recent post, I was simply paying out more rope to you, rope that I was going to do to hang you in debate… again.
You grabbed that rope all too willingly, zeroing in what you thought was me making a "weak" argument. I knew that you were desperate, so I decided to withhold support for my argument, so that I could make you think that you had something, that you smelt blood, etc.
But, right when you pounced, BAM, I hung you with your own arrogance.
I'd hate to be in your shoes right now, you'd have to be feeling massive embarrassment, stress, frustration, anger, all at once, from getting served in front of your fans. I've played this game numerous times on other message boards.
If only you could hear how hard I laughed when I saw your last post, and you going for what you thought was victory. You're desperate, and I'm treating you in a similar way that I treat a dog… by making it continue to chase at, and bite at, its tail.
You think that you're this "great debater," that has one of the main conservatives "on the run," but, in reality, you're just a puppy running around in circles, biting its own tail… with me laughing in amusement.
thorough9: You're
not the guy
without facts, aren't you? ROTFLMAO!!! Inductive Fallacy
What I said:
"…you're not smart, aren't you?" - herfacechair
OK, look at the part of our statements before the first comma… do you notice something, other than the fact that I highlighted the negatives?
Yours has two, which actually fits the definition of a double negative:
From LEO, Saint Cloud state: ( http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html ) The blue statements in this quote are mine.
A double negative is the nonstandard usage of two negatives used in the same sentence so that they cancel each other and create a positive.
Examples given in the site:
I hardly have none.
I don't want nothing.
I hardly have any.
I don't want anything.
Mine doesn't qualify, yours does.
This would've been the proper question that you would've asked me:
"Herfacechair, you're factual, aren't you?
shit.
does you mommy know you up this late sonny.