I’m a retired psychiatrist and I’m schooled in philosophy, so feel free to wax technical, as I’m perfectly at home with Aristotle, Kant or Bentham when it comes to ethics, or Descartes and Wittgenstein on epistemology. Given that you lacked even the most abecedarian knowledge on how laws are made, it’s a bit rich that you deign to lecture me on ignorance.
Perhaps start by making your point less vague. You said a ‘precedent is set against what is established’. I’ve explained that a precedent (in the legal sense) is indeed set against what is established (prevailing interpretations of relevant legislation) during a court case. So what’s your point exactly?
You're easily riled for someone who pretends to be the age you are. Perhaps you are younger. If not, I worry because you sound like a 14 year old with a text book. Reading some words and pretending they have a deep understanding based on, well, just reading stuff.
By "established", I did mean things beyond your law book, your purview, your nation, and your mind. I meant established in the sense that may be actually established. However, if you want to limit it and then blame me for that very limitation, you would not be the first.
'I meant established in the sense that may be actually established.'
Is that the best you've got? A tautology embedded in a series of ad hominems? As I said, feel free to wax technical. That means go into detail. I'll take you seriously when you present a cogent, detailed argument.
Gentlemen. This tit-for-tat repartee had been most enjoyable and is certainly irregular when contrasted against the mindless banter and cheap inuendos that normally are written at IIN.
I hope not to disrupt the focus and good spirit of your discussion. But if I may digress with a question; what color was her underwear?
up skirt photos
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I’m a retired psychiatrist and I’m schooled in philosophy, so feel free to wax technical, as I’m perfectly at home with Aristotle, Kant or Bentham when it comes to ethics, or Descartes and Wittgenstein on epistemology. Given that you lacked even the most abecedarian knowledge on how laws are made, it’s a bit rich that you deign to lecture me on ignorance.
Perhaps start by making your point less vague. You said a ‘precedent is set against what is established’. I’ve explained that a precedent (in the legal sense) is indeed set against what is established (prevailing interpretations of relevant legislation) during a court case. So what’s your point exactly?
--
tuple
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You're easily riled for someone who pretends to be the age you are. Perhaps you are younger. If not, I worry because you sound like a 14 year old with a text book. Reading some words and pretending they have a deep understanding based on, well, just reading stuff.
By "established", I did mean things beyond your law book, your purview, your nation, and your mind. I meant established in the sense that may be actually established. However, if you want to limit it and then blame me for that very limitation, you would not be the first.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
'I meant established in the sense that may be actually established.'
Is that the best you've got? A tautology embedded in a series of ad hominems? As I said, feel free to wax technical. That means go into detail. I'll take you seriously when you present a cogent, detailed argument.
--
McBean
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Gentlemen. This tit-for-tat repartee had been most enjoyable and is certainly irregular when contrasted against the mindless banter and cheap inuendos that normally are written at IIN.
I hope not to disrupt the focus and good spirit of your discussion. But if I may digress with a question; what color was her underwear?