Silent no more

[PLC1]

The second part read:

"If a law is made that controls human behavior by rules or restrictions but the law DOES NOT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its not a legitimate law."

The bit about absolutes would be a third part.

My actual words:

The first part is correct. I thought that must have been your point to begin with, and now you have clarified it.

Absolutes? Well, in physics there are absolutes. In human affairs, they're harder to find.

Nice try, though. Maybe with practice, you'll become more adept at twisting posts and creating straw men.

 

[Dr.Who]

Nice try, though. Maybe with practice, you'll become more adept at twisting posts and creating straw men.

Here is what Gen said: ( I added the numbers)


"1) If a law controls human behavior by rules or restrictions FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its a legitimate law. 2) If a law is made that controls human behavior by rules or restrictions but the law DOES NOT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its not a legitimate law.

3) There are absolutes."

Here is what you said:

"The first part is correct. I thought that must have been your point to begin with, and now you have clarified it."

I prefer to think that someone could have legitimately looked at something differently before attributing to them a motive of twisting words.

Do you not see how there were 3 points in 2 paragraphs and someone might number it differently than you would, but with equal validity?

Since you called my comment and "OMG" and "astounding" one might think that you would have stopped to consider that there might have been a miscommunication. The evidence of a miscommunication was there. Point 2, as I numbered, it IS consistent with communist ideals while trying to make point 3 a communist ideal would be ludicrous.

 

[PLC1]

Here is what Gen said: ( I added the numbers)


"1) If a law controls human behavior by rules or restrictions FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its a legitimate law. 2) If a law is made that controls human behavior by rules or restrictions but the law DOES NOT PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, then its not a legitimate law.

3) There are absolutes."

Here is what you said:

"The first part is correct. I thought that must have been your point to begin with, and now you have clarified it."

I prefer to think that someone could have legitimately looked at something differently before attributing to them a motive of twisting words.

Do you not see how there were 3 points in 2 paragraphs and someone might number it differently than you would, but with equal validity?

Since you called my comment and "OMG" and "astounding" one might think that you would have stopped to consider that there might have been a miscommunication. The evidence of a miscommunication was there. Point 2, as I numbered, it IS consistent with communist ideals while trying to make point 3 a communist ideal would be ludicrous.

The miscommunication was caused by your having ignored and erased the second part of my post. That's why it looked like a strawman and twisting of words to me.

But, to be fair, maybe you did misread my statement.

 

[Dr.Who]

The miscommunication was caused by your having ignored and erased the second part of my post. That's why it looked like a strawman and twisting of words to me.

But, to be fair, maybe you did misread my statement.

I apologize for what I contributed to that.