|
|
|
|
#1
12-31-2005, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Janus
[ QUOTE ]
He said that "crimes" and "illegal acts" were not the same thing. I looked up the definition of "crime" and the first definition clearly said that a crime was an illegal act. He retorts by saying "oh, look at the OTHER definition - it mentions morality! That means illegal acts are not crimes!" I'm clearly right here. Stop grasping at straws. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, because the only "correct" definition of a word is the one that fits your personal desire. Do you believe that legislators, no matter how they come into power, are infallible? 
|
|
#2
12-31-2005, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Janus
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because the only "correct" definition of a word is the one that fits your personal desire. [/ QUOTE ] Not all things that are crimes should be crimes; however, by definition, they are. [ QUOTE ] Do you believe that legislators, no matter how they come into power, are infallible? [/ QUOTE ] No. What's that got to do with the basic, most commonly used definition of a word?
|
|
#3
12-31-2005, 09:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Janus
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yes, because the only "correct" definition of a word is the one that fits your personal desire. [/ QUOTE ] Not all things that are crimes should be crimes; however, by definition, they are. [ QUOTE ] Do you believe that legislators, no matter how they come into power, are infallible? [/ QUOTE ] No. What's that got to do with the basic, most commonly used definition of a word? [/ QUOTE ] Because you're saying something is a crime if and only if it's illegal, and something is illegal if and only if it's a crime. That isomorphism would require legislation that is *always* "correct".
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
