![]() |
|
Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#11 |
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
|
"Define theft - rather, define the statute of limitation on theft?"
I defined theft (broadly and simply)...go take a gander.
And we haven't even got out of the startin' gate cuz of all the *nitpickin', so I won't be forced to jump ahead into limits on theft. Work with what you got, or take a flyin' leap. # "Sorry, weaklings, life/liberty/property is reserved for the mighty--try again next life." Doesn't have to be that way, and you don't need 10,000 laws/regs to get sumthin' better, but if you think you need to straightjacket yourself to straightjacket the bad actors then that's what you'll do (as I say: you trade off autonomy to preserve autonomy). Can't reason with crazy. # "We can boil these things down to a sentence or two, or a list enshrined, but each one will have a library of books of interpretation - and they should." Yeah, sure, but you can't even get out of the starting gate (or, rather, you can but just don't wanna). And: I asked a question...not seein' that I enshrined anything. I asked a question that you all have a ready answer for ('cept you won't offer that answer cuz -- as I say below -- you're fuckin' with me). *which I don't believe is real...none of you are stupid...you all know exactly what i'm askin' about...all this legalistic crap is you just fuckin' with me...fine by me, dipshits..we'll play it out to this thread's sad little conclusion (consultin' my crystal ball: there ain't no common ground [cuz you don't want there to be any])
__________________
like the other guy sez: 'not really back, blah-blah-blah...' |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|