Search results

I keep trying to boil this down to what I think is our core disagreement. Under the proposed system as written, there is no earthly safeguard against a king who openly violates the Constitution for thirty years, perhaps longer, and produces an heir who is equally tyrannical, and so on for...

Okay, so I fed as much as I could of Bob's material into, and had some lengthy discussion with, ChatGPT on the subject of a Code of Use and then had it produce a Code of Use that it thought Bob would likely have approved of. Let me know what you think of this result... America's Code of Use...

The point is that this is not an argument! Precedent can be wrong - and often is! Not in the classical sense of the term. It isn't "Open Theism" that "infers" this. The bible teaches it explicitly. Open Theism simply acknowledges the biblical teaching. In no case is it an "inference". Not...

Alright, well then I had the constitution and criminal codes already. I was just thinking that the criminal code was longer than what I had and I didn't have a code of use at all, which makes sense if he never wrote it.

@JudgeRightly, If you have it, could you post the full text of the proposed constitution, the criminal code and the code of use and whatever other original documents you've got that are relevant to this discussion?

No, you don't get to take home the whole basket because I decided to stop arguing over your use of terminology. Even with my modification, it is still a constitutional monarchy, who's king is the sovereign of the nation so long as he doesn't abdicate that authority by ignoring the law that...

It's interesting that I didn't even bother to read the passages he cited. They don't teach omni-anything, in the classical meaning of the terms.

A near perfect definition of an appeal to tradition fallacy. It is not an inference or an implication. We state it outright that God does not know the future in any sense similar to what Classical Christian dogma teaches. We do not state that because we pull it out of the clear blue sky but...

So be it. The king is not the final authority. That is, when he has chosen egregiously violate the law that placed him in his place of authority in the first place, then the law has provision to remove him from that place of authority.

You missed the point, but I am gratified that you were honest enough to kind of sort of concede the point. You did it like some sort of idiot lawyer, as if anyone here was suggesting that no law is ever broken in any place that isn't run by a democrat, which is silly, but you've gone much...

You are definitely conflating morality and law in this response but let's leave that aside and think on this from a different angle... We've been debating the issue as though there are only two possibilities: An absolutely immune king. A superior authority that can remove the king at will...

Laughably delusional, self-contradictory nonsense. I can see that you deserve to remain on ignore.

I promise that I really did read your entire post, but I'm extremely pressed for time so my response will be super focused... Does the proposed constitution hold a person accused of a crime guilty before he has a trial?

I don't think that most of the people working to go to the Moon or Mars have big mining dollar signs in their eyes. That's just onlookers speculating about potential benefits of Lunar bases and going to asteroids and Mars and whatever else. I think, for those doing actual work on these missions...

Him conceding that point is not the equivalent of him conceding that "Crime is primarily a problem in democrat-run cities and states.". Anyone who could possibly deny such an obvious truth is simply delusional. Their mind is broken. And that's assuming that their denial of it isn't an...

How does the first sentence have anything to do with the second? What's so stupid about wanting to explore the solar system? I mean, I agree that their whole worldview is flawed and the reasons they give for going are foolish but that doesn't mean that attempting to go to Mars is inherently a...

This is true of everyone, whether they are a king or not. As such, it is not relevant to the question being debated. That question being whether the king should enjoy immunity from legal procession.

We're just going in circles. I simply will not advocate for a system that places the king above the law. I do not care whether you can find some way to rationalize that away and advance some theory that places the king theoretically under the law. In practical terms, the proposed system places...

You see what you choose to see and have no wisdom whatsoever. You might as well be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid. In reality, you don't have any of those as an excuse. You're simply a fool.

You're delusional.