Best response ever to the stupidest question ever: Does Israel have the right to exist?

You are using nonsense words. Contract law is law. What? Are you going to call your orderyer when you are sued for breach of contract?
Oh, now "law" and "order" are nonsense words. Okay. :rolleyes:
 
Oh, now "law" and "order" are nonsense words. Okay. :rolleyes:
They are words. And they have meaning. You are using them in a nonsensical manner. Do please explain to me what the difference is between "law" and "order"; what criteria you apply to each; under which circumstance each is relevant; and how all this makes sense in the context of the rights of States.
 
They are words. And they have meaning. You are using them in a nonsensical manner. Do please explain to me what the difference is between "law" and "order"; what criteria you apply to each; under which circumstance each is relevant; and how all this makes sense in the context of the rights of States.
Seriously?! I have to explain the difference between law versus order?

If you're going to be in a discussion like this, then it's customary to know basic terminology and encyclopedic concepts regarding the subject.

If I were your employer here, then I would fire you. Then again, I now observe that standards for posting are quite low.
 
Seriously?! I have to explain the difference between law versus order?
Certainly, you do in the context of our discussion, while also noting that "order" has multiple and broad definitions. For example, you seem to be setting the category of "contracts" (treaties, agreements, charters, accords) outside the parameters of "law". You claim that States have no "rights" because the concept of "law" does not apply to States. Defend those positions.
 
Certainly, you do in the context of our discussion, while also noting that "order" has multiple and broad definitions. For example, you seem to be setting the category of "contracts" (treaties, agreements, charters, accords) outside the parameters of "law". You claim that States have no "rights" because the concept of "law" does not apply to States. Defend those positions.
Defend them to who? Someone who doesn't even understand 4th grade basics like fact versus opinion? lol

You claim you are for the rights of indigenous people, but apparently, only in the abstract. You have no problem enforcing order that trumps law. Defend that.
 
Truly, I despair at the lack of intellectual discourse, critical thinking, requirement for evidence, and the inability to express concepts or defend arguments.
Lol. You think your perception of an internet vid is fact. But keep up your internet lawyering, shill.
 
Defend them to who? Someone who doesn't even understand 4th grade basics like fact versus opinion? lol

You claim you are for the rights of indigenous people, but apparently, only in the abstract. You have no problem enforcing order that trumps law. Defend that.
You are unable or refuse to articulate what you mean by "order" and how you differentiate it from "law". You might at the least give me the charity of letting me know if you intend the verb or the noun.

And again, please refer back to the original claim, which is that States have no rights in law, but have rights in "order".
 
You are unable or refuse to articulate what you mean by "order" and how you differentiate it from "law". You might at the least give me the charity of letting me know if you intend the verb or the noun.

And again, please refer back to the original claim, which is that States have no rights in law, but have rights in "order".
There's a new invention. It's called a dictionary. If you want to discuss something, then you come knowing basics.

And, are you giving me part of your salary for this, shill?
 
15th post

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom