|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
That's interesting, please elaborate. I maintain that I haven't played with any definitions, and if you think I have, I humbly ask that you point to specific instances of this.
Your widening of the scope is precisely the problem here. Practical definitions of ownership don't have such a wide scope. You even went so far as to assert that actual ownership isn't physically possible (which, by the way, is precisely what anarcho-socialism is, and it's the furthest thing from the democratic capitalism that actually drives Canada's economic and political activity), and this is a strong indicator that you're using a definition of "ownership" with a scope far too wide to be of any practical use.
You can accuse me of playing with definitions, and claim that your argument trumps mine because you uh... looked at the big picture? But that doesn't make any of it true. I've mentioned several facts in support of my stance and while I haven't cited a reference for every single one of them, most of them are easily cross-checked on Google or Wikipedia. I don't think you've stated any facts in support of your own argument, aside from some highly specious ones about the royal family; you are merely, as you yourself put it, playing with definitions, and in broader terms, playing the relativism card.
Let me tell you right now that relativist arguments won't sway me, and are unlikely to sway anyone who doesn't already agree with your position. Without objective definitions and objective measurements and observations, any kind of constructive debate is impossible. So please, if you think something's wrong with my definition, then state yours and explain where you got it from. Otherwise, you aren't providing much more than a chimerical tautology. |
LOL Aaron, stop acting like you care.
You don't give a sh*t about the British Monarchy and no matter how much you tweak official definitions of ownership - that won't change the fact that HM has had no significant impact whatsoever on your life (as a Canadian Citizen) other than when you flip a coin and call heads or tails. So don't put a negative spin on Fahad's practical interpretations - they serve as a vehicle for facilitating the comprehension of complex ideas (which requires not only a profound understanding of such ideas, but also the ability to apply them to reality). We live in the real world - we don't live in a dusty library of government documents.
and PS. Fahad - I can't BELIEVE you made a chimerical tautology! That's just unacceptable abuse of the right of every citizen to chimerically tautologize! Further chimericization of tautolotitties only results in a catastrophe of unprecedented supercalifradgalisticexpialidocious! I think you owe Aaron here one serious chimerical APOLOGY 
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
oh well, different strokes different vaginas |
Some dance to remember ~ Some dance to forget
|
he's being an arrogant, condescending prick, who prides himself with finishing high school at 16 and having a secondary education but can't even spell? especially since he's trying to make some sort of a "valid" argument? he was asking for it!
