confused capacities & agreements

[Dnatural]

Syllogism:

God created man so man cannot be greater than its creator. (natural)

Man created corporations so corporations cannot be greater than man. (common law)

That only works if you believe in God, what if you do not, then the above is meaningless. Your basis of law should not rely in the belief of a god, it should be independent of divinity.

Sorry, my bad, when I use the word God it is my way of shortening the meaning of the laws which govern breath. I in no way mean the God referenced on the Federal Reserve Note or in the preamble to the Canadain Constitution or the conditional God portrayed in the fictional writings of the bible. Btw there are approx 2.4 billion who believe that the fictional book entitled the bible is truth... and it is, like equity, if one agrees to it.

[AndyK]

Syllogism:

God created man so man cannot be greater than its creator. (natural)

Which god? Allah, Jesus, Adonai, or any of the several others?

If Jesus, which flavor of Christianity? Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Church of England, etc.

In any case, it doesn't matter which one you pick since your beliefs will be in the minority of the world's population.

Approximately 2.4 billion Christians who can't even agree on which version of the bible is the correct one. BTW, what about the 2 billion Muslims?

And, just because a lot of people believe something does not make it so. Ask Galileo.

You are digging your hole deeper if you intend to rely on theistic arguments.

[Dnatural]

He Tells Her (for Ruth B.)

He tells her that the Earth is flat -
He knows the facts, and that is that.

In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong.

But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win.
He stands his ground.

The planet goes on being round.

- Wendy Cope

EXCELLENT... love it... exactly!

To validate this here is a 50 sec video concerning the point you just offered, titled 5 MONKEYS & A BANANA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgJ8-IaBSeY

[Dnatural]

Syllogism:

God created man so man cannot be greater than its creator. (natural)

Which god? Allah, Jesus, Adonai, or any of the several others?

If Jesus, which flavor of Christianity? Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Church of England, etc.

In any case, it doesn't matter which one you pick since your beliefs will be in the minority of the world's population.

Approximately 2.4 billion Christians who can't even agree on which version of the bible is the correct one. BTW, what about the 2 billion Muslims?

And, just because a lot of people believe something does not make it so. Ask Galileo.

You are digging your hole deeper if you intend to rely on theistic arguments.

Perfect chime in as I just discussed this issue in my response to NYGman... I agree 100% with your findings so as mentioned previously with NYGman, when I refer to God I am referring to the law of breath, not the man made one. That is why I said '... greater than its creator' meaning that creation is the god. No where did I make reference to any other. (assumption = equity so to conclude a fact not of truth.)

[Dnatural]

Syllogism:

God created man so man cannot be greater than its creator. (natural)

Which god? Allah, Jesus, Adonai, or any of the several others?

If Jesus, which flavor of Christianity? Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Church of England, etc.

In any case, it doesn't matter which one you pick since your beliefs will be in the minority of the world's population.

Approximately 2.4 billion Christians who can't even agree on which version of the bible is the correct one. BTW, what about the 2 billion Muslims?

And, just because a lot of people believe something does not make it so. Ask Galileo.

You are digging your hole deeper if you intend to rely on theistic arguments.

Perfect chime in as I just discussed this issue in my response to NYGman... I agree 100% with your findings so as mentioned previously with NYGman, when I refer to God I am referring to the law of breath, not the man made one. That is why I said '... greater than its creator' meaning that creation is the god. No where did I make reference to any other. (assumption = equity so to conclude a fact not of truth.)

Actually this is a perfect segue concerning fact (equity) vs truth (law).

I agree to the fact presented which makes an agreement and so becomes truth in equity [law].

But this is not the truth of what was stated, so now makes the fact only an agreement to the assumption not noticed unless brought before the law, in which will annul the fact (equity).

[noblepa]

Dnatural keeps going on about "subject matter".

To quote the great legal scholar, Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means".

[AndyK]

Perfect chime in as I just discussed this issue in my response to NYGman... I agree 100% with your findings so as mentioned previously with NYGman, when I refer to God I am referring to the law of breath, not the man made one. That is why I said '... greater than its creator' meaning that creation is the god. No where did I make reference to any other. (assumption = equity so to conclude a fact not of truth.)

Okay, i'll bite: what is/are the "law of breath?"

[AndyK]

I agree to the fact presented which makes an agreement and so becomes truth in equity [law].

But this is not the truth of what was stated, so now makes the fact only an agreement to the assumption not noticed unless brought before the law, in which will annul the fact (equity).

Are those words supposed to mean something or are they just offal from the word salad generator?

[Dnatural]

I agree to the fact presented which makes an agreement and so becomes truth in equity [law].

But this is not the truth of what was stated, so now makes the fact only an agreement to the assumption not noticed unless brought before the law, in which will annul the fact (equity).

Are those words supposed to mean something or are they just offal from the word salad generator?

Always based on the interpreter... if it is word salad to you then it is. I will have to invest more time in the study of Spiral Dynamics so as to reach the audience I am trying conversing with... BUT let me be clear I am in no way trying to change who you are or what you believe as I am only trying to discern who I am in the moment of choice.

[Dnatural]

Perfect chime in as I just discussed this issue in my response to NYGman... I agree 100% with your findings so as mentioned previously with NYGman, when I refer to God I am referring to the law of breath, not the man made one. That is why I said '... greater than its creator' meaning that creation is the god. No where did I make reference to any other. (assumption = equity so to conclude a fact not of truth.)

Okay, i'll bite: what is/are the "law of breath?"

I'll let you know when you share the same consciousness as I so as the explanation is not ever filtered through my eyes but your own.

[Burnaby49]

We're heading into religion, a prohibited subject on Quatloos. If this turns into a religious debate the thread gets locked.

[Dnatural]

Dnatural keeps going on about "subject matter".

To quote the great legal scholar, Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means".

You may be correct... I suspect you can furnish me with the correct meaning, evident that you must know by the quote provided.

Unless we both come to an agreement concerning subject matter then anything discussed before or after is meaningless.

[NYGman]

I think Dnatural missed a trick, perhaps he is referring to natural law, but referring to a creator, again, that is but one belief. However, we are not here to discuss religion, or lack thereof, point being referencing a creator or breathing law, seems a poor source of law and a bad place to start a position from, when someone may not agree with your make believe, and want to replace it with theirs. Legal theories should not need to rely on theology or even monarchy, it should stand on its own.

Why am i arguing with a fool?

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that it's about time to tell parzival, and Dnatural, to sum up their contentions in a few concise and literate paragraphs. If they persist in their present course, then deletion of their posts, and/or moderation, should follow.

[Dnatural]

I think Dnatural missed a trick, perhaps he is referring to natural law, but referring to a creator, again, that is but one belief. However, we are not here to discuss religion, or lack thereof, point being referencing a creator or breathing law, seems a poor source of law and a bad place to start a position from, when someone may not agree with your make believe, and want to replace it with theirs. Legal theories should not need to rely on theology or even monarchy, it should stand on its own.

Why am i arguing with a fool?

I would conclude b/c you have been arguing with one until the age you are now.

[Dnatural]

I think that it's about time to tell parzival, and Dnatural, to sum up their contentions in a few concise and literate paragraphs. If they persist in their present course, then deletion of their posts, and/or moderation, should follow.

Thank you.... you are correct. So please read the entirety of the posts presented before this point so that anyone now interacting can speak to the topic and not a held belief.

Apologizes to Parzival if his message was diluted by the subsequent banter. There are those who did not participate and perhaps inner-stand of what was being conveyed or at the very least now taking time to assimilate before knee-jerking to a conclusion.

Two things always happen in an exchange of ideas (thank you the people of Quatloos for their participation) either one solidifies their already held beliefs or they move towards forming others.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that it's about time to tell parzival, and Dnatural, to sum up their contentions in a few concise and literate paragraphs. If they persist in their present course, then deletion of their posts, and/or moderation, should follow.

Thank you.... you are correct. So please read the entirety of the posts presented before this point so that anyone now interacting can speak to the topic and not a held belief.

No one here has any intention of wading through that sea of incomprehensible muck again. A few concise and literate paragraphs, stating the substance of your assertions, is what we are looking for.

[eric]

We're heading into religion, a prohibited subject on Quatloos. If this turns into a religious debate the thread gets locked.

You have my sympathies, having to read through all this. I only skim through it until something strikes my interest. I am quite convinced now that Percy and Mister Natural are very akin to those poor souls who hang out around homeless shelters - they are either on something or their minds are totally in another realm altogether. BTW, getting back to matters that are more important, having just come back from a road trip I am positively convinced that there are no drinkable craft IPA's in small town BC.

[Burnaby49]

Did you try the Three Ranges Brewing Company in Valemont?

[eric]

Yes, they had some at a place when I was in Mcbride. It seems that a majority of the breweries in BC are attempting to make IPA's to show off their skill at making weird conconctions that have limited taste of malt but taste of grapefruit with a strong undertone of rotting pine needles, along with the minor fact that the beer is so cloudy you can't see through the glass. My apologies for dereailing the thread...