Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:53:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I understand the concept perfectly, just as I understand the concept
of gods, unicorns, leprechauns, and numerous other fictions.

So you believe God to be a fiction?

It is true beyond reasonable doubt that there are no gods. The
Abrahamic god (named "God") is certainly a fiction, since its
characteristics are internally inconsistent. It is impossible. Of
course, we can see how the stories about it evolved from earlier gods
and theistic beliefs.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:44:24 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Every definition of theft requires that it be illegal, felonious, or
some similar qualification.

Incorrect. If there were no law against making off with someone's bicycle, there would still be thefts of bicycles.

Not strictly illegal, in a practical sense,

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/01/12/...sugar-packets/

but it's still theft.

I never gave anyone permission to use money, collected from me through
taxes, to fund a war in Iraq. I would suggest that if citizens wish
such a thing, they should fund it themselves.

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution gives Congress and the President various powers having to do with the waging and funding of military actions.

Also unfortunately for you, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the legal right to go into the railroad business. The fact that they have is beside the point.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:04:52 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It is true beyond reasonable doubt that there are no gods.

Proof?

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:12:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:04:52 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It is true beyond reasonable doubt that there are no gods.

Proof?

I don't claim proof. Reasonable doubt is sufficient. Very little that
we hold true is provably so.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:11:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:44:24 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Every definition of theft requires that it be illegal, felonious, or
some similar qualification.

Incorrect. If there were no law against making off with someone's bicycle, there would still be thefts of bicycles.

If there were no law, it would not be theft.

Not strictly illegal, in a practical sense,

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/01/12/...sugar-packets/

but it's still theft.

I never gave anyone permission to use money, collected from me through
taxes, to fund a war in Iraq. I would suggest that if citizens wish
such a thing, they should fund it themselves.

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution gives Congress and the President various powers having to do with the waging and funding of military actions.

The Constitution by itself doesn't matter. It only serves as a
foundation for law, which must be created and interpreted. And our
law- which is fully Constitutional- allows for a great deal of
governmental oversight that isn't explicitly mentioned in the
Constitution. Thankfully, since as literally read our country could
not function.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 6:22:32 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 6:53:10 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 15:43:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

Yes, it does. Taking is only theft if it's unlawful.

There is the legal crime of theft, and there is the act of theft.

People certainly can use the law to unjustly take what is not theirs from
others. Laws have been unjust and oppressive on many occasions in human
history, and I do not think you would claim to be unaware of that.

Well, what is "just" or "unjust" is a matter of individual viewpoint.
But I would never call unjust taking of property "theft", regardless
of how oppressive the law might be. If the taking is legal, it isn't
theft, even if we find it morally or ethically unacceptable.

The taking of the property of Holocaust victims by the Nazis was definitely theft, even if at the time the Nazis didn't seem to think that anything that they were doing was criminal.

Luckily, natural rights swooped in after the war and the Nazis were punished for their genocides.

You mean like what we did taking native American lands during the 1800's? Or maybe taking the labor of hundreds of thousands of slaves without paying them for their labor during the same period?

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-5, boisenberry wrote:

You mean like what we did taking native American lands during the 1800's? Or
maybe taking the labor of hundreds of thousands of slaves without paying them
for their labor during the same period?

What you mean "we," poisonberry? I wasn't born back then. Maybe you were?

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:47:08 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:12:02 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:04:52 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It is true beyond reasonable doubt that there are no gods.

Proof?

I don't claim proof. Reasonable doubt is sufficient.

Present your reasonable doubt.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:50:12 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The Constitution by itself doesn't matter.

Oh, really???

Thankfully, since as literally read our country could
not function.

Idiot!

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:17:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:47:08 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:12:02 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:04:52 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It is true beyond reasonable doubt that there are no gods.

Proof?

I don't claim proof. Reasonable doubt is sufficient.

Present your reasonable doubt.

I'm not making any assertive claim something exists. If you disagree,
you present your evidence for existence. It makes no sense to try and
prove something doesn't exist.

I don't believe because there's a complete lack of evidence. If you
think that's wrong, feel free to present some evidence.