Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule

[UltraVires]

Divisions among people regarding earth excavation:

1. Those with loaded guns.

2. Those who dig.

[Telemark]

@UltraVires

1. Those with loaded guns.

2. Those who dig.

You know what you are? Just a dirty son-of-a- …

[74westy]

@Telemark

You know what you are? Just a dirty son-of-a- …

…Ah-ah-ah-ah-aaaaaah!

[Muffin]

Wah-wah-wah.

[Spoons]

@tomndebb

Why does this sound familiar?

Coincidence. But obviously, great minds think alike!

[Northern_Piper]

You know what? I’ve concluded this entire thread is in the wrong forum.

Josf is not following any of the normal rules of debate. He simply posts the same quotes, over and over again, without attempting to engage in true debate with other posters. So it’s not a debate by any normal rules.

Nor is he witnessing, which implies that one’s personal beliefs are in play. He’s repeatedly denied that his “offerings” are his own thoughts or opinions. So, not witnessing.

But if he’s neither debating nor witnessing, this thread doesn’t belong here in Great Debates.

But where then?

He is not asking any questions, nor stating his own opinions, so GQ and IMHO are both out.

He’s not talking about the arts or sports, so it’s not Café Society or Games.

He’s not shown any interest in how this Board works, so not ATMB.

Despite his willingness to toss insults like “criminal” around, he repeatedly has stated he doesn’t approve of personal attacks, so the Pit is out.

I suppose there is a slight possibility that this is all one long extended hoax, so Thread Games? But I’ve concluded that the lack of even a glimmer of humour on Josf’s part rules that out.

He does, however, demonstrate a tendency verging on obsessive compulsive behavior to quote antique and archaic extracts from texts, over and over again, which he believes others would find useful or interesting.

I conclude that there is really only one place for this thread: Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share.

Mr Moderator, so moved. Do I have a seconder?

[Muffin]

Nah, toss it in the refuse pit.

[Spoons]

@Northern_Piper

Mr Moderator, so moved. Do I have a seconder?

Well, it certainly seems to have moved into mundane and pointless territory, and he appears to feel that he must share it, so…

Mr. Moderator, I’ll second the motion.

[Muffin]

Hmmm, a Canadian coup . . . .

[Measure_for_Measure]

My personal understanding is another topic, having to do with me personally and there are Divisions along Rules of Forums versus those who string together words in Thread Games versus those wish to forward Divisions in Great Debates.

1. Those who wish the thread to be moved to MPSIMS

2. Those who do not wish the thread to be moved to MPSIMS.

I advocate containment of Divisions into a single forum: this one is as good as any.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Muffin

You do realize, of course, that you just saved the USA.

Sure, the USA, but what about:

The United States of America;
The U.S.A.;
The U.S. of A.;
America;
The U.S.;
america;
The usa;
the usa;
THE USA;

…and all the other completely distinct entities?

[Muffin]

You win the thread with that one.

[Bryan_Ekers]

In that case, I invoke winner’s privilege (that’s a thing, right?) and call for a move to MPSIMS or the Pit, the latter being my personal preference.

[Josf]

Those in authority may or may not acknowledge examples of Rule of Law.

1. Those who do.
2. Those who do not.

Examples:

The Rule of Law, by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

The second leg is that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it. Thus, the law’s restraints on force and fraud need to restrain everyone equally, and the law’s protections against force and fraud must protect everyone equally. This leg removes from the discretion of those who enforce the law the ability to enforce it or to afford its protections selectively.

An Account of the My Lai Courts-Martial

An army helicopter piloted by Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson arrived in the My Lai vicinity about 9 a.m. Thompson noticed dead and dying civilians all over the village. Thompson repeatedly saw young boys and girls being shot at point-blank range. Thompson, furious at what he saw, reported the wanton killings to brigade headquarters.

Meanwhile, the rampage below continued. Calley was at the drainage ditch on the eastern edge of the village, where about seventy to eighty old men, women, and children not killed on the spot had been brought. Calley ordered the dozen or so platoon members there to push the people into the ditch, and three or four GIs did. Calley ordered his men to shoot into the ditch. Some refused, others obeyed. One who followed Calley’s order was Paul Meadlo, who estimated that he killed about twenty-five civilians. (Later Meadlo was seen, head in hands, crying.) Calley joined in the massacre. At one point, a two-year-old child who somehow survived the gunfire began running towards the hamlet. Calley grabbed the child, threw him back in the ditch, then shot him.

Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. (One account reports Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to “open up on the Americans” if they fired at the civilians, but Thompson later said he did not remember having done so.) He put himself between Calley’s men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.

http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf

Arthur Jackson Haynes, Jr
Page 804
“I have considered in my thirty-five-year career a jury is the best lie detector there is.”

Those in authority might ask if those examples above are examples of the subject matter of this forum topic. If the subject matter of this topic, according to the authorities, is the personal character of one of the forum members, then that can be acknowledged as fact.

[tomndebb]

@Josf

Those in authority might ask if those examples above are examples of the subject matter of this forum topic. If the subject matter of this topic, according to the authorities, is the personal character of one of the forum members, then that can be acknowledged as fact.

Actually, those in authority do not need to ask anything.
You were asked, early on, what your thesis was to debate. You provided a rambling bit of text that gave the impression that you actually had a thesis, (despite the obvious incoherence and errors in the OP). Later your tried to redefine the word debate in a nonsensical fashion to avoid engaging in debate, here.
Since that time, you have responded to direct questions with off topic responses, provided random screeds that had no relationship to anything that preceded them, and have steadfastly refused to answer any direct questions.

As “those in authority” are charged with maintaining a certain atmosphere that encourages discussion and actual debate and as you are more interested in propounding your idiolectic ramblings while refusing to engage in direct discussion than you are in carrying out a civil discussion, “those in authority” have finally recognized that you will never give up this attempt to use the SDMB as a blog platform and it is a waste of Moderator time and SDMB bandwidth.

This nonsense is closed.