NO. Why would I want to do something like that? However you
inferred such fantasy, I have no idea; but I have no choice but
to conclude that the main point of your post is to make me into a
strawman (again). Do you know what I am talking about? Do you
know the logical fallacy known as the "Strawman" tactic? Do you
know that it is viewed as a cowardly strategy? I too would like
to know how old you are.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
-------------------------
So you wish to officialy state your belief is that Life is not an
inalienable right?
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Uncool,
>
> Having a conversation about rights, and what has them and what
> doesn't, in no way implies that said rights are alienable /
> transferable / "assigned" / derived from the govt / synonymous
> with privileges / or granted by legislation. Not only did I not
> say anything about rights being any of those things, I did not
> imply it in any way. Your post is long-jumping to its own
> obviously-false conclusion and claiming it's mine so you can
> knock it down easily. That your post would stoop so low to make
> me into a strawman is a mind-boggler monstrosity.
>
> -Mark
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
