By the way, what is your friend supposed to do during the later stages of her pregnancy? Wear voluminous clothing and hide behind furniture?
Which is? You're the only one I've ever hear use that term.
Dictatorship equals freedom?
He should be in jail
Mountains, and yet you haven't cited one. Go for it.
They're not lying, they're just lazy. Investigating history is hard work. Using hypotheticals to try to poke little holes in someone else's investigation is easy.
I think we have a word for compelling the labor of another person against their will.
Yes, I could have been more clear, but you are right on.
I know very well of the distinction, but this has little to do with what we were discussing. You made a claim about the nature of reality with no way to prove it, you just assert it as truth. I showed you how that is in error since anyone can follow the same model of making claims of absolute knowledge of something. The Aristotelian distinction makes the same error of assuming that god is that "necessary" existent thing/being, with no point of reference other than assertion. I go back to old Hitchens who stated, "I can grant you all the miracles and you'd still be left with an empty cup", because even if we assume the "necessary thing/being" is some sort of god, you'd be in no way able to say that therefore, it is the christian one....or any other specific god for that matter. Still, there is no reason to assume a god/being to begin with without committing a logical fallacy. You are stuck in an endless loop of logical fallacies and circular reasoning and the worst part about it is, you are unwilling to engage in honest discussion about it or be humble about your level of knowledge. You want to say, "This is what I believe, but can't prove it", I'm ok with that statement, even though we still won't agree on the nature of reality. But you don't say this, you say, "I know this to be true"....don't provide any evidence though, just assert it, then sidestep any logical points or questions. It's the height of arrogance and ignorance. I'm done now.
She still has 4 years of access to the public trough, she ain't going anywhere.
Of course, you get around this with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy - all those Christians who defended segregation and slavery for hundreds of years are not "real" Christians.
Who, me. If you read his first statement "immigrants and non-whites", implies that they are separate groups. Ergo if you are an immigrant you are white, and if non-white you are not an immigrant. When people rant they often do not read what they typed and do not realize it as well.