And you totally overlooked the source cites. I figured as much. Let my statements stand as they are with no rebuttal on your part.
Continue abandoning your position. You present a Supreme Court case. Cite none of the dicta or holdings. Reference two minor footnotes. Followed by this wild construction where the connection is at best weak and at worst misleading.Originally Posted by motla68
Let's try this: start with reading the actual case and what it says rather than these wild, weak constructions of your mind's imagination.
Cop out again. Now you are abandoning the case and switching to your "morals" and conscious. The argument is not about your supposed "morals" or your conscious, but your original premise along with the case presented and the weak nexus constructed by you.Originally Posted by motla68
Stay on target, if you can.
I say we can pretty much conclude you've abandoned your position.
Cop out 3: You realize what you've presented along with the constructed nexus do not solidly support your original premise.Originally Posted by motla68
Respond concerning your premise, its arguments, and supports thereto or don't respond at all.
Save the moralizing speech for some other thread.