QuoteQuote
A little nervous laughter like you offer in response goes a long way in telling us how you feel, and what you take seriously and what you don't. I guess you don't take very seriously the fact that others observe that you sympathize with the torturers and murderers of innocents. So it would seem, anyway.
Oh, Dear Lord,
for once in my life beeing M. Tyson for just one minute.. that would be pure fun
WTF are you talking about? Are you implying that you would really like to be a muscular brute and beat me up?
Why not just say that, instead of some cryptic junk about being Mike Tyson?
I guess your statement can't be taken as a personal attack because you didn't say you'd beat me up -- for all I know you think it'd be fun to be M. Tyson so that you could rape women... But it's pretty obvious what you meant.
Can't we keep this discourse civilized without letting our base desires cause it to descend into juvenile statements and implications of violent threats?
-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
wmw999 2,452
QuoteAs far as I'm concerned, if two parties sign a convention/treaty, as soon as the first party backs out and won't uphold the terms of the treaty, the second party is relieved of being burdened with compliance as well.
Memo to self: don't get involved in any sort of contractual agreement with PJ. He might decide I didn't fulfill (even if I thought it was) and then all bets are off.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
mr2mk1g 10
To be fair - that is actually how contract works.
It is not how treaties work though. Treaties don't use the same set of rules as contracts, they're different legal concepts - a true case of compairing apples and oranges.
Perhaps the easiest way of comparing the two would be to think of te treaty as a contract between country A and the treaty itself.
The treaty can't break it's bargain - it's just a piece of paper. Even if another signatory to the treaty breaks their obligations that has no effect on you - you're still bound by your obligations to the treaty.
IE you don't owe obligations to other nations, but to the treaty. Think of it as A sells B his car. C steals B's money. B till owes A for the car - the theft of B's money has no effect on his contract with A.
It is not how treaties work though. Treaties don't use the same set of rules as contracts, they're different legal concepts - a true case of compairing apples and oranges.
Perhaps the easiest way of comparing the two would be to think of te treaty as a contract between country A and the treaty itself.
The treaty can't break it's bargain - it's just a piece of paper. Even if another signatory to the treaty breaks their obligations that has no effect on you - you're still bound by your obligations to the treaty.
IE you don't owe obligations to other nations, but to the treaty. Think of it as A sells B his car. C steals B's money. B till owes A for the car - the theft of B's money has no effect on his contract with A.
As far as I'm concerned, if two parties sign a convention/treaty, as soon as the first party backs out and won't uphold the terms of the treaty, the second party is relieved of being burdened with compliance as well.
That's how it works in the "social contract," as well. You and I agree to not harm or attack each other. But if you come to me to rob/beat/kill me unprovoked, I am no longer obligated to refrain from striking in a counterattack to preserve my own life.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites