Capitalism Is EVIL!

Into the Night said:
They tried. They can't. The rainbow simply exists as is...one of the most beautiful weather effects there is...and described as a token of the promise not to flood the world again by God in the Bible.

The rainbow flag is a sham...a passing shadow. A mockery of the real thing, used to pervert the councils of God. It will pass away.

Another beautiful effect is the Glory, which the same as a rainbow, but the colors are reversed. Some intense storms passing to the east with strong sunlight on it can produce a 'double rainbow'. One of them is a glory.

You can also see them in the clouds below you while you're in an aircraft, if the aircraft is close enough to them and the Sun is high.

Another effect, more rarely seen, is the so-called 'fire bow', which is a rainbow in alto stratus ice clouds. The Sun has to be a particular angle, and the cloud cover must be a partial overcast, with the alto layer being the first layer (clear below). This beautiful weather effect is not common, and looks like colored fire in the clouds.

Glories can also be seen from mountain tops, when looking into the valley of clouds below and the Sun is behind you.
Click to expand...
I laugh every time I watch this video. It's spot on.
 
Yakuda said:
Glad to see you have accepted that a contract is merely a voluntary agreement between two parties for then exchange of goods and services.
Click to expand...
and also the defintion 2 definition meaning expressly the legal written one.

It helps to clarify in discussion which is meant.
 
Into the Night said:
You cannot blame your fallacies on me or anybody else.
Click to expand...
I posted your circular argument for all to see

if the courts rule that two people in a dispute have a legal contract - that means they actually don't agree - but the court is still saying it is a valid contract


this the point in the debate where fallacy buy starts doing his thing....
 
zymurgy said:
I posted your circular argument for all to see
Click to expand...
No circular argument. A circular argument is not even a fallacy.
zymurgy said:
if the courts rule that two people in a dispute have a legal contract - that means they actually don't agree - but the court is still saying it is a valid contract
Click to expand...
A verbal contract CAN be enforceable by a court of law. You cannot change context and call it the same context. Contextomy fallacy.
zymurgy said:
this the point in the debate where fallacy buy starts doing his thing....
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your fallacies on me or anybody else.
 
Into the Night said:
He can't figure it out. He's currently locked in a paradox of his own making.
Click to expand...
I can't blame him he's trying to save face. He insisted only written contracts are contracts but thats been shown to be an error in his thinking. He's tried to suggest punishment for non performance of the contract (protection as he calls it) is necessary for a contract. Not so and it me been proven to him.
 
Into the Night said:
A verbal contract CAN be enforceable by a court of law. You cannot change context and call it the same context. Contextomy fallacy.
Click to expand...
why would they be in a court of law if they agree?

and if they do not agree, why are you still calling it a contract? you said a contract required agreement

this is your circular logic at play. it makes me laugh fallacy boy
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
one definition is the written and legally enforced version.

most people mean that when they say it.
Click to expand...
I never denied that. You're the one that insisted only a written contract was a contract and that's just not the case. "Protection" as you call it is just a bell and a whistle. It's like one car has roll down windows and another has push button windows. Both are still cars.

I do t really care what most people mean when they say it. It doesn't change what is.
 
Yakuda said:
A contract is a contract is a contract.
Click to expand...
A circular argument (not a fallacy). The problem is the definition of 'contract'.

This word first appeared in the English lexicon around the 14th century. It is a melding of the Latin word 'tract' (meaning passage of time), and 'con' (with). The word originally meant an agreement between two people for a period of time. At that time, of course, few things were written down. Contracts were often denoted with a token of the promise made, often a knife, since people in the town knew what the knife meant and how it was obtained. Such tokens were indicative of a title to land, a rental agreement, a production agreement, etc. Many written documents were forgeries back then.

You might say even the rainbow itself is a token of contract, between God and his people. The promise is that the world would never be flooded again.

Contracts today can be verbal. They can be written down. They can be simple or they can be complex. They can be marked by a token of the promise even today. It is quite possible for a mere verbal contract to be enforceable by a court of law. Different States use different tests for this.

Since the 40's, the word 'contract' was also used to denote a promise to kill someone. They were put out by mobs when hiring hit men. These were verbal agreements to commit murder for pay. Crossing them was dangerous, since either party would put the offender on a contract in the same way. Writing them down was pointless and futile, since courts don't enforce criminal activity, but they were contracts nevertheless.

Contracts do not need to be put into legal format (like you see in court documents). They can verbal agreements or written on any tatty piece of paper, etc. The written ones may or may not be notarized.

So:

A contract is simply an agreement, or promise over time. That is it. That is all. It can be verbal, written down, denoted with a token of some kind, anything. At some time an agreement of a promise of action over time is made. That is a contract, even if it later falls apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top