Defend The Indefensible

[Keith&Co.]

Thanks.

How about it's never too early to start selling Christmas merchandise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is never too early to remind people of Christmas’s emphasis of giving, sharing, and universal sense of brotherhood via the vehicle of blatant commercialism.

 

[mudlark]

There's a sucker born every minute, so it's never too early to start selling Christmas merchandise.

 

[Bomb#20]

According to Wikipedia, the month and date of Jesus' birth are unknown, Dec. 25 was picked in the 4th century, and in 3rd-century discussions of the question, May 20, April 18 or 19, March 25, January 2, November 17, and November 20 are all suggested. If we had a blackout period on selling Christmas merchandise, for all we know we might miss the right day.

 

[ruby sparks]

The inevitable end of the world is nigh and no one knows the day or the hour. We should get as many christmases in as possible while the going is good.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The inevitable end of the world is nigh and no one knows the day or the hour. We should get as many christmases in as possible while the going is good.

I like the fatalism. Winner

 

[ruby sparks]

Thanks.

How about;

"Countries should be allowed to use their overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among their citizens who hide or escape abroad".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well duh!!!!

 

[Elixir]

"Countries should be allowed to use their overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among their citizens who hide or escape abroad".

Absolutely. Think of the manufacturing jobs. My old friend Fred lost his job in a bone saw factory - so #SAD! They made great bone saws. The best bone saws. We used to make quality stuff. Now they're gone, another victim of the extreme left Democrat conspiracy that's trying to jam political correctness down our throats. They're violent. We need bone saws.

 

[Politesse]

Thanks.

How about;

"Countries should be allowed to use their overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among their citizens who hide or escape abroad".

This is clearly so, since embassy staff customarily have immunity from prosecution for crimes committed according to local law, and if they are working in an official capacity obviously they aren't in violation of their country's laws either. If the executioner were to be tried, on what basis or whose laws would they be tried under? This was a diplomatic gaffe to be sure, but not something that could actually be disallowed.

 

[J842P]

Thanks.

How about;

"Countries should be allowed to use their overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among their citizens who hide or escape abroad".

This is clearly so, since embassy staff customarily have immunity from prosecution for crimes committed according to local law, and if they are working in an official capacity obviously they aren't in violation of their country's laws either. If the executioner were to be tried, on what basis or whose laws would they be tried under? This was a diplomatic gaffe to be sure, but not something that could actually be disallowed.

Sure it could. The only real international law is force.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Countries should be allowed to use their overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among their citizens who hide or escape abroad".

Like the cable companies and Net Neutrality, this is not something we ever WOULD do, but we really should have the right. Or more to the point, we have the right, we just need everyone to agree to it, preferably in writing. Because it is in their and our best interests. Them, because if we have to hunt our naughty citizens down with drones or cruise missiles, there is a non-zero risk to their own citizens in the vicinity. Ours because if someone has fled to a country, he may have activist friends in that country. If he's merely extradited, they may not believe any news stories about court prosecution and incarceration. If we just march them to the front gate and humanely shoot them in the skull, and humanely post their head on a pike near the Marine barracks, they'll know there's no need to sue (or bomb) the US for his release.

 

[Bomb#20]

Thanks.

How about;

"Countries should be allowed to use their overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among their citizens who hide or escape abroad".

Gilbert and Sullivan nailed this one. If a country can't use its own overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among its citizens who hide or escape abroad, which country's overseas embassies can it use as places to summarily execute undesirables among its citizens who hide or escape abroad?

 

[ruby sparks]

Thanks.

How about;

"Countries should be allowed to use their overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among their citizens who hide or escape abroad".

Gilbert and Sullivan nailed this one. If a country can't use its own overseas embassies as places to summarily execute undesirables among its citizens who hide or escape abroad, which country's overseas embassies can it use as places to summarily execute undesirables among its citizens who hide or escape abroad?

Winner.

 

[Underseer]

It's OK that a conservative drove a car into a crowd of protesters because I saw this one antifa guy break windows, which is clearly much worse!

It's OK that a conservative sent bombs to many liberal politicians and the media to try and kill them, because Republican politicians sometimes get criticized by voters! In public, no less! That is exactly as bad as trying to kill people with terrorist actions!

 

[Bomb#20]

Winner.

Again, thank you. Okay, try defending...

This proposition is indefensible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This proposition is indefensible.

But then, every person posting on the board who does not post a defense of the proposition could be taken as proof that it cannot be defended, thus is likely indefensible.

Therefore, the lack of defending posts by (at the current time):
4321lynx, abaddon, AlgaeSea, angelo, Angry Floof+, Artemus, atrib, barbos, Bloodnf, caphclimber, Cheerful Charlie, CJW, couch_sloth, crazyfingers, Deepak, Derec, dismal, Don2 (Don1 Revised), DrZoidberg, Eldarion Lathria, Elixir, EvoUK, fast, hardeep, Harry Bosch, Horatio Parker, horhangi, hurtinbuckaroo, ideologyhunter, J842P, James Brown, Jarhyn, Jimmy Higgins, jladam, Jolly_Penguin, jonatha, Koyaanisqatsi, Kusa, lmbzm6, loose cannon, lpetrich, Lunawalk, marc, Max Rockatansky, mudlark, none, phands, Politesse, poster, purple_kathryn, PyramidHead, Question,
RavenSky, RayJ, repoman, ruby sparks, RVonse, Sarpedon, sinkorswim, SixStrings, skepticalbip, SLD, southernhybrid, spikepipsqueak, starwater, T.G.G. Moogly, tammyxm69, Tharmas, The AntiChris, thebeave, thom07, thornvol, Tom Sawyer, Treedbear, TV and credit cards, Underseer, Worldtraveller, ZiprHead

are the indefensible proof.

(My apologies if anyone on my ignore list HAS replied, but I haven't/can't see the post.)

 

[Elixir]

This proposition is indefensible.

I could defend it, but choose not to on ideological grounds.

 

[blastula]

It's indefensible because this sentence is a lie.

 

[ruby sparks]

This proposition is indefensible.

This position is defensible because the proposition that this propostion is indefensible can be defended by saying that the proposition that this proposition is indefensible is defensible by saying that the proposition that the proposition that this proposition is defensible because, etc. In others words I will defend this proposition by appealing to an infinite regress, and infinity exists because I say so. I rest my case.