On May 8, 2005, at 3:07 PM, Delirium wrote:
Stirling Newberry wrote:
[snip quoted argument]
Which is a distinction without a difference.
Perhaps you need to go back over the difference between malum
prohibitum and malum in se, and why your formulation doesn't work
very well in light of that difference.
Having encountered Mr. Newberry on several other forums, I would urge
that people not waste their time arguing with him. He generally
resorts to attacks on his opponents rather than attempts to make
coherent points [1]. The unexplained use here of several legal Latin
phrases in passing is characteristic of his typical
"vocabulary-dropping, but doesn't know what he's talking about" style.
(And yes, this counts as an ad hominem attack as well, but sometimes
one must point out the obvious.)
-Mark
My point was that Mark does not understand the language of debate, his
clear poisoning the well attack here is an excellent example of it.