Page: 1 2 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
New Idea
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Flashy_Simon replied on Tue Jun 7, 2005 @ 4:08pm |
Originally posted by LONE STAR...
I think you misunderstood my post: I meant to say that if laws were NOT breakable - they wouldn't exist. Actually no, you said that laws are MEANT to be broken, in other words, that the purpose of a law is to be broken (not that by definition a law is breakable). You even added: "That's WHY they exist"... ...psychopath. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Lone_Star replied on Tue Jun 7, 2005 @ 5:33pm |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» AlienZeD replied on Tue Jun 7, 2005 @ 6:20pm |
Originally posted by FLASHY SIMON...
Originally posted by Lone Star...
I think you misunderstood my post: I meant to say that if laws were NOT breakable - they wouldn't exist. Actually no, you said that laws are MEANT to be broken, in other words, that the purpose of a law is to be broken (not that by definition a law is breakable). You even added: "That's WHY they exist"... ...psychopath. I think what he means is that if a law isn't breakable, there's no reason to outlaw it. It can't be broken anyway so what's the point, you know? |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Lone_Star replied on Tue Jun 7, 2005 @ 6:33pm |
Originally posted by L O X...
Originally posted by Flashy Simon...
Originally posted by Lone Star...
I think you misunderstood my post: I meant to say that if laws were NOT breakable - they wouldn't exist. Actually no, you said that laws are MEANT to be broken, in other words, that the purpose of a law is to be broken (not that by definition a law is breakable). You even added: "That's WHY they exist"... ...psychopath. I think what he means is that if a law isn't breakable, there's no reason to outlaw it. It can't be broken anyway so what's the point, you know? Exaaaaaaaaaaaactly. (twitch) |
New Idea
Page: 1 2 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |