Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:Please, prophecy is not subject to legal jurisdiction or science.
Ho hum, so you claim. A real prophet can predict the future. So what will the Dow Jones Industrials close at today?

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by bobevenson »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Please, prophecy is not subject to legal jurisdiction or science.
A real prophet can predict the future.
Please, how many times do I have to tell you that prophecy is a divinely inspired utterance, not a prediction of the future.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Please, prophecy is not subject to legal jurisdiction or science.
A real prophet can predict the future.
Please, how many times do I have to tell you that prophecy is a divinely inspired utterance, not a prediction of the future.
If you want to prove you're a prophet to me, then tell me what the Dow Jones Industrials will close at today. Otherwise preach your religion elsewhere.

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by bobevenson »

I'm sorry, but you don't understand the word "prophecy," and there's not much I can do about that except refer you to a dictionary.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, but you don't understand the word "prophecy," and there's not much I can do about that except refer you to a dictionary.
You're not even a second-rate prophet compared to Jesus, Moses and the others.

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by bobevenson »

There are no second-rate prophets, you're either a prophet or you're not, and I have the mystical credentials to prove it.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:There are no second-rate prophets, you're either a prophet or you're not, and I have the mystical credentials to prove it.
That's right, you're not even a second-rate prophet as you can't even make predictions.

As far as your "mystical credentials" goes, you may as well flush them down the toilet as self-referential statements hold no water here so you can just pack up your suitcase and leave.

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by bobevenson »

I repeat, there are no second-rate prophets, you're either a prophet or you're not, and I have the mystical credentials to prove it.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:I repeat, there are no second-rate prophets, you're either a prophet or you're not, and I have the mystical credentials to prove it.
And I repeat, you're not even a second-rate prophet as you can't even make predictions.

As far as your "mystical credentials" goes, you may as well flush them down the toilet as self-referential statements hold no water here so you can just pack up your suitcase and leave.

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by bobevenson »

Please, educate yourself by looking up the word "prophet," and stop making such foolish comments.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:Please, educate yourself by looking up the word "prophet," and stop making such foolish comments.
I'm already educated. Have you ever been to college?

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by bobevenson »

Have you looked up the word "prophet," dum-dum?
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:Have you looked up the word "prophet," dum-dum?
You're not even a second-rate prophet, charlatan.

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by bobevenson »

And you don't know how to use a dictionary, dum-dum!
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote:And you don't know how to use a dictionary, dum-dum!
For the nonprophet: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

PhilX
Post Reply