Tecs the immigrant opposes immigrants' voting. Rotter Logick in all it's splendor. So, in your epistemology, immigrant == (illegal immigrant) == (legal immigrant)?
Why nut just say (A implies ¬A), and be done with it? I can fill in the rest of your argument for you.
Tecs the immigrant opposes immigrants' voting.
ReplyDeleteIt's like selflessness.
Tecs the immigrant opposes immigrants' voting.
ReplyDeleteRotter Logick in all it's splendor. So, in your epistemology, immigrant == (illegal immigrant) == (legal immigrant)?
Why nut just say (A implies ¬A), and be done with it? I can fill in the rest of your argument for you.
"Why nut"?
ReplyDeleteI was about to ask you the same question!
As always, Mr Rot cuts to the chase. Not. Or Nut. Whatevah.
ReplyDeleteRight-O, Herr Stramansky.
ReplyDeleteNuT.
ReplyDelete