Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.
They legally exist right now. That is fact. Whether the rights existed before their codification is another question entirely, and mostly philosophical in nature, I suspect.
And do so gleefully. Well not really.
I don't like your question because it presumes too many things.
It may. You saying "I'll only discuss responses to this statement" is at least something like an ultimatum, as I understand the term.
Responses to your question can in part answer mine. but not in full, unless they go beyond the scope of your question.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
A civil Person can be considered a person who may have to present themselves to a judge in any civil case; for the purposes of this concept.
2.) correct just like i said
3.) again subjective philosophy im simply not interested in
5.) it actually doesnt presume anything, you presume it does not the question itself
6.) it can, and its not an ultimatum, if you think thats how easy an ultimative is formed then by that logic you are giving me one too
7.) theres a factual scope of my question which would then lead to discussion and that discussion would also have a factual limited scope? really? i had not idea, please tell me what the factual scope of my question and the discussions that may come of it. also remind me about the "presuming line again"
8.) you can disagree but its true there are not real limits only the one you made up in your head
can a person not get unemployment in a work at will state?
an arson can do that, should a person get unemployment if the burn down my business?
before you get any discussion out of somebody youll simply have to expalin exactly what you are talkign about instead of making empty statments