My argument: “the law exists”. My argument isn’t about the ethics of what you should or shouldn’t do. I’m saying there is a law, and that it exists. I win this argument, unless you are denying that the law doesn’t exist.
Your argument: I don’t know anything because I can’t spell. You’ve yet to back up your claims for this, once.
Ignoring ethics is why you’re wrong about this. Nobody’s arguing non-existence - and you can’t win an argument against nobody. The issue is something else, as I’ve repeatedly explained to you, but alas, you are functionally illiterate.
My argument: “the law exists”. My argument isn’t about the ethics of what you should or shouldn’t do. I’m saying there is a law, and that it exists. I win this argument, unless you are denying that the law doesn’t exist.
Your argument: I don’t know anything because I can’t spell. You’ve yet to back up your claims for this, once.
‘But the laaaaaaaw!’
Ignoring ethics is why you’re wrong about this. Nobody’s arguing non-existence - and you can’t win an argument against nobody. The issue is something else, as I’ve repeatedly explained to you, but alas, you are functionally illiterate.