Sure but I always hear them referred to separately

Not if you listen to astrophysicists. They refer to it as space-time.

you will hear people say "there are ten spatial dimensions plus time"

Quantum physicists may say this, but time works differently for them.

but I've never heard it stated that time is actually a dimension of space

Then you've never read a physics book.

Is time a dimension of space?

Where space is warped time is warped. For example, in a gravity field. This supports the idea that time is a dimension of space.

Yeah, but the fact of their existence illustrates that majority rule can just as easily be mob rule, and no more just.

How do you feel this sentence applies to the War In Iraq?

That’s the only thing you got right.

Thanks. So are you going to explain why your language propagandises fascist ideology or not?

That’s a lie.

I don't lie. The first time you have ever denied being Jewish was thirty minutes ago, and I've raised the subject with you over a dozen times previously.

First, I’m not supporting those laws

Stop backtracking please. Your language was very clear. You are supporting those laws.

Second, YOU claim I’m Jewish, not me.

I asked you whether you are Jewish several months ago and you admitted that you are.

you call me a liar.

It is not a matter of opinion that you are a liar. It is an empirical truth.

Are you asking if I think that’s an ugly history?

I am asking why you are supporting laws "TRULY backed by the majority" which were "oppressive to some disliked minority" when it was these same laws which were responsible for the persecution of Jews in Germany. Since you claim yourself to be Jewish, I would like to know whether you feel any sense of irony or shame to be purposefully propagandising Nazi ideology.

The US has a fairly ugly history of laws that were TRULY backed by the majority because they were oppressive to some disliked minority.

Most of Hitler's laws oppressing Jews were backed by the majority too. Do you feel the same way about those laws? Or nah?

Actually, you made a valid point for once so I'm not going to ban you.

All that proves is that he's doing it intentionally when he acts like a Nazi.

Says the guy who has 41 alt accounts and spends every minute of every day posting his inane rants on CD

Says the convicted grave robber and owner of 26 copies of Mein Kampf.

I do every day Nom

I know you do, you retarded neo-Nazi twat. That's why I said it.

being a tubby and wearing a sock on your head followed by a backward

baseball hat

Wtf are you even blathering about you alcoholic paedophile cunt? You're fucking retarded mate. I mean literally, you're retarded.

You don’t understand what law is, though it isn’t complicated.

You don't understand what debate is, Amarel. It isn't complicated. You simply address your opponent's points instead of making arbitrary claims about what he does or doesn't understand.

Laws are statements of consequences, not moral recommendations.

These terms are not mutually exclusive you idiot. A law is both a statement of consequence and a moral recommendation.

In other words, they require enforcement, by their very nature.

In other words, his point stands. A law which uses force to enforce a ban on force is obviously a self-contradictory law.

To say that laws against murder are just is to say that the codification of enforced consequences for murder is just

If you won't stop abusing the online thesaurus then at least do yourself the courtesy of choosing the correct words to use, you fucking halfwit. No, it is not just to murder somebody for committing murder. Obviously. Doing this removes your moral basis for banning murder in the first place!!

To then say that the enforcement of consequences is unjust is to contradict the notion that the given law is just.

Wtf? This is gibberish, Amarel. Most people use words to clarify their own meaning, but you do the opposite. You use words to obscure your own meaning. Your statement is again, self-contradictory. You admitted that enforcement is a consequence. The crime has already occurred at this point and the law has already been broken. Hence, nothing is gained from "enforcement of consequences".

Your amusement at my articulation of your false dichotomy only demonstrates that you remain unaware of your fallacy.

Your belief that articulation disguises your complete lack of valid argument is misguided and, frankly, immature.