Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Kevrob
2017-01-21 16:12:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:57:29 -0500, "Scout"
My life is currently protected by the laws that define the
circumstances under which I can be legally killed.
No, it isn't. Your life isn't protected by law in any way.
True, but how I can be legally killed is rigidly defined.
Please indicate the statute in which the law allows a bolt of lightening to
legally kill you.
Easy. It is in the same law that allows a landslide or an avalanche
to do the same thing.
It's an Act Of God.
That's the term of art. Those are natural occurrences usually.
Human action may make them more likely.
Unless you survive the experience but kills everybody else, in which
case it's a Miracle.
There's no deity involved there, either. I always think it
is highly insulting to talented, well-trained rescue workers
and medical staff when they risk their lives and work their
heads off to save someone against all odds, only to have cretins
thank an imaginary being before praising them.

Kevin R
sugar glider
2017-01-21 16:42:42 UTC
Permalink
the government cannot take your life without a very good reason.
I bet that's the only reason you can sleep at night....
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 17:48:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:57:29 -0500, "Scout"
My life is currently protected by the laws that define the
circumstances under which I can be legally killed.
No, it isn't. Your life isn't protected by law in any way.
True, but how I can be legally killed is rigidly defined.
Please indicate the statute in which the law allows a bolt of
lightening to
legally kill you.
Easy. It is in the same law that allows a landslide or an avalanche
to do the same thing.
No such law. However, you said "how I can be legally killed is
rigidly defined", so you have to give us the law that rigidly defines
how it is that you may be legally killed by natural phenomena. Come
on, let's have it.
I can only wonder if the rights he claims exist only within and because
of the law are as 'rigidly defined' as he asserts this is.
I even get the sense that Attila may even be suggesting that rights
don't even exist within the law.
I think he feels they exist in the "penumbras and emanations" of the
law. If, as he wrongly asserts, the law "rigidly defines" how you may
lawfully be killed, then anything not in the definition is presumptively
illegal and thus creates your right. That's idiotic.

Governments are instituted among men as just one means - but not the
only - to secure rights we already have by virtue of being endowed with
them at birth.
sugar glider
2017-01-21 17:50:42 UTC
Permalink
I think he feels they exist in the "penumbras and emanations" of the law.
Time to remind folks who YOU are, Jonathan Ball!


_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
Scout
2017-01-21 20:54:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:57:29 -0500, "Scout"
My life is currently protected by the laws that define the
circumstances under which I can be legally killed.
No, it isn't. Your life isn't protected by law in any way.
True, but how I can be legally killed is rigidly defined.
Please indicate the statute in which the law allows a bolt of
lightening to
legally kill you.
Easy. It is in the same law that allows a landslide or an avalanche
to do the same thing.
No such law. However, you said "how I can be legally killed is
rigidly defined", so you have to give us the law that rigidly defines
how it is that you may be legally killed by natural phenomena. Come
on, let's have it.
I can only wonder if the rights he claims exist only within and because
of the law are as 'rigidly defined' as he asserts this is.
I even get the sense that Attila may even be suggesting that rights
don't even exist within the law.
I think he feels they exist in the "penumbras and emanations" of the law.
If, as he wrongly asserts, the law "rigidly defines" how you may lawfully
be killed, then anything not in the definition is presumptively illegal
and thus creates your right. That's idiotic.
Well, Attila's philosophy is showing itself to be very idiotic.

Which after all was the point of debating Attila on it.
Governments are instituted among men as just one means - but not the
only - to secure rights we already have by virtue of being endowed with
them at birth.
Further the law does not and and simply can not define all the rights we
have.

An acknowledgement of that fact is the purpose of the 9th Amendment.

Yet Attila would assert that all our rights are all addressed within the
law. When challenged Attila is unable to produce the statutes that define
some of the most basic rights, such as the right to life.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 17:49:55 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Straw man.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 17:50:50 UTC
Permalink
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:24:24 UTC
Permalink
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to do.
The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.

If the law and the courts decide you become property as a punishment for
your crime, then you are property. It's all perfectly legal.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 20:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.
It doesn't.
Post by Scout
If the law and the courts decide you become property as a punishment for
your crime
They can't - ever.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 22:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.
It doesn't.
Post by Scout
If the law and the courts decide you become property as a punishment for
your crime
They can't - ever.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except* as a
*punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly*
*convicted* , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-21 23:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.
It doesn't.
Which word(s) in the Amendment do you not understand?
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
If the law and the courts decide you become property as a punishment for
your crime
They can't - ever.
Sure they can. It's a provision of the 13th Amendment.

Simply stomping your feet and pouting is NOT going to refute the actual
language and meaning of this Amendment.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 23:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.
It doesn't.
Which word(s) in the Amendment do you not understand?
I understand all of them. I also understand about missing and misplaced
commas.
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
If the law and the courts decide you become property as a punishment for
your crime
They can't - ever.
Sure they can. It's a provision of the 13th Amendment.
No, it isn't. Involuntary servitude is. The state does not own
prisoners, or people assigned to do community service. Ownership
implies the right to sell. They can't - they aren't property.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.
It doesn't.
Which word(s) in the Amendment do you not understand?
I understand all of them. I also understand about missing and misplaced
commas.
Then apparently you're the only one that sees it because in source after
source after source, they keep saying the same thing and putting the comma
in exactly the same place.
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
If the law and the courts decide you become property as a punishment for
your crime
They can't - ever.
Sure they can. It's a provision of the 13th Amendment.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is, and I don't have to resort to changing anything to get it to
agree with me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.
It doesn't.
Which word(s) in the Amendment do you not understand?
I understand all of them. I also understand about missing and
misplaced commas.
Then apparently you're the only one that sees it
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
If the law and the courts decide you become property as a
punishment for
your crime
They can't - ever.
Sure they can. It's a provision of the 13th Amendment.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is, and
No, it isn't. No slavery - involuntary servitude only. The prisoners
cannot be sold.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.
It doesn't.
Which word(s) in the Amendment do you not understand?
I understand all of them. I also understand about missing and
misplaced commas.
Then apparently you're the only one that sees it
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
If the law and the courts decide you become property as a
punishment for
your crime
They can't - ever.
Sure they can. It's a provision of the 13th Amendment.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is, and
No, it isn't. No slavery - involuntary servitude only. The prisoners
cannot be sold.
Take it up with the language of the 13th.

Oh, that's right, you've already admitted that it doesn't say what you claim
as it's written.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals
No. Slavery pertains to ownership, not what the person is obliged to
do. The convicts are never the property of the state or anyone else.
13th Amendment states otherwise.
It doesn't.
Which word(s) in the Amendment do you not understand?
I understand all of them. I also understand about missing and
misplaced commas.
Then apparently you're the only one that sees it
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
If the law and the courts decide you become property as a punishment for
your crime
They can't - ever.
Sure they can. It's a provision of the 13th Amendment.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is, and
No, it isn't. No slavery - involuntary servitude only. The prisoners
cannot be sold.
Take it up with the language of the 13th.
No need. We *know* they can't be sold.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 17:51:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:12:28 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:42:42 -0500, "Scout"
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined
and
enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored
that
right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of
innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
Irrelevant. It is stating what the founders all knew: rights
are
antecedent to government and law.
So-called rights are meaningless unless there is an enforcement
mechanism in place.
No.
Why not? If they aren't enforced they can be ignored by anyone at
any
time.
Doesn't mean they will be.
Irrelevant. They can be.
Irrelevant. They generally won't be.
That is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned.
It isn't. You are insisting that state-manufactured and backed laws are
the only way rights can be enforced. Furthermore, you insist that
state-manufactured law defines rights. Both are false.
Wrong on all counts. I have said nothing about the state
manufacturing anything.
Who is the producer of our laws?
Point. Set. Match.
The government, but it is the people, not the organization.
So I can just randomly walk into Congress and vote to pass a piece of
legislation. After all, it's the people, and I'm certainly one of the
people.
Your elected representative has that responsibility.
Sorry, but the government is defined AS THE ORGANIZATION.
A government is an organization, true.
You concede you were wrong about the state not manufacturing laws.
sugar glider
2017-01-21 17:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You concede you were wrong
Time to remind folks who YOU are, Jonathan Ball!


_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
sugar glider
2017-01-21 17:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You concede you were wrong
Time to remind folks who YOU are, Jonathan Ball!


_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 17:52:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:16:49 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:33:02 -0500, "Scout"
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
established nothing. It cannot be used for anything as it has no
legal standing. It certainly cannot be used as the basis for
enforcing anything.
And yet it was used as a basis for enforcing their rights.
No, it was not.
Sure it was....even you admit that. (see below)
Since it was the opening act of the Revolutionary war, which resulted in
enforcement of their rights by force of arms against a government and
legal
system that refused to do so.
It resulted in the formation of a new country.
Which was the basis for enforcing their rights.
If the old government wouldn't enforce their rights, then they would
establish by force of arms a new one that would do so which was set forth in
the Declaration of Independence.
That country was defined in the Constitution
No. The country predates the Constitution.
sugar glider
2017-01-21 17:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
No. The country
Time to remind folks who YOU are, Jonathan Ball!


_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
sugar glider
2017-01-21 17:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
No. The country
Time to remind folks who YOU are, Jonathan Ball!


_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
sugar glider
2017-01-21 17:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
No. The country
Time to remind folks who YOU are, Jonathan Ball!


_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
______________________________________________________________________________
Scout
2017-01-21 21:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:16:49 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:33:02 -0500, "Scout"
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
established nothing. It cannot be used for anything as it has no
legal standing. It certainly cannot be used as the basis for
enforcing anything.
And yet it was used as a basis for enforcing their rights.
No, it was not.
Sure it was....even you admit that. (see below)
Since it was the opening act of the Revolutionary war, which resulted in
enforcement of their rights by force of arms against a government and
legal
system that refused to do so.
It resulted in the formation of a new country.
Which was the basis for enforcing their rights.
If the old government wouldn't enforce their rights, then they would
establish by force of arms a new one that would do so which was set forth in
the Declaration of Independence.
That country was defined in the Constitution
No. The country predates the Constitution.
Yep and the founding document of that nation was the Declaration of
Independence. Recognized as such by another country as early as 1777.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:01:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:13:55 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:47:55 -0500, "Scout"
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker
how
to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally
burdens
his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government
to
do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker
how
to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories
straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right
to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else
bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right.
There
are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the
Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a
few
of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all
therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The
First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is
a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and
enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that
right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of
innate
human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not
the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition of
the
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.
False.
What else is there?
Your inability to comprehend alternatives is not the problem of
anyone
but you.
You seem to have a problem in finding any other mechanism.
Found, and presented.
Not anywhere I have seen.
Odd, in most of the US one such mechanism is celebrated every 4th of July.
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
established nothing.
Yep, it announced the Colonies desire to obtain their independence by any
means necessary, and established that the reason for doing so was because of
violations of their rights as people.
It gave the reasons for breaking with England. It did not establish a
new country or a new government.
Not what the Supreme Court says.

The first official action of this nation *declared the foundation of*
government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident,
[165 U.S. 150, 160] that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such
declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or
be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and
duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic
law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body
and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit,
and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the
spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more
imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those
constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights
which is the foundation of free government.

Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis - Jan 1897, and repeated /verbatim/
in Cotting v Godard, Nov 1901

The Declaration of Independence did, in fact, establish a new country
and government.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:04:00 UTC
Permalink
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation
LOL!
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:05:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:55:30 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:08:17 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:05:49 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not going
to
do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to
help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to
dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what rights
I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
And they are meaningless unless they are defined and enforced under
the law in our society.
False.
Why? How about an example of such a 'right' that exists but is not
defined by the law.
No right is defined by "law."
All rights are defined by law. Otherwise they are unenforceable.
Please cite the legal statute that defines "The right to life".
I have asked exactly that same question and I have yet to get an
answer from anyone.
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
It's intangible. You can't see it. However, we have it.
Indeed, can you point to ANY statute that specifically defines a right?
Sure. The right to vote, to keep and bear arms, the right to a speed
trial - the list is long.
"Right to vote" is a figure of speech. There is no such right. Voting
is a privilege of citizenship.

The others are not defined or created in law.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-21 18:04:18 UTC
Permalink
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.

Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Scout
2017-01-21 20:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been, and they could be again. Nothing illegal about it as long as
it's done within compliance of the 13th Amendment.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 20:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 22:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
Actually the 13th Amendment says that a Felon is able to be forced into
slavery.

["""""Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except* *as* a
*punishment* *for crime whereof the party shall have been* *duly*
*convicted* , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction."""""""]
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-21 23:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
The 13th specifically allows it.

Maybe you should read it.

Try sounding out the words if you need to.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 23:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
The 13th specifically allows it.
No, it doesn't. It allows involuntary servitude, which is not the same
thing.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
The 13th specifically allows it.
No, it doesn't. It allows involuntary servitude, which is not the same
thing.
It also allows slavery.

Don't blame me because you lack the ability, or the fortitude, to read what
is actually written.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
"Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas"
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
The 13th specifically allows it.
No, it doesn't. It allows involuntary servitude, which is not the
same thing.
It also allows slavery.
No. Your shabby understanding of English betrays you yet again.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
"Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas"
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
The 13th specifically allows it.
No, it doesn't. It allows involuntary servitude, which is not the
same thing.
It also allows slavery.
No. Your shabby understanding of English betrays you yet again.
Hmm.. I read it exactly as written, and I'm wrong. You alter the meaning to
suit yourself and claim to be right.

Don't think that's the way language is used.

At least we see how you get to these weird, crazy, and irrational positions.
You simply interpret the language to suit yourself and don't worry about
being right.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
"Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas"
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
The 13th specifically allows it.
No, it doesn't. It allows involuntary servitude, which is not the
same thing.
It also allows slavery.
No. Your shabby understanding of English betrays you yet again.
Hmm.. I read it exactly as written
But you are poorly educated and have a lot of trouble with English
composition and comprehension.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 01:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
"Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas"
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been,
Not since the 13th amendment.
The 13th specifically allows it.
No, it doesn't. It allows involuntary servitude, which is not the
same thing.
It also allows slavery.
Don't blame me because you lack the ability, or the fortitude, to read
what is actually written.
It's also the reason ObamaCare is unconstitutional. it forces
Americans into a fractional slave pool where we are forced to either own
or be a fractional slave pool created by law. The problem is NOT all
the slaves in teh fractional slave pool have been duly convicted of a
crime and sentenced to serve as an ObamaCare slave.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-21 21:01:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:25:56 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been, and they could be again. Nothing illegal about it as long as
it's done within compliance of the 13th Amendment.
Can I buy one?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:25:56 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been, and they could be again. Nothing illegal about it as long as
it's done within compliance of the 13th Amendment.
Can I buy one?
No, because it is wholly outlawed.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:25:56 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been, and they could be again. Nothing illegal about it as long as
it's done within compliance of the 13th Amendment.
Can I buy one?
If that is imposed as the punishment for their crime and the government
chooses to sell that property, perhaps you could.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 23:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:25:56 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been, and they could be again. Nothing illegal about it as long as
it's done within compliance of the 13th Amendment.
Can I buy one?
If that is imposed as the punishment for their crime and the government
chooses to sell that property
Not possible.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:25:56 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been, and they could be again. Nothing illegal about it as long as
it's done within compliance of the 13th Amendment.
Can I buy one?
If that is imposed as the punishment for their crime and the government
chooses to sell that property
Not possible.
Is possible, as I've proven.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:25:56 -0500, "Scout"
"Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas"
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been, and they could be again. Nothing illegal about it as long as
it's done within compliance of the 13th Amendment.
Can I buy one?
If that is imposed as the punishment for their crime and the government
chooses to sell that property
Not possible.
Is possible
No.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 23:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:25:56 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
The stupid is strong in thsi one, young Skywalker.
Prisoners are not owned by the state, you dullard.
They have been, and they could be again. Nothing illegal about it as long as
it's done within compliance of the 13th Amendment.
Can I buy one?
If that is imposed as the punishment for their crime and the government
chooses to sell that property, perhaps you could.
Didn't they sell women felons to men for wives or workers for a while,
that was before the 13th but still....?
--
That's Karma
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 18:07:00 UTC
Permalink
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and the
convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly, misreading
the provision.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-21 18:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and the
convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly, misreading
the provision.
You have to give Siri some lattitude. She doesn't have an entire brain. And
what she does have she doesn't use.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Siri Cruise
2017-01-21 18:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and the
convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly, misreading
the provision.
Slavery is being forced to work without pay. States can rent out their convicts
for forced labour. Once again the 13th says 'Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude'. It is the plain reading of the amendment.

And states have done that. Some states now forbid this.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 19:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and the
convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly, misreading
the provision.
Slavery is being forced to work without pay.
No. Slavery is a person being owned as chattel. That's what it is. It
doesn't matter if the owner makes the slave work or not. It's only the
ownership.
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-21 20:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Slavery is being forced to work without pay.
Nah, that's called marriage!

Laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh!
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-21 20:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Slavery is being forced to work without pay.
Nah, that's called marriage!

Laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh!
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-21 20:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Slavery is being forced to work without pay.
Nah, that's called marriage!

Laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh!
Attila
2017-01-21 20:58:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:49:24 -0800, Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and the
convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly, misreading
the provision.
Slavery is being forced to work without pay. States can rent out their convicts
for forced labour. Once again the 13th says 'Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude'. It is the plain reading of the amendment.
And states have done that. Some states now forbid this.
Slavery is a lot more than being forced to work without pay. Did you
ever hear of community service?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:26:07 UTC
Permalink
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and the
convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly, misreading
the provision.
Slavery is being forced to work without pay. States can rent out their convicts
for forced labour. Once again the 13th says 'Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude'. It is the plain reading of the amendment.
And states have done that. Some states now forbid this.
Slavery is a lot more than being forced to work without pay. Did you
ever hear of community service?
That's involuntary servitude, not slavery.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:57:20 UTC
Permalink
in alt.atheism with message-id
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Clarence Callahan
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and the
convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly, misreading
the provision.
Slavery is being forced to work without pay. States can rent out their convicts
for forced labour. Once again the 13th says 'Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude'. It is the plain reading of the amendment.
And states have done that. Some states now forbid this.
Slavery is a lot more than being forced to work without pay. Did you
ever hear of community service?
And I note it is imposed as punishment for a crime.

Darn, there's that old 13th Amendment letting the courts get away with
anything.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and the
convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly, misreading
the provision.
They are, if the court and the law decide they are, as punishment for their
crimes.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-21 20:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and
the convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly,
misreading the provision.
They are, if the court and the law decide they are, as punishment for
their crimes.
No. There is no provision of law, state or federal, that specifies
slavery as punishment for any crime. The court doesn't get to decide
that. The court can only impose sentences provided by law. If the
sentence is imprisonment, then the convict may be forced to work -
involuntary servitude. Slavery is out. At no time does the convict
become property.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 22:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and
the convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly,
misreading the provision.
They are, if the court and the law decide they are, as punishment for
their crimes.
No. There is no provision of law, state or federal, that specifies
slavery as punishment for any crime.
Placing you on a work detail is slavery.

There ain't no good in an evil hearted woman
And I ain't cut out to be no Jesse James
And you don't go around writing bad checks, in Mississippi
And their ain't no good chain gangs.
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-21 23:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and
the convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly,
misreading the provision.
They are, if the court and the law decide they are, as punishment for
their crimes.
No. There is no provision of law, state or federal, that specifies
slavery as punishment for any crime.
Not at this time, but just because the law doesn't currently specify slavery
doesn't mean a judge couldn't impose it as punishment. After all, I bet no
provision of law, state or federal, specifies that you wear a plat board
stating your crime and stand on a street corner so people can see you. Yet,
it's been imposed as a punishment.

So saying the law doesn't call for such a punishment is NOT the same as
saying the law prohibits such a punishment.
Post by Clarence Callahan
The court doesn't get to decide that.
Actually the court can decide your punishment, and the only constraints are
those legally mandated and those legally prohibited and with only a passing
nod to the sentencing guidelines.
Post by Clarence Callahan
The court can only impose sentences provided by law.
Slavery is provided by the law. Specifically the 13th Amendment.
Post by Clarence Callahan
If the sentence is imprisonment, then the convict may be forced to work -
involuntary servitude.
They could be forced into that as well.
Post by Clarence Callahan
Slavery is out.
Nope, per the 13th Amendment it certainly is an option.
Post by Clarence Callahan
At no time does the convict become property.
They do if the court rules that as their punishment for the crime.
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-22 00:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and
the convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly,
misreading the provision.
They are, if the court and the law decide they are, as punishment for
their crimes.
No. There is no provision of law, state or federal, that specifies
slavery as punishment for any crime.
Not at this time,
There can never be.
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
The court doesn't get to decide that.
Actually the court can decide your punishment
*Only* from what is provided in the law. They can't invent their own.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and
the convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly,
misreading the provision.
They are, if the court and the law decide they are, as punishment for
their crimes.
No. There is no provision of law, state or federal, that specifies
slavery as punishment for any crime.
Not at this time,
There can never be.
13th states otherwise.
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
The court doesn't get to decide that.
Actually the court can decide your punishment
*Only* from what is provided in the law. They can't invent their own.
Ok, cite the legal provision for this punishment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10285869/Ohio-man-forced-to-wear-idiot-sign-by-judge.html
Clarence Callahan
2017-01-22 01:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery. Inmates are not property, they cannot be
bought and sold, there are legal limits on their treatment, and their
Amendment 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and
the convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly,
misreading the provision.
They are, if the court and the law decide they are, as punishment for
their crimes.
No. There is no provision of law, state or federal, that specifies
slavery as punishment for any crime.
Not at this time,
There can never be.
13th states otherwise.
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
The court doesn't get to decide that.
Actually the court can decide your punishment
*Only* from what is provided in the law. They can't invent their own.
Ok, cite the legal provision for this punishment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10285869/Ohio-man-forced-to-wear-idiot-sign-by-judge.html
Likely none; probably an illegal sentence.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-22 02:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence Callahan
Post by Scout
Post by Clarence Callahan
It is involuntary servitude *only* that is permitted by law as a
punishment for a crime; not slavery. Slavery is about property, and
the convicts are not property. You are willfully, and stupidly,
misreading the provision.
They are, if the court and the law decide they are, as punishment for
their crimes.
No. There is no provision of law, state or federal, that specifies
slavery as punishment for any crime. The court doesn't get to decide
that. The court can only impose sentences provided by law. If the
sentence is imprisonment, then the convict may be forced to work -
involuntary servitude. Slavery is out. At no time does the convict
become property.
That just means that we don't know what the courts will say the 13th
means and won't know unless the government passes a law that makes a
convict property. That is, everyone in this discussion is speculating.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:07:41 UTC
Permalink
in alt.atheism with message-id
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters will do what they
can with undue risk to themselves and with resources available. They don't want
to listen to you scream as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
Exactly. Plus I cannot be forced to provide blood or body parts to
anyone for any reason.
Not at issue, and nothing to do with the other person's right to life.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:08:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:09:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:50:07 +0100 (CET), "Bradley K. Swerman"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:59:06 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:15:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 09:41:52 -0500, NoBody
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens
his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do
that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how
to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
violate
the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake
a
cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There
are
just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill
of
Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few
of
them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all
therein
ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with
impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then
I
can
kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend
only
on
what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where
I
can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this
elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly
what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself
and
which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity
and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have
never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail..
Not if those laws don't apply to you because the law says they
don't.
I mean how do you think the Jews in the Holocaust were killed?
Mostly by violation of existing laws.
False.
Even if true, by Attila's own statements without enforcement their
rights
don't exist.....so clearly according to Attila their killer was legal
since
there wasn't any enforcement to prevent it.
Just because an act is not illegal does not automatically mean the act
is legal It would be outside the legal system and have no enforcement
mechanism.
The remedy would be to enact the necessary laws, but the act cannot be
enforced before such laws are established. And any extra-legal
enforcement must be done carefully because such acts themselves may be
illegal under existing law.
For example, it is illegal for an individual to physically restrain a
person from doing anything that is not illegal. Under our system
there is a distinct difference between being legal and not being
illegal. That is basically what the Ninth Amendment establishes.
Meaning if I lock some illegal aliens in my tool shed until ICE
comes to get them it's legal.
No, because you are making the determination that they are illegal, a
status only the government can determine. Therefore you are guilty of
false imprisonment.
BS - see "citizen's arrest"
Which can only be done under rigidly defined circumstances
Define them right here.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:09:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:06:40 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:59:06 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:15:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
in
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do
that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
violate
the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a
cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are
just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of
Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of
them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein
ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then I
can
kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend only
on
what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where I
can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly
what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself and
which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity
and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have
never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail..
Not if those laws don't apply to you because the law says they don't.
I mean how do you think the Jews in the Holocaust were killed?
Mostly by violation of existing laws.
False.
Even if true, by Attila's own statements without enforcement their rights
don't exist.....so clearly according to Attila their killer was legal
since
there wasn't any enforcement to prevent it.
Just because an act is not illegal does not automatically mean the act
is legal
Actually, that is EXACTLY what it mean.
No, the act can be outside of the law. It can be allowed while no
being defined under the legal system
It simply is not prohibited.
Wrong. In our system, anything not defined to be illegal is presumed to
be legal.
<snip> your attempt to dance around and refuse to address that by your own
statements and standards the German Jews had no rights.
If you are going to criticize or interpret what I said please leave my
comments intact.
You don't get to dictate to anyone. You have neither the right nor the
power.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-21 18:19:45 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
Post by Rudy Canoza
Just because an act is not illegal does not automatically mean the act
is legal
Actually, that is EXACTLY what it mean.
No, the act can be outside of the law. It can be allowed while no
being defined under the legal system
It simply is not prohibited.
Wrong. In our system, anything not defined to be illegal is presumed to
be legal.
This is the original meaning of "the exception that proves the rule".

For example, if only 30 feet along a 200-foot curb has signs saying "No
Parking" (the exception), the rule is parking is permitted everywhere
else along the curb.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:24:30 UTC
Permalink
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
No, it does *NOT*. Involuntary servitude is what the thirteenth
amendment permits. Slavery is not allowed - full stop. Slavery
pertains to humans as chattel, and the thirteenth amendment does not
allow that.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:36:19 UTC
Permalink
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
No, it does *NOT*. Involuntary servitude is what the thirteenth amendment
permits. Slavery is not allowed - full stop.
Wrong. Neither is allowed EXCEPT as punishment for a crime, then either can
be imposed.
Slavery pertains to humans as chattel, and the thirteenth amendment does
not allow that.
It certainly does. If you're willing to actually READ it, rather than make
it say what you think it should.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 20:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
No, it does *NOT*. Involuntary servitude is what the thirteenth
amendment permits. Slavery is not allowed - full stop.
Wrong. Neither is allowed EXCEPT as punishment for a crime
Slavery isn't allowed at all; only involuntary servitude and only as
punishment for a crime.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery pertains to humans as chattel, and the thirteenth amendment
does not allow that.
It certainly does.
It doesn't. You clearly don't understand English. The thirteenth
amendment is a classic instance of a misplaced/missing comma. The
*intent* of the amendment is:

Neither slavery*,* nor involuntary servitude [] except as a
punishment for crime...

The comma following "servitude" is wrong; the implied comma following
"slavery" is omitted from the text but not the meaning.

At no time does the state own prisoner. Custody is not ownership. This
is settled.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
No, it does *NOT*. Involuntary servitude is what the thirteenth
amendment permits. Slavery is not allowed - full stop.
Wrong. Neither is allowed EXCEPT as punishment for a crime
Slavery isn't allowed at all; only involuntary servitude and only as
punishment for a crime.
Based on what part of the 13th Amendment?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery pertains to humans as chattel, and the thirteenth amendment
does not allow that.
It certainly does.
It doesn't. You clearly don't understand English. The thirteenth
amendment is a classic instance of a misplaced/missing comma. The
Neither slavery*,* nor involuntary servitude [] except as a
punishment for crime...
The comma following "servitude" is wrong; the implied comma following
"slavery" is omitted from the text but not the meaning.
IOW, it says exactly what I state it does, and only by trying to change it
can you alter it's meaning.

Meanwhile what is written actually states that slavery is a legal
punishment.

"In 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves
held in the Confederate States; the 13th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution
prohibited most forms of slavery throughout the country"

Please note the key word, "most".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Abolitionism


But let's look at a legal dictionary, explaining the 13th Amendment, within
their explanation we find this statement from the dictionary, not a quote,
but an explanatory statement.

" The Thirteenth Amendment forbids Involuntary Servitude or Slavery, except
where the condition is imposed on an individual as punishment for a crime."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/13th+Amendment

Strange, they managed to magically misplace the common in exactly the same
manner....or maybe it's location is exactly as intended and does EXACTLY
what it's suppose to. Make both options a legal punishment for crime.

Then consider this.

"The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially
abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude,
except as punishment for a crime."
Secretary of State William H. Seward on December 18, 1865."

Still says the same thing.
Post by Rudy Canoza
At no time does the state own prisoner. Custody is not ownership. This
is settled.
Clearly it isn't. Because to be able to impose slavery as a punishment,
necessitates that ownership is established of the one so enslaved.

Which the 13th clearly states is legal, if it is via a sentence of
punishment for a crime.

Oh, and you don't get to change the wording to suit yourself. The language
is the actually language enacted and the exact language ratified. It's not
subject to change just because you don't like it.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 23:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
No, it does *NOT*. Involuntary servitude is what the thirteenth
amendment permits. Slavery is not allowed - full stop.
Wrong. Neither is allowed EXCEPT as punishment for a crime
Slavery isn't allowed at all; only involuntary servitude and only as
punishment for a crime.
Based on what part of the 13th Amendment?
Based on my superior understanding of the rules of English composition,
including in legal documents.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery pertains to humans as chattel, and the thirteenth amendment
does not allow that.
It certainly does.
It doesn't. You clearly don't understand English. The thirteenth
amendment is a classic instance of a misplaced/missing comma. The
Neither slavery*,* nor involuntary servitude [] except as a
punishment for crime...
The comma following "servitude" is wrong; the implied comma following
"slavery" is omitted from the text but not the meaning.
IOW, it says exactly what I state it does
But doesn't *mean* what you say it does.

No slavery - settled.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
No, it does *NOT*. Involuntary servitude is what the thirteenth
amendment permits. Slavery is not allowed - full stop.
Wrong. Neither is allowed EXCEPT as punishment for a crime
Slavery isn't allowed at all; only involuntary servitude and only as
punishment for a crime.
Based on what part of the 13th Amendment?
Based on my superior understanding of the rules of English composition,
including in legal documents.
You mean the part where you get to move punctuation around alter the meaning
of what others wrote?

I must have missed where they covered that rule.

Can you cite that rule for me?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery pertains to humans as chattel, and the thirteenth amendment
does not allow that.
It certainly does.
It doesn't. You clearly don't understand English. The thirteenth
amendment is a classic instance of a misplaced/missing comma. The
Neither slavery*,* nor involuntary servitude [] except as a
punishment for crime...
The comma following "servitude" is wrong; the implied comma following
"slavery" is omitted from the text but not the meaning.
IOW, it says exactly what I state it does
But doesn't *mean* what you say it does.
Well, you can't prove it by the language. You've not provided anything else
to show it doesn't.....

Looks like the 13th stands exactly as written and to be read exactly as
written.
Post by Rudy Canoza
No slavery - settled.
except as allowed by the 13th Amendment.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
No, it does *NOT*. Involuntary servitude is what the thirteenth
amendment permits. Slavery is not allowed - full stop.
Wrong. Neither is allowed EXCEPT as punishment for a crime
Slavery isn't allowed at all; only involuntary servitude and only as
punishment for a crime.
Based on what part of the 13th Amendment?
Based on my superior understanding of the rules of English
composition, including in legal documents.
You mean the part where you get to move punctuation around alter the
meaning of what others wrote?
I must have missed where they covered that rule.
Can you cite that rule for me?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery pertains to humans as chattel, and the thirteenth amendment
does not allow that.
It certainly does.
It doesn't. You clearly don't understand English. The thirteenth
amendment is a classic instance of a misplaced/missing comma. The
Neither slavery*,* nor involuntary servitude [] except as a
punishment for crime...
The comma following "servitude" is wrong; the implied comma following
"slavery" is omitted from the text but not the meaning.
IOW, it says exactly what I state it does
But doesn't *mean* what you say it does.
Well, you can't prove it by the language.
Did.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
No slavery - settled.
except as allowed by the 13th Amendment.
Not allowed at all.
Scout
2017-01-22 02:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
No, it does *NOT*. Involuntary servitude is what the thirteenth
amendment permits. Slavery is not allowed - full stop.
Wrong. Neither is allowed EXCEPT as punishment for a crime
Slavery isn't allowed at all; only involuntary servitude and only as
punishment for a crime.
Based on what part of the 13th Amendment?
Based on my superior understanding of the rules of English
composition, including in legal documents.
You mean the part where you get to move punctuation around alter the
meaning of what others wrote?
I must have missed where they covered that rule.
Can you cite that rule for me?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery pertains to humans as chattel, and the thirteenth amendment
does not allow that.
It certainly does.
It doesn't. You clearly don't understand English. The thirteenth
amendment is a classic instance of a misplaced/missing comma. The
Neither slavery*,* nor involuntary servitude [] except as a
punishment for crime...
The comma following "servitude" is wrong; the implied comma following
"slavery" is omitted from the text but not the meaning.
IOW, it says exactly what I state it does
But doesn't *mean* what you say it does.
Well, you can't prove it by the language.
Did.
The alterations you engaged in negated your 'proof'.

You have to take it exactly was written.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
No slavery - settled.
except as allowed by the 13th Amendment.
Not allowed at all.
Comma says it does, and you lack the authority to move it.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:27:04 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:45:50 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with a
raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
Depends...if you're about to pass out from injuries or something
else....then it it certainly would become imminent because after you pass
out it would be too late to address the threat he presents.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 20:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you
with a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in,
you can't shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be
imminent.
Depends...if you're about to pass out from injuries or something
else....then it it certainly would become imminent because
No.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you
with a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in,
you can't shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be
imminent.
Depends...if you're about to pass out from injuries or something
else....then it it certainly would become imminent because
No.
No? You're not ready to pass out, or if you do they may well not kill you as
they are demonstrating they are engaged in doing?

Sorry, but imminent is a relative term that depends on the specifics of the
case.

Let's say there is a push button. If pushed absolutely nothing will happen
for 24 hours.

Is there an imminent threat if the bad guy pushes that button?

What if the button controls a nuclear bomb in an unknown location that may
kill millions the next day when the countdown completes?

Does the threat become imminent, even though the attack won't actually take
place for a full day?

Your time to act is imminent when that time is just prior to your inability
to stop the consequences of the attack no matter when or how that attack
finally takes place.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 23:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you
with a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in,
you can't shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be
imminent.
Depends...if you're about to pass out from injuries or something
else....then it it certainly would become imminent because
No.
No? You're not ready to pass out, or if you do they may well not kill
you as they are demonstrating they are engaged in doing?
It's not imminent unless the means of killing or grievously harming you
is immediately at hand. Someone 75 yards down the street with a bat isn't.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you
with a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in,
you can't shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be
imminent.
Depends...if you're about to pass out from injuries or something
else....then it it certainly would become imminent because
No.
No? You're not ready to pass out, or if you do they may well not kill
you as they are demonstrating they are engaged in doing?
It's not imminent unless the means of killing or grievously harming you is
immediately at hand. Someone 75 yards down the street with a bat isn't.
So you pass out, they run up and beat you to death, and we all wonder why
you didn't act in self defense while you could.

Then we all go have a beer while laughing at your stupidity.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 22:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you
with a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in,
you can't shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be
imminent.
How do I know I can stop them with one shot at 5 feet?

I need to start shooting at 75 yards and if he keeps coming then I'm
pretty sure he wants to kill me... if I didn't already chase him away or
kill him with that first shot.

Why wait until the last minute when I have no room for error?
--
That's Karma
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 18:28:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
No, it's simply his right, and the law acknowledges it; it doesn't
create it.
Ted
2017-01-21 19:39:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
No, it's simply his right, and the law acknowledges it; it doesn't create it.
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just curious, have you ever met one who* doesn't?

*KK uses "that"
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
Loading Image...
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 19:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
No, it's simply his right, and the law acknowledges it; it doesn't create it.
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just curious, have you ever met one who* doesn't?
Strangely, it's not a discussion I've ever had with non-Americans. I've
met and worked with enough over the years, I'm surprised it's never come
up. I'll have to ask some time.
Post by Ted
*KK uses "that"
I know he does. He's a fuckwit.
Ted
2017-01-21 21:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
No, it's simply his right, and the law acknowledges it; it doesn't create it.
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just curious, have you ever met one who* doesn't?
Strangely, it's not a discussion I've ever had with non-Americans. I've
met and worked with enough over the years, I'm surprised it's never come
up. I'll have to ask some time.
IIRC, Alex from alt.atheism discussed it before.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
*KK uses "that"
I know he does. He's a fuckwit.
And he claims his IQ is 165.
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 21:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
No, it's simply his right, and the law acknowledges it; it doesn't create it.
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just curious, have you ever met one who* doesn't?
Strangely, it's not a discussion I've ever had with non-Americans. I've
met and worked with enough over the years, I'm surprised it's never come
up. I'll have to ask some time.
IIRC, Alex from alt.atheism discussed it before.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
*KK uses "that"
I know he does. He's a fuckwit.
And he claims his IQ is 165.
16.5 IQ

Is it any wonder he gets the decimal point in the wrong place.
--
That's Karma
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
No, it's simply his right, and the law acknowledges it; it doesn't create it.
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just curious, have you ever met one who* doesn't?
Strangely, it's not a discussion I've ever had with non-Americans. I've
met and worked with enough over the years, I'm surprised it's never come
up. I'll have to ask some time.
IIRC, Alex from alt.atheism discussed it before.
I'm pretty sure he's a pom. Poms consider themselves "subjects" of
their monarch. Despite Magna Carta and an unwritten constitution, poms
don't really believe they have rights. They believe they're permitted
to do what Parliament tells them they may do.
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
*KK uses "that"
I know he does. He's a fuckwit.
And he claims his IQ is 165.
LOL! Same number that illiterate innumerate fucktard Mark Wieber once
claimed.
Scout
2017-01-22 00:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
No, it's simply his right, and the law acknowledges it; it doesn't create it.
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just curious, have you ever met one who* doesn't?
Strangely, it's not a discussion I've ever had with non-Americans. I've
met and worked with enough over the years, I'm surprised it's never come
up. I'll have to ask some time.
IIRC, Alex from alt.atheism discussed it before.
I'm pretty sure he's a pom. Poms consider themselves "subjects" of their
monarch. Despite Magna Carta and an unwritten constitution, poms don't
really believe they have rights. They believe they're permitted to do
what Parliament tells them they may do.
Hmm.. That certainly would fit his views and mind set.

He's certainly the sort of person that has to be told what he can do.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
No, it's simply his right, and the law acknowledges it; it doesn't create it.
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just curious, have you ever met one who* doesn't?
Strangely, it's not a discussion I've ever had with non-Americans.
I've
met and worked with enough over the years, I'm surprised it's never come
up. I'll have to ask some time.
IIRC, Alex from alt.atheism discussed it before.
I'm pretty sure he's a pom. Poms consider themselves "subjects" of
their monarch. Despite Magna Carta and an unwritten constitution,
poms don't really believe they have rights. They believe they're
permitted to do what Parliament tells them they may do.
Hmm.. That certainly would fit his views and mind set.
He's certainly the sort of person that has to be told what he can do.
I'm positive he's admitted to being a Brit. I may have misspoken in
calling him a pom. While it's a derogatory term for a Brit, it is
mostly used by Aussies to refer to a Brit who has moved to Australia.
It apparently is not used more broadly. So, he's a Brit, and he would
be a pom if he were in Australia.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-01-21 19:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just the stupid ones.
Ted
2017-01-21 21:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Ted
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just the stupid ones.
Have you ever met one who believes otherwise?
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg
Scout
2017-01-21 22:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Ted
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just the stupid ones.
Have you ever met one who believes otherwise?
Yes, as a matter of fact. Indeed, I don't know of any that think their
rights exist only because of legislation.
Indeed a lot arrive because their rights are being suppressed or denied by
their governments.
Ted
2017-01-21 23:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Ted
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Ted
Foreigners apparently believe that rights are legislated into existence.
Just the stupid ones.
Have you ever met one who believes otherwise?
Yes, as a matter of fact. Indeed, I don't know of any that think their
rights exist only because of legislation.
Indeed a lot arrive because their rights are being suppressed or denied
by their governments.
I see. Thanks for the encouraging info, Scout.
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 19:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
As a statist, you would of course focus solely on how the government may
kill people. In fact, little prickcheese sophist joshie, the "right to
live" precedes any government.
Kevrob
2017-01-21 19:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
As a statist, you would of course focus solely on how the government may
kill people. In fact, little prickcheese sophist joshie, the "right to
live" precedes any government.
...,and the 14th extends due process in capital cases to the states,
but for Federal purposes the 5th amendment has always protected it.

The rights mentioned in our federal and state constitutions
are only recognized by those documents. They derive from our nature
as sapient individuals.

Now, those of you arguing about whether the Declaration of Independence
informs our laws or not. I'll not rehearse the thoughts of the likes of
Harry Jaffa and Leo Strauss over this. Suffice it to say that the idea
that the DoI informs many a constitutional argument is a popular one,
even if some object to it.

Also, those arguing about "slave convicts" take a look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

Kevin R
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-22 02:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
As a statist, you would of course focus solely on how the government may
kill people. In fact, little prickcheese sophist joshie, the "right to
live" precedes any government.
The 14th Amendment only applies to government action. It says nothing
about a private party killing you.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:17:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.

Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.

Further as a slave you would advise other slave to accept their slavery as
their legal place in society and that attempting to take actions unto their
own hands to change that isn't even worth considering much less trying
because according to you no slave has ever managed to escape to freedom
and/or to convince others that it is a violation of their rights to be
enslaved.

That is what you have stated is your position and the question asked was
merely to directly confirm that which you've stated as your philosophy.
Clearly the consequences of your beliefs are certainly relevant to
determining whether you actually believe what you state and would live by
the results regardless of what they might be.

Apparently, you refuse to even consider living by your own philosophy.
Attila
2017-01-21 20:56:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Post by Scout
Further as a slave you would advise other slave to accept their slavery as
their legal place in society and that attempting to take actions unto their
own hands to change that isn't even worth considering much less trying
because according to you no slave has ever managed to escape to freedom
and/or to convince others that it is a violation of their rights to be
enslaved.
Such actions would be illegal. While I may or may not either take
such actions myself or advise others to do so if I did take such
actions I would be subject to the penalties prescribed.
Post by Scout
That is what you have stated is your position and the question asked was
merely to directly confirm that which you've stated as your philosophy.
Clearly the consequences of your beliefs are certainly relevant to
determining whether you actually believe what you state and would live by
the results regardless of what they might be.
Apparently, you refuse to even consider living by your own philosophy.
Slavery seems to be a particularly hot button for you.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery was legal in the U.S., and is quasi-legal elsewhere. That
doesn't mean slaves don't have a right to freedom and individual
autonomy. They have such a right, of course.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Further as a slave you would advise other slave to accept their slavery as
their legal place in society and that attempting to take actions unto their
own hands to change that isn't even worth considering much less trying
because according to you no slave has ever managed to escape to freedom
and/or to convince others that it is a violation of their rights to be
enslaved.
Such actions would be illegal.
Not the point.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
That is what you have stated is your position and the question asked was
merely to directly confirm that which you've stated as your philosophy.
Clearly the consequences of your beliefs are certainly relevant to
determining whether you actually believe what you state and would live by
the results regardless of what they might be.
Apparently, you refuse to even consider living by your own philosophy.
Slavery seems to be a particularly hot button for you.
He uses it to show the massive holes in your statist philosophy.
Scout
2017-01-22 00:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I
know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery was legal in the U.S., and is quasi-legal elsewhere. That doesn't
mean slaves don't have a right to freedom and individual autonomy. They
have such a right, of course.
Even though such a right might not be defined in the law, or even enforced
by the law.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Further as a slave you would advise other slave to accept their slavery as
their legal place in society and that attempting to take actions unto their
own hands to change that isn't even worth considering much less trying
because according to you no slave has ever managed to escape to freedom
and/or to convince others that it is a violation of their rights to be
enslaved.
Such actions would be illegal.
Not the point.
Well, it is to the point that he would be a natural slave since he would
never engage in illegal actions based on any self perception of rights that
weren't defined and enforced within the law.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
That is what you have stated is your position and the question asked was
merely to directly confirm that which you've stated as your philosophy.
Clearly the consequences of your beliefs are certainly relevant to
determining whether you actually believe what you state and would live by
the results regardless of what they might be.
Apparently, you refuse to even consider living by your own philosophy.
Slavery seems to be a particularly hot button for you.
He uses it to show the massive holes in your statist philosophy.
And it certainly does.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 00:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better
stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're
not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand
I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery was legal in the U.S., and is quasi-legal elsewhere. That
doesn't mean slaves don't have a right to freedom and individual
autonomy. They have such a right, of course.
Even though such a right might not be defined in the law, or even
enforced by the law.
That's the whole point of the thread.
Scout
2017-01-21 22:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery is legal and thus we observe the ramifications of your philosophy.
Particularly your willingness to become and remain a slave is the law so
dictates.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Further as a slave you would advise other slave to accept their slavery as
their legal place in society and that attempting to take actions unto their
own hands to change that isn't even worth considering much less trying
because according to you no slave has ever managed to escape to freedom
and/or to convince others that it is a violation of their rights to be
enslaved.
Such actions would be illegal.
Yes they would. Thus you would accept being made a slave and remaining a
slave because that's your only right under the law.
Post by Attila
While I may or may not either take
such actions myself or advise others to do so if I did take such
actions I would be subject to the penalties prescribed.
Glad to see you admit you would be perfectly willing to be turned into a
slave by the law.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
That is what you have stated is your position and the question asked was
merely to directly confirm that which you've stated as your philosophy.
Clearly the consequences of your beliefs are certainly relevant to
determining whether you actually believe what you state and would live by
the results regardless of what they might be.
Apparently, you refuse to even consider living by your own philosophy.
Slavery seems to be a particularly hot button for you.
Not really, but it's so polarizing that we see whether you will live up to
the principles you assert to believe in.

Apparently you would be perfectly content to be made, legally, into a slave
and to be a compliant slave for the rest of your life, or until the law
changes.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 23:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand
I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't. Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
Scout
2017-01-22 00:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better
stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're
not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand
I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't. Involuntary servitude is not slavery. Slavery
is a property status.
And allowed by the 13th Amendment as written and ratified.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
with
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better
stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but
they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand
I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to
defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't. Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
And allowed by the 13th Amendment as written and ratified.
Nope. At no point may the state take "possession" of a person.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
in alt.atheism with message-id
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
with
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better
stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but
they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand
I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to
defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't. Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
And allowed by the 13th Amendment as written and ratified.
Nope. At no point may the state take "possession" of a person.
Except as punishment for a crime.

See the 13th Amendment.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:17:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:57 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
in alt.atheism with message-id
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
in alt.atheism with message-id
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
with
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better
stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but
they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand
I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to
defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
, then according to you they should simply
accept that as their lot in life?
There isn't much they can do about it. I know of no cases in history
where slave uprisings have been successful in establishing a stable
government or when slaves were directly able to change their own
status without outside help.
So it would be better to live as a slave?
That is not the issue under discussion.
Certainly it is. After all, it follows directly from your assertion that
rights aren't inherent but rather an artifact of the law.
Thus if slavery is legal, then slaves have no right to freedom. You as a
legal slave, would have no right to be anything other than a slave. That is
the ramifications of your philosophy AS STATED BY YOU.
And if slavery was legal that would be correct.
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't. Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
And allowed by the 13th Amendment as written and ratified.
Nope. At no point may the state take "possession" of a person.
Except as punishment for a crime.
Nope - never. Only involuntary servitude.

Slavery means property. The prisoner is never property.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:20:43 UTC
Permalink
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Federal law, and certainly the US Constitution supersedes state law.

But in any case, thank you, for your admission that it is entirely possible
under our laws and that you were wrong when you said it wasn't.

Oh, and please provide a cite for some of those states you claim outlaw
slavery under all circumstances.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 20:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Federal law, and certainly the US Constitution supersedes state law.
But in any case, thank you, for your admission that it is entirely
possible under our laws and that you were wrong when you said it wasn't.
Slavery is illegal - full stop. The thirteenth amendment allows
involuntary servitude for convicted criminals. It does not allow
slavery. Slavery is being property. That's *all* it is.
Scout
2017-01-21 22:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Federal law, and certainly the US Constitution supersedes state law.
But in any case, thank you, for your admission that it is entirely
possible under our laws and that you were wrong when you said it wasn't.
Slavery is illegal - full stop.
Except was punishment for a crime.
Post by Rudy Canoza
The thirteenth amendment allows involuntary servitude for convicted
criminals.
And slavery.
Post by Rudy Canoza
It does not allow slavery.
It certainly says it does.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is being property.
So they become property. As long as it's punishment for a crime, it would be
legal under the Constitution.
Post by Rudy Canoza
That's *all* it is.
Sure, and since they are property, they can be pretty much used in whatever
manner the owner chooses.

Though I suppose they couldn't be subjected to anything that amounts to
animal cruelty under the law.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 23:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Federal law, and certainly the US Constitution supersedes state law.
But in any case, thank you, for your admission that it is entirely
possible under our laws and that you were wrong when you said it wasn't.
Slavery is illegal - full stop.
Except was punishment for a crime.
Nope. Only involuntary servitude.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
The thirteenth amendment allows involuntary servitude for convicted
criminals.
And slavery.
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
It does not allow slavery.
It certainly says it does.
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is being property.
So they become property.
No.
Post by Scout
Sure, and since they are property,
No.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 23:58:03 UTC
Permalink
They are not the same, and the thirteenth amendment doesn't permit slavery.

http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1404:may041202&catid=137&Itemid=155&showall=&limitstart=3

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The correct way to read this is with a comma following slavery, and with
the comma removed following servitude:

"Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

That's what it means.

No slavery.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not the same, and the thirteenth amendment doesn't permit slavery.
http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1404:may041202&catid=137&Itemid=155&showall=&limitstart=3
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
The correct way to read this is with a comma following slavery, and with
Sorry, the punctuation is exactly as it was written and ratified.

You can't change it simply because you want another meaning.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

As it is, what it says conforms exactly to what I state. Whereas what you
claim isn't supported by the language of the 13th as written and ratified.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
They are not the same, and the thirteenth amendment doesn't permit slavery.
http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1404:may041202&catid=137&Itemid=155&showall=&limitstart=3
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
The correct way to read this is with a comma following slavery, and
Sorry, the punctuation is exactly as it was written and ratified.
Earlier legislators used lots of superfluous punctuation, and omitted
necessary punctuation at times.

No slavery - settled.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-22 02:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of
their punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Federal law, and certainly the US Constitution supersedes state law.
True, but that means the states must adhere to whatever *minimum*
protections federal law (including the Constitution) provides. The
states have the option of providing even more protection.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:21:50 UTC
Permalink
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to aid, or simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Attila
2017-01-21 21:00:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to aid, or simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances." made?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to aid, or simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop. Involuntary
servitude is not.
Scout
2017-01-22 00:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to aid, or simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop. Involuntary
servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 00:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to aid, or simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.

You're really boned yourself up the ass, scooter, saying that the state
takes "possession" of convicted criminals when they are incarcerated.
They do not - they take custody. Custody is not possession.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to aid, or simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.
A correct interpretation wouldn't have to change what's there.

Since yours does, it's clearly not correct.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to aid, or simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.
A correct interpretation wouldn't have to change what's there.
I didn't change a word of it.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as part of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to aid, or simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances." made?
Probably to try and invent support for your position.

But if you want to tell me that states have made incarceration of criminals
utterly illegal under all circumstances.....then I certainly want to know
the states that no longer send criminals to prison.

Otherwise, what you said had NOTHING do to with the response involving
incarnation.
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-21 20:26:40 UTC
Permalink
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Meth speaking again?
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-21 20:26:54 UTC
Permalink
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Meth speaking again?
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-21 20:27:07 UTC
Permalink
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Meth speaking again?
Scout
2017-01-21 20:29:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:49:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
Rather let us say it continued to allow slavery/involuntary servitude of a
specific type.
Attila
2017-01-21 21:07:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:29:09 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:49:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
Rather let us say it continued to allow slavery/involuntary servitude of a
specific type.
Since they are not the same you are wrong yet again.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:29:09 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:49:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law they are illegal and the
person is subject to arrest. As he should be.
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
Rather let us say it continued to allow slavery/involuntary servitude of a
specific type.
Since they are not the same you are wrong yet again.
I didn't say they were the same thing. Rather I'm saying that both options
are allowed.

Man, you really do have issues with your reading comprehension.

How's your attempt at reading the 13th Amendment coming along?
Scout
2017-01-21 20:34:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:30:47 -0700, Just Wondering
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
I was being sarcastic.
More like idiotic
Only an idiot would think any Amendment
established slavery.
Then that would be you, since I never stated the 13th established slavery.

At most, it could be said to have allowed this particular form of slavery to
continue.
And no, it does not. It allows involuntary servitude, which is
entirely different.
No, it allows either as punishment for a crime.

The exception applies to both slavery and involuntary servitude.

See that little comma after 'servitude'?

It means something.

As noted what you are displaying isn't sarcasm, but your own ignorance.
Attila
2017-01-21 21:06:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:34:43 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:30:47 -0700, Just Wondering
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
I was being sarcastic.
More like idiotic
I was not trying to intrude on your territory.
Post by Scout
Only an idiot would think any Amendment
established slavery.
Then that would be you, since I never stated the 13th established slavery.
Sigh. Nobody said you did.
Post by Scout
At most, it could be said to have allowed this particular form of slavery to
continue.
But it didn't.
Post by Scout
And no, it does not. It allows involuntary servitude, which is
entirely different.
No, it allows either as punishment for a crime.
The exception applies to both slavery and involuntary servitude.
See that little comma after 'servitude'?
It means something.
Yep. It means the state can force you to work but no individual or
non-governmental body can do the same.
Post by Scout
As noted what you are displaying isn't sarcasm, but your own ignorance.
I suspect you have an issue with my signature don't you?

Take a number.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:34:43 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:30:47 -0700, Just Wondering
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
I was being sarcastic.
More like idiotic
I was not trying to intrude on your territory.
Post by Scout
Only an idiot would think any Amendment
established slavery.
Then that would be you, since I never stated the 13th established slavery.
Sigh. Nobody said you did.
Post by Scout
At most, it could be said to have allowed this particular form of slavery to
continue.
But it didn't.
Post by Scout
And no, it does not. It allows involuntary servitude, which is
entirely different.
No, it allows either as punishment for a crime.
The exception applies to both slavery and involuntary servitude.
See that little comma after 'servitude'?
It means something.
Yep. It means the state can force you to work but no individual or
non-governmental body can do the same.
Post by Scout
As noted what you are displaying isn't sarcasm, but your own ignorance.
I suspect you have an issue with my signature don't you?
It's moronic and illiterate - "conservitive" [sic]
Scout
2017-01-21 23:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:34:43 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:30:47 -0700, Just Wondering
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
I was being sarcastic.
More like idiotic
I was not trying to intrude on your territory.
You have a long way to go before you intrude on intelligent, educated and
well informed.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Only an idiot would think any Amendment
established slavery.
Then that would be you, since I never stated the 13th established slavery.
Sigh. Nobody said you did.
Then who were you calling an idiot then? Yourself?
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
At most, it could be said to have allowed this particular form of slavery to
continue.
But it didn't.
It most certainly does. Read it for yourself, if you can.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
And no, it does not. It allows involuntary servitude, which is
entirely different.
No, it allows either as punishment for a crime.
The exception applies to both slavery and involuntary servitude.
See that little comma after 'servitude'?
It means something.
Yep. It means the state can force you to work but no individual or
non-governmental body can do the same.
Nope, a comma doesn't not mean 'state only'.

Now, while you're thinking that over....consider private prisons and tell me
again that only the state can carry out punishments.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
As noted what you are displaying isn't sarcasm, but your own ignorance.
I suspect you have an issue with my signature don't you?
Not really, I simply don't bother repeating it.

After all, why waste time quoting that same text over, and over, and over,
and over, and over, and over........
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 23:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:34:43 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:30:47 -0700, Just Wondering
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
You are saying that amendment established slavery?
13A says, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME ... shall exist within the United States ..."
Scout is telling something you wouldn't have to ask if you
had bothered to actually read the amendment. 13A clearly
and expressly allows slavery to exist as a punishment for crimes.
I was being sarcastic.
More like idiotic
I was not trying to intrude on your territory.
You have a long way to go before you intrude on intelligent, educated
and well informed.
You have no room to talk there.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Only an idiot would think any Amendment
established slavery.
Then that would be you, since I never stated the 13th established slavery.
Sigh. Nobody said you did.
Then who were you calling an idiot then? Yourself?
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
At most, it could be said to have allowed this particular form of
slavery to continue.
But it didn't.
It most certainly does.
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
And no, it does not. It allows involuntary servitude, which is
entirely different.
No, it allows either as punishment for a crime.
No.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:39:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:50:44 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:53:09 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I
know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to
defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law
Already stipulated that they aren't.
Not by me. Anyone committing vigilante action is subject to arrest.
And should be arrested.
So tell me, when the government is ignoring your rights and either
directly
or indirectly allowing them to be violated....exactly what action do you
suggest they take?
First just what right is being violated? Too many people like to talk
in generalities and can't seem to come to grips with the specific.
IOW, you seek to confuse, deflect, and otherwise refuse to address the
very
simply question put to you.
<snip> lame attempt to refuse to answer the simple question asked.
Speaking of simple questions, you keep yelling about what you would do
if I violated your rights but you seem to have a problem in actually
stating such a right.
I have lots of rights. I won't know which one you're violating until you do
so.

Maybe you want to prevent me from having consensual sex with my own wife.
Nothing in the law says you can't, however, I (and she) would certainly see
it as a violation of our rights, and both of us would probably take action
against you for such an attempt.

Meanwhile, I still note your refusal to answer the question asked.
Attila
2017-01-21 20:50:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:39:01 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:50:44 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:53:09 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I
know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to
defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law
Already stipulated that they aren't.
Not by me. Anyone committing vigilante action is subject to arrest.
And should be arrested.
So tell me, when the government is ignoring your rights and either
directly
or indirectly allowing them to be violated....exactly what action do you
suggest they take?
First just what right is being violated? Too many people like to talk
in generalities and can't seem to come to grips with the specific.
IOW, you seek to confuse, deflect, and otherwise refuse to address the
very
simply question put to you.
<snip> lame attempt to refuse to answer the simple question asked.
Speaking of simple questions, you keep yelling about what you would do
if I violated your rights but you seem to have a problem in actually
stating such a right.
I have lots of rights. I won't know which one you're violating until you do
so.
Maybe you want to prevent me from having consensual sex with my own wife.
Nothing in the law says you can't, however, I (and she) would certainly see
it as a violation of our rights, and both of us would probably take action
against you for such an attempt.
That might be subject to some other factors. For example, at high
noon in front of city hall?

Not everything is a 'right'. Sometimes it's just something nobody
cares about.
Post by Scout
Meanwhile, I still note your refusal to answer the question asked.
If you are talking about the government question the remedy is to have
the laws involved changed. It is not to take illegal action.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:39:01 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:50:44 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:53:09 -0500, "Scout"
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:45:06 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:25:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:13:55 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:38:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better
stop
doing it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're
not
going to
do you
any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't
going
to
help
you
after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
1) They might not do me any good, but on the other hand I
know
I
have
them
as do others.
Why does that matter?
Because it gives me the moral high ground to stand up to
defend
my
rights even if the law will not.
As well as the support of society.
How? In what way?
Not interfering when he acts in just defense of his rights.
If his actions are illegal he should be arrested and tried.
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal nor wrong.
If they are in violation of existing law
Already stipulated that they aren't.
Not by me. Anyone committing vigilante action is subject to arrest.
And should be arrested.
So tell me, when the government is ignoring your rights and either
directly
or indirectly allowing them to be violated....exactly what action do you
suggest they take?
First just what right is being violated? Too many people like to talk
in generalities and can't seem to come to grips with the specific.
IOW, you seek to confuse, deflect, and otherwise refuse to address the
very
simply question put to you.
<snip> lame attempt to refuse to answer the simple question asked.
Speaking of simple questions, you keep yelling about what you would do
if I violated your rights but you seem to have a problem in actually
stating such a right.
I have lots of rights. I won't know which one you're violating until you do
so.
Maybe you want to prevent me from having consensual sex with my own wife.
Nothing in the law says you can't, however, I (and she) would certainly see
it as a violation of our rights, and both of us would probably take action
against you for such an attempt.
That might be subject to some other factors. For example, at high
noon in front of city hall?
Not everything is a 'right'. Sometimes it's just something nobody
cares about.
Well, I think I would have such a right, and if you attempt to violate that
right without just cause, expect me and her to show you the error of your
ways. Indeed, you would probably have far more to fear from her.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Meanwhile, I still note your refusal to answer the question asked.
If you are talking about the government question the remedy is to have
the laws involved changed. It is not to take illegal action.
On the contrary, sometimes illegal action is the only means to obtain such a
change.

Certainly all the petitions, writs, etc by the Colonists weren't making an
impression....but one good olde armed revolt, and they could no longer deny
it. Heck they were no longer in a position to do much about it.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:39:35 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Not what I asked.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 22:35:24 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?

Why would the guards at a "legal government execution camp" in Germany
be hanged after the war for crimes against the people they executed?

A right to be equal and NOT suffer Racism and sexism is NOT a "human"
right or an inalienable right it's given by the government courts, and
it's NOT in the constitution? If it was an inalienable right then
hanging the Germans for murdering Jews was correct. But if life is NOT
an inalienable right then the world court violated Germany's right to
use due process to execute people they deemed NOT worthy of a right to
life. Just as you deem people NOT worthy of life.

According to you it's OK to kill as long as you use the government
system to do it.

That goes for guns as well, as long as you steal them using the
government you think it's OK to violate their rights. I see no
difference between stealing guns from 6 million persons legally or
killing 6 million Jews using the government. Either way you stole their
inalienable right to life and to protect their life using a gun. Once
the Germans stole the guns from the Jews, herding them into
concentration camps using legal means, was a simple task.

I'm OK with all U.S. citizens having guns and having a life that can't
be taken by the government.
--
That's Karma
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 23:01:10 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?

Why would the guards at a "legal government execution camp" in Germany
be hanged after the war for crimes against the people they executed?

A right to be equal and NOT suffer Racism and sexism is NOT a "human"
right or an inalienable right it's given by the government courts, and
it's NOT in the constitution? If it was an inalienable right then
hanging the Germans for murdering Jews was correct. But if life is NOT
an inalienable right then the world court violated Germany's right to
use due process to execute people they deemed NOT worthy of a right to
life. Just as you deem people NOT worthy of life or a right to own a
gun. While they are in prison and a slave I can understand rights being
forfeited by the criminal act... but you still can't take them away once
the person has paid their debt and is a free man once again.

According to you it's OK to kill as long as you use the government
system to do it.

That goes for guns as well, as long as you steal them using the
government you think it's OK to violate their rights. I see no
difference between stealing guns from 6 million persons legally or
killing 6 million Jews using the government. Either way you stole their
inalienable right to life and to protect their life using a gun. Once
the Germans stole the guns from the Jews, herding them into
concentration camps using legal means, was a simple task.

I'm OK with all U.S. citizens having guns and having a life that can't
be taken by the government.
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-21 20:42:25 UTC
Permalink
in alt.atheism with message-id
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters will do what
they
can with undue risk to themselves and with resources available. They don't
want
to listen to you scream as you die, but they may have more victims than
they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
Exactly.
Then you should be able to show us the legal statute that exactly defines
the right to life and it's specific extents.....

That is if your assertions about the law have any validity in fact.

----------> Insert federal statute number here

US statutes are of the form of 'xxUSCxxxx'

Failure to present such a statute can only be viewed as an admission that
this right isn't defined in the law, and thus according to your philosophy
it doesn't exist at all.
Attila
2017-01-21 21:10:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:42:25 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
in alt.atheism with message-id
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters will do what
they
can with undue risk to themselves and with resources available. They don't
want
to listen to you scream as you die, but they may have more victims than
they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
Exactly.
Then you should be able to show us the legal statute that exactly defines
the right to life and it's specific extents.....
That is what I have been trying to get, with no luck. An exact
definition doesn't seem to exist anywhere.
Post by Scout
That is if your assertions about the law have any validity in fact.
----------> Insert federal statute number here
US statutes are of the form of 'xxUSCxxxx'
Failure to present such a statute can only be viewed as an admission that
this right isn't defined in the law, and thus according to your philosophy
it doesn't exist at all.
Or I means I am tired of your nit-picking in an attempt to avoid the
actual subject.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:42:25 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
in alt.atheism with message-id
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters will do what
they
can with undue risk to themselves and with resources available. They don't
want
to listen to you scream as you die, but they may have more victims than
they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
Exactly.
Then you should be able to show us the legal statute that exactly defines
the right to life and it's specific extents.....
That is what I have been trying to get, with no luck. An exact
definition doesn't seem to exist anywhere.
Not important.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
That is if your assertions about the law have any validity in fact.
----------> Insert federal statute number here
US statutes are of the form of 'xxUSCxxxx'
Failure to present such a statute can only be viewed as an admission that
this right isn't defined in the law, and thus according to your philosophy
it doesn't exist at all.
Or I means I am tired of your nit-picking in an attempt to avoid the
actual subject.
More like you're just whiffing off.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:42:25 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
in alt.atheism with message-id
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters will do what
they
can with undue risk to themselves and with resources available. They don't
want
to listen to you scream as you die, but they may have more victims than
they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
Exactly.
Then you should be able to show us the legal statute that exactly defines
the right to life and it's specific extents.....
That is what I have been trying to get, with no luck. An exact
definition doesn't seem to exist anywhere.
Post by Scout
That is if your assertions about the law have any validity in fact.
----------> Insert federal statute number here
US statutes are of the form of 'xxUSCxxxx'
Failure to present such a statute can only be viewed as an admission that
this right isn't defined in the law, and thus according to your philosophy
it doesn't exist at all.
Or I means I am tired of your nit-picking in an attempt to avoid the
actual subject.
I accept you can't find any such statute, and thus according to you there is
NO right to life.

Indeed can you show me the statute that rigidly defines ANY right?

If you can't then I can only assume you're asserting we have no rights at
all.

Oh, and whether rights exist because they are inherent or as a matter of law
is very much the actual subject here.

You claim they have to be defined and enforced in the law. So far you've
been unable to show ANY right so defined and enforced within the law. I
figured the right to life would be an easy one, and if anything were so
defined and enforced it would be that right. Yet, zero statutes produced.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:43:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?

Oh, and it's his right regardless of what the law says.
Attila
2017-01-21 21:11:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:43:55 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
Oh, and it's his right regardless of what the law says.
There you go with your slave again. Were you one?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:43:55 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
Oh, and it's his right regardless of what the law says.
There you go with your slave again
non sequitur
Scout
2017-01-21 23:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:43:55 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:34:49 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
Oh, and it's his right regardless of what the law says.
There you go with your slave again. Were you one?
No, but I feel you exhibit the mindset of one. After all, you seem to feel
that you need to have others decide what your rights will be and the limits
of those rights.

Seems like a slave type mentality to me.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:48:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:55:30 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:14:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:08:17 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:05:49 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to
help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to
dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their
own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what
rights
I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
And they are meaningless unless they are defined and enforced
under
the law in our society.
False.
Why? How about an example of such a 'right' that exists but is not
defined by the law.
No right is defined by "law."
All rights are defined by law. Otherwise they are unenforceable.
Please cite the legal statute that defines "The right to life".
I have asked exactly that same question and I have yet to get an
answer from anyone.
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
Indeed, can you point to ANY statute that specifically defines a right?
Sure. The right to vote, to keep and bear arms,
Please cite the specific statute that defines the right to vote.

Please cite the specific statute that defines in full the right to keep and
bear arms.

Note: once you do so, you will be bound to the definitions you supply.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:55:30 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:14:12 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:08:17 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:05:49 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
The right for you to breath.
Since you don't have the right, maybe you had better stop
doing
it.
You're welcome to all the rights you want, but they're not
going
to
do you any
good until they're enforced. The right to breath isn't going to
help you after
you lock yourself in a freezer.
A 'right' only comes into play when a second party tries to
dictate
actions involving that 'right'. A person cannot violate their
own
rights.
If I am living alone on a desert island does it matter what
rights
I
have, if any?
Rights exist in human society.
And they are meaningless unless they are defined and enforced
under
the law in our society.
False.
Why? How about an example of such a 'right' that exists but is not
defined by the law.
No right is defined by "law."
All rights are defined by law. Otherwise they are unenforceable.
Please cite the legal statute that defines "The right to life".
I have asked exactly that same question and I have yet to get an
answer from anyone.
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
Indeed, can you point to ANY statute that specifically defines a right?
Sure. The right to vote, to keep and bear arms,
Please cite the specific statute that defines the right to vote.
Please cite the specific statute that defines in full the right to keep
and bear arms.
Note: once you do so, you will be bound to the definitions you supply.
<crickets>
Scout
2017-01-21 20:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a very
good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?

According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law or
such a right doesn't exist.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 22:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?
According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law
or such a right doesn't exist.
Muslims can toss gays off the top of a building because it isn't being
tossed off that kills them and there is no law against throwing people
off roofs.... the laws are specific to them landing and getting hurt or
killed, and so the getting killed part is their problem because they can
fly away if they want to.
--
That's Karma
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-22 02:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?
No, because there are many statutes that proscribe killing.
Post by Scout
According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law
or such a right doesn't exist.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:50:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:57:29 -0500, "Scout"
My life is currently protected by the laws that define the
circumstances under which I can be legally killed.
No, it isn't. Your life isn't protected by law in any way.
True, but how I can be legally killed is rigidly defined.
Please indicate the statute in which the law allows a bolt of lightening
to
legally kill you.
Easy. It is in the same law that allows a landslide or an avalanche
to do the same thing.
And exactly which statute is that?
<crickets>

I'm beginning to think that Attila believes there are no rights at all.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:56:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:06:40 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:59:06 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:15:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
in
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to
observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do
that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
violate
the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake
a
cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There
are
just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill
of
Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of
them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all
therein
ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with
impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to life....then
I
can
kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend
only
on
what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and where
I
can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this
elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to exactly
what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend yourself
and
which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with impunity
and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have
never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail..
Not if those laws don't apply to you because the law says they
don't.
I mean how do you think the Jews in the Holocaust were killed?
Mostly by violation of existing laws.
False.
Even if true, by Attila's own statements without enforcement their
rights
don't exist.....so clearly according to Attila their killer was legal
since
there wasn't any enforcement to prevent it.
Just because an act is not illegal does not automatically mean the act
is legal
Actually, that is EXACTLY what it mean.
No, the act can be outside of the law.
And thus isn't illegal.
It can be allowed while no
being defined under the legal system
IOW, you admit it would be legal if not defined.
It simply is not prohibited.
Which means it is permitted.

We don't pass laws to tell people what they can do.....only what they can't.
Scout
2017-01-21 20:59:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:09:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:50:07 +0100 (CET), "Bradley K. Swerman"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:59:06 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:15:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:32:04 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:40:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 09:41:52 -0500, NoBody
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement
is
a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how
to
observe
his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage,
which
is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens
his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to
do
that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how
to
observe
his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
violate
the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories
straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else
bake
a
cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There
are
just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the
Bill
of
Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few
of
them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all
therein
ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The
First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with
impunity.
So unless you can define and enforce your right to
life....then
I
can
kill
you with impunity because according to you your rights depend
only
on
what
the law defines and enforces?
Are you aware there are a number of laws defining when and
where
I
can
kill you with impunity? Plus exactly where can I find this
elusive
'right to life'. I would like to see the details as to
exactly
what
it covers.
True, and if I remove the laws that allow you to defend
yourself
and
which
enforce your right to life....then I can murder you with
impunity
and
neither you nor anyone else would complain because I would have
never
violated your rights.
But you will have violated the murder laws unless you acted in
compliance with them in every detail..
Not if those laws don't apply to you because the law says they
don't.
I mean how do you think the Jews in the Holocaust were killed?
Mostly by violation of existing laws.
False.
Even if true, by Attila's own statements without enforcement their
rights
don't exist.....so clearly according to Attila their killer was legal
since
there wasn't any enforcement to prevent it.
Just because an act is not illegal does not automatically mean the act
is legal It would be outside the legal system and have no enforcement
mechanism.
The remedy would be to enact the necessary laws, but the act cannot be
enforced before such laws are established. And any extra-legal
enforcement must be done carefully because such acts themselves may be
illegal under existing law.
For example, it is illegal for an individual to physically restrain a
person from doing anything that is not illegal. Under our system
there is a distinct difference between being legal and not being
illegal. That is basically what the Ninth Amendment establishes.
Meaning if I lock some illegal aliens in my tool shed until ICE
comes to get them it's legal.
No, because you are making the determination that they are illegal, a
status only the government can determine. Therefore you are guilty of
false imprisonment.
BS - see "citizen's arrest"
Which can only be done under rigidly defined circumstances and which
leaves the arrestor open to a damage lawsuit.
I acknowledge your admission you were wrong.

Further I would note that police officers are held to similar rigidly
defined circumstances and punishments.
The only exception is during the commission of a crime and only until
the police arrive. That is not an arrest.
Arrest - 1.seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody:

Which is EXACTLY what happens under a citizens arrest.

I suggest you study up on the topic you wish to discuss because right now
your 'firing from the hip' just makes you look stupid, ignorance and
idiotic.
Scout
2017-01-21 21:03:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:12:28 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:42:42 -0500, "Scout"
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined
and
enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored
that
right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of
innate human intellect.
That's what the FF implied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are
created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and
the
pursuit of Happiness.
In the DofI, which is a political document.
rights
are
antecedent to government and law.
So-called rights are meaningless unless there is an
enforcement
mechanism in place.
No.
Why not? If they aren't enforced they can be ignored by anyone
at
any
time.
Doesn't mean they will be.
Irrelevant. They can be.
Irrelevant. They generally won't be.
That is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned.
It isn't. You are insisting that state-manufactured and backed laws
are
the only way rights can be enforced. Furthermore, you insist that
state-manufactured law defines rights. Both are false.
Wrong on all counts. I have said nothing about the state
manufacturing anything.
Who is the producer of our laws?
Point. Set. Match.
The government, but it is the people, not the organization.
So I can just randomly walk into Congress and vote to pass a piece of
legislation. After all, it's the people, and I'm certainly one of the
people.
Your elected representative has that responsibility.
Why? Because he's a person, or because he's part of the organization?
Sorry, but the government is defined AS THE ORGANIZATION.
A government is an organization, true.
Thus government is the organization. It contains people, but they exist as
part of the government only so much as they exist within the organization
that is government. Take those same people out of the organization, and they
no longer exist as part of the government. Obama was the President. He was
part of the government. He is still a person, but he's not longer part of
the government, because it wasn't his being a person that made him part of
the government, but rather being part of the organization that is
government.

Once again, we see how little you really know about the topics you would
chose to discuss/debate.
Scout
2017-01-21 21:04:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:13:55 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:47:55 -0500, "Scout"
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but
your
statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker
how
to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally
burdens
his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government
to
do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker
how
to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker
MUST
violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories
straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional
right
to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone
else
bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right.
There
are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the
Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a
few
of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that
all
therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The
First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it
is
a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined
and
enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined
and
enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored
that
right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of
innate
human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is
not
the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition
of
the
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the
only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.
False.
What else is there?
Your inability to comprehend alternatives is not the problem of
anyone
but you.
You seem to have a problem in finding any other mechanism.
Found, and presented.
Not anywhere I have seen.
Odd, in most of the US one such mechanism is celebrated every 4th of
July.
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
established nothing.
Yep, it announced the Colonies desire to obtain their independence by any
means necessary, and established that the reason for doing so was because
of
violations of their rights as people.
It gave the reasons for breaking with England. It did not establish a
new country or a new government.
Actually it did, since that would be an automatic consequence of
independence.

Duh.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:13:55 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:47:55 -0500, "Scout"
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that,
but your
statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker
how
to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a
same-sex
marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally
burdens
his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the
government
to
do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the
baker
how
to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a
baker MUST
violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories
straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional
right
to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone
else
bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right.
There
are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in
the
Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it
enumerates a
few
of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating
that all
therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The
First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus
it is
a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are
defined and
enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not
defined and
enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I
ignored that
right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of
innate
human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law
is not
the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The
definition of
the
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the
only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.
False.
What else is there?
Your inability to comprehend alternatives is not the problem of
anyone
but you.
You seem to have a problem in finding any other mechanism.
Found, and presented.
Not anywhere I have seen.
Odd, in most of the US one such mechanism is celebrated every 4th
of July.
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
established nothing.
Yep, it announced the Colonies desire to obtain their independence by any
means necessary, and established that the reason for doing so was
because of
violations of their rights as people.
It gave the reasons for breaking with England. It did not establish a
new country or a new government.
Actually it did, since that would be an automatic consequence of
independence.
The first official action of this nation *declared the foundation of*
government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident,
[165 U.S. 150, 160] that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such
declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or
be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and
duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic
law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body
and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit,
and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the
spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more
imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those
constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights
which is the foundation of free government.

Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis - Jan 1897, and repeated /verbatim/
in Cotting v Godard, Nov 1901

The Declaration of Independence did, in fact, establish a new country
and government.
Attila
2017-01-21 21:12:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-21 23:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 00:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
Nope. They aren't ever taking possession of a convict's person. They
take custody, not possession.

No slavery.
Scout
2017-01-22 01:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
Nope. They aren't ever taking possession of a convict's person.
In enslavement they certainly would, and that's legal.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 01:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
Nope. They aren't ever taking possession of a convict's person.
In enslavement they certainly would, and that's legal.
It's not legal. They take custody, not possession. The prisoners
cannot be sold.
Scout
2017-01-22 02:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
Nope. They aren't ever taking possession of a convict's person.
In enslavement they certainly would, and that's legal.
It's not legal.
Take it up with the 13th. It says it is legal.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-22 02:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases, I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.

Scout
2017-01-21 21:13:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:16:49 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:33:02 -0500, "Scout"
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
established nothing. It cannot be used for anything as it has no
legal standing. It certainly cannot be used as the basis for
enforcing anything.
And yet it was used as a basis for enforcing their rights.
No, it was not.
Sure it was....even you admit that. (see below)
Since it was the opening act of the Revolutionary war, which resulted in
enforcement of their rights by force of arms against a government and
legal
system that refused to do so.
It resulted in the formation of a new country.
Which was the basis for enforcing their rights.
If the old government wouldn't enforce their rights, then they would
establish by force of arms a new one that would do so which was set forth
in
the Declaration of Independence.
That country was defined in the Constitution,
Wrong. The federal government was defined in Constitution.

The United states was defined within the Declaration of Indolence.

But tell me, what exactly was the United States of America between March 1,
1781 and September 13, 1788?

After all, in 1784, The Treaty of Paris was ratified with England officially
recognizing the United States as a nation and no other nation asserted a
claim over them.

So apparently the United States existed as an uncontested nation of it's own
from 1784 (at least) to the ratification of the current Constitution on Sep
13, 1788.

Really, you need to go back and retake high school civics, because you
clearly failed the course.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:16:49 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:33:02 -0500, "Scout"
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
established nothing. It cannot be used for anything as it has no
legal standing. It certainly cannot be used as the basis for
enforcing anything.
And yet it was used as a basis for enforcing their rights.
No, it was not.
Sure it was....even you admit that. (see below)
Since it was the opening act of the Revolutionary war, which resulted in
enforcement of their rights by force of arms against a government and
legal
system that refused to do so.
It resulted in the formation of a new country.
Which was the basis for enforcing their rights.
If the old government wouldn't enforce their rights, then they would
establish by force of arms a new one that would do so which was set
forth in
the Declaration of Independence.
That country was defined in the Constitution,
Wrong. The federal government was defined in Constitution.
The United states was defined within the Declaration of Indolence.
<chortle> You must be using a really shitty voice-to-text application.
Scout
2017-01-22 00:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:16:49 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:33:02 -0500, "Scout"
The D of I is a political document that had one purpose and
established nothing. It cannot be used for anything as it has no
legal standing. It certainly cannot be used as the basis for
enforcing anything.
And yet it was used as a basis for enforcing their rights.
No, it was not.
Sure it was....even you admit that. (see below)
Since it was the opening act of the Revolutionary war, which resulted in
enforcement of their rights by force of arms against a government and
legal
system that refused to do so.
It resulted in the formation of a new country.
Which was the basis for enforcing their rights.
If the old government wouldn't enforce their rights, then they would
establish by force of arms a new one that would do so which was set
forth in
the Declaration of Independence.
That country was defined in the Constitution,
Wrong. The federal government was defined in Constitution.
The United states was defined within the Declaration of Indolence.
<chortle> You must be using a really shitty voice-to-text application.
Na, just rusty on my keyboarding and too quick on accepting the spell check.
Scout
2017-01-21 21:19:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?

What are we today then if not the United States of America?

Simply alter the laws under which the nation operates does NOT dissolve the
country from existence.

Indeed the United States was seen to exist as a nation by some as far back
as 1777, and even England finally admitted to that with the Treaty of Paris
in 1783 which was ratified in 1784, thus eliminating the last claim by any
nation to consider the US as part of themselves.

Meanwhile, this nation existed for years before the Constitution was drafted
much less ratified.

Sorry, the United States Constitution does NOT define the United States as a
nation, rather it defines the federal government of that nation and the
interactions and powers that exist between the federal government and the
States that form that nation.

Your grade on American Civics 101 = "D"
Scout
2017-01-21 21:21:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:18:14 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:30:46 -0500, "Scout"
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker
how
to
observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally
burdens
his
religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government
to
do
that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker
how
to
observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories
straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right
to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else
bake
a
cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right.
There
are
just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the
Bill
of
Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a
few
of
them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all
therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The
First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is
a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and
enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that
right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of
innate
human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not
the
only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition of
the
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.
False.
What else is there? Stand in a line and say "Please don't do that"?
Well, I suppose that would be the liberal way....but conservatives
might
take far more direct action.
And be in violation of the law. Individuals cannot enforce anything.
Try to violate my rights and you might find out I certainly can.
Just what right would I be violating?
The one I object to you violating.
Spell it out. Be specific.
You've not yet violated by rights.

So exactly what right am I suppose to claim you violated?
Scout
2017-01-21 21:22:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:06:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 14:37:41 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:47:45 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 09:41:52 -0500, NoBody
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how
to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens
his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to
do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how
to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else
bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There
are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the
Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few
of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all
therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and
enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that
right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate
human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not
the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition of the
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.
False.
What else is there? Stand in a line and say "Please don't do that"?
Well, I suppose that would be the liberal way....but conservatives might
take far more direct action.
Which, until and unless it succeeds, is nothing more than rebellion --
and rebellion is an attack on the body politic that can and should be met
with the full force of the law and the full might of the state.
Tell me, how exactly did we secure our rights ignored by the British
legal system?
Was it by standing in a line and saying "Please don't do that"?
Worked for India ...
And if England was less civilized and had already learned it's lesson from
the American revolution....would have had a far different ending.
Scout
2017-01-21 21:23:29 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:57:29 -0500, "Scout"
My life is currently protected by the laws that define the
circumstances under which I can be legally killed.
No, it isn't. Your life isn't protected by law in any way.
True, but how I can be legally killed is rigidly defined.
Please indicate the statute in which the law allows a bolt of lightening
to
legally kill you.
Easy. It is in the same law that allows a landslide or an avalanche
to do the same thing.
It's an Act Of God.
Unless you survive the experience but kills everybody else, in which case
it's a Miracle.
Then you can cite that legal statute that permits Acts of God to lawfully
kill you?
Scout
2017-01-21 21:24:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:57:29 -0500, "Scout"
My life is currently protected by the laws that define the
circumstances under which I can be legally killed.
No, it isn't. Your life isn't protected by law in any way.
True, but how I can be legally killed is rigidly defined.
Please indicate the statute in which the law allows a bolt of
lightening to
legally kill you.
Easy. It is in the same law that allows a landslide or an avalanche
to do the same thing.
It's an Act Of God.
That is the legal term.
Excellent, which means you should have the legal statute that defines the
nature, extent, and legality of Act(s) of God?

What is it?

------> Insert statute number here
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-21 21:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:57:29 -0500, "Scout"
My life is currently protected by the laws that define the
circumstances under which I can be legally killed.
No, it isn't. Your life isn't protected by law in any way.
True, but how I can be legally killed is rigidly defined.
Please indicate the statute in which the law allows a bolt of
lightening to
legally kill you.
Easy. It is in the same law that allows a landslide or an avalanche
to do the same thing.
It's an Act Of God.
That is the legal term.
Excellent, which means you should have the legal statute that defines
the nature, extent, and legality of Act(s) of God?
Acts that are NOT created by humans are acts of God.
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-21 21:27:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:47:21 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:50:02 -0500, "Scout"
The actions of the person acting to defend his rights are neither
illegal
nor wrong.
I disagree, at times such actions have been deemed illegal, particularly
when it involved widespread armed revolted to defend such rights.
The American Revolution. One of the larger examples of what Attila says
can't occur.
I never said such an action cannot occur. It is always possible to
tear up the existing government and all existing governing structure
and establish a new government. However, this is not done very often.
Oh, so you admit that individuals can and do enforce their rights, and
that
such rights exist even when not defined in the law and/or enforced by such
law.
Revolution is a bit drastic, and usually fails.
Maybe, but people fighting for their rights tend to be willing to take that
risk.
The Confederate States of America was the last attempt that involved
the US and we all know how that worked out.
No, actually that would be the civil rights movements of the 60's and I
believe those had the effect of establishing protection for the rights of
blacks and other minorities.
The result was simply new laws and adjustment to old laws. Plus too
many people got away with illegal behavior in the process.
Yet, it accomplished the protection of their rights which was the objective.

So clearly people fighting for their rights is something that continues.

Even now there are multiple battles going on to try to defend, protect, or
otherwise insure our rights will not be ignored and/or violated.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-21 22:41:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:06:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 14:37:41 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:47:45 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 09:41:52 -0500, NoBody
alt.atheism with message-id
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:02:26 -0800, Rudy Canoza
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your
statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how
to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex
marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens
his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to
do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how
to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST
violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to
life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else
bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There
are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the
Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few
of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all
therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a
right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and
enforced
under the law.
False.
Please give me an example of a right that is not defined and
enforced
by law and explain what would happen to me if I ignored that
right.
No right is "created" by law. Rights are the product of innate
human
intellect.
I did not say created. I said defined and enforced.
No, not defined. As for enforcement, state-created law is not
the only
way to do that.
A law must define what is to be enforced.
The right is not defined by what's in the law. The definition of the
right is antecedent to all law.
To be of any use it must be enforced, and in our society the only
enforcement mechanism is the legal system.
False.
What else is there? Stand in a line and say "Please don't do that"?
Well, I suppose that would be the liberal way....but conservatives might
take far more direct action.
Which, until and unless it succeeds, is nothing more than rebellion --
and rebellion is an attack on the body politic that can and should be
met with the full force of the law and the full might of the state.
Tell me, how exactly did we secure our rights ignored by the British
legal system?
Was it by standing in a line and saying "Please don't do that"?
Worked for India ...
Bullshit.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-21 23:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Only liars refuse to cite their sources.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-21 23:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Only liars refuse to cite their sources.
Loading...