Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 22:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
in understanding what words mean.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:32:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, 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.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution.... and make Liberal laws.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.

But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 23:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Slavery as a punishment seems like it may be less cruel than being
locked up (many people locked up will volunteer for outside work to get
out of an 8X8 PRISON CELL) and it's NOT unusual since many people over
many centuries were slaves and ObamaCare is a form of slavery so the
method of slavery could even be legal slavery like picking up trash or
attending a drunk driver mandated class or a halfway house where
behavior is required to live there, or house arrest where you are
required to be there and pay for that privilege. Or boot camp for some.
--
That's Karma
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.

I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced. I have supplied many links to sites at
which people argue about whether or not a particular president achieved
a "mandate." If scooter's narrow dictionary definition were all that
was needed, then there would never be any argument, and every president
could be said to have a mandate, rendering the term useless. The
irrefutable fact that people do argue over it is proof that scooter is
wrong.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition". Dictionaries can and do offer
more nuanced meanings.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when the person on the other side of the discussion
is an acolyte of the Humpty-Dumpty school of etymology.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 22:38:09 UTC
Permalink
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
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?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:42:12 UTC
Permalink
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
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?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
No, scooter. The thirteenth amendment does not permit chattel slavery.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:48:55 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?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned... a right
is a constitutional suggestion for the courts to decide the amount of
that suggestion you will be allowed as you privilege that you receive
from the government?

[""""""Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its
extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful
*liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within* *limits*
*drawn* *around us by the equal rights of others* ....."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819."""""""]
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
It is a complete waste of time, *every* time, to attempt to engage with
that fool.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:52:31 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.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play. None of them
challenge the basic principal that you are entitled to protect yourself
with deadly force against an opponent who accosts you with deadly force.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
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.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
Post by Just Wondering
None of them
challenge the basic principal that you are entitled to protect yourself
with deadly force against an opponent who accosts you with deadly force.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:24:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:54:20 -0500, "Scout"
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.
No, I am waiting for a reference that actually proves such a right
exists.
Well, until you get it, seems that your position is that people have no
rights at all.
Your usual erroneous interpretation of what was said.

--
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.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:25:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.

--
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.

Loading...