Post by Scout Post by Scout Post by Rudy Canoza Post by Scout Post by Rudy Canoza Post by Scout Post by Scout Post by Just Wondering
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
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
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
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.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket,
Since scooter ran away in humiliating defeat...
Post by Scout
let it never be said I didn'tprove my claims.
You didn't prove your claims.
Post by Scout
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality'
of racial discrimination.
*NOT* by an interpretation of the 13th amendment.
That it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which
abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime, is too clear for argument.
In no way did the court "interpret" the thirteenth amendment to say it
"allowed" discrimination on the basis of race. They didn't "interpret"
it at all.
Anyway, thanks for the tip, because now that I read Plessy v Ferguson
again, I see that it further refutes your claim that the thirteenth
amendment permits slavery for prisoners. No, it does not:
Slavery implies involuntary servitude -- a state of bondage; the
ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the
labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, *and* the
absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property
But imprisonment does *not* contain the "and" - the fact of being a
prisoner does not mean the absence of a legal right held by the prisoner
to the disposal of his person or property. There are restrictions on
what property the prisoner may have while in prison, but he may have
*some* property, and provided the property he is permitted to have isn't
considered contraband for another prisoner, he may give or sell it -
dispose of it - to another prisoner, or he may just discard it. If he
legally owns property outside of prison, say a dwelling or vehicle, he
may dispose of it by selling or giving it to someone. A slave may not
The prisoner also may dispose of his person. If he dies, his corpse
will be disposed of as he directed, not as the prison warden decides.
The prisoner's corpse will be released to his family or friends if he
has any, and disposed of as he wished; the warden doesn't get to decide
to donate it for scientific research instead.
Poor dumb cowardly scooter - he left under such a dark cloud!