13th admentment, continued

[The_Ryan]

This thread is a continuation of my 13th amendment doesn’t apply to the government? thread in GD. My responses that are inappropiate to GD follow.

[Rhythmdvl]

Bueller…
Bueller…
Bueller…

[The_Ryan]

Monty

In response to your jerkish comment “what part didn’t you understand:”

Obviously, you are completely unfamiliar with what constitutes a jerk. Asking for clarification of a vague question is does not make one a jerk. Asking for clarification, and then being snippy when the other person expresses confusion about just what needs to be clarified, does.

I understood very well that you have exactly zero conception of why a person in the United States, today, joins the military. It most assuredly is not because “it’s the only job” he can get.

Ever heard of something called a “hypothetical”? It’s when one imagines (or are you unfamiliar with the concept of imagination as well?) something which is not necessarily so. Yes, I realize that very few, if any, people join the military because it literally the only job they can get. However, if (another word you apparently don’t understand) that were to be the case, that would not automatically be slavery. Is that clear enough for you? Or should I rewrite it without all those pollysyballic words?

You just don’t like to recognize that FACT because, IMHO, it destroys your so-called argument. You are also conveniently ignoring the FACT that compulsory education is provided to force people to NOT EXPLOIT children as in the sweat-shops of old.

What, do I have to mention every single fact that I am aware of? You’re seriously taking umbrage because I failed to mention a fact you consider relevant? What, do I have to make your entire argument for you? Considering your abilities in that area, that would the only way you would find yourself with a valid argument.

No, members of the military do not abandon their rights.

How can anyone believe such a ridiculous statement?

However, compulsory service is compulsory…by definiton. The fact remains that it is not slavery…no matter how The Ryan wants to stretch the definitions of words

Monty says that its compulsory service, but not slavery, and I’m twisting words?

(the bit above about “placement in the dictionary” was good for quite a long laugh!).

Frankly, I’m not surprised by the fact that you think that saying that something was “good for quite a long laugh” is a sufficient replacement for a coherent argument.

[The_Ryan]

Kimstu

You know, Ryan, I’m curious as to exactly how you’re drawing the distinction between citizenship obligations that you class as “involuntary servitude” and hence unconstitutional, and citizenship obligations that you think are okay. Your unstated criterion seems to be

“Unstated”? “Unstated”!!!? I’ve said at least three times that my criterion is that if it is servitude, and it is involuntary, then it is involuntary servitude. Are you blind?

“If you hafta get up every morning and obey the orders of somebody you didn’t volunteer to work for, it’s involuntary servitude. If, on the other hand, you’re just forced to submit to authority on a random, short-term basis (such as taking orders from cops directing traffic at a construction site, for example), it’s okay.”

When did I ever say that? If someone is forced to take directions from a cop, that is involuntary servitude.

Now other posters have suggested various criteria that seem to me much more solid and consistent grounds for identifying what’s involuntary servitude and what’s not. E.g., does the party involved still retain the rights of a citizen?

What the fuck kind of criterion is that? That’s like defining murder as “any unlawful killing”. If someone is being forced into servitude, then they are deprived of their rights. If you say that they’re not being forced into servitude because they aren’t losing any of their rights, that’s rather blatant circular reasoning.

Is the party involved considered a piece of property rather than a human being?

Why should what we call them matter? If we had called the victims of interment during WWII “guests of the government”, would that have made it okay?

Is the obligation dependent upon the arbitrary desires of an owner, or is it a standard civic duty incurred for the sake of a widely supported societal good (as in mandatory education and jury duty) [or cheap cotton]

So as long as everyone is a slave, it isn’t really slavery? Sounds pretty silly to me.

or national emergency (as in the military draft)?

Do you really believe that the Vietnam War was a national emergency? I would say that having massive armies on one’s Western, Eastern, and Southern borders, about to invade, does count as a national emergency. But that doesn’t mean that the Nazis had any right to conscript people. What do you think? Do you think that they did? Or do your arguments apply only to “good” governments? Who gets to decided which govevernments are good?

But you reject these criteria and continue to insist that some limited-term, limited-scope, legally mandated duties of citizenship count as “slavery” while other limited-term, limited-scope, legally mandated duties of citizenship do not. So what’s the cutoff you’re using?

For the umpteempth time, the “cutoff” is that involuntary servitude is illegal. I can’t think of anythig that really a “duty” that I have said is not illegal.

I think, in short, that your criterion is pretty arbitrary.

Seeing as how you have shown yourself completely unable to comprehend my criterion, and have had to resort to making up “my” criterion, I find your statements regarding whether or not it is arbitrary to be without merit.

As citizens under the rule of law, there are a number of things that we just have to do when we’re told to, whether or not we did anything wrong or deserve to have our freedom restricted.

You’re begging the question.

You seem to have simply picked out the three things in that category of stuff we have to do (school, conscription, jury duty) that restrict time and independence the most for the greatest number of people, and labeled them “involuntary servitude” and hence illegitimate.

I haven’t simply “labeled” the draft and jury duty as involuntary servitude. That is what they are.

That seems to me like a pretty subjective distinction.

What distinction? Where have I made a distinction?

[beergeek279]

Ryan, don’t give the bastards the pleasure of knowing they cracked you. Those statist bastards have no interest in the truth or logic…just in throwing around * ad hominem * and smearing people as “extremists” if you don’t agree with every single word they say. Also, by definition they are not individualists, so they take pleasure in ganging up on people and exercising their “heckler’s veto” to the maximum. You made some excellent points…just remember that you can’t use the truth against people who don’t exist in reality!!!

[Gadarene]

Heh… DNFTR.

[Monty]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
Monty

In response to your jerkish comment “what part didn’t you understand:”

Obviously, you are completely unfamiliar with what constitutes a jerk. Asking for clarification of a vague question is does not make one a jerk. Asking for clarification, and then being snippy when the other person expresses confusion about just what needs to be clarified, does.

You did not ask a vague question. Your statement was to denigrate the caliber of personnel who join the military. My comment was an attempt to elicit if you really believed that comment of yours. Your responses so far indicate to me that you did and that you are unfamiliar with both the eligibility requirements of service and the protections provided to military members.

I understood very well that you have exactly zero conception of why a person in the United States, today, joins the military. It most assuredly is not because “it’s the only job” he can get.

Ever heard of something called a “hypothetical”?
[/quote]

I’m very familiar with it. As it is, your hypothetical was not based on fact. Evidently, you are the one unfamiliar.

It’s when one imagines (or are you unfamiliar with the concept of imagination as well?) something which is not necessarily so.

Actually, in discussions, law, debate and such, a hypothetical is an example which is possible. Your comment is an example of that which is in error.

Yes, I realize that very few, if any, people join the military because it literally the only job they can get.

Well, since the military routinely denies entry to many people, and those people manage to get other jobs, it certainly isn’t a last resort of employment as you insinuated.

However, if (another word you apparently don’t understand) that were to be the case, that would not automatically be slavery.

So you’re admitting it’s not slavery?

Is that clear enough for you? Or should I rewrite it without all those pollysyballic words?

I’ve no idea how much education you have; however, contrary to your implication above, I actually have attended college. I even managed to glean an A or two. I am quite used to hearing words of more than one syllable. Amazing to me is that this time you’re the one using them.

You just don’t like to recognize that FACT because, IMHO, it destroys your so-called argument. You are also conveniently ignoring the FACT that compulsory education is provided to force people to NOT EXPLOIT children as in the sweat-shops of old.

What, do I have to mention every single fact that I am aware of? You’re seriously taking umbrage because I failed to mention a fact you consider relevant? What, do I have to make your entire argument for you? Considering your abilities in that area, that would the only way you would find yourself with a valid argument.

Specious, and incorrect.

No, members of the military do not abandon their rights.

How can anyone believe such a ridiculous statement?

How can a statement of fact be ridiculous? Please feel free to peruse http://jaglink.jag.af.mil/ucmj.htm and the US Constitution to see that members of the military do not abandon their rights. FTR, I’ve been both court recorder and witness at courts-martial. Either I’m mistaken, in which case the lawyers, juries, and military judges were merely running through a pantomime, or I’m not mistaken and you’re full of it.

However, compulsory service is compulsory…by definiton. The fact remains that it is not slavery…no matter how The Ryan wants to stretch the definitions of words

Monty says that its compulsory service, but not slavery, and I’m twisting words?

It may be compulsory but it is neither indentured servitude nor slavery. Please refer to that dictionary mentioned earlier.

(the bit above about “placement in the dictionary” was good for quite a long laugh!).

Frankly, I’m not surprised by the fact that you think that saying that something was “good for quite a long laugh” is a sufficient replacement for a coherent argument.

My point, which you obviously missed, is that order of placement in a dictionary of a particular definition of a particular word has no bearing on the validity of that definition.

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
**Heh… DNFTR. **

Sorry about that, Gadarene; however, I don’t think TR is a T, merely an anarchist of sorts (not that there’s anything wrong with that)–the mistaken sort.

[Gadarene]

Oh, yeah, I know–mostly I just liked the play on words.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Monty *
You did not ask a vague question.

Yes, i know. You asked a vague question, and became annoyed when I asked what you meant by it.

Your statement was to denigrate the caliber of personnel who join the military.

Who are you to tell me what the purpose of my statement was?

My comment was an attempt to elicit if you really believed that comment of yours.

It wasn’t a comment, it was a condition. Suppose I were to say “If the sun explodes tomorrow, plant life will be adversely affected”. Would you conclude that I believe that the sun is going to explode tommorrow?

I’m very familiar with it. As it is, your hypothetical was not based on fact. Evidently, you are the one unfamiliar.

hypothetical:

1. Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis: a hypothetical situation. See Synonyms at theoretical.

2. a. Suppositional; uncertain. See Synonyms at supposed.
   b. Conditional; contingent.

A hypothetical clearly needs not be based on fact.

Actually, in discussions, law, debate and such, a hypothetical is an example which is possible. Your comment is an example of that which is in error.

1. There is not necessity that a hypothetical be possible.
2. Are you trying to tell me that it is impossible for a country to exsist in which there are some people who can find no work other than in the military?

However, if (another word you apparently don’t understand) that were to be the case, that would not automatically be slavery.

So you’re admitting it’s not slavery?

What is “it”?

No, members of the military do not abandon their rights.

How can anyone believe such a ridiculous statement?

How can a statement of fact be ridiculous? Please feel free to peruse http://jaglink.jag.af.mil/ucmj.htm and the US Constitution to see that members of the military do not abandon their rights.
[/quote]

I see nothing in their which supports your claim. Fact: I have the right to say anything I want, within the clear and present danger restrictions, about my government. Fact: members of the military have significant restrictions on what they can say about the government, beyond clear and present danger. Therefore, members of them military abandon their rights.

FTR, I’ve been both court recorder and witness at courts-martial. Either I’m mistaken, in which case the lawyers, juries, and military judges were merely running through a pantomime, or I’m not mistaken and you’re full of it.

You said that members of the military do not abandon their rights. This implies that they keep all of their rights, not just some of them.

My point, which you obviously missed, is that order of placement in a dictionary of a particular definition of a particular word has no bearing on the validity of that definition.

Oh, I understood quite well what your so-called “point” was. However, it is well known among people with even minimal knowledge of dictionaries that it is traditional to place obscure meanings at the end.

[Esprix]

o/~ “The Ryan and RugbyMan sittin’ in a tree…” o/~

I was trying to find a way to fit “military” in there as a rhyme, but it just wasn’t happening.

Don’t ask, don’t tell, boys!

Esprix

[Monty]

2. Are you trying to tell me that it is impossible for a country to exsist in which there are some people who can find no work other than in the military?

Irrelevant. 1st, the situation in other countries has no bearing on the Constitutional Amendment under discussion. 2nd, the United States military is not composed of “people who can find no work other than in the military.”

Regarding your comment again:

You clearly stated:

There is a big difference between constraints imposed by the world and constraints imposed by the government. If you have to join the military because that’s the only job you can get, that’s not necessarily slavery.

Thus implying, since this is obviously a thread concerning the US Constitution and thus concerning the situation in the US and nowhere else, that the reason folks in the US join the military is because “that’s the only job” they can get. You followed it with your rhetoric about the draft being slavery.

Regarding the “vague question”: I asked you to clarify “only job you can get.” You made a jerkish comment, to wit: “What part don’t you understand?”

If that fits your definition of vague, then I seriously doubt you’re well equipped to handle any discussion on this
board other than with peace (the poster, not the situation).

Regarding my use of the word “it”: “It” refers to the same precedent as the one referred to by your use of the word “that,” Mr. Clinton.

Rugger decided in the other thread to mention that some children are not rational beings. At what point do you decide that the individual is rational enough for the Constitution to apply?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
**o/~ “The Ryan and RugbyMan sittin’ in a tree…” o/~

I was trying to find a way to fit “military” in there as a rhyme, but it just wasn’t happening.

Don’t ask, don’t tell, boys!

Esprix **

You’re just jealous :p.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Monty *
Irrelevant. 1st, the situation in other countries has no bearing on the Constitutional Amendment under discussion.

It does have bearing on whether my hypothetical is possible or not. And don’t complain about that being relevant; you’re the one that brought it up.

2nd, the United States military is not composed of “people who can find no work other than in the military.”

Two plus two equals four. Monty has no clue. How long are we going to spend on obvious facts?

Thus implying, since this is obviously a thread concerning the US Constitution and thus concerning the situation in the US and nowhere else, that the reason folks in the US join the military is because “that’s the only job” they can get.

No, I didn’t imply. You inferred. Big difference.
If you had actually paid attention to thread, instead of jumping at the first chance to insult me, you might have noticed that prior to my statement that you quoted, aynrandlover said:

. For example, I have to work. Oh, I might be able to choose which employer, and even choose a few different occupations, but in the end I have to work for someone. In the end, I have no choice and must get a job with money as compensation.

Its a fine line between slavery and coexistence.

It was aynrandlover that brought the subject of only being able to find certain types of jobs up, not me. In this context, your inferrence is groundless.

You made a jerkish comment, to wit: “What part don’t you understand?”

How is that “jerkish”?

If that fits your definition of vague, then I seriously doubt you’re well equipped to handle any discussion on this
board other than with peace (the poster, not the situation).

Let’s look at this rationally, okay (I know that’s a lot to expect from you, but please try)? It is clear from your later posts that you believed that I was claming that people in the military are there because they could get no other job. It is also clear that in asking me to clarify, what you meant was “Can you clarify your belief that people in the military are there because they could get no other job”. Now, how am I supposed to figure that out from just “could you clarify that”? Do you expect me to read your mind?

Rugger decided in the other thread to mention that some children are not rational beings. At what point do you decide that the individual is rational enough for the Constitution to apply?

The prima facae age is 18. Individuals younger than 18 may petition a court to recognize them as of legal age. Seeing as how no baby is capable of even attempting to petition a court, it is safe to say that applying the word “slavery” to a baby taken home by its mother is ridiculous. For a person’s right to self determination to be violated, that person must at minimum be capable of recognizing that this right has been violated.

[Monty]

& since I don’t plan on being online tomorrow…

Happy New Year to The Ryan, Rugger, et al. I hope none of us is taking this thread, or any other for that matter, too personally.