Actually it is even harder to debate a topic when responders get to arbitrarily build straw men by using their own definitions. Please forgive any misunderstandings.
Yet now I wonder how it is you find these definitions ‘arbitrary’. I find they hold true as given.
The definitions are fair and the questions are clear. Now is a good time to quit stalling.
Do you deny that women and sinners are denied full liberty?
Do you defend that women and sinners are denied full liberty?
Please do not further argue technicalities.
(Interested, but confused). Maybe it’s just me, but your argument seems rather vague, or over-broad… are you really suggesting that sinners (in general) are legally persecuted in the US? Blasphemers are denied their rights? Those who wear clothes of two fibers are shuffled off to prison? OK, second example deliberately absurd… but meant to illustrate the broadness of your brush. Or, in the immortal words of Arnold Jackson: “Watchoo talkin’ 'bout, Willis”.
What specific legal restrictions to the “right of liberty” do you assert women are denied?
Ummm…cos they vote? It doesn’t jibe well with my sense of morals and ethics, and borders in an uneasy fashion on Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance”, but since no politician can be held later to their vague campaign promises (caveat emptor applies more to politicians than to general retailers where the buying public may have some come-back for faulty goods and services), then why would they not court these voters?
They are arbitrary because you invented the definitions by yourself. Those definitions are not commonly accepted, much less authoritative, in the English language. In other words, make with the cites that show that crime is a violation of liberty. IHMO, that’s double-talk nonsense. A crime is a violation of law that’s prosecutable by the state, and dictionaries tend to back up my view.
The definitions are wrong and you can’t even provide a citation for the accepted use of those words. Therefore, asking me whether sinners are denied full liberty is like asking me if sinners are also denied asofpoasnd#&(*9jkasnd. That's because "asofpoasnd#&(*9jkasnd" is a nonsense term used in this debate to mean whatever the proponent wants it to mean.
I confess I am not surprised by your definitions. I have heard them used many times before; always to enslave and control.
It is not the symbol or word I use; it is only my meaning and definition that justly carries my spirit. Yet even as my words are denied as nonsense; failure to ask clarification of my definitions or meanings reveals them as sufficiently clear. Failure to offer better words for my definitions or meanings reveals desire only to obfuscate the spirit for which I stand; the spirit of liberty and justice for all.
I know your mark. Yet I will not ask you to testify against yourself. You already have.
According to at least one religion, it’s a sin to covet your neighbor’s house. I’ve coveted my neighbor’s house for well on 3 years now, and I haven’t been denied any liberties on account of it.
Your questions show you are not aware that state denies liberty to gender or sinner.
A person of one gender is prohibited from marrying a person of the same gender.
Laws based on ‘morality’ (vices) are sin, not crime (denial or threat of denial of peace).
Some sins are persecuted as crime, others are not. Please forgive any misunderstandings.
I am allowed to marry the consenting adult woman of my choice, a woman is not.
The politician that most aggressively courts those that espouse tyranny are more likely to be swayed by tyranny. I prefer a potential statesman.
Do you deny that men are denied full liberty?
Do you deny that people in general are denied full liberty regardless of their gender or “purity”?
Or conversely:
Do you assert that women are denied additional liberties beyond those that men are denied? (Could you please offer an example or two based on your definitions?)
Your term sinner is just too broad for useful argument (imo), as pretty much every human activity is a sin / transgression of holy writ to some religion or other, and even within a single religion various transgressions are given unequal weight… unless you are suggesting that legal restrictions are being placed on seafood restaurants because God hates shrimp.
There are certainly laws that curtail liberties for reasons of religious law / custom – blue laws being obvious examples. But your argument wouldn’t seem to be about these since they curtail the liberties of sinners and the pure equally – OK, the faithful may choose not to purchase alcohol on Sundays regardless of the laws or lack thereof, but the laws themselves do not restrict the sinners more than the faithful.
And you are equally not allowed to marry the consenting adult man of your choice – that is not an additional restriction on the liberties of women, but rather a restriction on those who would marry one of their own gender. And yes, probably has basis in “sin”, and should (imo) be done away with.
Ravenman’s dictionary
crime: a violation of law that’s prosecutable by the state.
This fits the definition of arbitrary. Peaceful consumption of alcohol is threatened with violence where this liberty is denied. Peaceful consumption of alcohol is allowed across the jurisdictional border. Peaceful use of some herbal medications is regulated, peaceful use of prohibited medications risks violence.
patriots dictionary
crime: denial or prohibition of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of life (health), liberty and happiness.
This definition is consistent for all; no matter the jurisdiction. A crime is denial or prohibition of peace by either citizen or state. Just governments are instituted to regulate pursuits in order to protect the equality of all.
Well do it then. Defend the tyranny that highly qualified patriots that happen to be gay are kicked out of the military as standards are lowered to allow felons and high school flunk-outs to serve in their place?
I am allowed to immediately defend myself against anyone that would take of my blood or body without my permission; even to their death. Women are (at least) threatened with denial of that equal right.
Exactly. It was not my intention to imply that ALL sins were persecuted as crime. Everyone is a sinner according to some religion. That is why laws should be based on liberty and justice and not on religion.
Denial of liberty for sinners and all equally is still denial of liberty for sinners.
I agree, provided we remember that many common religious prohibitions would remain sensible laws in a purely secular society with ideals of peaceful liberty, and shouldn’t be discounted just because they are also promoted by religion. (E.g. concepts of personal property, not stealing your neighbour’s ass, or killing him, etc).
Mmm… not really. Your argument (seems) to be that certain classes of person (women, sinners) are denied liberty beyond the limitations imposed (rightly or wrongly) on other classes of person. Limitations on liberty that do not favour or limit any particular class over another do not further your argument. (It doesn’t make the limitation correct, it just doesn’t help prove that some classes are more limited than others).
Is this something in recent US news? (Not a US doper – this statement isn’t something I understand). Are you suggesting there are different standards of self-defence applied for men and women? Or does this mean something else?
I did not intend to imply that all sinners were denied full liberty. I acknowledge and admit that only certain sinners are denied full liberty. Please forgive any misunderstanding.
Well qualified patriots are denied their full liberty of serving in the military (and other prohibitions) for sin of gay.
A gay is denied full liberty simply for being a sinner. Sinners of gay are denied full liberty. I am glad that you do not defend denial of liberty for any.
I’m not a logician, but there’s something that doesn’t add up right here.
You say that some (but not all) sinners are denied full liberty.
And that gays are sinners.
And that gays are denied full liberty.
How do we know the gays are being denied full liberty for being sinners? Couldn’t they be denied full liberty simply because they’re gay?
Or to put it another way, if I accept the three premises above as true, it doesn’t logically follow that some sinners are denied full liberty because they are sinners. What am I missing?
