Who is a person?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=KidScruffy]
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?
[/QUOTE]

History clearly shows that the driving force behind gays being denied full liberty is prejudice and bigotry on religious grounds (morality and sin).

It is crime and tyranny to deny liberty. That applies also for gays. What you are missing is that there is no logic or reason to deny liberty to gays; there is no other logic or reason to deny liberty to gays; there is only tyranny.

crime: denial or prohibition of liberty.
tyranny: denial or prohibition of liberty by law.

Peace
rwj

62

[QUOTE=Apollyon]
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?
[/QUOTE]

There is still much confusion over common religions prohibitions against sins that are sins alone and common religious prohibitions against sins that are also crime. Only common religious prohibitions against crime remain sensible law. The concepts you list are sin as crime. Stealing and killing deny the liberty of others. They are both sin and crime.

Render to god what is god’s – judgment of sin. Render to the state what is the state’s obligation – to secure liberty and justice for all. This concept is called separation of church and state.

A wrongly imposed definition of liberty is not liberty. It is still tyranny; no matter the claim.

I confess to confusion about whether a recent Supreme Court decision has or has not denied a woman the right to protect herself from the unborn, yet let there be no confusion that some still agitate to deny this right of self-defense to women.

Peace
r~

63

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I’ll say this, rwjefferson, you may be a broken record, but you are a very entertaining fellow.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I figure that if my passion compels me to take a stand against tyranny, I might at least make it entertaining. It is my hope that the choir of patriots find it even more entertaining.

patriot: one that stands for liberty and justice for all.
tyrant: one that denies the spirit of liberty; even if only by words.

Peace
rwj

64

Please allow a do-over.

Who is a person?

The constitution originally considered slaves as ‘three fifths of a person’.

If a ‘person’ is defined as one that has not had their inalienable (retained) right of liberty denied or disparaged; Who is a person?

Gays and some other sinners are still not recognized as ‘full persons’ by law.
Gays and some other sinners are still denied their retained rights of liberty and justice.
All are still denied full rights of liberty and justice.

Who would still deny this?
Who would still defend this?

Peace
rwj

65

You’re misreading things yet again. The Ninth Amendment isn’t an attempt to define a person, it is simply to state that the Bill of Rights isn’t a comprehensive listing of our liberties. Surely you would agree with that.

66

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]

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.
[/QUOTE]

Sure I do…just not gays. I’m all for locking up other groups of people/not letting them in the millitary/what have you.

67

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Sure I do…just not gays. I’m all for locking up other groups of people/not letting them in the millitary/what have you.
[/QUOTE]
Those that do not hold liberty for others, do not hold liberty for themselves. You cannot deny liberty to groups that do not hold liberty in the first place. I will agree that those are the groups that should be locked up and not allowed in the military.

Peace
rwj

68

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
Those that do not hold liberty for others, do not hold liberty for themselves. You cannot deny liberty to groups that do not hold liberty in the first place. I will agree that those are the groups that should be locked up and not allowed in the military.
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what you mean here.

69

[QUOTE=Eben]
Done forget that in the states a corporation is legaly equivilant to a person. Does that muddy the waters enough?
[/QUOTE]

Interesting … so does the CEO get locked up if the company commits a crime?

70

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I have no idea what you mean here.
[/QUOTE]
Please tell me first

Which other groups?

First answer, then feel free to ask explanation.

Peace
rwj

71

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
Please tell me first
Which other groups?
[/QUOTE]

People who break the law…murderers, thieves, drug users, people who cheat on their taxes, people who try to pay with exact change when there’s a long line behind them…you know, the usual suspects.

72

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
People who break the law…murderers, thieves, drug users, people who cheat on their taxes, people who try to pay with exact change when there’s a long line behind them…you know, the usual suspects.
[/QUOTE]

I would still draw the line at people who deny (do not hold) the liberty of others… murderers and thieves and people who cheat on their taxes. Yet more importantly I would still seek forgiveness, if even and just for the sinners… people who try to pay with exact change… the drug users… and even you.

Calling a threat is not the same as proving a threat.

hope is the greatest prayer
r~

73

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
You’re misreading things yet again. The Ninth Amendment isn’t an attempt to define a person, it is simply to state that the Bill of Rights isn’t a comprehensive listing of our liberties. Surely you would agree with that.
[/QUOTE]

For this discussion (it is after all, my thread), I am defining a ‘person’ (as opposed to one enslaved) as one that is entitled to full right of liberty (peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness).

By this definition, liberty is an inalienable and self-retained right; no matter if denied even by highest court of law of man. Yet still, this right is guaranteed even by our own bill of rights; even if hidden from tyranny by the ninth amendment, even if not yet revealed to court supreme.

The concept of liberty and justice for all transcends any and all of man’s constitutions or laws. Justice is not found in the image of justice recorded as Word of Law. Word and Law and Constitution are but a guide for the balance of good and all.

Just governments are instituted to secure full liberty and justice for all; no matter words contrary.

Now is a good time to take a stand for liberty and justice for all.

I am
ItS
r~

74

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
For this discussion (it is after all, my thread), I am defining a ‘person’ (as opposed to one enslaved) as one that is entitled to full right of liberty (peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness).
[/QUOTE]

You should read up on the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. That’s what you’ve been arguing for the last two pages.

75

[QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic]
Interestingly, it was not until 1929 that women were legally recognized as “persons” in Canada. Before that, common law held that “Women are persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges.”
[/QUOTE]

I’m afraid that’s a major over-statement of the legal effect of the Persons Case.

All that was in issue in the case was whether a woman was a “person” for the purposes of s. 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which authorises the Governor General to “summon qualified persons to the Senate.” The Supreme Court of Canada held that women were not persons for the purposes of this provision, and so could not be Senators, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council overturned that decision, enabling women to be named to the Senate.

There’s no doubt that the case had enormous symbolic importance, and also provided considerable guidance in interpreting the law in other areas, but by itself it did not change the law relating to the status of women.

For example, prior to the Persons Case, in several provinces and at the federal level, women had achieved the right to vote, and with the passage of legislation such as Married Women’s Property Acts they had also achieved equal control of their property, so it was not true that the Persons Case changed the status of women in that regard. Nor did the Persons Case require provinces that had not enfranchised women to do so - women in Quebec didn’t get the right to vote until 1940.

So, major decision and influential, yes, but it’s not correct to say flatly that women weren’t persons in Canada prior to the decsion, and suddenly acquired compelete equality immediately after it. It was a slow, evolutionary process across Confederation.

76

No, women and gays and other sinners are denied EXTRA rights that they demand. They are still recognized by the law. We white males have just as many rights a a gay black woman, it’s the extra laws and laws that they want created for them that they want. Now, I don’t have a problem with fighting for what they want, I just wanted to get that straight. ;^)

77

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
For this discussion (it is after all, my thread), I am defining a ‘person’ (as opposed to one enslaved) as one that is entitled to full right of liberty (peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness).
[/QUOTE]

You aren’t the only poster to chum the waters with idiosyncratic definitions of words. Like I tell, them, sure, you can have your own language, rwjeffersonspeak, where “person” is defined as “only housecats below the age of 39 in cat years,” but even if you show something is true by that logic, it remains true only within that logical system.

If you try to equivocate to the plain English definition of the word, the one most people use, you will find it hard to communicate your ideas and have them agreed to. Charitably speaking, if you truly believe in your definitions, there is a language barrier between you and others, and I would suggest using different language to communicate better.

78

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
Yet more importantly I would still seek forgiveness, if even and just for the sinners… people who try to pay with exact change… the drug users… and even you.

Calling a threat is not the same as proving a threat.

hope is the greatest prayer
r~
[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand the above. I think I understood your first sentence…you agree that murderers, thieves, and people who cheat on their taxes should be locked up because they “deny the liberty of others”, but ther rest of this doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Are you trying to make some sort of libertarian argument, you know, that under our current system of laws, we criminalize a lot of behavior that doesn’t harm others (like drug use, homosexuality, polygamy, what have you), because of religious and societal prejudices, and that in a truly free society, we should get rid of the laws against “victimless” crimes?

If that’s your argument, I don’t agree with you (I think there’s some room, even in a relatively free society, for the law enforce societal values and punish deviancy), but I understand it, and I think you’ll probably find a lot of people on these boards who agree with you. If that’s not your argument, then I really don’t know what your argument is.

Like other people in the thread have said, though, I think you’ll have a better discussion (and be more likely to convince people) if you did use less idiosyncratic language and sentence structure, and you tried harder to write simply. Studies have shown that most Americans read at an 8th grade level, so most newspapers try to write at that reading level. You might do better if you tried to emulate that.

79

[QUOTE=diggleblop]
No, women and gays and other sinners are denied EXTRA rights that they demand. They are still recognized by the law. We white males have just as many rights a a gay black woman, it’s the extra laws and laws that they want created for them that they want. Now, I don’t have a problem with fighting for what they want, I just wanted to get that straight. ;^)
[/QUOTE]

There is never another need to fight; only that liberty is still denied. In truth, white males have EXTRA rights than gay black women. Although white males have recently been entitled to marry nigra women; gay black women are still prohibited

Peace
rwj

80

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
You aren’t the only poster to chum the waters with idiosyncratic definitions of words. Like I tell, them, sure, you can have your own language, rwjeffersonspeak, where “person” is defined as “only housecats below the age of 39 in cat years,” but even if you show something is true by that logic, it remains true only within that logical system.
[/QUOTE]

Please forgive. You are mistaken. I seek to clear the waters of idiosyncratic definitions of words. I would even suggest that all words are idiosyncratic as they are but images of spirit and intent. I would believe in a logic system that transcends corruptible words.

Crime is denial of liberty. Liberty is equal right of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness.

Anything less is idiosyncratic and equivocated.

Peace
rwj