No. That is what you’ve been arguing about. I have been arguing against “the confused Ravenman” fallacy.
Please recheck your dictionary. Feel free to offer a better word that specifically and only means “one that enjoys full right of liberty”. Feel free to offer a better word that means “peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness”.
Words are but symbols or image for the intent of the communication. It is fallacy to expect or demand a word with only the specific meaning of both speaker and listener.
For this discussion, I have chosen the word ‘person’ as it also carries other legal connotations. I have chosen the word ‘liberty’ because it carries the spirit of peace and justice for all.
I have made my intent as clear as possible with clarifications of any confusing alternate meanings and definitions. Please feel free to do the same.
My argument is that Jihadists agree with you. They are simply enforcing laws against “victimless” crimes – such as Christianity.
It is crime to deny peace; no matter societal value. There are no victimless crimes. The victims are always those denied peaceful and well regulated pursuit their happiness. There is no difference is whether this crime is perpetrated by citizen or state.
There’s a big difference. It’s the state who defines crimes, and it’s the state that enforces the law. You can argue that it’s wrong for the state to enforce laws that limit people’s freedom, but it’s going to do it like it or not, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.
I’ve been trying to get you to check your dictionary for what, a week now? Your definition of “person” doesn’t appear in the dictionary. Your failure to communicate in the English language doesn’t mean I have to invent terms to satisfy your desired definitions.
What part of “no true Scotsman” do you not understand?
Let me add a question. The Bill of Rights says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…”
By your definition of person, does that mean that women, gays, and sinners don’t need to be indicted to be tried for major crimes?
I have never claimed it did. The point that seems incomprehensible to you is that there is no such word in the English language that clearly and exactly communicates my meaning. Thus I am forced to use the best words English offers, knowing full well they are always open to alternative interpretation and debate.
What part of “the confused Ravenman” do you not understand?
By my definition all are held accountable for crime (denial or prohibition of liberty).
I am not arguing whether I can stop can stop all tyranny. I am simply stating the self evident truth that denial of peace is strife and war. I am simply wondering how it is that even in this day and age, We the People are still not recognized as ‘persons’ – those that hold full right of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness (liberty).
Alas, I confess. I am but a voice in the wildernet. Yet even now I find hope in resonant choir.
Sure, if everyone agrees to the terms, but we don’t.
I don’t think that someone punching you in the face is impinging on your liberty. You could invent another word that means “equal right of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness,” but because an English speaker would not construe punching someone in the face as an infraction on liberty, I do not agree that liberty should be defined this way.
Not a chance. You are trying to make people agree with your ideosyncratic definitions, and then imply that they mean the stronger assertions they mean in English.
I don’t care about justice in your language. I’m asking if that part of the Constitution which applies to persons also applies to women, gays, and sinners.
The word you chose has a does not mean what you purport it to mean. Therefore you should use a combination of words to convey your meaning, rather than try to convince us a word means what you say it means, rather than what every English dictionary tells us.
I understand your argument just fine. It’s just that it is an awful one that teeters on the precipice of incoherency (since you can’t use English words in the way they are defined) and delusion (because you have trouble debating our laws and society through any prism but some quasi-libertarian fantasyland).
It is my experience that those that deny the spirit of liberty by Word of Law tend toward punches in the face.
The question still is not of Words or Law or Constitution or Definition; the question is of concept and intent. I can only plead one more time that ‘you’ now and forever refrain from argument of '“true” or “allowed” meanings of concept or intent or any other scottsman.
That your definition might still consider a punch in the face as crime by Word of Law does not make denial of peace and liberty any less a “crime”.
We the Persons still and will always stand against the tyranny of Word of Law and Constitution; even at personal cost. Yet it will always be your choice whether We stand for or against ‘you’.
I already understand that you suffer from “inability (unwillingness?) to translate” syndrome. I fully understand your demands that I use only words and definitions that meet your approval. There is no need to better prove this by invocation of fantasy.
The Ninth Amendment holds that Law shall not be construed to deny or disparage inalienable right (of liberty) retained by persons. I understand that you do not accept the spirit of liberty and justice for all.
We the Persons hold the inalienable and retained right of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness (liberty and justice) for all; no matter Holy Words of Law or Constitution.
Tyrants and bullies and ravens and other beasts do not.
Patriots and statesmen not only do; patriots and statesmen take this stand; even at personal cost.
The terms are really quite simple. It will always be your choice.
We the People (a.k.a. ‘persons’) hold that all are bourn with equal right of peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness. We the People hold that governments are instituted to secure this inalienable and retained right for all through regulation and justice.
Tyrants and bullies and other beasts do not.
Patriots and statesmen and justices stand against those that do not.
A difficult concept here seems to be that ‘prohibition’ of liberty is not the same as ‘regulation’ of liberty. Alas, not even all that sit in court supreme seem able to recognize such a subtle distinction.
One does not need jackboots to be party to tyranny. Robes work just as well.