Passenger killed by air marshall

[Jocko]

Mark, as a friend I am compelled to tell you to stop talking to a wall. It's unhealthy

I object in the strongest possible terms to your comparison of Claus to a wall. It's an unjust and unfair comparison on the face of it. Walls actually serve a purpose, for instance.

 

[CFLarsen]

Congratulations, Kevin, et al., for turning this thread into another exhibition of loosely constitutionally-themed intellectual scandinavian masturbation. Thanks a million.

Not my problem if you don't understand 3-syllable words.

 

[Mark]

Not my problem if you don't understand 3-syllable words.

Syllable is a 3 syllable word.

 

[Jocko]

I wasn't speaking only of this State. In any case, I would say the State cancelled that fellow's rights at the airport pretty effectively, wouldn't you? I don't recall congress getting involved.

If you mean on a metaphorical level, then yeah, I think you could say rights were "canceled." But on a literal level, the man surrendered some rights to board a privately-owned aircraft as part of the terms of service ("we'll fly you to Miami, and in turn you agree to not act like a bomb-belt wearing psychopath").

In a way, the shooting was a consequence of his infringement on American Airlines' rights, not his own. Of course, saying so paints me as a heartless bastard.

As I said, I am not saying I agree with it...but that is the reality. Especially with one party controlling everything.

Come on now, you know how many Dems voted for that, the reatuthorizations, the funding, etc. etc.

 

[Jocko]

Not my problem if you don't understand 3-syllable words.

"Masturbation" is a four syllable word, Claus. I could call it "jerking off" if you prefer, but it all adds up to the same ol' Eurotrash obstinancy blowing west on an ill wind.

 

[CFLarsen]

Syllable is a 3 syllable word.

Sorry.

Jocko, let me know what you don't understand.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Masturbation" is a four syllable word, Claus. I could call it "jerking off" if you prefer, but it all adds up to the same ol' Eurotrash obstinancy blowing west on an ill wind.

I had a feeling that it was the one word you had practiced the meaning of.

 

[Mark]

If you mean on a metaphorical level, then yeah, I think you could say rights were "canceled." But on a literal level, the man surrendered some rights to board a privately-owned aircraft as part of the terms of service ("we'll fly you to Miami, and in turn you agree to not act like a bomb-belt wearing psychopath").

In a way, the shooting was a consequence of his infringement on American Airlines' rights, not his own. Of course, saying so paints me as a hearltess bastard.

Well, in the beginning I believe I said that by shouting "I've got a bomb!" you cancel some of your own civil rights. This is getting very pedantic. Gave up. Canceled voluntarily. Lost. Whatever. He's a dead guy now as a result of his own actions. No court. No appeal. No act of Congress.

Come on now, you know how many Dems voted for that, the reatuthorizations, the funding, etc. etc.

I never blamed it soley on the Republicans...I have complained over and over and over again---on this board!---about the Democrats turning into bunch of limp wieners on the subject.

See, I am aware that this State can---and is---taking away our rights. The Democrats are no better as far as I am concerned. All the more reason to speak out, wouldn't you say?

 

[Jocko]

I had a feeling that it was the one word you had practiced the meaning of.

Claus, let me just go on the record as saying that bandying insults about how you choose to pound your pud is infinitely more entertaining that watching you try (and fail) once again to convince anyone that the US Constitution is invalid because you just don't understand it.

Oh, speaking of words, how does one "practice a meaning"? Is that some kind of weird Danish euphamism for "poking Polonius through the tapestry"?

 

[Mark]

"poking Polonius through the tapestry"?

I gotta write that one down...

 

[Jocko]

I gotta write that one down...

Glad to oblige.

 

[Grammatron]

See, I am aware that this State can---and is---taking away our rights. The Democrats are no better as far as I am concerned. All the more reason to speak out, wouldn't you say?

Taking away rights is more apt than your previous phrasing that implies the state [SIZE=-1]ceases [/SIZE]to grant them.

 

[Mark]

Taking away rights is more apt than your previous phrasing that implies the state [SIZE=-1]ceases [/SIZE]to grant them.

This is the most pedantic thread I have yet seen. Seen yet. Viewed with great aplomb.

"Shoot him! He's got aplomb!"

 

[Ed]

I think that in any country in the world, regardless of legal system or philosophy of justice or from whence laws and rights eminate, if one represents a clear and present danger to your fellow man your rights dissappear like the wind.

 

[Skeptic]

Rights are granted by the State.

No, they are not. The state recognizes certain rights, but rights belong to the people due to them being humans. This has been the case at least since the Magna Carta.

The US declaration of independence says that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalianable rights, among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That is, the creator gave people rights which include these three, not the government giving them only those rights.

This is crucial, since it makes the state (whomever really "gives" those rights to men, a creator or anything else, such as their human nature) only the protector of rights not belonging to it, not the grantor of those rights. For what the states gives, it can also take; but it cannot legitimately take away the rights of the people if it is only its protector.

 

[Jocko]

I think that in any country in the world, regardless of legal system or philosophy of justice or from whence laws and rights eminate, if one represents a clear and present danger to your fellow man your rights dissappear like the wind.

Or, at the risk of apparing pedantic, the rights of the "fellow men" are aggressively asserted... all depends on which end of the bomb threat you're on.

 

[Tony]

No. But if they resist arrest, and suddenly and quickly reach into the inside of their jacket, then the police are justified in shooting them, yes.

Ahh, now "resisting arrest" and "reaching into your jacket" are crimes punishable by death. It's amazing how much people want the US to be like fundy muslim countries.

 

[Tony]

We also have the right to walk around society as free citizens. Until we do something like kidnapping, carjacking, armed robbery, rape, murder, assault, etc.

Or smoke a joint.

 

[Kerberos]

No, they are not. The state recognizes certain rights, but rights belong to the people due to them being humans. This has been the case at least since the Magna Carta.

Any evidence for metaphysical rights?

The US declaration of independence says that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [white males] are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalianable rights, among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That is, the creator gave [white male] people rights which include these three, not the government giving them only those rights.

Would you also believe it if it said the Earth was flat? ETA: do you accept it's claim that God exists, or only the claims you already agree with?

This is crucial, since it makes the state (whomever really "gives" those rights to men, a creator or anything else, such as their human nature) only the protector of rights not belonging to it, not the grantor of those rights. For what the states gives, it can also take; but it cannot legitimately take away the rights of the people if it is only its protector.

Appeal to consequences is a fallacy.

Still I don't think it's quite accurate to state that the State gives us rights either. They're socially created, and while they can change, it's far harder for a state to take away something that's widely regarded as a "rights" than something that isn't.

 

[Mark]

No, they are not. The state recognizes certain rights, but rights belong to the people due to them being humans. This has been the case at least since the Magna Carta.

The US declaration of independence says that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalianable rights, among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That is, the creator gave people rights which include these three, not the government giving them only those rights.

This is crucial, since it makes the state (whomever really "gives" those rights to men, a creator or anything else, such as their human nature) only the protector of rights not belonging to it, not the grantor of those rights. For what the states gives, it can also take; but it cannot legitimately take away the rights of the people if it is only its protector.

And before the Magna Carta? And in non-English speaking countries?

You're playing with words...much as I would like to agree that there are certain "rights" floating around the ether, the awful truth is that we are all ultimately only granted the rights the State will let us have. We may have some limited say in the matter through the democratic process, but at the end of the day the State grants what it wants.

Think otherwise? Shout "I've got a bomb" on a crowded airplane. Light up a joint in front of the White House. Point a gun at a police officer. Walk naked through your local mall.