Passenger killed by air marshall

[Giz]

But this goes back to the problem of whether the person is even able to comply, or aware of the skymarshall's orders to begin with. It assumes that the person is still in control of their actions (not always the case with mental disorders) or completely aware of their surroundings (ditto; also see Shera's point about people with hearing problems).

If you cannot understand, or comply with, the instructions of the aircrew/police etc then you should not be in a secure area. (i.e. a plane).

Take a bus/train/ship instead.

 

[CFLarsen]

Calling someone an "ignoramus" is attacking the person rather than the argument. Please stop.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

I'll rephrase that, then:

"you maker of ignorami arguments".

 

[Jocko]

Instead of parsing "creator" over and over, how about addressing this rather clear, detailed expression of faith in a government document - your own constitution?

Ecclesiastical and religious matters in Denmark are subject to the Constitution, the main principles being established by the stipulation that the Evangelical Lutheran Church - as the established Church of Denmark - shall be supported by the State, and also by provisions on freedom of religion, speech and assembly.

My emphasis... and Claus' next dodge.

http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap1/1-14.asp

 

[Grammatron]

Sure, it's relevant. It's there for a reason.

Yes, a political one from the 1950's to show we're not commies. As you can see that reason is long dead.

It wasn't addressed to you.

Still valid though.

Which underlines my point about Americans still haven't figured it out, after so many years.

Interesting conclusion; may I, in return, conclude all Danes agree about their rights where they come from and how the state handles them?

 

[Jocko]

And while you're so hung up on rights, explain how your own ruling class are not subject to your own laws?

By a Royal House, we understand in a broad sense the reigning monarch's family and relations, and in a narrower sense the circle of closely related royal persons who are subject to special rules.

And you have the nerve to lecture any one else on the nature of inviolable rights? That's funny. Seriously.

http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap1/1-1.asp

Feel free to start a fresh thread discussing your royalty's fashion sense.

 

[Jocko]

Interesting conclusion; may I, in return, conclude all Danes agree about their rights where they come from and how the state handles them?

Yes, you can conclude that; they have enshrined their state religion into their constitution. So have they drawn clear lines over which members of their society may enjoy certain rights, and which may not.

I guess egalitarianism isn't all it's cracked up to be.

 

[CFLarsen]

Instead of parsing "creator" over and over, how about addressing this rather clear, detailed expression of faith in a government document - your own constitution?

My emphasis... and Claus' next dodge.

http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap1/1-14.asp

Discussed here. Even by you.

 

[Mycroft]

Slaves were not included.

So slaves remained subjects of England?

Yeah, that's the point: You need the help of a woman.

So, which one of you is the "creator"?

So you're argument is really based on Jefferson not using the plural? Suppose the family is the creator?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, a political one from the 1950's to show we're not commies. As you can see that reason is long dead.

So, why is it still there?

Interesting conclusion; may I, in return, conclude all Danes agree about their rights where they come from and how the state handles them?

I was speaking in general terms.

 

[Grammatron]

Discussed here. Even by you.

Oh yeah, you gotta love CFL's comments from that thread

Read the documents, you dimwit. The regent signs the laws and officially appoints the government. This is entirely theoretical, since the Queen is merely presented with laws and the new governments, and she simply accepts them.

Classy and definitive!

 

[Grammatron]

So, why is it still there?

Part tradition, part of the cost of taking it out, part bunch of other reasons. Why do you care?

I was speaking in general terms.

Then you can't justify that statement. There's no amazing ongoing debate regarding this issue. While some people have different opinions on this, the laws of our land are definitive on how rights are defined. You can find that information in the constitution and the supreme court cases.

 

[Jocko]

Discussed here. Even by you.

Discussed, but not addressed. Shane took you to the mat.

Didn't you think I would check? You're not weaseling out of this one again, Claus, not with "arguments" like:

...And our government does not actively support one religion over another...

...But that doesn't say anything about the King's power - it merely says that he cannot be brought to trial...

...I have been to a lot of places in the world, but never have I experienced such religious bigotry as in the US...

And my personal favorite, about your flag:

The flag as a whole is rumoured to have falled from the sky at the battle between Danes and Estonians on June 15th, 1219, at Lyndanisse.

Whew, good thing no one suggested the involvement of a creator, or you'd be here denying that the Danish flag even exists.

If this is what you call "discussion," it's no wonder you have so many personal issues here.

 

[Jocko]

I was speaking in general terms.

Rrrrrrrrrright. "General terms".

Irony, thy name is Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Danish Constitution is also discussed here.

 

[CFLarsen]

So slaves remained subjects of England?

No, they remained slaves in the US. Independence, but not for them.

So you're argument is really based on Jefferson not using the plural? Suppose the family is the creator?

You tell me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Because there isn't a Creator, if you are an atheist.

I hate to break this to you, but there is no supernatural creator, no matter what a person believes.

 

[Jocko]

The Danish Constitution is also discussed here.

Yeah, here's your idea of "discussion":

Perhaps it is because the US Constitution is so poorly written that it is necessary to have these endless debates on what it actually means?

In Denmark, we very rarely have discussions about our Constitution. What about other countries?

That is not discussion.
That is evasion.

Bottom line, Claus, is you live in a system that supports - with your tax money - a state-mandated religion and a a ridiculously anachronistic royal family. Therefore, I think your right-thinking would be better used if you turned inward instead of taking potshots at others.

Why do you not work to correct these wrongs in your own country, Claus?

 

[Freakshow]

I hate to break this to you, but there is no supernatural creator, no matter what a person believes.

I have a creator. Its called science. Billions of years of non-supernatural events have wound up with humans being the way they are. And as I said earlier, it was would up with our having a level of intelligence, sentience, reasoning, and self-awareness not seen in any other animals. And animals with those abilities should be granted certain rights, merely because of our existence. So, the rights and endowed by a creator, in a sense. Nobody "gave" them to me. People can take them away by force. But that doesn't mean they were "given" in the first place.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, they remained slaves in the US. Independence, but not for them.

Slavery is still legal in the USA?!

 

[Jocko]

No, they remained slaves in the US. Independence, but not for them.

That was addressed, legally, through the constitution and the courts, beginning 150 years ago.

Denmark has a similar disparity in the exercise of rights TODAY.

Comment?