Passenger killed by air marshall

[NoZed Avenger]

Very well: You have not been able to produce your evidence that I have claimed that the DoI is a legal document.

Claus, where exactly did Upchurch make the direct claim that you claimed the DOI is a legal document? I see him arguing that it has no legal standing in response to your point about it being important, but can you direct me to his claim here that you keep denying?

Second, as has been pointed out, it does not appear that your arguments align with your stated understanding that the DOI has no legal standing. Well, similar questions get asked, to which the only reply is "the DOI is not a legal document." At the end of a half dozen pages, I am still not sure what this change in terminology means, but I suspect you find it important.

Third, you'll have to admit that you -- earlier in the thread -- certainly created the impression that you believed the DOI have some type of legal force and effect:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1346926&postcount=1039

Upchurch

Some of my various points are that:

1. It doesn't matter what the DoI says concerning "God" or "Creator" in relation to the religious state of the US government. That document has no more legal standing than the Constitutional Act of 1859 does now. Less actually, if you consider that the DoI was never a legal document.
2. It doesn't matter what the DoI says concerning "God" or "Creator" in relation to the Founding Fathers religious intent for the US government. There are much more legally binding documents that state their position much more succinctly. The US Constitution's First Amendment is one. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is another (my emphasis):

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

3. All documents are subject to interpretation, including your Constitution and our DoI. Holding our DoI to the strictist literal sence when it isn't even a binding legal document and your own Constitution to a more liberal interpretation when it is a binding legal document is an unfair and inappropriate double standard.

Your reply:

by CFLArsen

As it should be clear by now, we disagree.

That was you complete reply to the quoted text. Since you did not elaborate, your "disagree" would appear to apply to the entire text. Specifically, it appears to directly deny point one: "It doesn't matter what the DoI says concerning "God" or "Creator" in relation to the religious state of the US government. That document has no more legal standing than the Constitutional Act of 1859 does now. Less actually, if you consider that the DoI was never a legal document."

Since you provided nothing that a flat "I disagree," I don't doubt that a number of people felt that you "feel that the [DOI] has . . . legal standing," or even that "the DOI was . . . a legal document." I think this is especially true when your arguments, despite protestations, seem to continually imply (although that word is not strong enough) that the DOI has some type of force and effect in today's government.

 

[Upchurch]

And as such, all rights can be removed/rescinded/whatever-the-term-is.

"amended" And?

My point about the DoI is not, and has never been, about the legality of the rights. Only where those rights came from.

Let me see if I have this straight. You want to argue about the source of a right that has absolutely no application in the modern US government. Further, you want to argue that this non-applicable right is defined by a document that has only historical significance that only tangentially and ambiguously even mentions rights. Further still, you want to argue that these non-applicable, tangential and ambiguous rights are of supernatural origin because "Creator" can only mean a supernatural entity.

Is that correct?

Even assuming that such a position is true and has some sort of actual meaning, what of it?

Very well: You have not been able to produce your evidence that I have claimed that the DoI is a legal document.

No, I've told you several times, it is your putting it on equal footing with the USC that shows you treat the DoI as a legal document. What other possible context could you use to compare these two documents as equals?



eta: Thanks, NA. I've used up my weekly allowance of time to sift back through a seriously bloated thread to find reminders for Claus's convienent (and frequent) memory lapses.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, where exactly did Upchurch make the direct claim that you claimed the DOI is a legal document? I see him arguing that it has no legal standing in response to your point about it being important, but can you direct me to his claim here that you keep denying?

If he doesn't think I am claiming it, why does he make it a cardinal point in his criticism?

Why bring up a point that we agree on? I can think of two reasons:

1) Upchurch thinks I am not in agreement with him.

2) Upchurch wants to make it seem as if I don't agree, even though he knows.

Can you think of any other reason?

Second, as has been pointed out, it does not appear that your arguments align with your stated understanding that the DOI has no legal standing. Well, similar questions get asked, to which the only reply is "the DOI is not a legal document." At the end of a half dozen pages, I am still not sure what this change in terminology means, but I suspect you find it important.

I have explained my points now in excruciating detail, again and again. If you don't want to understand it, there's nothing I can do about it.

Third, you'll have to admit that you -- earlier in the thread -- certainly created the impression that you believed the DOI have some type of legal force and effect:

If that is what you got out of it, you are wrong. Do you understand what I am saying to you right now? You are wrong.

Are we clear on this?

 

[CFLarsen]

"amended" And?

No, not just amended. A right can be taken away from you.

Let me see if I have this straight. You want to argue about the source of a right that has absolutely no application in the modern US government.

Of certain unalienable rights. Which, we have discovered, are so fuzzy nobody knows what they are, and that they can be taken away from you anyway.

Further, you want to argue that this non-applicable right is defined by a document that has only historical significance that only tangentially and ambiguously even mentions rights.

I strongly disagree about their significance, historically or contemporary. I also disagree that they are tangentially and ambiguously mentioned: In fact, they are so important that they are at the very top of the document.

Further still, you want to argue that these non-applicable, tangential and ambiguous rights are of supernatural origin because "Creator" can only mean a supernatural entity.

In the historical context, yes.

Even assuming that such a position is true and has some sort of actual meaning, what of it?

It means that you have certain unalienable rights endowed by a supernatural being.

No, I've told you several times, it is your putting it on equal footing with the USC that shows you treat the DoI as a legal document. What other possible context could you use to compare these two documents as equals?

I don't compare them as legal equals. I haven't done that. You claim that I have, show me the evidence. Only you can't.

I point out that they are the founding documents of the United States of America. What your country is built upon.

 

[bigred]

Is it me or has this derailed just a tad from the whole air marshall thing?

Just wondering...

 

[Nyarlathotep]

But who decides what is an overriding reason? Society, right?

Are there any rights that are not social constructs?

By definition, no.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Is it me or has this derailed just a tad from the whole air marshall thing?

Just wondering...

But to a student of psychology, this thread is pretty interesting.

 

[Freakshow]

My cell phone says "I feel fine" upon ringing. It said "I'm not dead yet" until I went to see a relative in a nursing home. I thought that that might have been in poor taste. Then again, they might have chimed in "neither are we".

Have you programmed something witty on your cell yet?

I also like the line "Big Chinee fella" from Jaws. Gotta rip the soundtrack.

Mine is just a regular cell phone ring. But this friend of mine has the coolest cell phone ring ever. His cell phone plays the disturbing groaning sound from "Ju-On" (the Japanese horror movie that was remade into "The Grudge" here in the US). It will bring the whole room to a halt when he gets a call. Wish I'd thought of that.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

If he doesn't think I am claiming it, why does he make it a cardinal point in his criticism?

Not my question. You allege that he is claiming it. You demand that he show where you claimed it.

I now ask that you show where *he* made the claim that you are attributing to him.

You continue to demand that others provide evidence and answer questions that you do not.

I have explained my points now in excruciating detail, again and again. If you don't want to understand it, there's nothing I can do about it.

As more than one person has pointed out, disagreeing with you does not mean that people do not understand you. If you choose not to understand that -- or choose to pretend that you don't -- then I cannot help you.

If that is what you got out of it, you are wrong. Do you understand what I am saying to you right now? You are wrong.

And again, that is not what I said. You demanded a place where you made the claim about the DOI. I supplied that quote as a message where your one sentence answer to Upchurch was at the very least, unclear. Do you agree that the above quoted language was unclear or ambiguous? Do you see where some people could have certainly gained the impression that you believed the DOI to have legal authority?

 

[CFLarsen]

And again, that is not what I said. You demanded a place where you made the claim about the DOI. I supplied that quote as a message where your one sentence answer to Upchurch was at the very least, unclear. Do you agree that the above quoted language was unclear or ambiguous? Do you see where some people could have certainly gained the impression that you believed the DOI to have legal authority?

No. Because I have made it crystal-clear so many times that there is no excuse, other than deliberate obtuseness.

 

[RandFan]

Let me see if I have this straight. You want to argue about the source of a right that has absolutely no application in the modern US government. Further, you want to argue that this non-applicable right is defined by a document that has only historical significance that only tangentially and ambiguously even mentions rights. Further still, you want to argue that these non-applicable, tangential and ambiguous rights are of supernatural origin because "Creator" can only mean a supernatural entity.

Is that correct?

Ahh the joys of logic.

 

[LeFevre]

Some would deride one, like an unfavored Lucianarchy, who has shown a lack of critical and logical thinking. The may post recipes while others may directly make fun of an unfavored. Others still may express their opinion in other words such as liar, coward, and words like hypocrite when they view them appropriate.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

No. Because I have made it crystal-clear so many times that there is no excuse, other than deliberate obtuseness.

Is it your contention that you had made your position crystal clear at the time of that post -- the one where you "disagree" with Upchurch when he stated that the DOI had no legal standing? You honestly don't think that response could have caused confusion for anyone unless they were being deliberately obtuse?

By the way, and looking at the rest of my post, I eagerly await you pointing to the place where Upchurch directly claimed that you claimed the DOI is a legal document.

 

[CFLarsen]

Is it your contention that you had made your position crystal clear at the time of that post -- the one where you "disagree" with Upchurch when he stated that the DOI had no legal standing? You honestly don't think that response could have caused confusion for anyone unless they were being deliberately obtuse?

Way before that post.

10th December 2005, 01:41 AM
Just so we are perfectly clear; you are claiming that The Declarion of Independece as an oficial, legal document of United States of America?
Source

10th December 2005, 09:49 AM
No. I am saying that it is the Declaration of Independence.
Source

Almost a month ago. Now, can we please cut the crap? Can people f***ing read what I said?

Your call.

By the way, and looking at the rest of my post, I eagerly await you pointing to the place where Upchurch directly claimed that you claimed the DOI is a legal document.

I answered this: He argues that I do. I have made it clear, almost a month ago, that I don't.

Time to eat corvus.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Almost a month ago. Now, can we please cut the crap? Can people f***ing read what I said?

Accept what people say about their position is rather than question their arguments that seem contrary?

If a psychic doesn't describe talking to the dead as "supernatural", would you accept that it isn't?

You may recognize the source of that one.

Regardless, I gather then that once you have said something, and then pages and pages go by, and then say essentially "I disagree" to someone that argues that the DOI has no legal standing, that we are to forget the later stuff.

I answered this: He argues that I do. I have made it clear, almost a month ago, that I don't.

So you cannot point to the post where he actually made that claim about you?

I am betting that the point behind this question is once again completely lost -- even as you say that he was arguing that point even if he did not make that specific claim in so many words.

Time to eat corvus.

Well, I smell something roasting, anyway.

 

[Upchurch]

Of certain unalienable rights.

Okay, you keep saying this as if the DoI actually means something or is some sort of authority when it comes to US rights. Do you actually think this is the case?

I strongly disagree about their significance, historically or contemporary. I also disagree that they are tangentially and ambiguously mentioned: In fact, they are so important that they are at the very top of the document.

And mentioned only once, way before the body and meat of the document. In literary terms, it is called the introduction of the piece. If rights and God were to be a central theme, you would have seen it brought up again in the body and conclusion as well.

In the historical context, yes.

What of it? How many times is God brought up in Denmark's history? Is that significant too or is it irrelevent to its modern government?

It means that you have certain unalienable rights endowed by a supernatural being.

No, we really don't, as explaind numerous times. To have such rights, those rights would have to be legally binding. Since you agree that the DoI is not a legal document, I fail to see how you can support such a position. But, I'm anxious to see if you can.

I don't compare them as legal equals. I haven't done that. You claim that I have, show me the evidence. Only you can't.

You say you don't, but how does one have a right that is not acknowledged within the social construct in which those rights are to be invoked? In a government, any government, that acknowledgement can only be done through law, since government is a system of laws. By saying that we Americans do, in fact, have the rights described in the DoI, you are in effect saying that those rights have legal weight. How else can a US citizen have a right?

I point out that they are the founding documents of the United States of America. What your country is built upon.

Document. Singular. Further, it is an historical document that was at least one whole system of government removed from our current system. Why not reach further back and and claim that the US Government is founded on the British Imperial system of government? It does, after all, preceed the DoI. Why not go back further and claim that the US Government is founded on the Holy Roman Empire or even just the Jewish 10 Commandments and Mosaic Law?

Is a system of government always bound by what comes before it or is there room for innovation? Is a government the sum of anything that comes before it or can it break away from tradition and do something new?

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, you keep saying this as if the DoI actually means something or is some sort of authority when it comes to US rights. Do you actually think this is the case?

...

And mentioned only once, way before the body and meat of the document.

Hmmm. No.

Either you haven't read this thread - which is demonstrably false - or you deliberately ignore my posts - which is highly problematic for a JREF mod.

I haven't argued that the DoI has legal bearing over the Constitution.
Source

I'm not saying that it is legal.
Source

I have repeatedly said that I don't consider the DoI a legal document.
Source

It is hard for me personally to comprehend why people ignore that I have repeatedly said that I don't find the DoI a legal document.
Source

No, I do not consider the DoI a legal document.
Source

I have repeatedly told you, in no uncertain terms, that I do not consider the DoI a legal document.
Source

I. Do. Not. Consider. The. DoI. A. Legal. Document.
Source

My point about the DoI is not, and has never been, about the legality of the rights. Only where those rights came from.
Source

I don't compare them as legal equals. I haven't done that.
Source

Just out of curiosity: According to you, how many times does a person have to make his views clear, before you will recognize it?

1? 2? 5? 10? 100?

In literary terms, it is called the introduction of the piece. If rights and God were to be a central theme, you would have seen it brought up again in the body and conclusion as well.

"Literary terms". Wow. That's one pathetic excuse for not reading what I post. Many, many times.

What of it? How many times is God brought up in Denmark's history? Is that significant too or is it irrelevent to its modern government?

We are discussing the DoI. If you can, please stay focused.

No, we really don't, as explaind numerous times. To have such rights, those rights would have to be legally binding. Since you agree that the DoI is not a legal document, I fail to see how you can support such a position. But, I'm anxious to see if you can.

If you acknowledge that I agree, why do you argue the opposite?

You say you don't, but how does one have a right that is not acknowledged within the social construct in which those rights are to be invoked? In a government, any government, that acknowledgement can only be done through law, since government is a system of laws. By saying that we Americans do, in fact, have the rights described in the DoI, you are in effect saying that those rights have legal weight. How else can a US citizen have a right?

Show me the evidence that I have argued that the DoI has legal value.

Document. Singular. Further, it is an historical document that was at least one whole system of government removed from our current system. Why not reach further back and and claim that the US Government is founded on the British Imperial system of government? It does, after all, preceed the DoI. Why not go back further and claim that the US Government is founded on the Holy Roman Empire or even just the Jewish 10 Commandments and Mosaic Law?

Is a system of government always bound by what comes before it or is there room for innovation? Is a government the sum of anything that comes before it or can it break away from tradition and do something new?

Yap. Yap. Yap. Yap. Yap. Yap.

Show me the evidence that I have argued that the DoI has legal value.

 

[Upchurch]

Hmmm. No.

Oookay. So do you think that the rights described in the DoI means something or has any authority?


edited for emphasis

 

[TragicMonkey]

Breezing through the thread titles, I noticed that even Tom DeLay gave up after a while.

 

[Grammatron]

Show me the evidence that I have argued that the DoI has legal value.

Ok, but before I do this I must preface it with this.

Your arguments have left me with three conclusions:

1) You have a different meaning for legal.
2) You think that rights can be "endowed" from a document that has no legal power.
3) You know you are wrong and refuse to admit it.

Now that I've said that here's the evidence for those three:

Rights are endowed in the DoI.
source

I am not talking about the legality. I am talking about where the rights are coming from.
source

I am not claiming that the DoI is a legally binding document. I'm not talking about protecting rights. I am talking about rights being endowed.
....
Your rights are secured by laws made by government. But your rights are endowed by your Creator.
source

I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that the DoI describes who/what endows the rights.
source

Which brings us to the conudrum at hand:
If you agree that DoI is not a legal document why do you insist on reffering to it in the context of American legal rights?

Now before you even think it: No, you have not answered this question, not even once. If you would, we would not be on page thirty-something of this thread.