Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

johansen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 327

07 Dec 2011, 5:23 am

Quote:
[when]too many americans start getting shipped off to camps for things they thought they we're allowed to do like express their free speech, then americans will get upset


i recall someone said that.. A LONG DAMN TIME AGO. (insert country xyz for "america")



pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

07 Dec 2011, 7:17 am

johansen wrote:
Quote:
[when]too many americans start getting shipped off to camps for things they thought they we're allowed to do like express their free speech, then americans will get upset


i recall someone said that.. A LONG DAMN TIME AGO. (insert country xyz for "america")


Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

07 Dec 2011, 2:31 pm

MrXxx wrote:
Visagrunt, I'm not a lawyer, but for crying out loud one doesn't need to be one to know sometimes when something is just plain WRONG.

This is NOT that complicated. If the law supports what they did, then it is WRONG. I'm not going to engage in lengthy debates over legalese details, when the truth is so danged obvious.

What they did was wrong. It should not have happened, and it should stop happening. It's that simple. As a citizen that is all I need to know.


But you invited the, "debate over legalese details," the moment that you asserted that a right existed and was violated. These are legal concepts and they are, therefore, subject to legal analysis. You cannot stand up in court, say, "this is wrong," or, "this is unfair," and expect to win your argument. The argument that carries the day is, "this is illegal." And as jojobean correctly pointed out, wrong ≠ illegal. There are many, many things that are perfectly legal that are unfair, unethical, immoral or just plain stupid.

Quote:
If you want to split hairs over what a right is, be my guest. Any reasonable person would agree her rights were violated IMHO. Maybe not her "rights as defined by legalese doctrine," but for crying out loud, how many citizens of any country can recite their own countries laws? To expect them all to be able to is unreasonable. Hell the damned lawmakers and lawyers can't even do it half the time they've made them so complexly worded.


No, that is precisely what a reasonable person would not agree with. A reasonable person, by definition, is a person whose opinions, arguments and actions are dictated by reason. Your assertion about her rights and the violation of them is not based on reason, it is based on assumption and surmise. You claim that a right exists, but you don't care to know what a right is. That's unreasonable. You claim that a right has been violated, but you can't demonstrate that the right alleged was enforcable against the person that you claim violated it. That is also unreasonable.

Rights only exist as recognized or defined by law. Let's look at an example. If there is one, single right that most observers will agree is not created by law--but rather is recognized by law--it is the right to life. Now, if the law ceases to recognize your right to life, then it follows that the government or another person can deprive you of your life with impunity. Even in the circumstance where the right to life is a "natural" right that pre-exists the law, it is meaningless the moment that the law ceases to recognize and enforce it. Therefore, if you are going to have a meaningful discussion about rights, you must understand what those rights are in a legal sense--because that is the only way that those rights have any relevance.

Quote:
I don't need a law to know what a right is. We all have the right to breath. The right to speak. The right to live happily. The right to love. The right to be loved. Are all those things spelled out in laws? I doubt it, but I don't care. They are still rights we all have, no matter what the law says.

IMHO, they violated her rights. Honestly, I don't care what the law says. If the law doesn't spell that out, the law is wrong.

I don't NEED to know any more than that.


I suggest that that is exactly what you do need. How can you, as a citizen, make a meaningful contribution to the civic life of your country if you don't know what you're talking about?

Do you have a right to breathe? Yes, it's inherent in the right to life established (or at least recognized) in law. Is it absolute? Most assuredly not--there are a wide range of circumstances in which you can be killed perfectly legally.

Do you have a right to speak? Yes, it's inherent in the right to free expression established by law. Is it absolute? Most assuredly not. Your right to free expression certainly ends when you utter slander or publish libel.

Do you have a right to love and be loved? I think that depends very much on the jurisdiction in which you find yourself. I can posit a number of circumstances in which people can interfere perfectly legally with people who simply want to be left alone to love each other and I am not persuaded that any "right to love and be loved," has ever successfully been asserted to constrain that.

And contrary to what you say, if the law does not say that you have such a right, then such a right does not exist--at least not in any way that has any meaning beyond the academic.

But in the midst of this you arrive at a very important point: "If the law doesn't spell that out, the law is wrong." That is the single most intelligent thing that you have said, and it merits much more attention than the rest of your invective put together.

Law is a dynamic instrument. It changes as new cases are presented to courts that do not fit foursquare within precedent or statutory frameworks. It changes as legislators become engaged with mischief within the law that merits correction.

Instead of metaphorically yelling from the rooftops that this young woman's rights have been violated, why not engage yourself in the much more productive exercise of saying that the law, as enacted, is a waste of money that does nothing to achieve its objectives.

I have been able to keep this discussion tied up in knots for a couple of days on the issue of shoddy use of a single legal concept. How much more effective would a team of TSA lawyers be at obfuscating this?

If the goal here is to demonstrate that the TSA is wasteful and ineffective, don't give the TSA the ammunition to undercut the argument. Take the argument out of the sphere where they have a slam-dunk win (the legality of their actions) and move it to the sphere where they are vulnerable (the effectiveness of their actions).


_________________
--James