Encouragement for Lucifershammer

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I said, I'm not interested in the sociological aspects of the case.

The so-called (by you) "sociological aspects" are the only ones that were important. The case did not create new law; the jury ignored the judge's instructions and acquitted Zenger but truth as a defense in libel cases was not (re?)established as a principle in English law until a century later. However, the Crown never again attempted to prosecute a sedititious libel case in the American Colonies. Guess why.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're still chasing the strawman - I never said anything about a right to have other people think well of you. But you do have a right against false accusations (why is perjury a crime?)

Besides repeating retort #7 from the no1 handbook, do you have anything to say that actually refutes my argument that States operate as block-vote associations in the Presidential elections?

States were not created to be "block vote associations in Presidential elections"; you do know that, don't you? The electoral college was a fairly minor issue at the Constitutional Convention and was created because the other methods available all had serious flaws. In any event, this tangent is absolutely irrelevant to any issue at hand unless you seriously believe that the American States were created, in part, to be "block vote associations". Even if you were correct (and you assuredly are not), what the hell does it have to do with anything?

EDIT: Perjury is a crime because it undermines the legal system, not because other people might think badly about somebody else. Your continued ignorance on these issues is deplorable.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
IIRC, both Locke and Paine establish such "fundamental rights" as expression as necessary conditions for the expression and protection of the more basic right to life. Wouldn't your logic mean that free speech is not a fundamental right?

Conversely, there is no reason to assume that just because a right is necessary for the expression and pr ...[text shortened]... rights that it is not fundamental. One can (and does) very easily have a hierarchy of rights.

This is absolutely, 100% wrong.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
According to the most recent issue of Time magazine, some Catholics in India plan to protest the Da Vinci Code movie if their government does not ban the movie. Their protest will take the form of fasting, starving to death if necessary, until the movie is banned.

Please join me in offering lucifershammer encouragement and support in this endeavor.

Cummon, Lucifer'sStammer - hurry up and starve to death.

Originally posted by howardgee
Cummon, Lucifer'sStammer - hurry up and starve to death.

It's a school night, isn't it? Do your parents know you're still awake?

Originally posted by bbarr
IIRC, Locke didn't claim that the right to life was more fundamental to the rights to liberty and property. He thought that the rights to life, liberty and property were all fundamental rights. Of course, it is a necessary condition for the expression of the rights to liberty and property that one's right to life be respected, but that is not equivalent to t ...[text shortened]... to liberty, just as the right not to be shot is an instance of the more general right to life.

I'll check this up and get back to you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]The so-called (by you) "sociological aspects" are the only ones that were important. [b]

Not in a philosophical discussion. History isn't the judge here - reason is.

Originally posted by no1marauder
States were not created to be "block vote associations in Presidential elections"; you do know that, don't you? The electoral college was a fairly minor issue at the Constitutional Convention and was created because the other methods available all had serious flaws. In any event, this tangent is absolutely irrelevant to any issue at hand unless you serio ...[text shortened]... ht think badly about somebody else. Your continued ignorance on these issues is deplorable.

Your continued persistence with strawman arguments is, likewise, deplorable. For the nth time, I did not say that you have a right to have other people think well of you. What I did say is that you have a right not to have your reputation sullied by false allegations.

The point about States operating as (and I didn't say that's what they were originally created for) associations deals with transfer/extension of rights (including the right to vote) from persons to organisations.

After all, States are just as man-made as a toaster. ;-)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll check this up and get back to you.

Please do. I got the above from the Second Treatise. Also, on closer reading of Section 27 of the Second Treatise, it appears that the right to property is not a fundamental right, but actually a right derived from the right to liberty.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your continued persistence with strawman arguments is, likewise, deplorable. For the nth time, I did not say that you have a right to have other people think well of you. What I did say is that you have a right not to have your reputation sullied by [b]false allegations.

The point about States operating as (and I didn't say that's what they wer ...[text shortened]... te) from persons to organisations.

After all, States are just as man-made as a toaster. ;-)[/b]

LH: For the nth time, I did not say that you have a right to have other people think well of you. What I did say is that you have a right not to have your reputation sullied by false allegations.


Since reputation is only what others think about you, the "right" you are asserting is merely to have other people think well of you and every organization you belong to. You wish to enforce that "right" by a cause of action that, as stated in the one article, could be used against pretty much everybody on any given day. Your unconcern over the stifling effect this would have on speech shows that you really don't have any understanding about the purpose of government and the important of real fundamental rights, rather than those artificially created by yourself.

Your point about States is stupid. States don't have the "right" to vote in elections and this "right" isn't "transferred" to them by the Electoral College.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LH: For the nth time, I did not say that you have a right to have other people think well of you. What I did say is that you have a right not to have your reputation sullied by [b]false allegations.


Since reputation is only what others think about you, the "right" you are asserting is merely to have other people think well of you and eve ...[text shortened]... in elections and this "right" isn't "transferred" to them by the Electoral College.[/b]

no1: "Since reputation is only what others think about you, the "right" you are asserting is merely to have other people think well of you and every organization you belong to."

Let's see if I can explain this in terms even a 10-year old would get. If you steal from the cookie jar and your friends think you're a thief because of that, you have no right to be protected against that. However, if you're a nice little boy who's never stolen a thing in his life and Tommy spreads a false rumour that you've been stealing from the cookie jar, then you have a right to be protected against that.

Understand?

no1: "States don't have the "right" to vote in elections and this "right" isn't "transferred" to them by the Electoral College."

Could you explain to me, then, why all the electoral votes from a State go to the same candidate regardless of the actual margin of victory?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
no1: "Since reputation is only what others think about you, the "right" you are asserting is merely to have other people think well of you and every organization you belong to."

Let's see if I can explain this in terms even a 10-year old would get. If you steal from the cookie jar and your friends think you're a thief because of that, you have no r a State go to the same candidate regardless of the actual margin of victory?

In other words, you have a "right" to be protected from others thinking bad things about you!

States vote in block in the Electoral College because the state legislatures chose to do it that way. One exception: the state of Maine breaks their 4 Electoral College votes into 4 Districts with the winner of each district getting the vote. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring a "winner take all" system. Actually the EC selects electors who are pledged to certain candidates; they actually have to vote in person some months later (in January I believe).

Originally posted by no1marauder
In other words, you have a "right" to be protected from others thinking bad things about you!

You're just repeating yourself. A primary school-kid would've got the difference by now.

EDIT: Simply saying "in other words" does not make it so.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not in a philosophical discussion. History isn't the judge here - reason is.

Goal post moving as usual. Anyway, I brought up Zenger for this reason:

Perhaps you'll understand then why slander and defamation cases on behalf of public figures, officials and powerful organizations (like the RCC) are disfavored in American law (probably you still won't get it, but hey I tried).

Understand yet?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're just repeating yourself. A primary school-kid would've got the difference by now.

EDIT: Simply saying "in other words" does not make it so.

Actually you're the one repeating yourself by inventing a "right" that doesn't exist. Answer this question: what is "reputation"? Why do you have a "right" to have an "unsullied" one?