Schuylaar's Sesh - SCOTUS Upholds Public Prayer..

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
as retarded thinking that beliefs and healthcare are the same thing.


The similarity is that in both instances forcing religion on people and forcing people to buy something is what?

I think it is the use of initiated FORCE against another person that is not harming you that is "the same thing" in both instances.

Some things are hard for you to grasp. I will try to dumb things down a bit so you can follow along.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
so perhaps you can point me to a historian who agrees with robroy that blacks were not caused harm by the denial of service they faced in the south before civil rights.

i mean, i've lost the living shit out of the debate, so i imagine those historians exist and you guys are just waiting to spring them on me.

i'll be here waiting.

Your respect for people and their property diminishes when the person wants to use their property in ways you disagree with. Even when the use is an indifferent use and not one that creates an actionable harm to another person or that other persons property.

You would go so far as to approve of harming an indifferent person. That aligns you with prohibtionists and initiators of aggression.
Argue that. No wait. You can't.

It is best to help those you are inclined to help and leave those you are not inclined to help alone. It is never good to try to make people behave as you would if they are not causing an actionable harm. Okay now what about the gerbil...is it consensual or what?
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Shouldn't the first rule be, not to initiate aggression against others?
Common Law
The ancient law of England based upon societal customs and recognized and enforced by the judgments and decrees of the courts. The general body of statutes and case law that governed England and the American colonies prior to the American Revolution.

The principles and rules of action, embodied in case law rather than legislative enactments, applicable to the government and protection of persons and property that derive their authority from the community customs and traditions that evolved over the centuries as interpreted by judicial tribunals.

A designation used to denote the opposite of statutory, equitable, or civil, for example, a common-law action.

The common-law system prevails in England, the United States, and other countries colonized by England. It is distinct from the civil-law system, which predominates in Europe and in areas colonized by France and Spain. The common-law system is used in all the states of the United States except Louisiana, where French Civil Law combined with English Criminal Law to form a hybrid system. The common-law system is also used in Canada, except in the Province of Quebec, where the French civil-law system prevails.

Anglo-American common law traces its roots to the medieval idea that the law as handed down from the king's courts represented the common custom of the people. It evolved chiefly from three English Crown courts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: the Exchequer, the King's Bench, and the Common Pleas. These courts eventually assumed jurisdiction over disputes previously decided by local or manorial courts, such as baronial, admiral's (maritime), guild, and forest courts, whose jurisdiction was limited to specific geographic or subject matter areas. Equity courts, which were instituted to provide relief to litigants in cases where common-law relief was unavailable, also merged with common-law courts. This consolidation of jurisdiction over most legal disputes into several courts was the framework for the modern Anglo-American judicial system.Early common-law procedure was governed by a complex system of Pleading, under which only the offenses specified in authorized writs could be litigated. Complainants were required to satisfy all the specifications of a writ before they were allowed access to a common-law court. This system was replaced in England and in the United States during the mid-1800s. A streamlined, simplified form of pleading, known as Code Pleading or notice pleading, was instituted. Code pleading requires only a plain, factual statement of the dispute by the parties and leaves the determination of issues to the court.

Common-law courts base their decisions on prior judicial pronouncements rather than on legislative enactments. Where a statute governs the dispute, judicial interpretation of that statute determines how the law applies. Common-law judges rely on their predecessors' decisions of actual controversies, rather than on abstract codes or texts, to guide them in applying the law. Common-law judges find the grounds for their decisions in law reports, which contain decisions of past controversies. Under the doctrine of Stare Decisis, common-law judges are obliged to adhere to previously decided cases, or precedents, where the facts are substantially the same. A court's decision is binding authority for similar cases decided by the same court or by lower courts within the same jurisdiction. The decision is not binding on courts of higher rank within that jurisdiction or in other jurisdictions, but it may be considered as persuasive authority.

Because common-law decisions deal with everyday situations as they occur, social changes, inventions, and discoveries make it necessary for judges sometimes to look outside reported decisions for guidance in a case of first impression (previously undetermined legal issue). The common-law system allows judges to look to other jurisdictions or to draw upon past or present judicial experience for analogies to help in making a decision. This flexibility allows common law to deal with changes that lead to unanticipated controversies. At the same time, stare decisis provides certainty, uniformity, and predictability and makes for a stable legal environment.

Under a common-law system, disputes are settled through an adversarial exchange of arguments and evidence. Both parties present their cases before a neutral fact finder, either a judge or a jury. The judge or jury evaluates the evidence, applies the appropriate law to the facts, and renders a judgment in favor of one of the parties. Following the decision, either party may appeal the decision to a higher court. Appellate courts in a common-law system may review only findings of law, not determinations of fact.

Under common law, all citizens, including the highest-ranking officials of the government, are subject to the same set of laws, and the exercise of government power is limited by those laws. The judiciary may review legislation, but only to determine whether it conforms to constitutional requirements.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Your respect for people and their property diminishes when the person wants to use their property in ways you disagree with. Even when the use is an indifferent use and not one that creates an actionable harm to another person or that other persons property.

You would go so far as to approve of harming an indifferent person. That aligns you with prohibtionists and initiators of aggression.
Argue that. No wait. You can't.

It is best to help those you are inclined to help and leave those you are not inclined to help alone. It is never good to try to make people behave as you would if they are not causing an actionable harm. Okay now what about the gerbil...is it consensual or what?
what is it with you, gerbils and ass play?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
what is it with you, gerbils and ass play?

I'm trying not to use the Wendy's Uncle Buck crap episode too much. If you'd like, I could switch to Doer rock killed squirrels but that has no luster since Doer is mad at me and hey wait a minute....

...You never complimented me on pointing out to you that "force" is the similarity in both the forced religious crap and the forced healthcare insurance purchase. I think you avoided that one and went right for the gerbil because it was a distraction. You're pretty tricky aren't you?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Shouldn't the first rule be, not to initiate aggression against others?


So there Skylar, how do you feel about the post above? Valid in a moral way or do you disagree with it?



note - no gerbils, squirrels or other creatures were harmed in the above post.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
There was nothing. Bang! There is everything. Sounds like "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"
There is only the Current Understanding of a Big Bang. Since it is a mental exercise to follow the math. yet math can follow the tortured logic of man as easily as the rest, we got religious math to say BIG BANG.

There are other more simple quantum models, but Heisenberg proved to Eisenstein, quite formally, in 1921, that the human mind cannot think in probability waves. We cannot inagine the dual natural of particles, therefore we cannot imagine an atom.

The much more simple quantum models are only simple in math.

They are impossible to visualize. So, just like we are stuck since the '20 with spinning electrons, and empty "space" around a core for the the visual of an atom, we are stuck with Big Bang for the superstitions Math Logic of humans view of the Universe.

The Universe made God, by making us, not the other way around, The Universe may be just a pimple on the hide of Satan for all we know.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Shouldn't the first rule be, not to initiate aggression against others?


So there Skylar, how do you feel about the post above? Valid in a moral way or do you disagree with it?



note - no gerbils, squirrels or other creatures were harmed in the above post.
Common Law
The ancient law of England based upon societal customs and recognized and enforced by the judgments and decrees of the courts. The general body of statutes and case law that governed England and the American colonies prior to the American Revolution.

The principles and rules of action, embodied in case law rather than legislative enactments, applicable to the government and protection of persons and property that derive their authority from the community customs and traditions that evolved over the centuries as interpreted by judicial tribunals.

A designation used to denote the opposite of statutory, equitable, or civil, for example, a common-law action.

The common-law system prevails in England, the United States, and other countries colonized by England. It is distinct from the civil-law system, which predominates in Europe and in areas colonized by France and Spain. The common-law system is used in all the states of the United States except Louisiana, where French Civil Law combined with English Criminal Law to form a hybrid system. The common-law system is also used in Canada, except in the Province of Quebec, where the French civil-law system prevails.

Anglo-American common law traces its roots to the medieval idea that the law as handed down from the king's courts represented the common custom of the people. It evolved chiefly from three English Crown courts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: the Exchequer, the King's Bench, and the Common Pleas. These courts eventually assumed jurisdiction over disputes previously decided by local or manorial courts, such as baronial, admiral's (maritime), guild, and forest courts, whose jurisdiction was limited to specific geographic or subject matter areas. Equity courts, which were instituted to provide relief to litigants in cases where common-law relief was unavailable, also merged with common-law courts. This consolidation of jurisdiction over most legal disputes into several courts was the framework for the modern Anglo-American judicial system.Early common-law procedure was governed by a complex system of Pleading, under which only the offenses specified in authorized writs could be litigated. Complainants were required to satisfy all the specifications of a writ before they were allowed access to a common-law court. This system was replaced in England and in the United States during the mid-1800s. A streamlined, simplified form of pleading, known as Code Pleading or notice pleading, was instituted. Code pleading requires only a plain, factual statement of the dispute by the parties and leaves the determination of issues to the court.

Common-law courts base their decisions on prior judicial pronouncements rather than on legislative enactments. Where a statute governs the dispute, judicial interpretation of that statute determines how the law applies. Common-law judges rely on their predecessors' decisions of actual controversies, rather than on abstract codes or texts, to guide them in applying the law. Common-law judges find the grounds for their decisions in law reports, which contain decisions of past controversies. Under the doctrine of Stare Decisis, common-law judges are obliged to adhere to previously decided cases, or precedents, where the facts are substantially the same. A court's decision is binding authority for similar cases decided by the same court or by lower courts within the same jurisdiction. The decision is not binding on courts of higher rank within that jurisdiction or in other jurisdictions, but it may be considered as persuasive authority.

Because common-law decisions deal with everyday situations as they occur, social changes, inventions, and discoveries make it necessary for judges sometimes to look outside reported decisions for guidance in a case of first impression (previously undetermined legal issue). The common-law system allows judges to look to other jurisdictions or to draw upon past or present judicial experience for analogies to help in making a decision. This flexibility allows common law to deal with changes that lead to unanticipated controversies. At the same time, stare decisis provides certainty, uniformity, and predictability and makes for a stable legal environment.

Under a common-law system, disputes are settled through an adversarial exchange of arguments and evidence. Both parties present their cases before a neutral fact finder, either a judge or a jury. The judge or jury evaluates the evidence, applies the appropriate law to the facts, and renders a judgment in favor of one of the parties. Following the decision, either party may appeal the decision to a higher court. Appellate courts in a common-law system may review only findings of law, not determinations of fact.

Under common law, all citizens, including the highest-ranking officials of the government, are subject to the same set of laws, and the exercise of government power is limited by those laws. The judiciary may review legislation, but only to determine whether it conforms to constitutional requirements.






Okay how bout this?


"What, then, is the law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. ... since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individual groups. ... But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others." ~ Frederic Bastiat
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Driving is a privilege. You are not being forced to drive. Don't want to pay the insurance? Take the bus, ride a bike, walk. You are allowed other options. Unlike health insurance.

Even I know this much.
The heath care has options. So, you know very little including your own gender, agenda and swindle.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The heath care has options. So, you know very little including your own gender, agenda and swindle.

Where is the option to not participate and not be threatened with some kind of action for not participating? Any true option must include the option to be left alone. If it doesn't then such programs have coercion embedded from the start.
 

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
There's just too much fluff in this thread. And gerbils.
I need something weightier. I think I'll go read math proofs or probability theories.

Hey, wait there's a squirrel in my backyard...
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Auto insurance has options as well. Yet it's not mandatory.

Why are you so worried about me?
You don't seem to enjoy my attention but you bought it, dude.

The heath care is not mandatory either. It is a tax, and you can pay the tax and ignore the benefit.
 

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
You don't seem to enjoy my attention but you bought it, dude.

The heath care is not mandatory either. It is a tax, and you can pay the tax and ignore the benefit.
I love your attention. It's why I'm here.

Either way you are forced to pay. Unlike auto insurance. Health care is a TAX, not an option.
 
Top