How many men have no clue

a reply to: Quadrivium

You keep quoting the 1600's if it makes you feel better, like I already said, this is 2022 America, there are laws and the Constitution.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I will as soon as you find an issue to stick with.

So far you have proven one thing at least: you can't win a debate without resorting to semantic trickery. Which means you can't win a debate because semantic trickery is not an acceptable technique.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I will as soon as you find an issue to stick with.

The issue was your 'opinion', A.K.A. 'feelz'. They don't count, unless you have some legal evidence you'd like to link to like I did.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Quadrivium

You keep quoting the 1600's if it makes you feel better, like I already said, this is 2022 America, there are laws and the Constitution.

The law provided that an enslaver's killing of an enslaved person could not constitute murder because the “premeditated malice” element of murder could not be formed against one’s own property.

calendar.eji.org...

And it clearly shows that you have the same thought process, in 2022, as those like you had in the 1600s.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Again, I have to disagree with you.
He can't win a debate due to the lack of reading Comprehension skills and not being able to read more than one sentence before replying.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
And it clearly shows that you have the same thought process, in 2022, as those like you had in the 1600s.

Does it? Considering I'm citing our contemporaneous laws and the United States Constitution that's not even possible, they had neither.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The issue was your 'opinion'

No, the issue at the moment is whether you are trying to say an unborn human is a citizen, a person, or a people.

Pick one and stick to it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
And it clearly shows that you have the same thought process, in 2022, as those like you had in the 1600s.

Does it? Considering I'm citing our contemporaneous laws and the United States Constitution that's not even possible, they had neither.

Yes.
Even with our Constitution and laws, your interpretation is just like those that created laws in the Virginia colony way back in the 1600s.
That law actually relates to your entire "argument", which shows you suffer from the same form scumbaggerry.

See if this sounds familiar:
The law provids that a mother's killing of an unborn human being does not constitute murder because the “premeditated malice” element of murder could not be formed against one’s own property or someone not considered a "person"."

You have the exact same mentality towards another group of humans as they had in the 1600s.
Like them, you have constantly sited "the law" as your excuse.
You know it, you just won't admit it.

Don't know why I am wasting my time, we both know how you are when it comes to reading more than one sentence.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No, the issue at the moment is whether you are trying to say an unborn human is a citizen, a person, or a people.

They are none of the above so far as the law is concerned.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Of course your President is Catholic that's why not much is being done about it.

He would be a Satanist if it got him one extra vote...

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Even with our Constitution and laws, your interpretation is just like those that created laws in the Virginia colony way back in the 1600s.

No, my view is based on the reality of rulings and laws. Yours, not so much.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Even with our Constitution and laws, your interpretation is just like those that created laws in the Virginia colony way back in the 1600s.

No, my view is based on the reality of rulings and laws. Yours, not so much.

Thank you once again for proving my point.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Thank you once again for proving my point.

That you're stuck in the 1600's? No worries.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Oops wrong job.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I get your stance AM, you are just trying to explain the reasoning behind the law(s) but you are dealing with high emotions here.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I get your stance AM, you are just trying to explain the reasoning behind the law(s) but you are dealing with high emotions here.

He gets like that when he can't make his point.
It's all about his feelz, he's an emotional kinda guy.

a reply to: Quadrivium

It's all of youz.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They are none of the above so far as the law is concerned.

All four terms have different definitions. Only one, "citizen," is a legal term. "People" and "person" are philosophical terms; "human being" is a scientific term. So I will accept that argument only so far as "citizen" is concerned. As for the others, they are not legal terms and thus the Constitution and laws are not relevant when discussing them.

So I take it that the only argument you have is that the unborn human is not a citizen. I accept that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Thank you once again for proving my point.

That you're stuck in the 1600's? No worries.

I am stuck in the 1600s because I am conversing with someone with a 1600s state of mind.
You think the premeditated killing of another human being is justified because, in your mind, they are "less than" and/or property.

You can type all the nonsensical jibber jabber you want, to excuse it but, in the end...........
There you are, stuck in the same outdated, inhumane, illogical mindset as those in the 1600s.

a reply to: Quadrivium

He's not agreeing with the law, he is just trying to explain the reasoning behind the law to you. Don't you see that?