warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

reply to post by nenothtu


Perhaps you can start at the beginning.

Reporting a false crime to 911 is fraudulent, which is crime that offers a clear victim. Fraud is not a right.

Who is the clear victim?

reply to post by Afterall


Are you pretending stupidity, or do you come by it naturally? There is Socratic dialogue, and then there is just plain stupidity. Are you asserting that fraud is not a crime? If you perpetuate fraud and the victim of that fraud files charges against would you play this stupid game in court?

In terms of the victim of fraud in the 9/11 case the victim is the state that spent public funds to respond to a fraudulent claim. As such, an expense was incurred due to fraud, and this is assuming that no other victims were found due to tying up police in pursing what turned out to be a fraudulent claim at the expense of not responding quick enough to a very real claim.

Your ignorance regarding the assault charge from a death threat is unbelievable. The injury of assault has a long case history since time immemorial and if you honestly believed you could actually walk into a court of law after making a death threat to someone and pulling the stunt you are pulling now would surely bring you a contempt of court charge on top of the assault charge.

There is nothing at all odd about calling a reference to a Supreme Court analogy that sought to illustrate the problem with inciting a riot and why such a thing is not a protected right, lazy. The laziness comes from not bothering to do the research yourself. Justice Holmes actually offered the analogy of yelling fire in a crowded theater to clear up confusion, not add to it. Of course, were you aware of the ruling, of which I cited several pages back, and read that ruling, instead of being lazy and pretending that inciting a riot is not a crime, we wouldn't be having this stupid discussion.

Your incomprehensible reasoning in ignoring the fact that Schenk v. United States was not a ruling on the usage of speech, as in yelling "fire" when in a crowded theater, and the quote is constantly misquoted, a fact I let go the first time, but will not now! Here is the actual wording from Justice Holmes:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Your willing ignorance is beyond the pale! You have offered nothing but ignorance assuming this ignorance reveals intelligence, and your covert hostility and obsequiousness is hardly polite or civil. You would never get away with this nonsense in a court of law if you think for a single second you can argue that fraud is okay because there is no victim, or that assault doesn't really injure, or that inciting a riot causes no harm. In fact, if you insisted on playing these games in court, most likely it would be ruled that you were not competent to stand trial, and your actual right to a jury of your peers would be denied you and the judge would hold, or declare a ruling himself. So, if you want to come off as an incompetent that is your choice.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Afterall

 

Are you pretending stupidity, or do you come by it naturally?

Is that what passes for polite Christian dialogue?

There is Socratic dialogue, and then there is just plain stupidity. Are you asserting that fraud is not a crime? If you perpetuate fraud and the victim of that fraud files charges against would you play this stupid game in court?

Now who is playing stupid? I neve said fraud is not a crime. Not once.

In terms of the victim of fraud in the 9/11 case the victim is the state that spent public funds to respond to a fraudulent claim. As such, an expense was incurred due to fraud, and this is assuming that no other victims were found due to tying up police in pursing what turned out to be a fraudulent claim at the expense of not responding quick enough to a very real claim.

One example is not an absolute. Do I get to call you stupid now?

Your ignorance regarding the assault charge from a death threat is unbelievable. The injury of assault has a long case history since time immemorial and if you honestly believed you could actually walk into a court of law after making a death threat to someone and pulling the stunt you are pulling now would surely bring you a contempt of court charge on top of the assault charge.

Actually it is your ignorance of the discussion at hand that is unbelievable. I see you like to twist anything anyone says so far from the original point that you can make any insane argument you like and it is almost impossible to back track to where it once made any sense. You will not succeed with me.

There is nothing at all odd about calling a reference to a Supreme Court analogy that sought to illustrate the problem with inciting a riot and why such a thing is not a protected right, lazy. The laziness comes from not bothering to do the research yourself. Justice Holmes actually offered the analogy of yelling fire in a crowded theater to clear up confusion, not add to it. Of course, were you aware of the ruling, of which I cited several pages back, and read that ruling, instead of being lazy and pretending that inciting a riot is not a crime, we wouldn't be having this stupid discussion.

I am not sure what you are citing as my confusion on this case. Could you please point out to me what I said that portrayed me as ignorant of the facts?

Your incomprehensible reasoning in ignoring the fact that Schenk v. United States was not a ruling on the usage of speech, as in yelling "fire" when in a crowded theater, and the quote is constantly misquoted, a fact I let go the first time, but will not now! Here is the actual wording from Justice Holmes:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Your willing ignorance is beyond the pale! You have offered nothing but ignorance assuming this ignorance reveals intelligence, and your covert hostility and obsequiousness is hardly polite or civil. You would never get away with this nonsense in a court of law if you think for a single second you can argue that fraud is okay because there is no victim, or that assault doesn't really injure, or that inciting a riot causes no harm. In fact, if you insisted on playing these games in court, most likely it would be ruled that you were not competent to stand trial, and your actual right to a jury of your peers would be denied you and the judge would hold, or declare a ruling himself. So, if you want to come off as an incompetent that is your choice.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

You just ramble on too too much. I will make it simple for you because obviously it is needed. I will refrain from calling you stupid though as I am not Christian and I guess to me, that seems rude.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Let's go back to the beginning. Since you claimed I am so stupid, I thought it would be nice to keep this as simple as possible - for me - because I am so stupid.

First off, Kevorkian Junior said...

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Are you really that dense? Show me where in the constitution it guarantees the freedom of ANY SPEECH ANY PLACE ANY TIME.

It is against the law to call 911 and report a false crime - SPEECH.

It is against the law to make death threats to a person - SPEECH.

It is against the law to shout FIRE in a crowded theater - SPEECH.

Are these things specifically delineated in the constitution?

Then Lemon Fresh stated...

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
All of your examples lead to someone being injured or killed.

Once again, apples and oranges.

See what he said? ALL of those examples lead to someone being injured or killed.

Now it could be argued that what the principal did could have caused a riot. It could have lead to injury. It did not. It was not even likely, but it could have. Am I wrong that it is a possibility?

Lemon Fresh was not addressing coulds though. He was stating absolutes.

Now lets go through them again, one by one for you.

Reporting a false crime

If I call 911 and tell them that a magical fairy broke into my house with a bunch of unicorns and were currently turning all of my stuff into gold and I wanted the police to intervene because gold clashes with most of my outfits - who is likely to be injured?

Making Death Threats

I can speak from experience. I have had death threats made to me. They were made by someone I knew had not the means, the will, the strength, or the ambition to pull it off. It made me chuckle. It was still a death threat. It was still against the law. - who was injured?

Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater

If I shout "fire" in a crowded theater and it happens during a loud explosion and no one hears me, who is injured? If the crowd is 100% made up of people that know me and know I would be just being an ass so they do not care, who is injured? Does the fact that no one cares make it not illegal?

If your next post is just an attempt to call me names and/or twist what I said, I will just ignore you like so many others. Please try to refrain from calling people stupid for simply expressing themselves.



edit to fix a couple typos. I am sure I missed some. Maybe you can focus on that to make your next grand Christian statement about me being stupid.

[edit on 5/29/10 by Afterall]

reply to post by Afterall

Is that what passes for polite Christian dialogue?

I am not a Christian, and I have all ready stated so in this thread, so either you are ignoring that, and pretending you can simply ascribe to me characteristics that are not mine, or my charges of laziness are well founded.

Now who is playing stupid? I neve said fraud is not a crime. Not once.

I am fully aware you never said it wasn't a crime, but you are feigning ignorance that would cause you quite a bit of trouble in a court of law. Either you hope to illustrate that law is just arbitrary and written upon the whims of tyrants or you are just plain ignorant. Fraud brings with it a very real victim, and a victim is someone who has been harmed.

One example is not an absolute. Do I get to call you stupid now?

Are you serious? The one example I provided presented an absolute victim, and that victim is the state that incurred an expense due to this fraud. Call me stupid all you want, it would affect me as much as a cow calling a goat.

Actually it is your ignorance of the discussion at hand that is unbelievable. I see you like to twist anything anyone says so far from the original point that you can make any insane argument you like and it is almost impossible to back track to where it once made any sense. You will not succeed with me.

Your double speak is not working pal. There are reasonable minds, one of which all ready attempted to reply to your willing ignorance respectfully, and you just turned around and pretended ignorance again, and in an extremely covertly hostile way. It is not you I am attempting to succeed with, it is all who may read this, and I only speak to the reasonable minds who are unsure of what to make of the seeming contradiction that comes with the Establishment Clause and the freedom of worship.

Indeed, in the Lee v. Weisman case, a case I have no doubt you will ever bother to read, several Justices speak to the seeming contradiction between the two and offer their own sound reasoning as to why they are not contradictory. But of course, I am not saying this for your benefit since it should be clear to anyone reading it, that you won't read that case, I offer it for those who will read the case.

You can keep up your game of obsequiousness all you want, it only reveals you for who you are, and if you want to call people who have done their due diligence in actually reading case law, The Constitution, state constitutions and other sources as ignorant, this is your right to do so. If you want to wear a funny wig, a big read nose and paint white make up all over your face that is your choice too.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am not sure your response even makes much sense. OK, you are not a Christian. So you have the right to just be rude to people? If that is how you roll, then.

As far as your example.

NO KIDDING!!!! You would do much better to read what you respond to.

I never said there are no cases in which there could be victims. COULD!!!!!!! Please do try and pay attention as I am not going to get sucked into your ever growing rants of personal attacks and word twisting.

I asked you to show me where the ABSLOUTE TRUTH that there WILL BE victims lies. I know you can find examples of it happening. I never denied that. I responded to Lemon Fresh stating it as an absolute. If you can not comprehend that, stop trying to answer. You are failing miserably.

reply to post by Afterall

Now it could be argued that what the principal did could have caused a riot.

When someone is charged for inciting a riot, they were not charged for what could have happened but what did. Would you care to make the argument that the principal did cause a riot?

It could have lead to injury.

If it actually did cause a riot, of which it didn't, then injury would be self evident. Look, I am not at all suggesting that police officers don't charge people with a crime based upon what could have happened, but this is why we have a court system in place, because those type of charges have no basis in law, and people rely on the courts to have such frivolous charges dismissed. This is why your arguments are frivolous, what could have happened, is not what happened, and no riot ensued, and no injury sustained. Get it?

It did not. It was not even likely, but it could have. Am I wrong that it is a possibility?

The possibility of a crime is not a crime.

Lemon Fresh was not addressing coulds though. He was stating absolutes.

As am I!

If I call 911 and tell them that a magical fairy broke into my house with a bunch of unicorns and were currently turning all of my stuff into gold and I wanted the police to intervene because gold clashes with most of my outfits - who is likely to be injured?

If you call 911 and report a magical fairy broke into your house with a bunch of unicorns blah, blah, blah, the police would still have to respond as you would most assuredly be considered deranged and either a threat to yourself or someone else. So, while you may think there is no harm in calling 911 and playing the magical fairy game, you have tied up the police officers, or Sheriff's time, as they have an obligation to respond, and if it was determined to be fraud then this is what you would be charged with. If it was determined that you actually believed magical fairies broke into your house and you were now surrounded by unicorns, you would then be brought to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation to determine if you were a threat to yourself or others. God knows why you would want to play that game.

I can speak from experience. I have had death threats made to me. They were made by someone I knew had not the means, the will, the strength, or the ambition to pull it off. It made me chuckle. It was still a death threat. It was still against the law. - who was injured?

That is your choice to make and if you saw no harm in it, then I can understand why you did not file charges, but if you turn around and make death threats who in turn deems that as assault, and can prove beyond a shadow of doubt you made this death threat, you will most assuredly be convicted of assault, and the harm you caused could very well bring about not just a criminal trial but a civil one as well, where the victim could use your criminal conviction as evidence that harm was caused and sue you for remedy.

If I shout "fire" in a crowded theater and it happens during a loud explosion and no one hears me, who is injured? If the crowd is 100% made up of people that know me and know I would be just being an ass so they do not care, who is injured? Does the fact that no one cares make it not illegal?

Okay, here is the laziness I am talking about. It is not necessarily a crime to yell "fire" in public or in a crowded theater. There are no statutes that make such speech a crime, and the the Schenk ruling didn't rule it a crime either. That case was not in regards to someone yelling fire in a theater, it was an analogy. Do you need that word defined for you? Sigh.

If your next post is just an attempt to call me names and/or twist what I said, I will just ignore you like so many others. Please try to refrain from calling people stupid for simply expressing themselves.

I did not call you stupid. I asked you if you were pretending to be stupid or if it came by naturally. If you are pretending at it, it doesn't change the stupidity of the game you are playing, and frankly I wish you would ignore me. I am only interested in engaging those people who actually wish to debate the issue to come to some reasonable facsimile of truth. It is clear that won't happen with you, so by all means ignore me.

reply to post by Afterall


I would like to wade into this discussion if I may?

There is one TRUE LAW. Do no harm to another or infringe upon someone's Life, Liberty or Property.

To have a crime, one must have a victim. This is your argument correct?

I like how you use a circular argument against freedom of expression or religious beliefs and try to use it against the very argument to allow that freedom.

I do not use case law or supreme court findings. People are fallible, as many SC cases have been struck down by later interpretations.

I use a basic tenet that the founders attempted to make SO obvious that ANYONE could understand it. I refer to it as Original Intent.

To err on the side of Freedom has to be the paramount argument for the Original Intent.

Let us look AGAIN at the First Amendment-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, how in the HELL do you think a person that is part of ANY government is part of the Congress? Was the principal making a LAW or LEGISLATION that barred the exercise of religion or the lack there of? I bolded certain components BUT make NO MISTAKE, the second component in NO SHAPE OR FORM is not to be taken separately. It is to be taken all inclusively.

This separation of Church and State is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

As for your circular argument in regards to NO VICTIM.

Let us say I threatened your safety or your life. Does this NOT infringe upon YOUR freedom of Life, Liberty, or Property?

Specifically your Liberty?

edit to fix a b, I think the b is going out, need a new keyboard. And to add the following reply.


reply to post by jinx880101


Public property? Are you saying that people should not be able to have the First Amendment apply in public arenas? Pffft. Get outta here!

[edit on 5/29/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Afterall

I am not sure your response even makes much sense. OK, you are not a Christian. So you have the right to just be rude to people? If that is how you roll, then.

What are you doing, back pedaling now? You foolishly presumed I was Christian, and now you hope to make it an issue of rudeness, as if your covert hostility has been genuine politeness.

Your insistence on semantics is a waste of time. None of what you are arguing has any basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not arbitrary whims. It is irrelevant what could have happened, all that matters is what did happen.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

When someone is charged for inciting a riot, they were not charged for what could have happened but what did. Would you care to make the argument that the principal did cause a riot?

It is amazing how far you will go to miss the point. No I never claimed he did start a riot. That was my point. Reading comprehension is NOT your specialty. Call me stupid some more.

I wish I could make you read more slowly so you could keep up better.

If you are charged with inciting a riot that never took place, who is the clear victim again? That is the point. You can argue what the principal did MIGHT have incited a riot too but still, no clear victim. So explaining that shouting fire in a crowded theater is different - BECAUSE THERE IS A CLEAR VICTIM is what I am questioning.

I know you are doing this on purpose.

If it actually did cause a riot, of which it didn't, then injury would be self evident. Look, I am not at all suggesting that police officers don't charge people with a crime based upon what could have happened, but this is why we have a court system in place, because those type of charges have no basis in law, and people rely on the courts to have such frivolous charges dismissed. This is why your arguments are frivolous, what could have happened, is not what happened, and no riot ensued, and no injury sustained. Get it?

Nope becaue you have still failed to point out the clear victim to me.

It did not. It was not even likely, but it could have. Am I wrong that it is a possibility?

The possibility of a crime is not a crime.

Did I say it was? Did I even hint that it was? Can you please read what I write if you insist on responding?

Lemon Fresh was not addressing coulds though. He was stating absolutes.

As am I!

No you are not. You are offering annecdotal evidence of particular instances. That is hardly absolutes. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

So far talking to you has been much like talking to a brick wall while sitting the back of an old camper being pulled down a very bumpy road.

Get real for a moment and pretend you are an intelligent, thinking, adult. Stop trying to pretend I said things I did not and then respond as if you somehow made some point. Points made in absence of an argument are siply dust blown in the face of unbeatable adversity.

I am going to have to break this all down much more simply for you in order to get you to keep up, k?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It did not. It was not even likely, but it could have. Am I wrong that it is a possibility?

The possibility of a crime is not a crime.

Can you please explain to me why you think I said it was a crime? I know you refuse to find quotes when asked so I will not bother. I am simply going to ask how you read me asking if something is possible as stating it is a crime. Can you?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Afterall

 

I would like to wade into this discussion if I may?

At this point, no. Obviously you may but it will fall on deaf ears. I have followed this thread from the beginning. I already know that the person I am talking with is one of two people that do everything they can to avoid what is being said and make false arguments. I know that they use lies and personal attacks to make their points about how a speech for Jesus was a good thing. I also know that you joined in them to gang up on anyone trying to have a conversation. It is 3 on 1 throughout this entire thread and it seems more like a gang of punks just pouncing. I would not even mind if it were not for the fact the Jean feels the need to be so personally malicious as well as confuse anything anyone actually says.

It taints the discussion and makes me weary. I have not the energy to sit here and have 2 or 3 people misconstrue everything I say in order to defend Jesus.

If you have anything real to add, you will go back to the beginning and answer my question. Other than that, talk to each other for now. OK?

reply to post by Afterall

It is amazing how far you will go to miss the point. No I never claimed he did start a riot. That was my point. Reading comprehension is NOT your specialty. Call me stupid some more.

I really don't need to call you stupid, do I? You've been quite good at demonstrating this all on your own. The fact of the matter is that you are not saying anything at all. Law is not based on what could happen, it is based on what does happen. Now you can pretend that I have not all ready stated this, and continue to claim I have a reading comprehension or you can address it.

I wish I could make you read more slowly so you could keep up better. If you are charged with inciting a riot that never took place, who is the clear victim again? That is the point. You can argue what the principal did MIGHT have incited a riot too but still, no clear victim. So explaining that shouting fire in a crowded theater is different - BECAUSE THERE IS A CLEAR VICTIM is what I am questioning.

Are you now pretending I didn't address this? I wish I could make you read slower, for crying out loud! If someone is charged with a crime that did not happen, this is the purpose of the courts and every person has the inalienable right to confront their accusers. I have stated all ready that police and even Sheriff's do charge people frivolously, and when this happens the person charged is given full opportunity to have these charges dismissed. This is how Due Process of Law works. Sigh.

I know you are doing this on purpose.

A thief always locks his doors, and liars always accuse others of being liars, it is the common denominator amongst scoundrels to accuse others of their indecencies.

Nope becaue you have still failed to point out the clear victim to me.

That doesn't surprise me at all given that magical fairies broke into your home and brought with them a herd of unicorns. It's amazing you can see anything at all what with that gold allergy of yours.

Did I say it was? Did I even hint that it was? Can you please read what I write if you insist on responding?

You're not saying or hinting at anything at all. You are simply playing silly little games, and they would be much more fun if you would just put on the wig, big red nose, and big floppy shoes, and dance a silly dance with a dancing bear.

No you are not. You are offering annecdotal evidence of particular instances. That is hardly absolutes. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

Case law is not anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence would be what you offered when you spoke to your friend who issued you a death threat but you did not see it as causing any harm. That is the absolute fact of the matter, and your insane opposite game won't change that.

You're a real piece of work pal. Be careful with all those magical fairies and unicorns, I am sure that is quite daunting.

reply to post by Afterall


I thought I answered your question?

How does doing those things create a victim?

Did you not read my response?

It would infringe on another's right of Liberty. Period.

To me it is analagous to a threat of violence. A threat of violence is a crime. It makes one's Liberty violate. Pretty simple.

Going to address my response this time or are you going to play the victim card? Kind of humorous in this context.

As for ganging up, I do not understand your contention. I have noticed that this thread has grown exponentially because it is a very important discussion. I find those that argue the victim card do not want to hear religious speech. Well it is SPEECH. I and you have the freedom to express it. Why would you like to take that away from ANYONE?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Afterall

 

I thought I answered your question?

How does doing those things create a victim?

Did you not read my response?

It would infringe on another's right of Liberty. Period.

No I did not. Did you not get that from what I said. No you did not answer my question. My question was WHO is the CLEAR victim in each case. I gave some pretty solid examples where not one right of Liberty was infringed upon fitting each law. You did not explain your abstract explanation or answer WHO which was the original question.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You can keep rambling on but you will notice that I have stopped responding to any new posts from you a few posts back. I gave a clear and precise example of you twisting my words. The only way you get any more attention from me is by explaining either how you got them so twisted or why you did it on purpose.

reply to post by Afterall

You can keep rambling on but you will notice that I have stopped responding to any new posts from you a few posts back. I gave a clear and precise example of you twisting my words. The only way you get any more attention from me is by explaining either how you got them so twisted or why you did it on purpose.

Okay sport, if you honestly believe that this last post of yours was not a response then I will leave you to your magical fairies and unicorns.

reply to post by Afterall


Here is a link to your posts on this thread for all who want to see this members circular ramblings-Afterall posts on this thread and the circular ramblings involved.

The VICTIM is the one where THEIR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INFRINGED.

You bring up several questions that both I and JPZ obviously answered, yet you are still here-rambling.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Afterall

 

You can keep rambling on but you will notice that I have stopped responding to any new posts from you a few posts back. I gave a clear and precise example of you twisting my words. The only way you get any more attention from me is by explaining either how you got them so twisted or why you did it on purpose.

Okay sport, if you honestly believe that this last post of yours was not a response then I will leave you to your magical fairies and unicorns.

I thought you might change you tactic since the last person caught you outright making up things about them but apparently cowardice stays the same pale yellow all the time. OK then. You can not read or are a jokster. Yes this is a response to a new post.

What I said above was that I stopped responding to NEW POSTS FROM YOU. Then you pointed out it was a response. NO DUH!!!! It was not however, a response to anything you have posted recently. Learn to read. Maybe when you grow up we can have an intelligent conversation.

[edit on 5/29/10 by Afterall]

reply to post by Afterall

I thought you might change you tactic since the last person caught you outright making up things about them but apparently cowardice stays the same pale yellow all the time. OK then. You can not read or are a jokster. Yes this is a response to a new post.

There is a fine line between courage and stupidity, and when a wise man argues with a fool, it is difficult to tell who is who.