19 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is one sorry post. You claimed you made a "direct quote" from me and now have dropped into the you used a phrase I referred to. This is not a "direct quote" as even spomeone as unlearned in scholarly technique as you should know (HINT: Direct quotes usually start with a " and end with one, too).
[b]This is extreme Goal post moving
#11 from no1's book of standard cribs.
of course Locke was a theist and a Christian so he saw men's ultimate purpose as having to do with God's will. This is far different from your initial claim which was that fundamental rights were a means to some end of Man's.
Please go back and read my initi was given to man by "Nature" for his "social life" ). So, it fits just as well.[/b]
The discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with Man's "ultimate purpose" but was centered on Fundamental Rights and society's purpose in protecting them. The claim you are making now is laughable; EVERY SINGLE THING any theist, deist or virtually anyone else said could be so characterized as a secondary one. This is entirely disingenous even for you. But predictable.
19 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerChurlant posted:
[b]Ok, how would you know if he knows?
We don't to a mathematical certainty. But he'd have to be terribly incompetent (with all the "research" he apparently did) not to figure out things like Churlant did in about 5 minutes of Googling.
But Dan Brown's clearly not that incompetent. Therefore, one can only reasonably judge that he did ...[text shortened]... epts it as true and includes it in his science paper should get an 'A', do you?[/b]
"2. Actually, about 5 minutes of Googling tells me the number is between 200,000 and 9,000,000 - depending on the source, of course. You will understand that I disbelieve both extremes, however the exact number seems rooted in semantics. "
Brown's number of 5 million falls into that range.
Yeah. As saying that the Holocaust cost only 60,000 Jewish lives would also be an "estimate".
The idea of an estimate is to get somewhat close to the actual number, in this case, despite the inability to count all the corpses accurately.
I'm not asking the teacher to teach every possible theory.
You have the right to access and read all the information, not the right to have all of it spoon-fed to you. I'd prefer schools to remain neutral on the matter of the origin of life, and on matters of religion. In other words, don't bother teaching them. Let the students review and decide on that evidence on their own time, if their curiousity leads them there.
19 May 06
Originally posted by chronicmanThere exists no such legal doctrine. By your logic, someone could negligently run over a jaywalker with legal impunity. Person A would be ticketed for driving without a license, but this would not shield you from liability for damages caused by your reckless behavior in speeding (though it might be considered a factor in assessing damages).
If your speeding(crime one) therefore breaking the law, and hit a person who turned into your lane and you can not stop in time to avoid them.(crime two) the peson who you hit dose not have a valid drivers lisence. the police offer must ticket the person for not haveing a drivers lisence(crime two) and the fact of the matter that your speed(crime one) cau ...[text shortened]...
no larry and curly can not bring suite against moe because crime two is overridden by crime one
19 May 06
I believe David Irving was just sentenced to prison in Austria, in part, for suggesting that the number of Holocaust victims was less than 6 million. Following this logic, would LH approve of a law that provided for prison terms for those who minimized the number of victims of the various atrocities committed at the behest of the RCC (start with Crusades and Cathars, go to Inquistions, etc. etc. etc).
19 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is a very good question. I bet he would not be in favor of such a law. What would happen to CRISIS Magazine if all of their contributing authors were imprisoned?
I believe David Irving was just sentenced to prison in Austria, in part, for suggesting that the number of Holocaust victims was less than 6 million. Following this logic, would LH approve of a law that provided for prison terms for those who minimized the number of victims of the various atrocities committed at the behest of the RCC (start with Crusades and Cathars, go to Inquistions, etc. etc. etc).
19 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm sure you would mind if I were to quote similarly selective passages from the Qu'ran.
"If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first "known the Lord,"1 and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman's) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; s ...[text shortened]... a negative (and thoroughly patronising) attitude towards women here, you are beyond hope.
19 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's barely even a coherent post. Your 3-year old daughter been hitting the DELETE button while you were not looking?
This is one sorry post. You claimed you made a "direct quote" from me and now have dropped into the you used a phrase I referred to. This is not a "direct quote" as even spomeone as unlearned in scholarly technique as you should know (HINT: Direct quotes usually start with a " and end with one, too).
The discussion had nothing whatsoever to do w terized as a secondary one. This is entirely disingenous even for you. But predictable.
Oh, and the quote was included in inverted commas ( "" ). Go back and check.
19 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo it doesn't. The rapist is still going to jail if he's convicted. Clean hands doesn't come into play in criminal court.
But it allows you to rape one, apparently.
Clean hands comes into play in civil court when the rape victim attempts to collect civil damages for pain and suffering from the person she robbed. But there, but for her own wrongful actions, she wouldn't have incurred them in the first place, so the court ought not be interested in awarding her any damages.
19 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOkay, let's get one wrong idea out of the way right now.
No, of course that's not its purpose. It has little to do with crime at all. In cases where a criminal ought not profit from his crimes, you can do away with the clean hands principle and the rest of the body of law is abundantly sufficient to ensure that he doesn't. It's not like bank robbers would be keeping their loot if not for the clean hands ...[text shortened]... Here's just one example from 2006.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/scv/appeals/060237.html
I did NOT say equity was 'antiquated'! I said it was OLD. And I never said it had been got rid of, I said the distinction between common law courts and equity courts hadn't been removed until relatively recently in at least one jurisdiction. The two bodies of law have been FUSED now, so they both continued.
If equity is 'antiquated' and no longer relevant, why the heck was I studying it in law school?
Yes, it's relevant. Yes it's to do with civil cases not criminal ones.
Apart from that, I don't have time or inclination to try and disentangle the correct ideas from the erroneous ones right now. Suffice to say that:
1. Both of you (lucifershammer and DoctorScribbles) have got things partly right and partly wrong, and
2. I really don't think this particular issue is helping much at all.
19 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoIn your legal opinion, would the Church have sufficiently clean hands to bring a case for an injunction against showing the Da Vinci Code movie on the grounds of slander?
Okay, let's get one wrong idea out of the way right now.
I did NOT say equity was 'antiquated'! I said it was OLD. And I never said it had been got rid of, I said the distinction between common law courts and equity courts hadn't been removed until relatively recently in at least one jurisdiction. The two bodies of law have been FUSED now, so they both c ly wrong, and
2. I really don't think this particular issue is helping much at all.
20 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn my legal opinion, a court would be very reluctant to consider the clean hands issue unless one of the parties insisted.
In your legal opinion, would the Church have sufficiently clean hands to bring a case for an injunction against showing the Da Vinci Code movie on the grounds of slander?
It's far more likely an injunction wouldn't be granted on other grounds, such as it's a work of fiction and so long as everybody is clear it's a work of fiction, no slander will arise. Certainly that's what the mainstream churches have said in Australia - they haven't called for a boycott, they've just reminded people that it's a fictional story and it should be watched in that light.
Another reason for not granting an injunction is that we're talking about the reputation of a large organisation that is quite able to look after itself and really isn't likely to be all that damaged by this movie. It's very different to the reputation of an individual person.
One of the factors with interim injunctions is the balance of convenience. The makers of the movie stand to lose large amounts of money if the movie isn't shown. The church stands to lose... actually, I'm still not clear on what the church stands to lose.
And the church's existing reputation probably WOULD be a consideration. If the church is already controversial in some respects, how would this additional controversy affect it? But I still don't think that's a question of 'clean hands'. Clean hands would come into play if the church seeking an injunction had launched a negative publicity campaign against Dan Brown or Ron Howard or Tom Hanks.
20 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you ever get sick of being an intellectually dishonest dickwad? You quoted part of my statement, out of context, and then added a phrase right after it. Maybe to you that's an honest way to "quote" somebody, but most non-fanatics would never play such a game.
That's barely even a coherent post. Your 3-year old daughter been hitting the DELETE button while you were not looking?
Oh, and the quote was included in inverted commas ( "" ). Go back and check.
My daughter is 25 years old; why don't you keep your comments somewhat related to the subject rather than engaging in ignorant, personal attacks?