Since "you shall not murder" is in the 10 Commandments, does that make laws against murder unconstitutional?

[neil]

Listen, sweetie, all the time you spend trying to be wrong harder could have been spent looking it up on Wikipedia.


So you're telling me that you don't believe that American lawyers-- in general-- know more about American law than you, because they didn't support your (hypocritical) political position for the past half a century?

You really are a (Right) Libertarian, aren't you? If I make fun of you some more, will you tell me what the gold fringe on the American flag means?

This thread isn't about me & I don't matter; so just FYI, since you apparently don't know anything at all about me - I actually find the strawman arguments, loaded questions, and ad hom attacks, and other fallacies & non arguments quite entertaining.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This thread isn't about me & I don't matter; so just FYI, since you apparently don't know anything at all about me - I actually find the strawman arguments, loaded questions, and ad hom attacks, and other fallacies & non arguments quite entertaining.

Pretty much all I know, and all I need to know, is what you've already told me: you are completely ignorant about American law, arrogant about what you do not know, and so completely, obliviously, entitled that you think not getting your way means that all of the people who practice law and all of the people who wrote the laws don't know as much about them... as you do, with your zero relevant education and zero relevant experience.

You're not making any actual arguments for me to refute, so me insulting you isn't the ad hominem fallacy... because I'm not saying that any of your arguments are irrelevant or false because of the negative qualities I'm pointing you. I'm not saying you're wrong because of everything I just said about you, I just said all of that about you because you're wrong, and because you think crying about it makes you less wrong.

Loaded questions? One, valid rhetorical technique, especially in the law. And two, point to a single one I've asked.

I'm not building up strawmen to attack here. I'm attacking you, directly. But I have to confess, that if I were trying to build a strawman of your political beliefs to attack, you are exactly the strawman I'd build to ridicule American libertarianism. Right down to saying you find illogical arguments entertaining right after your failure to put up logical arguments has been called out.

You are the strawman I wish all of my enemies could be.

 

[neil]

Pretty much all I know, and all I need to know, is what you've already told me: you are completely ignorant about American law, arrogant about what you do not know, and so completely, obliviously, entitled that you think not getting your way means that all of the people who practice law and all of the people who wrote the laws don't know as much about them... as you do, with your zero relevant education and zero relevant experience.

You're not making any actual arguments for me to refute, so me insulting you isn't the ad hominem fallacy... because I'm not saying that any of your arguments are irrelevant or false because of the negative qualities I'm pointing you. I'm not saying you're wrong because of everything I just said about you, I just said all of that about you because you're wrong, and you think crying about it makes you less wrong.

Loaded questions? One, valid rhetorical technique, especially in the law. And two, point to a single one I've asked.

I'm not building up strawmen to attack here. I'm attacking you, directly. But I have to confess, that if I were trying to build a strawman of your political beliefs to attack, you are exactly the strawman I'd build to ridicule American libertarianism. Right down to saying you find illogical arguments entertaining right after your failure to put up logical arguments has been called out.

You are the strawman I wish all of my enemies could be.

Way to double down on making it about me instead of an argument relevant to the thread topic; keep'em coming.

 

[Integrityrespec]

As if it wasn't for that there passage people wouldn't know any better.

Democrats seem to have some issues.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I'm pretty sure that we have laws throughout the nation banning murder.

One of the 10 commandments from THE HOLY BIBLE is "you shall not murder."

So, does this mean laws banning murder are unconstitutional?

Do you think Christians are the only ones that don't allow murder?

Every single culture In human history bans murder, though the definitions vary a bit.

There is nothing religious about outlawing murder.

Why would it violate separation of church and state?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm pretty sure that we have laws throughout the nation banning murder.

One of the 10 commandments from THE HOLY BIBLE is "you shall not murder."

So, does this mean laws banning murder are unconstitutional?

You can have both a religious and a secular injunction against a given act, the same way some people can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[Crunchtime]

The hypocrisy is assigning "God's will" to the notion of abortion, since God makes no mention of it; while ignoring so many other things that God says he abhors, including, among many things, divorce.

You say. Common sense tells a rational human being that killing the unborn is wrong. Especially in the matter and manner of abortion.

 

[Parrish]

If men could become pregnant abortion would be a protected right.

 

[Josie]

If men could become pregnant abortion would be a protected right.

They can, though.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Way to double down on making it about me instead of an argument relevant to the thread topic; keep'em coming.

If you'd care to remember, I already fully addressed the topic of the thread in the post you responded to-- "corrected"-- with your blatant historical error about the role of English common law in American criminal and Constitutional law; there's nothing further to be said on that original topic until you admit to your error and apologize, if not to me, then to everyone else here for wasting their time with this nonsense poll question based on a false premise.

Since you're more afraid of finding out you've been wrong this whole time than you are afraid of making yourself look dumber and dumber for the forum's amusement... I like to think that I'm merely catering to your preferences.

You don't actually need me to Google this for you-- I hope-- but since providing sources makes your childish refusal to spend five minutes education yourself more hilarious, here you go:

• https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-english-common-law.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#American_common_law
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
• https://constitutionalmilitia.org/english-common-law/

Now, the way I see it, you can either: acknowledge that your poll question is based on a flawed and false premise about the source of American concepts of manslaughter, murder, and justifiable homicide; stop talking, just stop talking, and hope everyone remembers that really smart thing you said, instead of this; or continue to publicly humiliate yourself, ironically, in the name of wounded pride. I think you know which one I'm hoping for.

 

[Parrish]

There would no such thing as a man cave. Amiright, @Logician Man ?

 

[Crunchtime]

If men could become pregnant abortion would be a protected right.

I guess we don’t have to sweat that, yet, but it’s probably on the horizon for the gender confused/challenged. “We won’t look at the science on abortion, but if we can find a way to get a transgender pregnant that would be a welcome benefit”. (Sarcasm intended)

 

[Grand Mal]

The Hebrew does not read 'not kill'. It reads 'not murder.' Tirsah(masc)'s root is ratsah, which is very clearly the narrower term for "murder'.

The Bible isn't written in Hebrew. You're quoting from a different book. The Bible has never included scriptures in Hebrew. And there's no reason to suppose Moses spoke Hebrew.

 

[Crunchtime]

The Bible isn't written in Hebrew. You're quoting from a different book. The Bible has never included scriptures in Hebrew. And there's no reason to suppose Moses spoke Hebrew.

And there was no such thing as the Holocaust, and Obama was born in Kenya.

The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Thanks for your response.

 

[neil]

If you'd care to remember, I already fully addressed the topic of the thread in the post you responded to-- "corrected"-- with your blatant historical error about the role of English common law in American criminal and Constitutional law; there's nothing further to be said on that original topic until you admit to your error and apologize, if not to me, then to everyone else here for wasting their time with this nonsense poll question based on a false premise.

Since you're more afraid of finding out you've been wrong this whole time than you are afraid of making yourself look dumber and dumber for the forum's amusement... I like to think that I'm merely catering to your preferences.

You don't actually need me to Google this for you-- I hope-- but since providing sources makes your childish refusal to spend five minutes education yourself more hilarious, here you go:

• https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-english-common-law.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States#American_common_law
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
• https://constitutionalmilitia.org/english-common-law/

The problem is that context matters, there's a context issue, and I suspect you know perfectly well what I'm talking about.

First, back in post #43, you said, Laws against specific forms of homicide can be unconstitutional if they violate natural rights understood in English common law or enumerated rights in the Constitution.

Then in a follow-up post, you clarified yourself by directly adding "are based with" immediately preceding "English common law", and I considered that to be a reasonable and acceptable clarification, and still do. While I didn't outright disagree with that minor ambiguity faux pas on your part in post #43, I did want to point out what I did since the US is a sovereign nation and not subject to any foreign nation (England, British Empire, UK, whatever) or any of its laws.

You're going off on quite a rant in multiple posts about it, though, yet you're not explicitly asserting that the US is not a sovereign nation and part of England or the British Empire, so I presume that you actually agree with me. Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that the US is not a sovereign nation and that it is part of England or the British Empire?

BTW, you seem to be under the impression that you were being sneaky or clever by fixing the context to resolve your ambiguity problem, but you weren't. I noticed immediately what you were doing and said nothing, just to amuse myself by seeing how far you would naively go down that track, but I have now reached a point where I want to take pity on you and now want to reveal this to you.

Now, the way I see it, you can either: acknowledge that your poll question is based on a flawed and false premise about the source of American concepts of manslaughter, murder, and justifiable homicide; stop talking, just stop talking, and hope everyone remembers that really smart thing you said, instead of this; or continue to publicly humiliate yourself, ironically, in the name of wounded pride. I think you know which one I'm hoping for.

You're still wasting your time by trying to make this about me, but you bring up something I would like to address - of course there's a flawed premise; that's my point & I would also assert it, and you're essentially reinforcing this point that I set out to make by creating this thread, in the first place - thank you, for that.

 

[jaypatriot]

Pretty much all I know, and all I need to know, is what you've already told me: you are completely ignorant about American law, arrogant about what you do not know, and so completely, obliviously, entitled that you think not getting your way means that all of the people who practice law and all of the people who wrote the laws don't know as much about them... as you do, with your zero relevant education and zero relevant experience.

You're not making any actual arguments for me to refute, so me insulting you isn't the ad hominem fallacy... because I'm not saying that any of your arguments are irrelevant or false because of the negative qualities I'm pointing you. I'm not saying you're wrong because of everything I just said about you, I just said all of that about you because you're wrong, and because you think crying about it makes you less wrong.

Loaded questions? One, valid rhetorical technique, especially in the law. And two, point to a single one I've asked.

I'm not building up strawmen to attack here. I'm attacking you, directly. But I have to confess, that if I were trying to build a strawman of your political beliefs to attack, you are exactly the strawman I'd build to ridicule American libertarianism. Right down to saying you find illogical arguments entertaining right after your failure to put up logical arguments has been called out.

You are the strawman I wish all of my enemies could be.

I'll remember to not get on your bad side.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You're going off on quite a rant in multiple posts about it, though, yet you're not explicitly asserting that the US is not a sovereign nation and part of England or the British Empire, so I presume that you actually agree with me. Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that the US is not a sovereign nation and that it is part of England or the British Empire?

You know, I spend practically my entire life explaining things that are very obvious to people who are very stupid; I have to admit that this is a new low for me, and I almost feel like you expect to be congratulated for it. You're right... of course... I never really asserted that the United States was a sovereign nation, that it was not a part of the British Commonwealth, and that we are not subject to any of the decrees of any representative of the British government. I never asserted this because it's patently obvious, and because until you finally explained it to me, I never really expected that someone could be so hopelessly ignorant and pedantic that what they needed from me was to assert that the United States was a sovereign nation and had not somehow reverted to British rule in the nearly two-and-a-half centuries since we declared independence, the just over two centuries since we fought another war to reassert it... or in the nearly eight decades since we've been holding their leash.

I also never asserted the opposite, for obvious reasons. If this entire public self-mortification routine is based on the fact that you believed otherwise, your reading comprehension issues are a you problem, not a me problem. You replied to my comment with a blatant historical error, based on a ridiculous assumption on your part, and you've done nothing but double down on your own initial idiocy... now you want to claim that I've fallen into your cunning trap, and helped you make the point you were trying to make all along?

I never had a context problem. Whether the premise of this poll was intentionally false or not, you jumped in to nitpick on a topic you know absolutely ****ing nothing about, got yourself angry after you got yourself taken to school, and after pretending you were too cool to care failed repeatedly you're trying this grasshopper act to make the think you were just trying to lead me to the point you were trying to make.

It doesn't work. None of it is ever going to work. The only thing that's ever going to work for you is (optional) admit you were wrong and apologize and (mandatory) shut your goddamned mouth when you don't know what you're talking about.

I am not your lovely assistant. And the members of your audience are not impressed that you've pulled this rabbit out of your own ass; all your little trick has done is make them wonder why (and how) you put it up there in the first place.

 

[Bodi]

I'm pretty sure that we have laws throughout the nation banning murder.

One of the 10 commandments from THE HOLY BIBLE is "you shall not murder."

So, does this mean laws banning murder are unconstitutional?

LOL... how ridiculous.

 

[Bodi]

You know, I spend practically my entire life explaining things that are very obvious to people who are very stupid;

That is something that a person would not spend their life doing, and then complaining about... if they were intelligent.

 

[neil]

You know, I spend practically my entire life explaining things that are very obvious to people who are very stupid; I have to admit that this is a new low for me, and I almost feel like you expect to be congratulated for it. You're right... of course... I never really asserted that the United States was a sovereign nation, that it was not a part of the British Commonwealth, and that we are not subject to any of the decrees of any representative of the British government. I never asserted this because it's patently obvious, and because until you finally explained it to me, I never really expected that someone could be so hopelessly ignorant and pedantic that what they needed from me was to assert that the United States was a sovereign nation and had not somehow reverted to British rule in the nearly two-and-a-half centuries since we declared independence, the just over two centuries since we fought another war to reassert it... or in the nearly eight decades since we've been holding their leash.

I also never asserted the opposite, for obvious reasons. If this entire public self-mortification routine is based on the fact that you believed otherwise, your reading comprehension issues are a you problem, not a me problem. You replied to my comment with a blatant historical error, based on a ridiculous assumption on your part, and you've done nothing but double down on your own initial idiocy... now you want to claim that I've fallen into your cunning trap, and helped you make the point you were trying to make all along?

I never had a context problem. Whether the premise of this poll was intentionally false or not, you jumped in to nitpick on a topic you know absolutely ****ing nothing about, got yourself angry after you got yourself taken to school, and after pretending you were too cool to care failed repeatedly you're trying this grasshopper act to make the think you were just trying to lead me to the point you were trying to make.

It doesn't work. None of it is ever going to work. The only thing that's ever going to work for you is (optional) admit you were wrong and apologize and (mandatory) shut your goddamned mouth when you don't know what you're talking about.

I am not your lovely assistant. And the members of your audience are not impressed that you've pulled this rabbit out of your own ass; all your little trick has done is make them wonder why (and how) you put it up there in the first place.

Are you capable of acknowledging that I am not the topic of this thread and that my existence doesn't matter (as it pertains to the topic of this thread)?

 

[Lutherf]

Yup
Where in your link does it claim that a fetus is a person? You can obviously damage or kill a fetus just as you can damage or kill a chicken or a steer for food, but you cannot murder a fetus since a fetus is not a person. You can only murder a person. While there may in certain circumstances be penalties for injuring a fetus you cannot murder one. If you disagree how do you explain the fact that even with the recent misguided SC decision abortions are still going to be legal in many enlightened states? Is that murder according to you?

Here is now Merriam Webster defines murder:

Definition of murder​

(Entry 1 of 2)
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethoughtwas convicted of murder

Definition of MURDER

the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person; specifically, law : such a crime committed under circumstances defined by statute; something very difficult or dangerous; something outrageous or blameworthy… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The 14th amendment grants rights to PEOPLE, not to fetuses. There is no mention of fetuses in that amendment.

Exactly! And, when you get right down to it, babies aren't "people" either because all they can do is cry and poop. Even a puppy can do more than that! Frankly, it isn't until a kid can talk and function on their own that they MIGHT be considered to be a "person" so, when you get right down to it, we should be able to kill off any fetus up to roughly 3 years old and also any fetus older than 3 which is developmentally disabled and would be a burden on the parent. That includes adults that, becoming senile or, perhaps, seriously injured in an accident, require a greater than ordinary level of care. I'm with you on all of that. If people become a burden on us then we should be able to kill them!

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Are you capable of acknowledging that I am not the topic of this thread and that my existence doesn't matter (as it pertains to the topic of this thread)?

One out of two ain't bad. I told you why I'm talking about you. I told you what you need to do to get me to stop.

All of this started because you wanted to feel smart correcting somebody about something you didn't understand. I've given you every opportunity to make it stop, and you've taken every opportunity to double down on trying to prove you're smarter than me on something you are still entirely wrong about it. You made it about yourself when you made it about your bloated, fragile ego and no matter how much you want to protest that it's not all about you, it's all about you until you 1) admit you were wrong and 2) stop trying to prove you were right.

 

[neil]

One out of two ain't bad. I told you why I'm talking about you. I told you what you need to do to get me to stop.

All of this started because you wanted to feel smart correcting somebody about something you didn't understand. I've given you every opportunity to make it stop, and you've taken every opportunity to double down on trying to prove you're smarter than me on something you are still entirely wrong about it. You made it about yourself when you made it about your bloated, fragile ego and no matter how much you want to protest that it's not all about you, it's all about you until you 1) admit you were wrong and 2) stop trying to prove you were right.

I'll take that as a no, and I would like for you to stop

for your own sake; you're just making yourself look more and more foolish.

But if you want to keep talking nonstop about me, knock yourself out & if you want to believe it bothers me at all, then go right ahead.

For me, this is just starting to get rather dull.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I'm pretty sure that we have laws throughout the nation banning murder.

One of the 10 commandments from THE HOLY BIBLE is "you shall not murder."

So, does this mean laws banning murder are unconstitutional?

I'm pretty sure Honeycrisp is a type of apple.

The iPhone is an Apple product.

Does this mean that iPhones grow on trees?

 

[reinaert]

The Bible isn't written in Hebrew. You're quoting from a different book. The Bible has never included scriptures in Hebrew. And there's no reason to suppose Moses spoke Hebrew.

Grand Mal,

The Torah was and is written in Hebrew.

On the other hand, Moses doesn't even have to have been a real historical figure for you to find a copy of the Masoretic text, the DSC variants, and the numerous pre Common Era referents to Temple and Alexandrian original Hebrew versions, using that portable Library of Everything in your hand right now.

The Christian addendum was obviously a Greek collection of narratives and missives, but it hardly constitutes the majority of the Bible, and it does not contain the excerpts under discussion right now.