Mark Lloyd wrote:

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.
Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.


"Lawful" has a specific meaning: "Specifically required or permitted by
law." "Unlawful" implies the law is silent on the subject.

Something can be "unlawful" but not "illegal."

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Yeah, that's why so many people make their living debating how to
interpret law.

Actually, the vast majority of those debates do not involve what the law
means, but rather whether it is applicable to a particular situation.

I'd call that a somewhat irrelevant semantic difference. The law could
easily be said to have *no* meaning outside of how it's interpreted for
a "particular situation."

Patent law is a particularly good example of that; in that it's widely
understood as a given that a patent is toothless until it's been
successfully defended in court.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Yeah, that's why so many people make their living debating how to
interpret law.

In law school we had a required course called "Conflict of Laws." What to do
when one law requires something that another law prohibits. This condition
often arises in Constitutional arenas.

A basic rule is this: Whenever there exists a "right" for one person, there
is a simultaneous "duty" on the part of another. When this imposed "duty"
conflicts with another "right," sometimes the only answer is a balancing
test.

The classic - and easily understandable - case is abortion.

On 25 Oct, 22:40, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:34:03 -0700, DerbyDad03
wrote:

[snip]

-- Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

That's as useful as saying a "snaxgluff" is the same thing as an
"emwoozle". This could be 100% true, but is still meaningless Defining
an undefined word by reference to another undefined word doesn't
define anything.

Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

It's amazing that some people spend so much time on artificial
constructs such as "unlawful" and "illegal", yet appear to have no
concept of the world they inhabit where things can be "wrong" or
"harmful" (something which is entirely independent of laws).

If I hit you on the head with a brick, it'd hurt. This has nothing to
do with any laws. I won't hit you on the head with a brick because it
does harm. This has nothing to do with any laws.
--
61 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

-- Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

- It's amazing that some people spend so much time on artificial
constructs such as "unlawful" and "illegal"...

Did you see my answer to my own question?

unlawful: not lawful
illegal: a sick bird

Please check all groans at the door.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:42:10 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:34:03 -0700, DerbyDad03

-- Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

That's as useful as saying a "snaxgluff" is the same thing as an
"emwoozle". This could be 100% true, but is still meaningless Defining
an undefined word by reference to another undefined word doesn't
define anything.

Actually, most adults are capable of understanding the difference between real
words and made-up nonsense, and that the former have real meaning while the
latter do not.

And you appear to have missed the point of that, which you saw and
snipped.


Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

It's amazing that some people spend so much time on artificial
constructs such as "unlawful" and "illegal", yet appear to have no
concept of the world they inhabit where things can be "wrong" or
"harmful" (something which is entirely independent of laws).

"Artificial constructs" or not, those words do have meaning.

Very little actual meaning. Essentially, they're descriptions of
things going on in certain people's minds. There's nothing there to
keep those people from being mentally disturbed and having thoughts
with no correspondence to reality.

At one time whisky was illegal. Did that make whisky any different? If
there's something wrought about whisky, it's wrong regardless of what
the law says. Notice how whisky was not changed, just the law.

(considering something else that got snipped), if you had to be hit on
the head with something, would you prefer it to be a brick or a law?

What if they passed a law saying that bricks can't hurt when thrown?
Does the law actually change the brick?

And that is not
altered by your perceptions of whether they correspond to your perceptions of
right and wrong.

"My perceptions" have nothing to do with it.
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:08:02 -0700, DerbyDad03
wrote:

On 25 Oct, 22:40, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:34:03 -0700, DerbyDad03
wrote:

[snip]

-- Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

That's as useful as saying a "snaxgluff" is the same thing as an
"emwoozle". This could be 100% true, but is still meaningless Defining
an undefined word by reference to another undefined word doesn't
define anything.

Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

It's amazing that some people spend so much time on artificial
constructs such as "unlawful" and "illegal", yet appear to have no
concept of the world they inhabit where things can be "wrong" or
"harmful" (something which is entirely independent of laws).

If I hit you on the head with a brick, it'd hurt. This has nothing to
do with any laws. I won't hit you on the head with a brick because it
does harm. This has nothing to do with any laws.
--
61 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

-- Who knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'?

- It's amazing that some people spend so much time on artificial
constructs such as "unlawful" and "illegal"...

Did you see my answer to my own question?

unlawful: not lawful
illegal: a sick bird

Please check all groans at the door.

OK, and I have a few more (unrelated to the above) definitions like
that he

asset - a small donkey
ascot - a small donkey's bed
catalog - list of everything you've done with cats
caution - avoid crows
cloe - singular of "clothes"
cold - past tense of "coal"
debut - remove the rear end
delighted - in the dark
detailed - an unnaturally tailless cat
deviled - has had the vile removed
dilate - live a long time
economics - the verbal study of mice
exit - what a hen does after laying
fibula - a small lie
fulfilled - twice as much as halfilled
impeccable - birdproof
layer - hen
newbie - what you get when a bee's egg hatches
number - local anesthetic
politics - a large number of small parasitic animals
retail - help a "detailed" cat
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:08:12 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are
well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so precisely
because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"

Common usage. Not the actual meaning of the word.

LOL -- what do you mean, "not the actual meaning of the word"?? That's
straight out of a dictionary.


And that's where you got YOUR usage? Some people have what it takes to
be able to live with circular reasoning.

But I guess you know more about the "actual meaning" than the people that put
the dictionary together. Riiiiiiiiight.

"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."

A very SPECIFIC definition.

"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

By executing (carrying out) the death sentence.

By executing the prisoner.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Realize that dictionaries follow common use, not necessarily correct
use. "execute" means "do".

It *also* means "to subject to capital punishment" (cited above).

It's a distortion of the word.


Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.

THAT is nonsense. You've just defined one thing 'lawful" in terms of
an equally vague and inconsistently defined thing.

More nonsense. Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Never heard of laws changing?


Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your perception
of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the question of whether any
particular act is, or is not, within the law.

If IS relevant to something having an actual meaning or not.

Like that sentence?

Eventually, trying to convince [deleted] of simple and obvious things
ceases to be fun.

ROTFLMAO!

I wouldn't use that if it wasn't true. I do use LOL sometimes (when
it's really happening). Actually, meaning is damaged when these things
are said too much.

Where's all those loose asses? :-)
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:58:57 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Yeah, that's why so many people make their living debating how to
interpret law.

Right. Also laws change (breaking any correspondence to reality that
might have existed).

Another example is the [deleted because WAY TOO MANY people have this
problem]. That's REALLY vague (and full of BS too).

I notice people seldom debate whether or not bricks hurt when they hit
you in the head. Reality is more stable than laws can ever be. Note
that I also said I won't throw any bricks at people's heads, because
that would hurt not because of any law*.

&&&

* - While I do obey laws, that was not the point here. That last
sentence describes the reasoning process involved. I decide not to
throw the bricks because it would hurt. This decision comes before any
consideration of law.
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:37:53 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Yeah, that's why so many people make their living debating how to
interpret law.

In law school we had a required course called "Conflict of Laws." What to do
when one law requires something that another law prohibits. This condition
often arises in Constitutional arenas.

A basic rule is this: Whenever there exists a "right" for one person, there
is a simultaneous "duty" on the part of another. When this imposed "duty"
conflicts with another "right," sometimes the only answer is a balancing
test.

The classic - and easily understandable - case is abortion.


I remember reading something about that recently. We have no need for
a law specifically dealing with abortion.

A developing fetus is a parasite that makes demands(sometimes very
heavy demands) on the mother's body. She has a right to be free from
such demands unless she chooses to allow them.

BTW, I also remember an episode of "House, MD" where he is
unexpectedly honest about a fetus being a parasite.
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:30:55 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.
Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.


"Lawful" has a specific meaning: "Specifically required or permitted by
law." "Unlawful" implies the law is silent on the subject.


I find it useful to distinguish between 3 cases:

1. required by law
2. "the law is silent on this"
3. prohibited by law

What you said above seems to be using "unlawful" for case 2, while I
often hear it used for case 3, as in someone being arrested for
"unlawful use of a shotgun" (the law specifically prohibited that
particular use).

Something can be "unlawful" but not "illegal."


I guess "illegal" is how you're distinguishing case 3 from case 2
(above). I wish language was more clear and consistent on that matter.

An additional definition of "legal" is "involving lawyers". That
applies to things like "legal pads" or "legal briefs" (no underwear
jokes please).
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:07:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:40:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .

You and your neighbors may
want to 'talk' to the authorities.

Now,just what do you mean by putting "talk" (in parentheses!!)??
Be specific and clear.

He didn't put "talk" in parentheses. He did, however, put it between
single
quotation marks for no particularly good reason.

Quotation marks are "supposed" to indicate that the thing between them
has a meaning other than the apparent one. Sometimes it can be
difficult or impossible to determine what that meaning is.

In the message we're talking about, I don't see any meaning other than the
obvious one.

I don't either.

Now, if he had said "You should jack the kid up on the wall and
have a little 'talk" with him", I would've interpreted that to mean that
talk might not have been the chosen method of getting one's message across.


Considering that, I get really tired of "education" becoming an
excuse for violence. That was true in 1st grade when a kid was
punished for talking in class. I already knew enough to find it
obvious that it the (literal) pain in the ass WASN'T a consequence of
talking in class, but of the teacher's violent tenancies.
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
At one time whisky was illegal.

How can you say that? According to you, the term "illegal" has no meaning.
It's just an "artificial construct."

Did that make whisky any different?

Nobody ever contended that it did.


If
there's something wrought about whisky, it's wrong regardless of what
the law says. Notice how whisky was not changed, just the law.

And your point is -- ?

The law changed. So what? Get over it. Laws change. That does *not* alter the
fact that they exist, or that certain behaviors comply with them and other
behaviors don't.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:08:12 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are
well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so precisely

because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"

Common usage. Not the actual meaning of the word.

LOL -- what do you mean, "not the actual meaning of the word"?? That's
straight out of a dictionary.


And that's where you got YOUR usage? Some people have what it takes to
be able to live with circular reasoning.

Most people believe that words have meaning. You're apparently not one of
them.

But I guess you know more about the "actual meaning" than the people that put
the dictionary together. Riiiiiiiiight.

"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."

A very SPECIFIC definition.

"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

By executing (carrying out) the death sentence.

By executing the prisoner.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Realize that dictionaries follow common use, not necessarily correct
use. "execute" means "do".

It *also* means "to subject to capital punishment" (cited above).

It's a distortion of the word.

In your opinion. The makers of the dictionary disagree.


Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.

THAT is nonsense. You've just defined one thing 'lawful" in terms of
an equally vague and inconsistently defined thing.

More nonsense. Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Never heard of laws changing?

That laws change from time to time does not make them "vague" or
"inconsistently defined."


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:16:30 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
At one time whisky was illegal.

How can you say that? According to you, the term "illegal" has no meaning.
It's just an "artificial construct."

Did that make whisky any different?

Nobody ever contended that it did.


If
there's something wrought about whisky, it's wrong regardless of what
the law says. Notice how whisky was not changed, just the law.

And your point is -- ?


Apparently something too simple for you. The law changed but the
reality behind it (the actual harm of whisky) DID NOT.

The law changed. So what? Get over it. Laws change. That does *not* alter the
fact that they exist, or that certain behaviors comply with them and other
behaviors don't.

Good job of evading what you're supposed to be replying to.
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:19:34 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:08:12 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are
well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so precisely

because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"

Common usage. Not the actual meaning of the word.

LOL -- what do you mean, "not the actual meaning of the word"?? That's
straight out of a dictionary.


And that's where you got YOUR usage? Some people have what it takes to
be able to live with circular reasoning.

Most people believe that words have meaning. You're apparently not one of
them.

But I guess you know more about the "actual meaning" than the people that put
the dictionary together. Riiiiiiiiight.

"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."

A very SPECIFIC definition.

"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

By executing (carrying out) the death sentence.

By executing the prisoner.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Realize that dictionaries follow common use, not necessarily correct
use. "execute" means "do".

It *also* means "to subject to capital punishment" (cited above).

It's a distortion of the word.

In your opinion. The makers of the dictionary disagree.


Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.

THAT is nonsense. You've just defined one thing 'lawful" in terms of
an equally vague and inconsistently defined thing.

More nonsense. Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Never heard of laws changing?

That laws change from time to time does not make them "vague" or
"inconsistently defined."

For a little while this was more fun than trying to explain ANYTHING
to a rock.
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

George W wrote in
:

On 25 Oct 2007 16:52:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
.net:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about
ten are well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him,
and in my experience, nearly all adults who support capital
punishment do so precisely because they understand that *very*
clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word
here. It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"
"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal
penalty." "executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2.
One who puts another to death."

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real
meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your
perception of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the
question of whether any particular act is, or is not, within the
law.


well,for liberals,

Note that "liberal" and "conservative" are BOTH desirable qualities in
limited amounts. Unconditionally favoring one over the other makes no
sense. The use of such labels are necessarily incorrect (there are no
absolutes) and effectively limit people's thoughts and actions.

I use the term "liberal" as it is generaly meant in current usage.
Meaning "leftist/socialist/'progressive'/Communist".
I agree that many current "conservatives" are not always conservative.
I myself am not 100 % "Conservative".
But I DO believe that written law should mean the same as written *always*.
Otherwise,it's meaningless.

the law means different things at different
times,according to popular opinion at the time.

Proving it's lack of correspondence with reality.
I believe you lost "context" here.

"people" in one Amendment does not necessarily mean the same in
another Amendment,

And none of those are necessarily the same as actual people.

Again,a loss of context.

The law is in no way, in control of reality.

LAW doesn't "control" anything;it provides for punishment after the fact.

according to liberals/"progressives".
To them,the Constitution is a "living,breathing document" whose
meaning changes with the times.

Note that can be used as an excuse for anything. In effect, you are
saying it means nothing at all.

"I" said nothing of the sort.
IMO,that's your interpretation.

That's why they want judges to decide on everything.
(liberal judges,of course)

Of course,judges are not responsible to anyone,generally,in power for
life.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Doug Miller) wrote in
t:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
At one time whisky was illegal.

How can you say that? According to you, the term "illegal" has no
meaning. It's just an "artificial construct."

Did that make whisky any different?

Nobody ever contended that it did.


If
there's something wrought about whisky, it's wrong regardless of what
the law says. Notice how whisky was not changed, just the law.

And your point is -- ?

The law changed. So what? Get over it. Laws change. That does *not*
alter the fact that they exist, or that certain behaviors comply with
them and other behaviors don't.


People who think like this "Mark Lloyd" are what's wrong with the world.

IMO,you're arguing with a void.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:16:30 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
At one time whisky was illegal.

How can you say that? According to you, the term "illegal" has no meaning.
It's just an "artificial construct."

Did that make whisky any different?

Nobody ever contended that it did.


If
there's something wrought about whisky, it's wrong regardless of what
the law says. Notice how whisky was not changed, just the law.

And your point is -- ?


Apparently something too simple for you. The law changed but the
reality behind it (the actual harm of whisky) DID NOT.

That of course is completely irrelevant to any question regarding the
legality, or illegality, of any particular behavior -- or whether the words
"legal" and "illegal" have meaning.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:19:34 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:08:12 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten are

well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in my
experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so
precisely

because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"

Common usage. Not the actual meaning of the word.

LOL -- what do you mean, "not the actual meaning of the word"?? That's
straight out of a dictionary.


And that's where you got YOUR usage? Some people have what it takes to
be able to live with circular reasoning.

Most people believe that words have meaning. You're apparently not one of
them.

But I guess you know more about the "actual meaning" than the people that
put
the dictionary together. Riiiiiiiiight.

"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."

A very SPECIFIC definition.

"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

By executing (carrying out) the death sentence.

By executing the prisoner.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Realize that dictionaries follow common use, not necessarily correct
use. "execute" means "do".

It *also* means "to subject to capital punishment" (cited above).

It's a distortion of the word.

In your opinion. The makers of the dictionary disagree.


Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood meaning:
within, or allowed by, law.

THAT is nonsense. You've just defined one thing 'lawful" in terms of
an equally vague and inconsistently defined thing.

More nonsense. Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Never heard of laws changing?

That laws change from time to time does not make them "vague" or
"inconsistently defined."

For a little while this was more fun than trying to explain ANYTHING
to a rock.

I'm sorry these concepts are too difficult for you to grasp, Mark.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 27 Oct 2007 02:44:29 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

George W wrote in
:

On 25 Oct 2007 16:52:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
[snip]

well,for liberals,

Note that "liberal" and "conservative" are BOTH desirable qualities in
limited amounts. Unconditionally favoring one over the other makes no
sense. The use of such labels are necessarily incorrect (there are no
absolutes) and effectively limit people's thoughts and actions.

I use the term "liberal" as it is generaly meant in current usage.
Meaning "leftist/socialist/'progressive'/Communist".
I agree that many current "conservatives" are not always conservative.
I myself am not 100 % "Conservative".
But I DO believe that written law should mean the same as written *always*.
Otherwise,it's meaningless.

I reserve the right to not continue a discussion with someone who
consistently replies to things I didn't say while ignoring those I
did.

[snip]
--
59 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy

On 27 Oct 2007 02:49:38 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
et:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
At one time whisky was illegal.

How can you say that? According to you, the term "illegal" has no
meaning. It's just an "artificial construct."

Did that make whisky any different?

Nobody ever contended that it did.


If
there's something wrought about whisky, it's wrong regardless of what
the law says. Notice how whisky was not changed, just the law.

And your point is -- ?

The law changed. So what? Get over it. Laws change. That does *not*
alter the fact that they exist, or that certain behaviors comply with
them and other behaviors don't.


People who think like this "Mark Lloyd" are what's wrong with the world.

IMO,you're arguing with a void.

Of course it's "right" to ignore reality :-)
--
59 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy