A Question of Logic

[Aqualung]

I hate math even when the numbers dress themselves up as letters.

I love math when the numbers pretend to be letters. I hate numbers. When numbers masquerade as other things, it means that the numbers aren't important, but rather the concepts are, and I love the concepts more than the application.

 

[McBell]

I hate math even when the numbers dress themselves up as letters.

I hate math ESPECIALLY when the numbers dress up as letters.


I also hate when people try to make absolutes where none exist.

 

[lilithu]

Finally catching up with this thread:

I disagree. To me it's not useful to sub in unrelated concepts when this is not a logic question at all, but a question of the interpretation of language and meaning.

I disagree again. Judges and lawyers don't use "universal logic rules" (exclusively) to determine the meaning of legal language. They interpret the meaning of words strung together by people. That is not primarily a logical endeavour. You can see this by the way modern legal language is so complicated as to be almost unintelligible: they are trying (and failing) to take the "human" out of the communication.

I don't have a car. Aristotelean logic fails again!

What the writer of a sentence personally felt about the state taking a life is highly relevant to the meaning of the sentence. It's quite relevant to those interpreting the "spirit of the law" as well. Granted, lawyers and judges are experts at semantic wankery as well.

IMO, the irrational human element can not be removed from language.

I cannot argue with irrationality.

Sorry - I got the impression from the first 5 or 6 pages of the thread we were talking about capital punishment.

Perhaps you confused it with this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/66437-death-penalty.html

THAT thread is about capital punishment.

THIS thread is about whether or not the language in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants govt the right to impose capital punishment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I figure, if deprivation of life made it onto the list in the fifth amendment as casually as liberty and property did, it wasn't thought to be unusual.

Not in the 18th Century by any means, no.

And I didn't say that captial punishment was cruel or unusual (I personally consider it to be both, but I recognize that the US Supreme Court disagrees with me, and their opinion matters more than mine does in this matter). My point was just that there are many hurdles to clear beyond the 5th Amendment's requirement for due process before a person can be legally executed in the United States.

 

[Willamena]

According to whom? I know you're trying to say that we have the right to life regardless of any conditions, but we don't. We only have rights as long as the people we live with and our government grant them to us. In this case, the government makes it clear that they reserve the right to take away that particular right as a possible consequence of a crime after due process. There are conditions to every right.

In accord with the analogy you're trying to create.

What I'm hearing is that you have a very different image of what "rights" are than I do. My image is of rights as inalienable.

The government (either yours or mine) cannot lawfully take away any of our rights, because they are inalienable, but also because we have Constitutions that lawfully guarantee our rights. Our constitutions, both of ours (yours more than mine), were not written by the governmnet. They were written by "We, the People..."

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Having a "right to life" does not mean that the government cannot act to execute law that takes that life away; and executing such law does not mean we lose our "right to life."

Similarly, not having dinner does not mean we have lost our right to have dinner.

 

[lilithu]

Yet the Fifth Amendment does state that after due process your life CAN be taken away, thus refuting your belief.

...

Your refusal to see it does not change it.
Your dislike of the way I phrase it does not change it.

:sarcastic:areyoucra

It doesn't state what you say it states. You repeating it over and over again does not change that. It says that life cannot be taken away without due process. That is NOT the same thing as saying that with due process, life can be taken away.

If not A then not B

NOT THE SAME AS

If A then B.

:no:

You seem hung up on the fact that the wording implies/recognizes that the taking of life does happen, and therefore it can happen. Once again, "can" as in "is possible" is NOT the same thing as "can" as in "is permitted." While the Fifth Amendment recognizes that govt does deprive people of life, it is NOT granting govt the authority to deprive people of life.

 

[McBell]

:sarcastic:areyoucra

It doesn't state what you say it states. You repeating it over and over again does not change that. It says that life cannot be taken away without due process. That is NOT the same thing as saying that with due process, life can be taken away.

If not A then not B

NOT THE SAME AS

If A then B.

:no:

You seem hung up on the fact that the wording implies/recognizes that the taking of life does happen, and therefore it can happen. Once again, "can" as in "is possible" is NOT the same thing as "can" as in "is permitted." While the Fifth Amendment recognizes that govt does deprive people of life, it is NOT granting govt the authority to deprive people of life.

post #162.
Please pay particular attention to that which is red.
Perhaps you can figure it out.

 

[lilithu]

post #162.
Please pay particular attention to that which is red.
Perhaps you can figure it out.

Not helpful, much like most of your put-downs. Perhaps they serve to make you feel better. *shrug*

 

[McBell]

First, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.
​

Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

 

[lilithu]

First, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.
​

Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

Strawman. I'm not arguing that logical reasoning is an absolute law THAT governs the universe. I do, however, think that logic applies in this case, seeing as it's about the interpretation of Constitutional law. And for you (and any others) to be arguing that it doesn't simply suggests that you have no logical argument against my argument yet refuse to concede.

 

[lilithu]

Having a "right to life" does not mean that the government cannot act to execute law that takes that life away; and executing such law does not mean we lose our "right to life."

Similarly, not having dinner does not mean we have lost our right to have dinner.

"Must spread frubals." :sorry1:

 

[Magic Man]

In accord with the analogy you're trying to create.

What I'm hearing is that you have a very different image of what "rights" are than I do. My image is of rights as inalienable.

The government (either yours or mine) cannot lawfully take away any of our rights, because they are inalienable, but also because we have Constitutions that lawfully guarantee our rights. Our constitutions, both of ours (yours more than mine), were not written by the governmnet. They were written by "We, the People..."


Having a "right to life" does not mean that the government cannot act to execute law that takes that life away; and executing such law does not mean we lose our "right to life."

Similarly, not having dinner does not mean we have lost our right to have dinner.

That's fine, but then that's just saying that the government can take away your life, instead of your right to life. I don't see how that changes anything. In my analogy, the parent tells the kid to was their hands or else their dinner will be taken away, not their right to dinner. It still says the same thing, even if you take the word "right" out of it.

 

[McBell]

Strawman. I'm not arguing that logical reasoning is an absolute law THAT governs the universe. I am, however, arguing that logic applies in this case. And for you (and any others) to be arguing that it doesn't simply suggests that you have no logical argument against my argument yet refuse to concede.

I will merely let you be content with your dictating to me what I think and mean.
Seems that is the only way for you to "win" this 'debate'.
All attempts thus far to correct your errors have been met with you merely dictating even more.

I shall stop in from time to time to see what I believe and think.
Nice to keep track of those things you know.

Perhaps when you decide to stop letting your passion rule your reason, you will come to understand what I mean, but that cannot happen until you stop with your assumptuous strawmen.

Funny how you accuse me of presenting your strawmen.
But since you are so intent on not actually listening to what is being said to you, there is no point in continuing.

 

[lilithu]

Perhaps when you decide to stop letting your passion rule your reason,

*yawn* ad hominem. (and also ironic)

 

[McBell]

*yawn* ad hominem. (and also ironic)

Thank you for proving my point.

oops, so sorry.
What was my point?
Since what I mean does not matter to your dictatorship.

 

[Halcyon]

In any number of ways, none of which are spelled out in the Constitution. The only thing the Constitution says about punishment is:

• that it can't happen without due process (5th amendment) and that it can't be "cruel and unusual" (8th amendment). Note how in both cases, the wording restricts what the govt can do (in order to protect our rights).
• Congress has the right to punish counterfeiters, pirates, and traitors (section 8).

I don't understand why you're not comprehending my point.

The fifth says that a man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without a fair trial. I agree with you that it doesn't say "if a man has undergone due process then he must be deprived of life, liberty and property", because that would be silly.

If it is the law of the land that a man may be imprisoned for burglery, then he must undergo the due process of law before he can be legally imprisoned - same goes for him being fined or executed, if and only if that is an established law of the land.

Now, if a man is convicted of murder and the judge rules that he should be executed for his crime, if the prisoner were to then for some reason jump up and say "You can't do that!" the judge can turn around and show him a copy of the fifth amendment where it says "a man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law".
The judge can ask the convicted "Have you been through the due process?" the answer would be yes. He can then ask if capital punishment is a legal punishment, the answer again would be yes.
Therefore the judge can bang his gavel and send the condemned man away.

Why? Because the judge has satisfied the criteria set out in the fifth amendment to protect your rights, he hasn't denied the murderer a fair trial, he hasn't shot the murderer in his cell before trial, he's allowed the man to go through the whole legal process. The restriction imposed by the fifth is thus lifted. He's had his due process and because it's legal, and from the judge's POV fitting to do so, he's been sentenced to execution.

So, to sum up, the Fifth does not explicitly say that your govt has the right to execute citizens. What it does is place a restriction on an already established legal punishment, which when lifted, allows that already established legal punishment to proceed.
Which is tantamount in all ways but semantics to saying "a man may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law - should such due process of law be satisfied, this restriction is lifted and so a man may be deprived of life, liberty or property if that is the decision of the court and such punishments are legal."

If you can't see that, I'm afraid I must give up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now, if a man is convicted of murder and the judge rules that he should be executed for his crime, if the prisoner were to then for some reason jump up and say "You can't do that!" the judge can turn around and show him a copy of the fifth amendment where it says "a man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law".
The judge can ask the convicted "Have you been through the due process?" the answer would be yes. He can then ask if capital punishment is a legal punishment, the answer again would be yes.
Therefore the judge can bang his gavel and send the condemned man away.

Only because the power to sentence someone to death (or prison, or a fine) comes from somewhere else.

Apparently, the government in the United States has the legal power to do this, but it doesn't come from the 5th Amendment; the 5th limits this power, it doesn't create it.

I'm still not really sure where the legal justification for this power comes from. AFAICT reading the Constitution, the federal government only has the power to punish "piracy on the high seas" and "crimes against nations" (which I interpret as something roughly analogous to war crimes).

And for the States, I don't see any explicit granting of the power to kill criminals in the Constitution, but the document does specify that there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are retained by the States. This by itself isn't justification, but it does allow the possibility of arguing that this right is innate to the government of a State... for reasons that don't immediately come to my mind.

 

[lilithu]

I don't understand why you're not comprehending my point.

The fifth says that a man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without a fair trial. I agree with you that it doesn't say "if a man has undergone due process then he must be deprived of life, liberty and property", because that would be silly.

I'm not saying that's what your saying.

I'm saying that the Fifth Amendment also does NOT say, "if a man has undergone due process then he can be deprived of life, liberty and property."

It does not grant govt the authority. It assumes that govt has that authority from somewhere else. The thing is, no where else in the Constitution is the authority to deprive a person of life specifically granted.

 

[Halcyon]

Only because the power to sentence someone to death (or prison, or a fine) comes from somewhere else.

Apparently, the government in the United States has the legal power to do this, but it doesn't come from the 5th Amendment; the 5th limits this power, it doesn't create it.

Doesn't create, but does allow.

"You can't do A without first doing B" is a restriction. Fulfil B and the restriction is lifted, thus A can be done assuming there are no other restrictions that need to be met - "You can do A if B is achieved."
Since the logic of this thread only covers the restriction "if not A, then not B", and no mention of other restrictions were initially made, it is fair and logical to assume that this is the only restriction being discussed with regard to it's logical outcome.
Bring in other restrictions and you void your original logical premise.

 

[Halcyon]

I'm not saying that's what your saying.

I'm saying that the Fifth Amendment also does NOT say, "if a man has undergone due process then he can be deprived of life, liberty and property."

But that's the logical opposite of what it does say when we lift the restriction of "without due process."