dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

reply to POB

Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live

said by POB:

And prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, no black man was ever free ...
Not true at all. There were many areas in the USA in which slavery was illegal prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Furthermore, the Proclamation itself did not free any slaves, as it was directed only towards the southern states that had seceded, which did not recognize the Proclamation. It did not free any slaves in the northern states which allowed slavery. These states were Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri.
said by POB:

... as well as prior to 1920 no female ever voted.
Wyoming had allowed women's suffrage since 1869.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
Expand your moderator at work

jc100

join:2002-04-10

Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live

Or when the person looking to give B.S. to the one or two exceptions out of the norm.... It's like saying I know people who live in poverty and managed to rise above it. Sure, this does happen, but the ODDS one stays in that situation FAR OUTWEIGH the rising above. As per slavery, there were free slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. They were given papers that deemed them "Free Blacks". However, there were FAR MORE slaves than there were Free ones. So while not 100 percent accurate, his stance gets the point across.



S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

thats rights...why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Since theres no precedent, does this mean I can now drop a lawsuit having cities cease and desist using cameras at intersections for the sole purpose of revenue gaining?
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone


jc100

join:2002-04-10

Facts? You mean exceptions to the GENERAL RULE. On your basis, whenever an exception exists, the forefront is no longer true. Taking your statement one step further basically means that the statistical anomalies serve as the norm. Sigh.

Second, what the hell does your example have to do with anything? Precedence is set by prior legislation and ruling. Where none exist, a trend is set when cases are heard. Ie, if none exist, the judge making his or her first ruling sets the tone. Once again, this DOES NOT mean this tone has to be followed by others. Law is an opinion, not fact. History, on the other hand is concrete.



S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

If precedence is set by prior legislation...then that makes it law. Therefore...law is fact, not opinion. And while history may be concrete, history is full of people that chose, as you say, not to follow those tones. Does that make them right, No!
You seem to be picking and choosing which opinions, or laws, that you want to conform to. If everyone did that we'd have anarchy.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone


jc100

join:2002-04-10

Law IS NOT FACT. Law is opinion and changes with various rulings and time. What one society deems as law, might be modified or rejected by another. To further complicate law, what a society follows changes gradually over time. Hence, Law is something that is ever metamorphosing into new territory. Even law ruled as supreme are not without changes. So therefore, law is neither fact or concrete. It is merely an opinion that we follow until such time society deems new guidelines necessary. Therefore, your basis for reason here is pure fallacy and conjured crap.

Once again, History on the other hand is fact, though with bias. History is written by the victor, but that is true of anything. One who wins usually slants things towards making themselves look good. It does not mean that what they wrote cannot be verified, it just means its best to compare with other source,s to get a true tell tale picture.

Now back to my argument, you need to take reading 101. I never said what the guy stated was fact. I said it was MOSTLY CORRECT which stands to be accurate in terms of his analogy. While there were SOME free blacks, they were the exception to the rule.

Expand your moderator at work