How many of those 40,000 were killed intentionally?
You're comparing accidents resultibng death to murder on a massive scale; apples to oranges.
How many of those 40,000 were killed intentionally?
You're comparing accidents resultibng death to murder on a massive scale; apples to oranges.
But they do represent the beliefs of those who wrote the constitution and those who voted to approve it.
lol....
And my hisdtory degree required me to read most of the papers, the constitution, private letters etc etc
now, my JD required a great deal more specific and detailed study of the documents.
So, if we're comparing the size of our di...plomas as the determinative factor in who is right... my Hx BA and my JD trump your degree.
Last edited:
Fascinating. I doubt if this meant a gain in the franchise. Fifty pounds was a bit much in those days. What you gained from women, you lost from men. Still, that women were allowed to vote, even it were limited to wealthy women, is something I was totally unaware of. A pity that its duration was so short. I specified slaves in my argument because I believed that free Blacks in some areas had some rights. I was surprised that they were so short lived in New Jersey. Sad.
My source was pre-Revolutionary. It applied to the Philadelphia area only. I imagined that the 1976 law, of which I was sadly unaware until now, must have upset the apple cart there a bit. Interesting consequence of the Declaration of Independence. Some people took it a bit more seriously then than they do now. If your source is accurate, it would mean that Philadelphia was a bit of an anomaly in Pennsylvania. Your cite was most informative.
How can you sway public opinion with arguments at variance to public opinion? In the debates between factions, a common tactic is to radicalize the opposing faction. Political propaganda is crafted to its audience. It appeals to their unstated as well as their stated beliefs. The reason Karl Rove is so successful is that he targets his propaganda to the public. He doesn’t address it to some idealized public, but to the public as it is. To do this successfully, he has to know the targeted public.
You restated my position as this.
Where did I say that the Federalist Papers merely reflected the prevailing public opinion of the day?
Does this sound like that?
There are people who read what they want to read, but you seem a bit bright for that.
Sad, but that is your right. I am here to learn, and more important, to correct errors in my beliefs. I thank you for your aid in advancing that agenda.
Not necessarily. John Jay did not attend the Constitutional Convention, so he had no say in drafting it. And the Convention had something like 56 delegates in attendance- all of whom had a say in writing the document, but not all of whom were willing to sign their name to the end result.
Except when you are spouting opinions and expecting people to accept them as fact.
The document (constitution) is at its heart Madison's though he made vigorous effors to deny the centrality of his role.
The Federalist Papers can be easily asserted to represent the opinions of those who wrote them...the views of the writers are well represented in the constitution.
Those who signed the Constitution manifestly agreed with it.
Those representatives of the state who voted for the constitution manifestly approved of it.
The document can be said to represent the intentions of the people through their elected leaders. We have a Republic not a Democracy and that is how we express consensus opinions.
Last edited:
I didn?t say it was; I was only correcting your errors of historical fact.
On the contrary. I know of a photograph of a suffragette march in New York where a woman is holding a sign that says the state of New York denies the vote to criminals, lunatics and women. When New York sent Hilary to the U.S. Senate, the state gave the vote to all three.
New Jersey abolished slavery sometime around the year 1800. But NJ?s emancipation law was so strict that all freed slaves could not live in the state- not that it mattered since for all practical purpose slavery itself was to continue for another generation.
Can you give me your source? Why would Philadelphia have voter qualifications that the rest of the state didn?t have? What was in Pennsylvania ?s colonial charter that allowed Philadelphia to make up its own regulations?
The trouble in PA wasn?t so much aristocratic rule as it was a running fight between the colonists and the Penn family. The British Crown gave William Penn a land grant. Penn then bought the land that became PA from the local Indians, even though he had no legal obligation to do so. Penn and his sons then sold PA off piecemeal to colonists. But the Crown?s land grant gave the Penn family certain legal rights to govern PA and the colonists naturally chaffed under Penn rule.
BTW: One of my direct ancestors moved from the Rhineland Palatinate to Valley Forge , PA around 1730 and bought land directly from William Penn?s sons.
This is exactly how you do sway public opinion. If public opinion already agrees with you, you have no reason to sway it. But if public opinion does not agree with you and you want to sway it, you have no choice but present arguments saying that public opinion is wrong.
You are implying that all political propaganda comes form people who are insincere about their beliefs and goals. Some people, like Karl Rove, may only be interested in political power and will thus craft their opinions around an electoral majority in order to win an election. But this has not always been the case. Alexander Hamilton, if not also John Jay and James Madison as well, was sincere in his beliefs. Hamilton was a true patriot and was willing to put his country?s best interests ahead of his personal wishes and desires. He honestly believed that his personal views were right and would be beneficial to the country and he contributed to the Federalist Papers in order to convince an electoral majority that his personal views were right and would be beneficial to the country.
Yes. By calling the Federalist Papers political propaganda you suggested that the men who wrote them were simply opportunists out for personal political power. You turned 18th century statesmen into 21st century politicians.
True. However, I fail to see the relevance of your point. Are you suggesting that accidental deaths are of lesser importance that homicides? Are you arguing that we should spend less effort on preventing accidental deaths than on homicides? If so, could you give your reasons.
I'm saying we don't use our military to chase down shitty drivers but we should use it to chase down terrorists. A small point. From what I gather I generally agree with what you've offered in the thread so please chalk that post up to pedantic nitpicking (even if I was on point about the minutae
)Can deaths caused by automobile when someone is drunk or high behind the wheel be accidental? How are they not intentional? Why should such deaths not be treated like murder?
I thought I acknowledged that. Since I didn’t make it clear, I will. I concede the point, I was in error. Thank you for the correction.
My comment on duration applied to the historical anomaly that existed at the time of the Constitutional convention. I’m not a fan of Mrs. Clinton but I find your comment somewhat lacking in objectivity as well as accuracy.
My source was "A concise History of the American Republic" which I listed previously. Page 65 gives the perspective which I stated. Actually, if you review your cite, the property requirements was 100 acres of land or 50 pounds. If you lived in the country, the land requirement might have been easily met, if you lived in an urban area, not so easily. Fifty pounds was a lot of money in those days. However, this was changed during the revolution. So it was not in effect at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Incidentally I found the twenty percent voter turnout listed in your cite rather interesting.
However, I believe that you have failed to disprove my assertion that the franchise was restricted to the minority at the period in question. The largest single factor was the denial of the franchise to the female in all states but one, and when you add in the other factors, they add up.
I can think of no case where someone sets out to change the totality of public opinion. This is political suicide. In most cases, if not all, the goal is to change public opinion on one or a few points. To do that, it is necessary to use other facets of public opinion.
A common tactic is to delegitimize the opinions to be changed so as make them appear as contrary to public opinion. The present tactic of accusing previously accepted practices and viewpoints as socialistic is a case in point. Almost all political factions claim to represent the majority view.
Strawman argument. You are giving unstated meanings not justified by the argument.
The mere statement that something is political propaganda does not imply an immoral agenda. I suggest you review the meaning of the word propaganda. It is merely giving an argument that advances a faction, economic or political.
At the time, the Federalist Papers were just that, arguments to advance the adoption of the constitution. These men were involved in a political process. They represented a faction, in this case, the faction that supported federalism. Obviously, they were not giving a balanced review of the issue, they were not summing up the pros and cons, they were giving the argument in support of the constitution as an instrument of federalism.
I gave the example of Karl Rove, not as a villain, but of a man with consummate skill in the practice of political propaganda.
Statesmen in kingdoms or dictatorships may not have to be politicians, but statesmen in democratic states are politicians. Madison and Hamilton were politicians, so was Jefferson. It might be argued that Washington was not, but then, some might question that he was a statesmen. I’m not that clear on Jay, but in adding to the argument for a constitutional federalism, he involved himself in a political process.
This deification of founding fathers is common in nations, but hardly consistent with scholarship.
Compromise is a necessity of the political process. The process that Hamilton and Madison were involved in was a political process. In this case, they were allies, later they were to become political foes. It is unlikely that their views were in perfect harmony at the writing of the Federalist Papers.
You seem to have made truth your enemy. Were the Federalist Papers political propaganda, and if not, why not?
Last edited:
Only the most rabidly partisan liberal could believe that Clinton is not a crook. Her tolerance of Bill decade after decade makes her lunacy self-evident.
Most People at the time did not live in urban areas so land ownership was no great barrier to voting.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=286
At the time of the Constitutional Convention Philadelphia was the largest city in the U.S.- and 2nd largest city in the English-speaking world. But it still had only 40,000 people- less than 1.5% of the entire U.S. population.
Furthermore, Philadelphia ?s government was closed to the electorate in that the office holders choose their own successors. So the franchise really isn?t an issue as far as Philadelphia is concerned.
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/result.php?use%5B%5D=CPI&use%5B%5D=NOMINALEARN&year_early=1776£71=50&shilling71=&pence71=&amount=50&year_source=1776&year_result=2009
50 pounds in 1776 would buy 5,420 pounds? worth of goods today. But still, considering the labor shortage in the U.S. working and saving until you were worth 50 pounds would not have been that big a deal. Someone earning today?s U.S. minimum wage (with a 40 hour workweek) would earn this much money in less than year?s time.
Ho so?
That assertion is obvious if you take the U.S. population as a whole- which included a million disenfranchised slaves along with white children and women who could not vote simply because they were women. What I dispute is your claim that property-ownership requirements were stringent enough to keep a majority of the white male population from voting.
Thomas Paine when (it is estimated) 1/3 of the U.S. population supported independence, 1/3 was loyal to the British Crown and 1/3 were undecided. (Other estimates put the pro-independence figure at 25% at the start of 1776).
Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1939 to 1941 who wanted to give military aid to Britain when most Americans started out being isolationist to a fault.
yes
Did they intend to get into the accident? If not then it was accidental and not intentional.
However, one could intend to drive a car into a person while drunk - but that wouldn't be an accident - it would be intentional and homicide with the car as the deadly weapon.
Further, one could run into that person as a result of being intoxicated but without intent. That in some cases may be regarded as criminally negligent.
Because murder requires specific intent to commit the murder.
Homicide by intoxicated use of a motor-vehicle lacks specific intent to kill. It is regarded as criminally negligent homicide - manslaughter.
I see you area typical libertarian fruitcake. If you intentionally get drunk or high and then get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle you do so knowing full well that you could kill somebody. So if you do end up killing somebody you did so intentionally.
No. Just a guy with a JD who worked in the homicide division of a DAs office.
You misunderstand what "intentionally" means as a matter of law.
That's OK. You're a typical fruitcake of the "I'm always right" sort so please continue on believing what you wish rather than what is.
I wouldn?t buy a used car from Bill Clinton. I considered him guilty of economic treason, and I felt that he was impeached for the wrong reason.
Almost everyone has sinned. When it comes to crime, we only count the convictions. By your standard, the Republicans could hang the Democrats, and the Democrats could hang the Republicans. Which, now that I think about it, wouldn?t be a bad idea.
As for Mrs. Clinton?s lunacy, I shudder to think of the length of the line of women who would gladly take her place.
By the data most favorable to your argument, twenty percent of white males were denied the franchise in Pennsylvania prior to the revolution. That would seem to be a significant number.
Yes, I agree, I don?t believe I was arguing the contrary as to urban versus rural.
However, after looking at your cite, I suspect an error in interpretation. The only conflict between my source and yours depends on your assumption that governmental succession in Philadelphia was the result of a de jure mechanism rather than a de facto mechanism. It would be interesting to see a description of the legal code that would give the results described. Until I see a better cite on the legal code, I will stick with my source.
If you read the site carefully, you realize that it is very difficult to convert prices over such disparate times. Most of the indices listed didn?t exist then. Most of the goods now available, weren?t available then. My concept of the value of a pound came from reading historical novels written in that period. According to them, a pound was quite a bit of money in those days. Hell, a penny was like a dollar today.
In back country Pennsylvania of that time, glass widows were a rarity. They used greased paper. The caliber of the Pennsylvania rifle was quite small, around thirty, because of the price of lead and powder. Rifles were cheaply manufactured because people couldn?t afford quality firearms such as were available in Europe.
Metallic money was a rarity, and barter was quite common. Scarcity of money was a serious problem in Colonial America. The Colonists wanted to use fiat money, but England didn?t like it. British goods had to be paid for in real money.
Your cite gave two values for the fifty pounds. I feel that the one based on unskilled labor was more realistic. That would make fifty pounds the rough equivalent of a 100 thousand dollars today. Since the qualification was a hundred acres or fifty pounds, that would indicate a similarity in value. By the way, I suspect that the values of the pound were for England. The situation in the Colonies were quite a bit different. Lovely site by the way, I thank you for it. Things like that are hard for me to come up with, after all, I?m stupid.
That?s when Pennsylvania abolished the property requirement.
Would you please point out where I made that claim?
Immigration to Canada accounted for quite a bit of the change, and hangings a few more. As J. Fenimore Cooper pointed out in "the Spy: a Tale of the Neutral Ground", the life of a Tory could be a bit hazardous during the revolution.
However, that is beside the point. Semantics and logic are not your strong point. The totality of opinion is not one issue. Did Thomas Paine change the opinions as to God and marriage. The totality of opinion is essentially the collective reality construct, both stated and unstated.
As for Roosevelt, he didn?t change American opinion on that point, the Japanese did. By the way, I was alive then, were you?
Of course if you are one of those who believed FDR tricked the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor, that?s another matter.
It doesn?t matter, again, you are dealing with a single issue.
It is far easier to pursue irrational goals than rational goals in politics. The invasion of Iraq demonstrated that. However, you didn?t really answer my question.I'm saying we don't use our military to chase down shitty drivers but we should use it to chase down terrorists. A small point. From what I gather I generally agree with what you've offered in the thread so please chalk that post up to pedantic nitpicking (even if I was on point about the minutae
Murder is socially objectionable and has a high priority in our judicial system.
Accidental death isn?t socially objectionable and doesn?t have a high priority. However, from the victims standpoint, what is the difference? If you?re dead, you?re dead.
A child that is murdered is dead. A child that is killed as the result of unavoidable error is dead. If both can be prevented, why does one death have priority over the other?
I?m not concerned with vengeance here, I?m concerned with the victim. The only rational reason for punishment is deterrence. You execute the murderer to deter others from murdering. Of course, there are those who believe in an eye for an eye, but I said rational.
However, the goal is to save future lives.
If accidents can be prevented, then shouldn?t the same effort be applied? Do the victims merit less?
I can see the argument if the victim brings on his fate through his own decisions. If a person chooses to engage in unsafe practice, then he earned his fate. However, if the victim is the result of the fault of another or of no one, then from the victim?s standpoint, why does the victim merit less concern than the victim of intentional homicide? I?m not speaking as an advocate of punishment here, but as an advocate of social responsibility.
We enact laws to prevent murder and accept that that is the responsibility of the state.
Why isn?t it the responsibility of the state to deter or stop preventable accidental deaths?
Isn?t it a fundamental rule of human society to save life when ever possible?
No I am not. I am merely complaining that the law lets drunks and addicts get away with murder.
No, you told me that I was wrong not that you wished I wasn't right.
Unless
Meant something other than it appears to mean. Calling me a fruitcake for explaining the state of the law can hardly be regarded as a complaint about the state of the law. It is an ad hominem comment coupled with an assertion that I was wrong. I'm not wrong. You were and now you're backtracking.
Further, drunks and addicts don't get away with "murder" in the coloquial sense because they are quite commonly charged with vehicular homicide. It's generally an easy case to make. About the only defense is the argument that the death would have followed regardless of the driver's intoixication. It happens in rare circumstances. The one case I'm familiar with had facts something like this... driver was marginally over or under the prohibitted BAC but exhibitted little evidence of intoxication. The dead guy darted out into traffic right in front of driver. It was night. Dead guy was wearing all black. Driver made evasive move but was unable to avoid killing the homeless guy that ran nito the street.
Last edited:
not sure I recall what it was ... eeek
Matters not to the dead guy. He's dead as you note. Matters a great deal to the guy who killed him. In one case it may be a crime and in another not. That's a cavernous distinction.
Because people who kill intentionally are people we need to lock up. Those who do so by accident are not. Quit looking at it from the dead guy's perspective... "the dead know only one thing. It is better to be alive." We look at it from the perspective of the killer when deciding if the killing was criminal or not.
My uncle shot a deer 30 years ago. The bullet passed through the deer and quite a distance further when it lodged in the head of another hunter killing him.
John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln in the head point blank.
Does this cause a dilema in deciding which act or acts were or were not criminal?
No, that's one of two that leap to mind. Deterrence is a good thing. So is punishing the guilty (which you are not concerned with) but the second is protection. Society is, mostly, protected from the incarcerated felon.
It is very difficult to measure how many people chose not to murder owing to a fear of the DP or other sentencing. You can't really poll for it
"Excuse me Sir. How many times in the last month did the fear of punishment deter you from killing your neighbor with the loud dogs?"Like regulating our pharmaceuticals, food, chemicals, requiring seatbelts?
There's an algebraic equation for when risk avoidance makes sense.
If the likelihood of harm multipled times the degree of harm is greater than the cost of prevention.... spent the coin to prevent. It's often called the calculus or algebra of negligence.
Because crimes require intent. We don't criminalize tragic accidents - we mourn the victims.
It does this though. Think of all the safety regs out there.
Well, depending on what you mean by possible... yes.
There are circumstasnces where it goes further. If one created the peril in which another finds himself one has a legal duty to get the potential victim out of the mess. Some relationships create a legal duty (spousal, parent child).
I think as a general moral rule, yes, we are obligated to save another's life whenever reasonably possible. Reasonable is a squishy term but we can look at it like this, would another reasonable person in the same situation act to save the life. The reasonable man standard.
Similar threads
