|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:18:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I do not think I am wrong, so why would I admit this? Do you remember why the the question of a constitutional right to not have data collected sprang from? |
Yes. Do you remember what you titled this thread? "Right to Ones [sic] Essence?" Katz v. US shows the derivation of the right to privacy quite clearly, without needing "effects" to mean "essences." You've presented no evidence, either here or in last Wednesday's chat, that that's what the Framers intended it to mean. Obviously, you can continue to insist that you are correct regarding that matter, but that won't make you actually correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:31:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, would it be illegal for the White house to have FBI files without reason?
|
It would be illogical for the White House to have FBI files without a reason.
Perhaps you could be a bit more vague in your question, I kinda think you might be driving at something and I fear it's a brick wall.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 16:43:03 [Permalink]
|
Why would it be illegal for the White House to have FBI files? I'm sure they get such files - briefs, at least - every day, since the Director of the FBI reports to the Attourney General, who in turn reports to the President. The President is the nation's top law-enforcement official, and the FBI is the Federal government's top law-enforcement organization. How could the President do his job without access to FBI files?
Besides, Jerome, everyone who made a stink about the files during the Clinton administration said that they had a reason to have those files, and they said it was the reason itself which was illegal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 18:36:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why would it be illegal for the White House to have FBI files? I'm sure they get such files - briefs, at least - every day, since the Director of the FBI reports to the Attourney General, who in turn reports to the President. The President is the nation's top law-enforcement official, and the FBI is the Federal government's top law-enforcement organization. How could the President do his job without access to FBI files?
Besides, Jerome, everyone who made a stink about the files during the Clinton administration said that they had a reason to have those files, and they said it was the reason itself which was illegal.
|
Dave that was dishonest as my question was different than the question that you stated and answered.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 18:54:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave that was dishonest as my question was different than the question that you stated and answered. |
Nah, if you're going to hammer H. for his failure to educate you, then I'm going to claim that it's your inability to communicate well that has caused this problem you see, and not dishonesty on my part.
But your question is poorly phrased, anyway, because FBI files would never be at the White House "for no reason." There would always be a reason for their presence, even something as innocuous as "someone put the wrong address on the package." Even if we don't know why the files were there, it doesn't mean that they were there "for no reason."
But when talking about illegal activities, one looks at means, motives and opportunities. With files there "for no reason," you are saying that there was no motive to commit a crime. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 18:56:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave that was dishonest as my question was different than the question that you stated and answered. |
Nah, if you're going to hammer H. for his failure to educate you, then I'm going to claim that it's your inability to communicate well that has caused this problem you see, and not dishonesty on my part.
But your question is poorly phrased, anyway, because FBI files would never be at the White House "for no reason." There would always be a reason for their presence, even something as innocuous as "someone put the wrong address on the package." Even if we don't know why the files were there, it doesn't mean that they were there "for no reason."
But when talking about illegal activities, one looks at means, motives and opportunities. With files there "for no reason," you are saying that there was no motive to commit a crime.
|
Kudos, very good answer!
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 19:14:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kudos, very good answer! |
Great. When are you going to respond regarding the "essences" point? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 19:31:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kudos, very good answer! |
Great. When are you going to respond regarding the "essences" point?
|
This is an argument that will not be solved.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 19:48:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is an argument that will not be solved. |
Ah, so you're giving up. You're as much of a failure as you claim H. is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 20:04:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is an argument that will not be solved. |
Ah, so you're giving up. You're as much of a failure as you claim H. is.
|
Again, I laugh and my wife asks me why.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 22:28:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is an argument that will not be solved. |
Ah, so you're giving up. You're as much of a failure as you claim H. is.
|
Again, I laugh and my wife asks me why.
|
And since it is your assertation that effects and essences are the same legally, we can deduce subverted support and dismiss your assertation as unevidenced.
Since the burden of proof is on you, your argument logically fails. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 00:41:19 [Permalink]
|
This is all nonsense, Jerome. The Government doesn't want your essence.
It wants your soul.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 11:03:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
This is all nonsense, Jerome. The Government doesn't want your essence.
It wants your soul.
|
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Right to Ones Essence?
