1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Penalty For Missing Jury Duty

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Rebecca, Dec 27, 2009.

  1. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #21
    Unfortunately this is the only meaningful part I can take out of your post. And unfortunately you're completely wrong. Government doesn't grant people rights, people grant the government power.

    That's because you don't know what slavery is. That's not my fault.
    SEMrush
     
    ncz_nate, Dec 29, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #22
    Basically nate, you sound like a lazy ass kid who doesn't give a shit about anybody other than himself.

    LOL, when did you turn into a little bitch who can toss insults out but can't take them?

    Happy New Year Nate!
     
    browntwn, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  3. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,615
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #23
    Since the half of you clowns are arguing out of the topic I'll redirect you all.

    You can get fined and/or charged for skipping jury duty. I don't agree with it personally because it violated the right of freedom but this is not the point.

    You should make some phone calls or go when you are supposed to because if you just ignore it you will pay the price. Not many get away with skipping jury duty. Most are fined or charged.
    If you do not want to be a part of it then just go and be sure you are unfit to be chosen to judge.
     
    Laceygirl, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  4. Dysturbed

    Dysturbed Peon

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    Apparently, you weren't able to reply to any of the parts with actual content within them. Seriously? Are you that afraid that I would expose you for the pseudo-intellectual you are? Either way, this goes as your surrender towards those points, because you need to provide justification in order to ignore them. No amount of excuses can change that law of debating. In either case, the majority of those in DigitalPoint already know that you can't win an argument. Nobody thinks you're winning -- quit while you're only just behind.

    Unfortunately this is the only meaningful part I can take out of your post. And unfortunately you're completely wrong. Government doesn't grant people rights, people grant the government power.

    Aww. Look at you, trying to make yourself look intelligent. The funny thing is that, for all your efforts, all you came up with is a Red Herring. You're just confusing natural rights with enumerated rights, and the powers with rights. Stop acting like you deserve any of these extra rights that the Founding Fathers gave to you, when you can't even complete your duty in order to make it.

    That's because you don't know what slavery is. That's not my fault.

    Just because I don't consent to your convoluted usage of slavery, does not mean that you can say that I'm ignorant of it. If you do think so, you need to provide justification. I can easily assume that you're just some Christian or religious person who flunked its debate class, in that you seem not to understand the concept of justifying your position. Get out of this board, and never try to get into a science or philosophy class, because you'll flunk those as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2009
    Dysturbed, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  5. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,615
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #25
    People who pass debate classes and pass science or philosophy classes are not proved to be correct in any matter either.
     
    Laceygirl, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  6. Dysturbed

    Dysturbed Peon

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    Now, if you are to invoke truth into this, then you would have to look at what the intentions of those groups are in the first place. While all those classes do require justification, science is the only sect that requires correctness in their assertions. That's just another topic, but, in the context of this debate or philosophical discussion, none of our intentions are to be, "correct" in our opinions, because there is simply no such thing. These types of discussions are what you call, "opinionated." As we all learned in Kindergarten, no opinion can be right or wrong. What an opinion can be, however, is more or less credible than another, and the most credible opinions are made through justification and sources.

    That's how politicians gain their offices. That's how people win debates. That's how it has always been in such debates, and, unlike my opponent, I actually do provide justification for my arguments. I don't just ignore most of my opponent's arguments like some child going, "LA LA LA~! I'M NOT LISTENING!" I draw correlations and satirical reasoning into my arguments. That's what separates me from my opponent, and is what makes me, and any other person arguing with it, much more credible in opinion and in image.
     
    Dysturbed, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  7. Hijynx427

    Hijynx427 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    140
    #27
    On the other end of things, slaves also looked like this - http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/2724476408_692fedda09.jpg

    and not slaves looked like this - http://www.hkb.org.uk/collages/b/britneyspears/BritneySpears_ImASlave4U_hkb21.jpg

    So what's the real problem with America these days? Too many quaint scenes of hard working families or too much hussy?

    -Not sure how this relates to anything previously said, just thought it'd be a good idea to post it.... lol - if it wasn't, let me know via PM
     
    Hijynx427, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  8. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,615
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #28
    Yes, there are people who are wrong and right. Plenty of opinions are incorrect.

    Your teacher lyed. People are wrong with opinions. I'm not going to explain it, this is stupid. Some guy tells you that if you jump into traffic and get hit by a bus you will return from the hospital with super powers like superman. To me, that's an opinion, and its wrong.

    Nope. Its popularity and money(Been to California!)

    Exciting picture. I like it. She's got one crazy body. Its a little too built for my taste, but I wouldn't complain unless I was stupid. That's for sure.
     
    Laceygirl, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  9. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #29
    If you're going to be serious then I'll treat you seriously.

    What extra rights did the founding fathers give me that I did not already have, independent of government? You're operating on the misconception that government grants us rights; this is really basic stuff for someone who talks about academia a lot. Power and rights are very much connected.

    Convoluted usage of slavery? Is or is not involuntary servitude considered slavery?

    You sound like a stOx wannabe; I shouldn't say that however, that's really an insult to him.
     
    ncz_nate, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  10. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #30
    Is it slavery when you parents make you do chores?
     
    browntwn, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  11. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #31
    Indeed it is a form of slavery. The government is not your parent however.
     
    ncz_nate, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  12. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #32
    I was just trying to understand where you draw the line.
     
    browntwn, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  13. Dysturbed

    Dysturbed Peon

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #33
    Yes, there are people who are wrong and right. Plenty of opinions are incorrect.

    Well, let us see your supporting arguments.

    Your teacher lyed. People are wrong with opinions. I'm not going to explain it, this is stupid. Some guy tells you that if you jump into traffic and get hit by a bus you will return from the hospital with super powers like superman. To me, that's an opinion, and its wrong.

    Didn't you learn anything in that time of school you were required to attend?

    If you aren't going to justify your opinion, at least make a coherent example to support it. What you stated wasn't an assertion of opinion; it was an assertion of fact. If I said that abortion was wrong, that would be an actual opinion. There is nothing scientific that I could state that would disprove whether it was right or wrong, because that is a concept of morality, which is subjective and obviously opinionated. Whether or not you would gain Superman's powers or not is an issue of science, because that can either be proven or disproved.

    Nope. Its popularity and money(Been to California!)

    That's just taking things out of context. Yes, popularity and money are factors, but good arguing, debating, and speaking skills are factors as well, and that was all I was addressing.

    If you're going to be serious then I'll treat you seriously.

    It really doesn't matter how you say you'd treat someone, because you'll still just spam people with a bunch of fallacious arguments and unjustified assertions. Just take this point for example. You couldn't make a case as to how I wasn't serious or genuine in my remarks. It's nothing but slander, since you cannot prove that. In the same way, you still haven't replied to my other points, which means that you have conceded those points to me.

    What extra rights did the founding fathers give me that I did not already have, independent of government? You're operating on the misconception that government grants us rights; this is really basic stuff for someone who talks about academia a lot. Power and rights are very much connected.

    You once more show that you have no knowledge of this subject at all. Natural rights are the rights that governments can only recognize but never grant. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those come without any clauses attached to them. However, that doesn't mean you have all of your natural rights. Those, such as murdering someone or stealing from someone, are taken from you by the government through the clause of social contracts, so that society can function and whatnot.

    That's why you don't have a natural right to infringe upon another's rights, because those are taken away by the government. Those are natural rights. They don't need you to do anything; they're just there to restrict the government. These extra rights that the Founding Fathers gave you, however, are not natural -- they were created by man, and they therefore need you, the person, to do something as a responsibility. These extra rights, for example, are the right to a trial by jury or the right to vote. They need you to go on a jury when called to do so, or to vote should there be an election. If you don't want them, then that's fine, but you shouldn't be crying when you were sent to jail by an unelected judge, just because you, and people such as yourself, didn't find enough time in your lives to exercise this right that the government gave you.

    This is why the government recognizes and protects a child's natural rights, but they do not grant nor a allow a child the rights prescribed in the Constitution, because they do not believe that they are responsible enough to have them. Unfortunately, people such as yourself will gain the right to a trial by jury when you just turn eighteen, and yet you simply won't be mature enough to get nor handle it.

    Convoluted usage of slavery? Is or is not involuntary servitude considered slavery?

    You sound like a stOx wannabe; I shouldn't say that however, that's really an insult to him.


    Do you actually think you can defeat me on this point? Let's see what an actual Dictionary says.

    "(Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune" ~TheFreeDictionary

    Let's see. The Federal Government has no absolute power in the first place with Checks and Balances. They can't kill you. They're urging you to exercise your liberties, and they can't touch your finances, unless you have caused the transgressions against someone.

    However, I don't need to get that detailed with you. You'd probably say that being drafted into the military is, like, some evil, brutal way that the government is going to enslave the population. In the manner that you use it, you are likening the US government urging you to use your rights to a white man making a slave to do their plantations, which is dishonest and disrespectful. I still don't see an apology from you to the people that were actually forced to become the, "property" of someone, and this all the more proves that you want to use slavery for your own personal agenda, which is sickening at best.

    Also, it's sad that you're already so flustered by my arguments that you must resort to Ad Hominems. Am I hurting your feelings that much?

    Wow. Just wow. You're willing to go as low as to call your parents a bunch of slaveowners for your own personal agenda.
     
    Dysturbed, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  14. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #34
    The two points I missed..

    What works and what's right aren't always the same.

    You probably missed my whole point.. it's not the citizens that are tyrannical it is the enforcement of what you will later term our "right."

    So let me get this straight, if we don't want to exercise our man-made rights, our natural rights will be violated by the government in order to ensure we have exercised our man-made rights?

    You probably thought I was dumb, and wouldn't catch this, nice try.

    Just so everyone can see which definition you have cherry-picked, I'll provide the link for everyone to see..

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

    Funny that you didn't use either of these definitions..

    2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
    3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit

    or..

    ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
    Noun 1. slaveryslavery - the state of being under the control of another person

    or better yet, another dictionary entirely.

    Also haven't answered as to if involuntary servitude is slavery or not.

    I shouldn't touch this because this really relies on the premise that slavery only matches your cherry-picked definition; however, I don't know where you get the idea that government can't touch your finances, don't you pay taxes bro?

    Ok, I'm sorry that you can't understand.

    Let's do a recap..

    Bad memory? Take fish oil, I hear it helps.

    Flabbergasted by consistency, I understand.
     
    ncz_nate, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  15. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #35
    Equally amusing that you pass on the FIRST and main definition of slavery as well:

    The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
     
    browntwn, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  16. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #36
    What's your point? Of course I did, there are many definitions for it, and many dictionaries as well.

    The fact is I pointed out that he cherry-picked one definition and worked the rest of his argument off that a single definition.

    Feel free to join in, don't limit yourself to a quote here and there.
     
    ncz_nate, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  17. Dysturbed

    Dysturbed Peon

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #37
    The two points I missed..

    The two points I missed? You missed more than two points. The post in question, post #19, has five points at hand. Now, the first reply you gave to that post, post #21, addressed only two points of it, and it only addressed small portions of those points as well. Those still must be replied. Don't think that those half-assed rebuttals are a means for you to ignore the rest of those addressed points. In this post that I am replying now, as you said, you are addressing two of the points missed, and yet there is still one more, full point, which you ignore. It was the third point of post 19, but, if you want to surrender that point that merely put into question your character and arrogance, I'm fine with that.

    What works and what's right aren't always the same.

    This point of yours is perfect proof of how stubborn you are in accepting principles of common sense in debates. If you use justification for your arguments, then I guarantee you that your points would make more sense in the context, wherein we debate them. The original point I was replying was your comment:

    "Look how well that's worked out."

    You were questioning, whether the system of the jury has worked out or not, and I was replying that, if it didn't, the Federal Government wouldn't be so adamant about pursuing the Citizens for their jury duty. However, your mind seems to get easily distracted, and now it seems to be a battle about whether it is right or not, which was not the topic of discussion in this point beforehand. In terms of whether it was right or not, the burden of proof is upon you to provide the case as to why jury duty working does not provide for the liberties of the people. Very well, I'm sure that you'd probably support judges deciding the fate of the people of this country, wouldn't you? Of course, I couldn't possibly predict what your mind would come up.

    You probably missed my whole point.. it's not the citizens that are tyrannical it is the enforcement of what you will later term our "right."

    . . . What does that have to do with anything? The point that you quoted was replying to this quote from you in post #9.

    "Fighting tyranny with tyranny? Again, look how well that's worked out."

    So, are you saying that the enforcement is fighting the possible tyranny of the judges? How does that make any sense? The Citizens are the ones that are supposed to fight tyranny; the enforcement has no precedence in the Court Case at all. You know what? Before I task you with justifying your arguments, I should really be telling you to read your own posts first.

    So let me get this straight, if we don't want to exercise our man-made rights, our natural rights will be violated by the government in order to ensure we have exercised our man-made rights?

    Aww. How cute. It's trying to rationalize something now, but it's all too unfortunate that, with your capacity, you are only able to refute something only after making a Straw Man out of them. What I actually said is this.

    "They need you to go on a jury when called to do so, or to vote should there be an election. If you don't want them, then that's fine, but you shouldn't be crying when you were sent to jail by an unelected judge, just because you, and people such as yourself, didn't find enough time in your lives to exercise this right that the government gave you."

    Did you get that? I was saying that your man-made rights would be taken away; your natural rights will still be there, but they would be much more vulnerable. These man-made rights were developed to prevent corruption and with them comes responsibilities. If you don't want those man-made rights, then that's fine, but you cannot blame the government, if they would get violated. See -- here is the thing with people such as yourself. You seem to think that you're some deity that everyone should bow down -- that you can take all you want from the community, but that you don't have to give back to it. Why should you be able to get all these extra rights, if you don't want to give back to it? It's like your second amendment. It can be taken away if you use it irresponsibly. You don't deserve anything other than your natural rights. You earn all your other ones, because we're all equal, and no one has to bow down to some irresponsible and negligent teenager, who is no where close to reaching self-actualization.

    You probably thought I was dumb, and wouldn't catch this, nice try.

    Why wouldn't everyone think that you're some immature teenager that found your way over to DigitalPoint?

    Just so everyone can see which definition you have cherry-picked, I'll provide the link for everyone to see..

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

    Funny that you didn't use either of these definitions..

    2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
    3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit

    or..

    ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
    Noun 1. slaveryslavery - the state of being under the control of another person

    or better yet, another dictionary entirely.

    Also haven't answered as to if involuntary servitude is slavery or not.


    In terms of the involuntary servitude, please stop mentioning it. I don't care about whatever definition you personally want to make. You are no authority. Now, it would actually be hilarious, if you do truly think that you've astounded anyone by just going to the source I stated, which is probably something that you'd never be able to do by your own will. (You know? Justification?) The thing is, the reason I used that definition is because of the simple fact that, "(Law)" was right in front of that definition. I don't know. Doesn't that apply to this topic, since we're talking about a government-person relationship -- a Lawful relationship? Oh! You're talking about the general, unspecific definitions of slavery, which are totally out of the context of this discussion. The thing that you might learn, when you get older, is that there are many definitions, and they -- well, I don't know -- must be in the context of the discussion!

    I shouldn't touch this because this really relies on the premise that slavery only matches your cherry-picked definition; however, I don't know where you get the idea that government can't touch your finances, don't you pay taxes bro?

    I suppose you couldn't read those very short two lines to the end. So, to reiterate,

    "unless you have caused the transgressions against someone."

    If you don't pay your taxes, then yes, that would be a transgression against the government. I don't know how easier I can put this. Of course, I wouldn't expect anymore from someone who is unable to comprehend the specific definition of words in the context in which they're used.

    Also, please don't think that you're anything more to me than just some guy I'm arguing on the internet. Keep this conversation civil and professional, because I frankly would never call someone like you my friend.

    Ok, I'm sorry that you can't understand.

    This is just sandbox mentality right here. Nothing in there ever said anything about apologizing to me, and it's just hypocritical for you even to think that I don't understand this conversation. I understand you well enough to know that you'll never be able to have a sense of duty in your life whatsoever, and you'll use the sufferings of a whole population in order to further your particular selfish ambitions to neglect your responsibilities.

    Let's do a recap..

    Bad memory? Take fish oil, I hear it helps.


    Please, do not try to use sarcasm. It just doesn't work for someone like you. The difference is that, if you had quoted them with the paragraphs they're probably accompanied, then it shows that I provide justification for those statements, which were just reactions towards your messages in the first place. This, however, is in contrast with this.

    "You sound like a stOx wannabe; I shouldn't say that however, that's really an insult to him."

    Not only was that out of nowhere, but it was also unintelligent with nothing supporting it whatsoever. The definition of an Ad Hominem is, after all:

    "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." ~Nizkor

    I don't refute your points on such basis, but, since that basis is all you had in that reply towards me, it's obvious that you are using it to refute my claims, which is what an Ad Hominem actually is.

    Flabbergasted by consistency, I understand.

    Of course. I'm flabbergasted that my opponent won't be any threat to my reputation here, because there is no way that I'd lose to someone that cannot understand the full implications of its statements. If you're going to say that parenting is your general, meaningless definition of slavery, likened to the actual sufferings of the real slaves, then just remember that you said this in post #9.

    "Slavery has never worked, and it never will work, in any form, in any way. All forms of slavery are both immoral and inefficient, and they will collapse eventually,"
     
    Dysturbed, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  18. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #38
    Ah, ok ok, the third point, lemme get that..

    Ah shucks, I got nothing man - ya got me!

    This part you're right, I was referring to tyranny in a general sense; not that jury duty itself hasn't worked out for the reasons it was intended, but rather the enforcement that goes along with it creates another form of tyranny.

    So jury duty does work for the reasons that it is intended, but the enforcement of it is not right.

    lol. Getting back to my original statement.. fighting tyranny with tyranny.. the punishments for noncompliance is a form of tyranny to motivate the enforcement of preventing tyranny. Understand?

    Looks like we're on a different page again, but I did enjoy your "people such as yourself" spiel. Let's start easy so you can understand: what happens when you miss jury duty?

    Your attacks are so much like StOx that I could swear you were related, but he is actually a very smart person.

    Stop mentioning involuntary servitude? Very well, so you have conceded that point?

    Government is not a person.

    Oh whatever will I do, Dysturbed from digitalpoint forums would never call me his friend after I called him bro. Guys, I need some emotional support!

    I'm sorry that you remain unable to understand.

    The fact that my statement was considered out of nowhere to you (since you're new to this subforum and probably not familiar at all with the person I was referring to) does not make it any different from the irrelevant statements you made. Also, a little statement at the end of a post doesn't mean the rest of my points rested on that basis.

    For one thing, this isn't a professional debate league, you don't have to address me as your "opponent"; it's a webmaster forum, relax.

    For another, I stand by my statement on slavery.
     
    ncz_nate, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  19. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #39
    I don't really find this all that interesting. Anyway, in my mind that is the definition of slavery although it has gained some loser meaning in the last 100 years. I understand where you are coming from but I do not think slavery is an appropriate term for a kid being forced to do chores. It may be coercive, it may be unfair, but it is not slavery. Anyway, I will leave it to you boys to duke it out.
     
    browntwn, Dec 29, 2009 IP
  20. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #40
    I'm just trying to be consistent; I think it is a very loose form of slavery, but it can fit the definition of it.

    It wasn't my intention to hijack this thread arguing over whether or not jury duty and raising children is slavery or not. My point in this thread can be summed up with my previous statement that jury duty is essentially "fighting tyranny with tyranny." Even Dysturbed agreed that the punishments for noncompliance are unnecessary.
     
    ncz_nate, Dec 29, 2009 IP