colourwheel Posted June 7, 2013 Author Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) For starters being arrested hardly equates to being imprisoned... :rolleyes: The difference is semantically non-existent. They two terms do exactly equate with each other. Being arrested is a form of temporary imprisonment. Imprisonment does not mean "sentenced to prison". I am sorry to say this but I beleieve you are "incorrectly stating" this time.... Being arrested is not the same as being imprisoned. Imprisonment occurs only after you have been found guilty or plead guilty to a crime and have been sentenced to a term of incarceration. Huge difference between the two.... :rolleyes: Considering that you have plagiarized at least two wikipedia articles in this thread I would say that perhaps you are not a very good researcher. Sorry I am not a very good researcher in your opinion. You seem to have had the tendency of telling me I am "incorrectly stating" something, continuely insinuating that i am some how always wrong about interpitations... Seemed fitting because the only way to stop you from "speculating" the way I see things was just to dirrectly copy and paste from wikipedia so we wouldn't have as many petty arguements over what something means.... :teehee: and speaking of Plagiarizing.... ----- adds foot notes .... straight from Wikipedia..... ----- thanks for pointing that out. Almost forgot to do that! :thumbsup: I had honestly never heard of LaPierre before you mentioned him, and I have those same ideas in my head as the judges, scholars, artists, etc. It comes from a different understanding and perspective on historical precedent and context, not some geek at the NRA. You should know who LaPierre is because he is at the root of all gun control miss-information.... and further more can you name just one congressman who you claim has said Obama is going to take away rifles, shotguns, and handguns? Because I could not find any Congressman the past few days, while doing research, who has ever been on the record saying such a thing. Senator Rand Paul A Senator is not Quite the same thing as Congressman.... A Congressman represents a district within a state whereas the Senator is representative for the whole state. Besides Rand Paul is hardly even concidered a person who realistically represents a whole state in my opinion. ;D But for the sake of arguement good research. :thumbsup: Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Being arrested is not the same as being imprisoned. Imprisonment occurs only after you have been found guilty or plead guilty to a crime and have been sentenced to a term of incarceration. Huge difference between the two.... :rolleyes: You are mistaken. Imprisonment is any form of detention against someone's will. Incarceration is long term imprisonment due to a conviction. You are confusing imprisonment with incarceration. ImprisonmentIncarceration You stated that LaPierre should be arrested for his expression. You could retract that statement, but you instead are attempting to divert the discussion away from your advocacy of censorship under penalty of arrest using semantical arguments. Even your semantical arguments are incorrect. A Senator is not Quite the same thing as Congressmen....A Congressman represents a district within a state whereas the Senator is representative for the whole state. Again with the incorrect semantical argument. A Senator is a member of congress, commonly referred to as a congressman or congresswoman. Your description is of a Representative, who is a member of a specific house of congress. You are demonstrating a lack of even the most basic knowledge about how the US government is structured. Member of Congress Besides Rand Paul is hardly even concidered a person who realistically represents a whole state in my opinion. He was elected by the citizens of Kentucky to represent them in the Senate. He represents the majority of voters in his state. He also disproves your point that LaPierre is the sole source of worry about the current direction of gun control policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 7, 2013 Author Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) Being arrested is not the same as being imprisoned. Imprisonment occurs only after you have been found guilty or plead guilty to a crime and have been sentenced to a term of incarceration. Huge difference between the two.... :rolleyes: You are mistaken. Imprisonment is any form of detention against someone's will. Incarceration is long term imprisonment due to a conviction. You are confusing imprisonment with incarceration. ImprisonmentIncarceration You stated that LaPierre should be arrested for his expression. You could retract that statement, but you instead are attempting to divert the discussion away from your advocacy of censorship under penalty of arrest using semantical arguments. Even your semantical arguments are incorrect. Find it Ironic you link to wikipedia for "Imprisonment" and "incarceration" but seem to ignore linking to "arrest" to some how justify I am completely misguided and mistakenly so wrong about this... An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation or prevention of crime and presenting (the arrestee) to a procedure as part of the criminal justice system. The term is Anglo-Norman in origin and is related to the French word arrêt, meaning "stop". Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement. When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested - wikipedia No mention of Imprisonment or incarceration having to do with being arrested. Still don't see what would be so worng about taking a person into custody to answer questions for ongoing crimes or even for prevention of further criminal offences since the Ricin mailer is probably still at large. A Senator is not Quite the same thing as Congressmen....A Congressman represents a district within a state whereas the Senator is representative for the whole state. Again with the incorrect semantical argument. A Senator is a member of congress, commonly referred to as a congressman or congresswoman. Your description is of a Representative, who is a member of a specific house of congress. You are demonstrating a lack of even the most basic knowledge about how the US government is structured. Isn't is ironicly funny how you use "semantics" to justify your statement of how being arrested is the same things as Imprisonment.... Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement. Source Imprisonment is no other thing than the restraint of a man's liberty, whether it be in the open field, or in the stocks, or in the cage in the streets or in a man's own house, as well as in the common gaols; and in all the places the party so restrained is said to be a prisoner so long as he hath not his liberty freely to go at all times to all places whither he will without bail or mainprise or otherwise. Source Arrest is clearly a form of imprisonment. However, if it will help you to focus on the topic of the thread I hereby retract any prior mention of imprisonment. You have done nothing more than advocate the arrest of LaPierre. Still don't see what would be so worng about taking a person into custody to answer questions for ongoing crimes or even for prevention of further criminal offences since the Ricin mailer is probably still at large. Under suspicion of what crime should Lapierre be arrested, and for what duration of time do you think he should be held under arrest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 7, 2013 Author Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) Arrest is clearly a form of imprisonment. However, if it will help you to focus on the topic of the thread I hereby retract any prior mention of imprisonment. You have done nothing more than advocate the arrest of LaPierre. Now wait just one second... Do you even remember you were the one who brought up " imprisonment" in this thread? If you get to retract any prior mention of imprisonment... I get to retract any prior mention of arrest... :teehee: Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I get to retract any prior mention of arrest...Excellent! The idea of arresting someone for their political expression is part of your premise that I found most objectionable, and have been arguing most strongly against. Of course you can retract that, and I would be most pleased if you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 7, 2013 Author Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) Excellent! The idea of arresting someone for their political expression is part of your premise that I found most objectionable, and have been arguing most strongly against. Of course you can retract that, and I would be most pleased if you did. It was never my initial premise to begin with. The idea was to hold people "accountable" for what they say when it leads to people being harmed. You might think I was, but i was hardly strongly arguing for anyone to be "arrested" or "imprisoned". But some how the topic pushed in that dirrection over me trying to point out that freedom of speech is not unlimited... Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 When pressed to define what it means to be "held accountable" you said that people should be arrested for their rhetoric. So now I guess we are back to that question. What does it mean to "hold accountable", as you are now using it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 7, 2013 Author Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) What does it mean to "hold accountable", as you are now using it? Being atleast a responsible individual... your example of the SPLC condemned Corkin's attack on the FRC was a good example of acting responsible in light of that tragic event. My thoughts are someone who "claims" speaking on behalf of "all gun owners across the nation", reguardless if he is or not, should do the responsible thing and address the nation condemning this ricin mailer. Lapierre is the main source where almost all miss-information on gun control legislation is born. It would be a public service to the nation for anyone who has the power to influence in halting demestic terror over gun control... For a person who claims to be a reasonable person wanting a safer country, it's ironic he doesn't take this oppertunity to even try actual do something where he can actually make a difference rather than advocating to arm the country for public safty.... :armscrossed: Edited June 8, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 (edited) Did I really say that or did someone else bring up the word "arrest"? because I certainly didn't bring it up. I was asked a question if i remember correctly if someone should be arrested when speech leads to people being harmed... Nobody mentioned or suggested arrest before you did. It was in this post in response to the same question that I asked in my last post: What does it mean to be "held accountable"? OH HEY LOOK AT THIS! It turns out that the person who mailed the letters did it because she wanted to frame her husband for the crime due to their impending divorce. I guess it had nothing to do with gun control after all! So, considering this new information, who do you think should be held accountable now? Edited June 8, 2013 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now