Guns anyone?

[Davin]

From Blacks Law Dictionary.

What is NATURAL PERSON
A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.

What is ARTIFICIAL PERSONS?
Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 HI. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 800, 02 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 770 ; Smith v. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 508.

I don't agree with term "Human" as it is used here. I would replace human with person.
[Everyone is naturally born.]

I don't really agree with any of that and don't get the relevance to any of the discussions on hand.

[Davin]

Oh no, I hope this doesn't become an argument over definitions!

Definitions?? There's are no such thing as "definitions." I think you mean descriptions of what words or terms mean!

[xSilverPhinx]

Oh no, I hope this doesn't become an argument over definitions!

Definitions?? There's are no such thing as "definitions." I think you mean descriptions of what words or terms mean!

Heehee 1

[Old Seer]

Civil law can only be applied to cognitive beings. Lion's have no concept of stealing, only possession. That's why zoos need cages and farmers need fences in place of law. It's not against any law for a lion to force possession. Lions and cows cannot commit a crime. Cows have no property line, people do. It is a not a crime for a cow to get out of a fence. It can be a crime for you to cross a property line. It can be your crime if your cow crosses a property line if a law says so. You have an invisible line because you can understand the law. If you are granted legal possession of the the cow you can be fined for it crossing a property line, not the cow. The natural world has no crime, only the man made world does. Crime comes into existence when a cognizant being transgresses a law. That's why laws don't cover cows, but rather the owner. If a cow cannot commit a crime by crossing someone else's property line a lion cannot steal. Stealing denotes a crime because you designated it as such.  If forced possession is a crime, lions cannot commit crimes. You're applying your invented standards to a lion to no effect. Civilizations end because nature catches up to them and forces getting to getting back to it. Civilized peoples have lost the understanding of nature, and in doing so try another civilization that is based on the concepts of the last failure, with no knowledge of the flaws in existence civilizations create, operating in a circular process of re institution of failure. Nature wins.

[Davin]

Civil law can only be applied to cognitive beings. Lion's have no concept of stealing, only possession. That's why zoos need cages and farmers need fences in place of law. It's not against any law for a lion to force possession. Lions and cows cannot commit a crime. Cows have no property line, people do. It is a not a crime for a cow to get out of a fence. It can be a crime for you to cross a property line. It can be your crime if your cow crosses a property line if a law says so. You have an invisible line because you can understand the law. If you are granted legal possession of the the cow you can be fined for it crossing a property line, not the cow. The natural world has no crime, only the man made world does. Crime comes into existence when a cognizant being transgresses a law. That's why laws don't cover cows, but rather the owner. If a cow cannot commit a crime by crossing someone else's property line a lion cannot steal. Stealing denotes a crime because you designated it as such.  If forced possession is a crime, lions cannot commit crimes. You're applying your invented standards to a lion to no effect. Civilizations end because nature catches up to them and forces getting to getting back to it. Civilized peoples have lost the understanding of nature, and in doing so try another civilization that is based on the concepts of the last failure, with no knowledge of the flaws in existence civilizations create, operating in a circular process of re institution of failure. Nature wins.

It seems like you're stuck on only one specific version of stealing and will not accept that any other exists. This seems to the crux of the disagreement: I don't think stealing is necessarily a crime, and you think it is. Instead of repeating ourselves and speaking past each other, let's discuss this directly.

It also seems like you're denying any possibility for animals to be able to hold any concepts. Which I find odd for someone who accepts evolution. Humans didn't develop physically, behaviorally, cognitively, or any other way spontaneously from nothing. We all evolved from common ancestors so we share common traits.

Modern science on the mind doesn't see consciousness as a switch, but a continuum where on one side there are conscious beings and the other side they are not conscious at all. While I agree that humans have consciousness, I can't accept that other animals do not. I can accept that humans are better equipped for it, but not that it doesn't exist at all in other animals. You appear to be heavily biased against other animals.

[Old Seer]

I understand your concept of "stealing". If I didn't I wouldn't be able to post on the subject. In order to understand your concept I need to know the difference between natural person and artificial person, I do. Blacks Law Dictionary is about your law, if you say it's wrong, you're saying Blacks are wrong. Blacks law people understand civil law compared to natural law.  In order for law to be effective there must be a distinction between natural and man made (contrived). Without that distinction a law system would break down.  Civil law still allows you to be like the lion mentally, but not do as the lion does in all respects physically. 

Addition. The civil overseers of the system doesn't want you to know about natural law.

[Davin]

I understand your concept of "stealing". If I didn't I wouldn't be able to post on the subject. In order to understand your concept I need to know the difference between natural person and artificial person, I do. Blacks Law Dictionary is about your law, if you say it's wrong, you're saying Blacks are wrong. Blacks law people understand civil law compared to natural law.  In order for law to be effective there must be a distinction between natural and man made (contrived). Without that distinction a law system would break down.  Civil law still allows you to be like the lion mentally, but not do as the lion does in all respects physically. 

Addition. The civil overseers of the system doesn't want you to know about natural law.

If you think you need to understand the difference between a natural person and an artificial person, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you keep bringing a separate concept like laws into it, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you think "my" concept of stealing requires civil overseers, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing.

Furthermore, Black's Law Dictionary is simply a reference, it's like an old version of wikipedia. It's OK as a starting point, but don't use it as a primary source. And certainly don't act like its definitions are definitive,

[Old Seer]

Blacks dictionary and others are used by lawyers, courts and judicial systems. The dictionaries are put together by lawyers and legal beagles.( Those considered experts) You're not telling me I'm wrong,  you're telling me they're wrong. This isn't a matter of me not understanding you, it's matter of you not understanding them. I'm not liable for their determinations.

[Davin]

Blacks dictionary and others are used by lawyers, courts and judicial systems. The dictionaries are put together by lawyers and legal beagles.( Those considered experts)

Aye, no disagreement there. What I said about it still holds.

You're not telling me I'm wrong[...]

Yes I am. You're wrong. This is me telling you that you're wrong. I'm telling you, that you are wrong. You are wrong. I mean you're doing a lot wrong here. What you posted is wrong. You don't understand "my" definition of stealing. I pointed that out and you ignored it and chose to continue being wrong and doing wrong things. You, Old Seer, are wrong. I'm telling you, Old Seer, that you are wrong. You are wrong, Old Seer. You claimed to understand "my" definition of stealing, and then said things that demonstrate that you don't. So you are wrong. You, Old Seer, are wrong. You're wrong when you say I'm not telling you that you are wrong, because I am telling you that you are wrong. For clarity: You are wrong.

[...]you're telling me they're wrong.

It's unreasonable to expect me to track down some people that compiled definitions in a book. We are having a conversation here are we not? You brought it into the discussion in defense of your position, presumably because you agree with what it said. I mean, it would be stupid to cite a definition in support of your defense that you did not agree with.

This isn't a matter of me not understanding you[...]

This is a matter of you not understanding me. Refer to my previous post where I detailed all the parts where you, Old Seer, went wrong.

[...]it's matter of you not understanding them.

I do understand them. I also disagree with what you referenced here. I also find it irrelevant to the conversation.

I'm not liable for their determinations.

You are liable for the references you bring to the conversation because I'm not having a conversation with them, I'm having a conversation with you, and you, Old Seer, cited them.

Imagine if I simply cited someone else and told you take it up your disagreement with them. That would be extremely stupid.

[Old Seer]

So you want to apply a civil determination to a fox, so do, I don't care if your right or wrong. I look at the world of the fox and that of people. It's apparent to me that the fox knows nothing about stealing. A fox may detect consequences for taking a chicken but the fox must have determined that from experience with other foxes from lessons learned. The fox may also be aware that it's in a dangerous environment being in close proximity to the farmer. When a mother Fox brings a kill to the cubs and they fight over it, are they stealing from each other. I leave that to determine for yourself. What I'm referring to is , states of mind.  Can a fox be aware that it's stealing. It can seem like it, or is it being cautious from experience that another fox or being will try to take it away. Civilization creates a state of mind over that of the natural. One can apply those differences to entities that can't comprehend them. I'm not implying that Blacks law or others are right or wrong, I'm transferring to you what they determined as they are the ones in charge of your society.   If you say they're wrong then to you they're wrong. I didn't consider them right or wrong. I don't create right or wrong for others. I may unintentionally do so but what's right or wrong I normally leave for each to decide.   An interjection of right or wrong into a conversation can be an attempt to control another's thinking. I prefer each do your own. 

[xSilverPhinx]

Civil law can only be applied to cognitive beings. Lion's have no concept of stealing, only possession. That's why zoos need cages and farmers need fences in place of law. It's not against any law for a lion to force possession. Lions and cows cannot commit a crime. Cows have no property line, people do. It is a not a crime for a cow to get out of a fence. It can be a crime for you to cross a property line. It can be your crime if your cow crosses a property line if a law says so. You have an invisible line because you can understand the law. If you are granted legal possession of the the cow you can be fined for it crossing a property line, not the cow. The natural world has no crime, only the man made world does. Crime comes into existence when a cognizant being transgresses a law. That's why laws don't cover cows, but rather the owner. If a cow cannot commit a crime by crossing someone else's property line a lion cannot steal. Stealing denotes a crime because you designated it as such.  If forced possession is a crime, lions cannot commit crimes. You're applying your invented standards to a lion to no effect. Civilizations end because nature catches up to them and forces getting to getting back to it. Civilized peoples have lost the understanding of nature, and in doing so try another civilization that is based on the concepts of the last failure, with no knowledge of the flaws in existence civilizations create, operating in a circular process of re institution of failure. Nature wins.

Now I'm confused. You say non-human animals cannot commit crimes. OK. But then how could a non-human have the right to life as well? 

To me rights such as the right to life are legal concepts that can evolve with society, not something that is or always was inherent to life itself. I doubt you could say in ancient times people had a right to life as it when it was not yet a crime to murder.   

[Old Seer]

You would have to discuss this with the one's making up the tenants of your society. I'm sure they would concur with you that a fox can steal. Civil law when applied to a fox is useless and no effect. The person known as saint francis preached to the fish in a pond. Civilized people do senseless things at times. The fish very likely gathered  to his presence because they became trained to gather to a person's presence because of being tossed something to eat. The church considers it a miracle that the fish gathers to hear him preach. What sense does it make to preach to fish. The religion in question dictates fish cannot go to heaven. So how is this relative. What good does it do to extend or apply civil mentality to a fox. Francis is applying his civil or religious (same thing)mentality to fish, which is no different then preaching to a fox.

  The system designated natural from artificial for purpose for controlling people not foxes. The system decides artificial from natural by whether its man made or not. IE- a house is an artificial structure because it's man made, nature doesn't build houses. They don't apply it to houses but that's the theory. In the super market you may have purchased  something with the "real" sign on the label. Nothing in the container has been manipulated or modified, it was only put onto the container as is by nature.. If you add or subtract anything---it's artificial by designation of whether its all natural ingredients or not.
You are designated artificial person because you've been manipulated by civil law. Nature did not make you as you are, you've been modified and added to for effect. If anyone wants to conclude that a fox steals so do. Be aware that (as you probably are) that law does not manipulate or change the fox. +If you have any complaint, well, you have to take that up with the one's that maintain the devising of your system. 

[Davin]

So you want to apply a civil determination to a fox[...]

No. You've already gone wrong in the first half of the first sentence. It's like you're willfully not listening to me. Like you're trying to control what I mean. Like if you keep ignoring what I say I mean and keep injecting this irrational bullshit as a substitute that I'll somehow take on the view you seem to want me to. You ain't no Jedi.

I'm not implying that Blacks law or others are right or wrong, I'm transferring to you what they determined as they are the ones in charge of your society.

You claim that they are in charge of society. I'd like to see you support that. With reliable evidence, not simply you saying things or citing other people saying things. Point to the people behind the Black's Law Dictionary and show how they are in charge of society. You're making an exceptional claim, so I await exceptional evidence.

Because I think they're simply people trying to write a book that shows current usages of legal terms based on legal precedents. And not in control of society. Much like how the people that write dictionaries are defining popular usages and are not controlling language.

I'm sorry, but what you're saying right here is loony tunes, conspiracy theory nutjob, laughable, insanity. I suppose not only are they in charge of society, but they're lizard people too. And I suppose they're using technology from the alien ship that crashed in Roswell, NM. to send out mind control waves that we have to wear tinfoil hats to protect us from.

And don't think that this crazy sentence clears you from defending what you say by trying (AGAIN), to avoid your responsibility in this discussion to defend what you bring into it.

If you say they're wrong then to you they're wrong. I didn't consider them right or wrong. I don't create right or wrong for others. I may unintentionally do so but what's right or wrong I normally leave for each to decide.   An interjection of right or wrong into a conversation can be an attempt to control another's thinking. I prefer each do your own. 

That's insane... and also bullshit. You might not remember what you said, but the good part about these forums is that they are still there for people to see that you have directly and intentionally injected your opinion that I was wrong. And you've told me what I meant (in spite of me saying I mean something completely different). Get that hypocritical, loopy, condescending, lunacy out of here.

[Davin]

You would have to discuss this with the one's making up the tenants of your society.[...]

Time after time you present something and then refuse to defend it. This is preaching and is against the rules of the forum.

[Old Seer]

I have no intention of defending anything. I'm presenting information for your analysis. There's nothing here for me to defend, I'm not at war with your system, but you may be. I recommend that you go to Blacks Law and read for yourself so you can be liable for the information you wish to make others liable for. It's there for you to read, so I ask that you assume your own responsibilities.  I make presentation of the material from knowing the recipients may be unfamiliar with it. These are things not commonly understood.  In science one submits their material or experiment to peers for review and analysis, this is the method we use. I cannot determine what's right or wrong, correct or incorrect for you. It is imperative to allow others to do thinking on their own, as it may take time for realization of what the unfamiliar material incorporates. It's not wise to force others to accept things they are unfamiliar with, and by their analysis they can determine if they accept the information as right or wrong for themselves.