A question for conservatives...

Aberration · Jun 9, 2017

James972 said:
a corporation is a legal person who can be sued for what it does. A corporation is not capable of an action? A corporation cant sell a car??

Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. In a U.S. historical context, the phrase 'Corporate Personhood' refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations. In 1886 it was clear that the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were people and that "their money was protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment"—an Amendment that was made to protect African Americans' rights (Zinn 261). Another example is that in Nike v. Kasky, Nike asserted a free speech 'right to lie', while in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Hobby Lobby asserted a freedom of religion 'right' to exempt itself from aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

A corporation as a person is a legal fiction. It's a creation in our mind. No a corporation can not sell a car without a real person actually doing. They may do it in the name of the corporation, but it's in name only. It still requires a real person to act.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

James972 · Jun 9, 2017

Aberration said:
. It still requires a real person to act.

every person on earth agrees, so why are you pointing it out??????????????

Aberration · Jun 10, 2017

James972 said:
every person on earth agrees, so why are you pointing it out??????????????

If you could follow a conversation you would know why. I clearly stated why.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

James972 · Jun 10, 2017

Aberration said:
If you could follow a conversation you would know why. I clearly stated why.

actually there is no reason to state something in a debate that whole world obviously agrees with. This is called a strawman. If I had said 1+1=2, pretended you disagreedm and declared myself the winner it would be the same thing. Do you understand?

Aberration · Jun 15, 2017

James972 said:
actually there is no reason to state something in a debate that whole world obviously agrees with. This is called a strawman. If I had said 1+1=2, pretended you disagreedm and declared myself the winner it would be the same thing. Do you understand?

Stating what everyone agrees with is not a strawman. Pretending someone disagrees is also not a strawman. So no, I don't understand.

James972 · Jun 15, 2017

Aberration said:
Stating what everyone agrees with is not a strawman. Pretending someone disagrees is also not a strawman. So no, I don't understand.

you said "It still requires a real person to act" as if someone said a cow, pig or unreal person could act.

straw man/ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Aberration · Jun 16, 2017

James972 said:
you said "It still requires a real person to act" as if someone said a cow, pig or unreal person could act.

straw man/ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I didn't say the what if. You did. That's a strawman. I merely made a statement of truth, that you have accepted.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

James972 · Jun 26, 2017

D_NATURED said:
In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?

speech meant you can speak, not that you can prevent others from speaking louder or more often
religion meant you can worship not that can prevent others from worshiping in better churches with better preachers
arms meant you can own arms not that you can prevent others from owning more arms
press meant that you can have a press not that you can prevent others from having bigger or faster presses.

we would need a libNazi govt to insure equality in speech,religion, arms, and press