#inalienable possession

[cynosurus]

Earlier today I was just about to start eating and thought to myself in Swedish:

det vattnas i munnen på mig.

literally: "it is being watered in the mouth on me" "my mouth is watering"

And the more I think about it the more interesting this sentence is. Literally translated to English it sounds incredibly weird.

the "body part ON owner of body part" construction to express "owner's body part" since the mouth is inalienably possessed by me. That is, "my mouth" is often expressed as "munnen på mig", while normal possession is instead expressed simlilarly as in English, eg "my horse" = "min häst". This is a distinction common in Germanic languages that English has lost.

det (= it) should probably be analysed as an expletive "dummy" subject similar to it in "it is raining"?

the -s ending of vattna (= to water) often indicates passive or impersonal constructions. Not sure how to view it here. The mouth is caused to produce water, or something impersonal is producing water in the mouth.

#swedish language #svenska #linguistics #inalienable possession #language nerding #passive constructions

[opspro2005]

Understanding the Second Amendment:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The term “well-regulated” was commonly used before 1789 and continued to be for a century after. It described something being in proper working order, calibrated correctly, and functioning as expected.

The term “militia” refers to all citizens capable of military service. The National Guard did not replace the militia, as clarified by the Militia Act of 1903. The National Guard is the organized militia, while able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are part of the reserve militia. The Militia Act of 1903 repealed the requirement for men to provide their own firearm under the Militia Act of 1792.

The term “to keep and bear” is very easy to understand. “To keep” means to have or possess. “To bear” in this context means to carry and to hold. The phrase very simply means that you can have the item in your possession.

The term “shall not be infringed” means to wrongly limit or restrict. This acts on the previous phrase, “to keep and bear”. The language is clear and concise.

The Second Amendment, in more modern terms, would read like this: “A properly armed people are necessary for a state to be free and safe. American Citizens can have weapons in their possession, and you can't do anything about it.”

Understand this; The US Constitution is a limit on government, not citizens, and our rights don't end where your feelings begin. You have no right to infringe on our inalienable rights.

#2A #Maine #AR-15 #gunrights #cope and seethe

[spocks-kaathyra]

Cardassian conlang (part 1?)

Finally started making my Cardassian conlang and I'm having so much fun already. Get this:

There's a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession, something that occurs in many natural languages. An example is, like, "my nose" vs "my hat". My nose is inalienable because it will always be mine, while my hat is alienable because it can stop being mine. So in languages with this distinction, you'd use different words for "my" in those two situations.

In my Cardassian language, possession is indicated with suffixes attached to nouns and people's names. People are "possessed" in the sense that, y'know, they're your mom or your friend or your orthodontist or whatever. Generally, you'd use the alienable form for people. Your orthodontist might not always be your orthodontist, your friend might not always be your friend. The exception is that you always use the inalienable form(s) for family. Your mom will always be your mom.

So, to use the inalienable possessive for a friend would be to say that they are as close to you as family, that you trust that they will always be your friend. This is often, like, a milestone in dating. To start saying "my girlfriend (inalienable)" marks that your relationship is serious. (Traditionalists will say that you shouldn't use the inalienable form until you're properly betrothed, but kids these days have their own ideas.) In this way, it becomes a pretty straightforward term of endearment (or, rather, grammatical particle of endearment).

Since there's no equivalent in Federation Standard, the translator often renders it as "my dear."

Here's a table of the 10 different words for "my"

So, presuming that the speaker is a man, and the person they're referring to is also a man who they don't have to use the honorific form with...

/alʊk/ - "friend"

/alʊkɬei/ - "my friend"

/alʊkxa/ - "my dear friend"

/ilɨm̥xa/ - "my dear Elim"

#no I don't know what I'm doing but I'm having so much fun hehehe #disclaimer: so much respect to the awesome cardassian conlangs that already exist and the ppl who made them!! #not trying to step on any toes I just thought it'd be fun to make my own :)) #these r the first words I've come up with after settling on a phonemic inventory. which was fun in and of itself #THERE R EJECTIVES !!! ISNT THAT COOL !!!!! also no voicing distinction and nasals r usually voiceless #anyways. honorifics r mostly abt age I think. but also social class and rank probably #I like how the casual forms don't distinguish the speaker's gender. reflects that gender differences r more pronounced in formal situations #cardassians #ds9 #asit #star trek #elim garak #narcissus's echoes #q's cardassian conlang

[apenitentialprayer]

The dignity of others is to be respected in all circumstances, not because that dignity is something we have invented or imagined, but because human beings possess an intrinsic worth superior to that of material objects and contingent situations. This requires that they be treated differently. That every human being possesses an inalienable dignity is truth that corresponds to human nature apart from all cultural change. For this reason, human beings have the same inviolable dignity in every age of history and no one can consider himself or herself authorized by particular situations to deny conviction or to act against it. […] As believers, we are convinced that human nature, as the source of ethical principles, was created by God, and it is ultimately He who gives those principles their solid foundation.

Pope Francis (Fratelli tutti, §213, 214)

#Christianity #Catholicism #human dignity #respect #humanity #My Pope #Fratelli tutti

[cheerfullycatholic]

Every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being, which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person may ever encounter. This principle, which is fully recognizable even by reason alone, underlies the primacy of the human person and the protection of human rights. In the light of Revelation, the Church resolutely reiterates and confirms the ontological dignity of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed in Jesus Christ. From this truth, the Church draws the reasons for her commitment to the weak and those less endowed with power, always insisting on “the primacy of the human person and the defense of his or her dignity beyond every circumstance.”

Dignitas Infinita, paragraph 1

#catholicism #catholic church #pope francis #church document #dignitas infinita #human rights #human dignity

[ranahan]

Mando’a masterpost

Most of my Mando’a linguistic nerdery you should be able to find under the hashtags #mando’a linguistics and #ranah talks mando’a. Specific topics like phonology and etymology are tagged on newer posts but not necessarily on older. I also reblog lots of other peoples’ fantastic #mando’a stuff, which many of these posts are replies to.

I also post about #mandalorian culture, other #meta: mandalorians and #star wars meta topics, #star wars languages, #conlangs, and #linguistics. Not Star Wars content tag is #not star wars. I like to reblog well-reasoned and/or interesting takes on Star Wars and Mandalorian politics, but I am not pro or contra fictional characters or organisations, only pro good storytelling. You can use the featured tags to navigate most of these topics.

Currently working on an analysis of canon Mando’a. Updates under #mando’a project. Here are my thoughts on using my stuff (tldr: please do). My askbox is open & I’d love to hear which words, roots or other features you want to see dissected next.

#Phonology

Ven’, ’ne and ’shya—phonology of Mando’a affixes

Murmured sounds in Mando’a

Mando’a vowels

#Morphology

Mando’a demonyms: -ad or -ii?

Agent nouns in Mando’a

Reduplication in Mando’a

Verbal conjugation in Ancient Mando’a & derivations in Modern Mando’a

-nn

#Syntax

Middle Mando’a creole hypothesis— Relative tenses — Tense, aspect and mood & creole languages — Copula and zero copula in creole languages — More thoughts about Mando’a TAM particles

Mando’a has no passive

Alienable/inalienable possession — more thoughts

#Roots, words & etymology

ad ‘child’—but also many other things

adenn, ‘wrath’

akaan & naak: war & peace

an ‘all’ + a collective suffix & plural collectives

*bir-, birikad, birgaan

cetar ‘kneel’

cinyc & shiny

gai’ka, ka’gaht, la’mun

jagyc, ori’jagyc & misandry

janad

*ka-, kakovidir & cardinal directions

*maan-, manda, gai bal manda, kir’manir, ramaan & kar’am & runi: ‘soul’ & ‘spirit’

*nor- & *she- ‘back’ (+ bonus *resh-)

projor ‘next’

*sak-, sakagal ‘cross’

*sen- ‘fly’

tapul

urmankalar ‘believe’

*ver- ‘earn’

*ya-, yai, yaim (& flyby mentions of eyayah, eyaytir, gayiyla, gayiylir, aliit)

Regional English in Mando’a

#Non-canon words

Mining vocabulary

Non-canon reduplications

Many words for many Mandalorians

What’s the word for “greater mandalorian space”?

Dral’Han & derived words

besal ‘silver, steel grey’

derivhaan

hukad & hukal, ’sheath, scabbard’

*sen- ‘fly’ derivations

tarisen ‘swoop bike’

*ver- ‘earn’ derivations

#mando’a proverbs

#mando’a idioms

Pragmatics & ethnolinguistics

Middle Mando’a creole hypothesis

Kinship terms

Politeness in Mando’a: gedet’ye & ba’gedet’ye — vor entye, vor’e, n’entye — n’eparavu takisit, ni ceta

Mandalorian languages

#mandalorian sign language

Concordian dialogue retcon

Mandalorians and medicine, baar’ur, triage

Names of Mandalorian planets

A short history of the Mandalorian Empire

#Mandalorian colour theory (#mandalorians and color): cin & purity, colour associations & orange, cin, ge’tal, saviin & besal

#Mandalorian nature: Flora and fauna of Manda’yaim, woorlarii (whistler), beskaab’sen (bell-bird), beshap (iron wood), galek’tal, unnamed lizard, unnamed, oltaba (mandalorian centipede crab), galkali, skredee (saw jaw), kitat (bucket bird), karikase (star flies, or mandalorian fireflies)

starry road

Other

Mando’a timeline

What I would have done differently if I had constructed Mando’a

Mando’a handwriting guide: part 1, part 2, part 3

Free tactical medicine learning resources for medics & those who write them

FAQ

Can I use your words/headcanons in my own projects? (short answer: yes please)

What’s your stance on Satine Kryze and the New Mandalorians? (tldr: they’re fictional and I don’t have one beyond their narrative being interesting & wishing that fandom would have civil conversations about them.)

LGBTQIA?: I’m about a flag short of an entire pride parade. Oh, you meant is this blog safe for you? Yeah, I don’t stand for any shade of discrimination. If I say something insensitive, rest assured it’s because I temporarily misplaced my other brain cell, not because of malice.

Asks under #ranah answers

P.s. Let me know if the links don’t work or something else is wrong (some items don’t have links, they are articles in my draft folder/queue which I’ve listed here so they don’t get lost—sorry for the tease!). Also please tell me if you need me to tag something I haven’t so you can filter it (this blog is for readers—if I was writing just for myself, I wouldn’t bother to edit and publish—so let me know what I can do to make it work better for you). Thanks!

#mando’a #mandoa #mando'a #mando’a language #meta: mandalorians #ranah talks mando’a

[crystalis]

• • •

THREAD: The eruption of protests in solidarity with the Palestinian people at numerous Western universities, and throughout the United States in particular, represents a pivotal moment.

College students are, to be sure, not an accurate reflection of public opinion or faithful mirror of their societies. But their activism often serves as a bellwether, an indication of the shape of things to come.

Therein lies the enormous political significance of the encampments that are now being established at dozens of universities, from the Ivy League to state universities.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s student uprisings not only contributed to, but also portended the failure of the US imperial project in southeast Asia and its defeat in Vietnam.

Student activists also played a prominent role in confronting the worst excesses of the racial hierarchy that dominates the United States. Similarly, campaigns, at times including the occupation of administration buildings, in numerous universities during the 1980s

to demand divestment from South African and related assets, portended the end of Western backing for that country’s white-minority regime. When student activism reaches a critical mass, in other words, it is often a fairly reliable indicator of where things are heading.

In the present context the protests across university campuses are sending multiple messages. Most obviously, a rejection of Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and, no less importantly,

a rejection of their own governments’ complicity and support of Israel’s transformation of the Gaza Strip into a killing field and chamber of horrors.

While that is the proximate cause, it is either underpinned by or has developed into a broader opposition to Israel as a colonial apartheid state and to its policies towards the Palestinian people more generally.

Hence the demands that universities divest from assets implicated in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. In other words, this is a genuine solidarity movement that sees Palestinians as human beings with inalienable rights which go beyond the right not to be massacred.

Expressed differently, the solidarity movement has served to humanize the Palestinians. To understand the profound significance of this achievement,

recall that Israel and its apologists have spent decades engaged in a systematic campaign, ably assisted by the mainstream media, to dehumanize Palestinians.

It was within living memory an article of faith that Palestinians simply do not exist. That “Palestinian” and “terrorist” became synonyms. That Palestinians are motivated by anti-Semitism and nothing else in their opposition to Israel.

Opposed to this, Israel was presented as “a light unto the nations”, “the only democracy in the Middle East” possessing “the most moral army in the world” that fought only “wars of no choice” and did so with “purity of arms”.

Until the eruption of the 1987 popular uprising, or intifada, it was a commonplace that Israel’s was a “benign” and “liberal” occupation, one that selflessly gave more than it took.

More recently, in an update of Theodor Herzl’s “rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism” it became “the villa in the jungle”.

Yet within the past seven months the paradigm through which Western public opinion has traditionally viewed both Israel and the Palestinians has definitively collapsed. And nowhere more definitively than on college campuses.

The transformation of course did not happen overnight, and decades of struggle and hard work by innumerable individuals within the region and beyond were required to make this moment possible.

Israel’s lurch towards ever greater levels of violence and extremism, to the extent that it is today the darling of the Third Reich’s ideological heirs, has also played its part.

The outcome is clear. Israel has lost the battle for public opinion, and it knows it. And given that for Israel public opinion is as much a strategic asset as its nuclear arsenal it is, unsurprisingly, responding hysterically.

It’s a far cry from previous eras, where Israel and its apologists could either persuade audiences of the rightness of their cause, or sufficiently confuse them into passive neutrality.

Israel and its flunkies are today deploying the same playbook and tactics against university activists that they have for decades deployed against the Palestinians: discredit, delegitimize, defame, and demonize.

Thus, any student expressing any opposition to Israel’s genocidal campaign or solidarity with its Palestinian victims is immediately denounced as “Hamas”, “terrorist”, anti-semite”, and the like.

The foot-stomping toddler who passes for assistant professor at Columbia University, to give but one example, has made it his vocation to vilify students at his own university.

Among the worst offenders, predictably, is Jonathan Greenblatt of the Defamation League, that self-proclaimed civil rights organization that used to conduct espionage in the United States on behalf of South Africa’s white-minority regime.

Once again going full Goebbels, he recently – without being challenged by his MSNBC hosts – denounced Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace as “campus proxies” for Iran.

The audacity of knowingly placing a target on Jews while drawing a generous salary on the pretext of defend their rights is hard to beat.

The problem for Israel and its apologists is that they have devalued their favorite terms of demonization to the point of making them trivial and meaningless.

Most people no longer care about being denounced as anti-Semites, terrorists, or agents of a foreign government by the likes of the Defamation League, and are no longer intimidated by the Zionist Inquisition,

because they readily understand it bears no relation to the actual definition of these terms and that these are deployed for the sole purpose of defending a foreign state and its policies.

Speaking of demonization, Vietnam’s National Liberation Front was hardly the Vienna Boys’ Choir, and at the height of the divestment movement South Africans accused of collaboration were being literally burned alive with “necklaces” consisting of petrol-soaked tires.

Yet today any student opposing Israeli genocide is absurdly required to take responsibility for Hamas and every one of its actions. It’s a sign of desperation by those who know their cause is lost.

Because they realize theirs is also a Lost Cause, Israel and its apologists are increasingly resorting to extreme measures, like deposing university presidents, threatening individual students and their employment prospects,

deploying agents provocateurs, and mobilising the police and security forces. Principle unfortunately often comes with a cost, but the manner in which the student movement has responded to these challenges has been nothing short of inspirational. END

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.14 Why is voluntarism not enough?

Voluntarism means that association should be voluntary in order maximise liberty. Anarchists are, obviously, voluntarists, thinking that only in free association, created by free agreement, can individuals develop, grow, and express their liberty. However, it is evident that under capitalism voluntarism is not enough in itself to maximise liberty.

Voluntarism implies promising (i.e. the freedom to make agreements), and promising implies that individuals are capable of independent judgement and rational deliberation. In addition, it presupposes that they can evaluate and change their actions and relationships. Contracts under capitalism, however, contradict these implications of voluntarism. For, while technically “voluntary” (though as we show in section B.4, this is not really the case), capitalist contracts result in a denial of liberty. This is because the social relationship of wage-labour involves promising to obey in return for payment. And as Carole Pateman points out, “to promise to obey is to deny or to limit, to a greater or lesser degree, individuals’ freedom and equality and their ability to exercise these capacities [of independent judgement and rational deliberation]. To promise to obey is to state, that in certain areas, the person making the promise is no longer free to exercise her capacities and decide upon her own actions, and is no longer equal, but subordinate.” [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 19] This results in those obeying no longer making their own decisions. Thus the rational for voluntarism (i.e. that individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and must be allowed to express their individuality and make their own decisions) is violated in a hierarchical relationship as some are in charge and the many obey (see also section A.2.8). Thus any voluntarism which generates relationships of subordination is, by its very nature, incomplete and violates its own justification.

This can be seen from capitalist society, in which workers sell their freedom to a boss in order to live. In effect, under capitalism you are only free to the extent that you can choose whom you will obey! Freedom, however, must mean more than the right to change masters. Voluntary servitude is still servitude. For if, as Rousseau put it, sovereignty, “for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented” neither can it be sold nor temporarily nullified by a hiring contract. Rousseau famously argued that the “people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.” [The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 266] Anarchists expand on this analysis. To paraphrase Rousseau:

Under capitalism the worker regards herself as free; but she is grossly mistaken; she is free only when she signs her contract with her boss. As soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes her and she is nothing but an order taker.

To see why, to see the injustice, we need only quote Rousseau:

“That a rich and powerful man, having acquired immense possessions in land, should impose laws on those who want to establish themselves there, and that he should only allow them to do so on condition that they accept his supreme authority and obey all his wishes; that, I can still conceive … Would not this tyrannical act contain a double usurpation: that on the ownership of the land and that on the liberty of the inhabitants?” [Op. Cit., p. 316]

Hence Proudhon’s comment that “Man may be made by property a slave or a despot by turns.” [What is Property?, p. 371] Little wonder we discover Bakunin rejecting “any contract with another individual on any footing but the utmost equality and reciprocity” as this would “alienate his [or her] freedom” and so would be a “a relationship of voluntary servitude with another individual.” Anyone making such a contract in a free society (i.e. anarchist society) would be “devoid of any sense of personal dignity.” [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 68–9] Only self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather than of subordination between its members.

Therefore anarchists stress the need for direct democracy in voluntary associations in order to ensure that the concept of “freedom” is not a sham and a justification for domination, as it is under capitalism. Only self-managed associations can create relationships of equality rather than of subordination between its members.

It is for this reason that anarchists have opposed capitalism and urged “workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism.” [Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 277] For similar reasons, anarchists (with the notable exception of Proudhon) opposed marriage as it turned women into “a bonded slave, who takes her master’s name, her master’s bread, her master’s commands, and serves her master’s passions … who can control no property, not even her own body, without his consent.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, “Sex Slavery”, The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 94] While marriage, due to feminist agitation, in many countries has been reformed towards the anarchist ideal of a free union of equals, it still is based on the patriarchal principles anarchists like Goldman and de Cleyre identified and condemned (see section A.3.5 for more on feminism and anarchism).

Clearly, voluntary entry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to defend an individual’s liberty. This is to be expected as it ignores (or takes for granted) the social conditions in which agreements are made and, moreover, ignores the social relationships created by them (“For the worker who must sell his labour, it is impossible to remain free.” [Kropotkin, Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution, p. 305]). Any social relationships based on abstract individualism are likely to be based upon force, power, and authority, not liberty. This of course assumes a definition of liberty according to which individuals exercise their capacities and decide their own actions. Therefore, voluntarism is not enough to create a society that maximises liberty. This is why anarchists think that voluntary association must be complemented by self-management (direct democracy) within these associations. For anarchists, the assumptions of voluntarism imply self-management. Or, to use Proudhon’s words, “as individualism is the primordial fact of humanity, so association is its complementary term.” [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 430]

To answer the second objection first, in a society based on private property (and so statism), those with property have more power, which they can use to perpetuate their authority. “Wealth is power, poverty is weakness,” in the words of Albert Parsons. This means that under capitalism the much praised “freedom to choose” is extremely limited. It becomes, for the vast majority, the freedom to pick a master (under slavery, quipped Parsons, the master “selected … his own slaves. Under the wage slavery system the wage slave selects his master.”). Under capitalism, Parsons stressed, “those disinherited of their natural rights must hire out and serve and obey the oppressing class or starve. There is no other alternative. Some things are priceless, chief among which are life and liberty. A freeman [or woman] is not for sale or hire.” [Anarchism, p. 99 and p. 98] And why should we excuse servitude or tolerate those who desire to restrict the liberty of others? The “liberty” to command is the liberty to enslave, and so is actually a denial of liberty.

Regarding the first objection, anarchists plead guilty. We are prejudiced against the reduction of human beings to the status of robots. We are prejudiced in favour of human dignity and freedom. We are prejudiced, in fact, in favour of humanity and individuality.

( Section A.2.11 discusses why direct democracy is the necessary social counterpart to voluntarism (i.e. free agreement). Section B.4 discusses why capitalism cannot be based on equal bargaining power between property owners and the propertyless).

#faq #anarchy faq #revolution #anarchism #daily posts #communism #anti capitalist #anti capitalism #late stage capitalism #organization #grassroots #grass roots #anarchists #libraries #leftism #social issues #economy #economics #climate change #climate crisis #climate #ecology #anarchy works #environmentalism #environment #solarpunk #anti colonialism #mutual aid #cops #police

[cynosurus]

Pride and Prejudice xth reread liveblog:

"And my mother—How is she? How are you all?"

"My mother is tolerably well, I trust; though her spirits are greatly shaken. She is up stairs, and will have great satisfaction in seeing you all.

- Elizabeth Bennet speaking to her sister Jane in Pride and Prejudice

I noticed an interesting usage of my. They're talking about the same person, mrs Bennet, the mother to both of them. And it looks like it's the same throughout the book.

Today people would say "how's mother", or rather "how's mum" instead I suppose.

#pride and prejudice #jane austen #possessive pronouns #language nerding #linguistics #inalienable possession

[aikoiya]

DP HC - The Right to Retribution

This is based on the idea that an ecto-formic ghost's killer continuing to live & commit crimes is deeply traumatizing to the ghost in question.

As such, most civilized ghost societies have a law called the Right of Retribution where a ghost is allowed to do whatever they deem necessary in order to stop their killer, even if that means killing them.

It is even considered an inalienable right in a lot of places.

It's completely possible for a ghost to move on without doing this of course, but it makes it very difficult for a ghost to get to a place, psychologically, where they can do so.

It's similar to how a ghost can move on from not having a grave, but it's difficult on a personal, emotional, & psychological level.

For more on ghost psychology, go here:

& here:

I was so sure that I'd already made a post on this before or a reboot with it or something & that there was something about this mentioned in a DPxDC post regarding Jason Tood & him having been killed by the Joker, but I can't find either of them anywhere! If you know where they are, please tell me?

---

What I find interesting is that Vlad could logically make an argument that he has every right to kill Jack as he was the one responsible for his death.

The problem comes when you realize that Jack had never intended to kill Vlad. Which is key. Because in several ghostly civilizations, malicious intent is necessary for it to actually be declared retribution. As such, in societies where retribution must be justified, there is often an investigation to determine whether it is or not. Not just to figure out if the individual actually murdered said ghost, but in some, to also uncover whether or not the individual has changed & are legitimately trying to make amends.

Like, there are ectomantic spells that only the best & most magically skilled of Retributive Investigators have, that allows them to go to a place where something happened, use a bit of a ghost's ecto & a piece of the accused murderer, & it'll create an illusion of what all happened in an area & it's just one part of their job to search through the provided scenes. Upon locating said scene, they must examine it thoroughly with a fine-toothed comb. Literally, it's a magically imbued comb that allows the investogator to focus in on a fuzzy area of the illusion by combing through the fuzziness.

If it's possible that there might be someone else involved, it is their duty to locate their DNA & use that to create an even fuller picture.

When the correct & fullest version of the scenes are found, they can then be bottled to show to a committee who will end up being the ones to vote & decide whether a kill is justified.

Of course, even with such magic, it's still possible for corrupt investigators or anyone knowledgeable enough on how the magic works, to tamper with the bottles & edit the scenes inside.

Interestingly, there is no clearance needed for a ghost simply looking to help the living police to catch their killer. So long as they remain invisible & only draw the police's attention to the truth, then no ghostly lawmakers would have a problem. But things like killing or crippling do require clearance.

So, it's possible that either Vlad doesn't know that it was an accident, doesn't believe it was an accident, or he forged evidence to make it look like it was murder & it'd only take a cursory look to see that Jack has some pretty damn speciesist ideas of ghosts.

I can see him rubbing the fact that he has clearance to murder Jack in Danny's face as he could technically argue that Danny is trying to obstruct his right to enact retributive measures upon the man who killed him & depending on the laws pertaining to the area in the IR that corresponds with where Vlad's initial accident took place/where he died/where he intends to kill Jack, it's entirely possible that Jack's death wouldn't need to be justified, just proven that he was responsible at least in part.

This could lead to Danny becoming wanted by ghost law in-general & not just by Walker. As there's a difference between rules made by a ghost who's Obsession is with rules as a ghost is able to inforce said rules to a degree within their own territory; & actual laws that ghostly societies have as being documented laws.

---

At the same time, the investigation would be for the right to deliver justice upon the accused. They're trying to figure out if it'd be legal for Vlad to want Jack dead.

If so, then it means that they can't stop Vlad from killing Jack himself or from asking someone else to do it for him.

They're not gonna execute Jack themselves as that's not the purpose of the law. That would only happen if it was discovered during said investigation that Jack was a threat to ghosts as a whole & that he's committed crimes against ghosts who were ghosts at the time of said crime.

That would be when the Observants would get involved because then it's no longer just a question of Vlad's right to retribution, but the safety of ghosts in-general.

Generally, ghostly politics don't get directly involved with living matters unless it concerns ghostly society as a whole.

The investigation is just to confirm whether Jack was responsible for Vlad's death &, depending on the laws of the area in the IR that is most applicable (area corresponding to the place where the crime that resulted in Vlad's death was committed, area corresponding to where Vlad actually died, area corresponding to where Vlad plans to kill him, ect), whether or not killing Jack would be justified, further depending on whether or not he's killed someone again since.

This would all just allow clearance for Vlad to do so should he choose. It is entirely within his rights to instead decide to just have Jack arrested in the living realms or even crippled to the point where he can never hurt anyone again. Not that Vlad would choose those routes, but the fact is that he'd have those options & it'd be perfectly legal. In such a case as simply sending the man to jail, the investigation would only need to prove that Jack was responsible & possibly that there was a danger for it happening again. Not whether it was justified.

So, yes; legally, both Maddie & Sam would be subject to this as well, but Sam's part would only come up in an investigation for Danny specifically & we both know that he'd never ask for such an investigation as he doesn't blame anyone but himself for his death. Which is also completely within his right to retribution as well.

The same could also be said of Maddie in the cases of both Vlad & Danny, who was, in fact, partially responsible as well.

Jack, though, would be ska-rewed as he was also somewhat responsible for Danny's death even if it wasn't intentional.

It's also important to note that serial negligence is also a factor in these cases. Normally, Jack & Maddie could've been pardoned in some areas of the IR since the first time was an accident. Until it's discovered that it happened again, to their own son, at which point, even though that time was also an accident, it qualifies as criminally negligent homicide & it could feasibly be argued that they are liable to commit said crime in negligence again.

At the same time, if Vlad gets clearance to kill Jack, he'll also get clearance to kill Maddie too, which could end up blindsiding him as it's unknown whether he knew that Maddie was partially responsible for his death or if he was trying to deny that to himself. This might force him to confront said truth.

For all we know, it could utterly change his plans & it's undetermined as to how.

So, yes! There is a lot of factors that go into this sort of thing & it can be a headache!

—

Then, there are cases where a ghost's killer had died & became an ecto-formic ghost themselves. Or even if a ghost killed a human without just cause.

In such situations, it can become an entire court case. Though, the ability to call upon the victim does tend to expedite things a bit provided they remain truthful.

There's still an investigation though, as all angles are supposed to be explored to uncover the whole truth of the situation in case either party isn't saying something, forgot something, or simply doesn't know something.

If it's determined that the death was done maliciously or in negligence & it's liable to happen again or had happened before, then depending on what the victim wants to happen & what they are given clearance for, the victim can have their killer jailed, an ectomantic spell cast to have their killer artificially experience the very death that they brought upon the victim, however depending on the laws in place for the corresponding area of death, the victim is either allowed to obliterate the killer with their own hands or they can be entirely barred from doing so. Again depending on the relevant laws in place.

Most civilized ghost societies actually don't allow the victims to do as such & will instead jail the murderer if the victim wishes their existence ceased, then said murderer will be put on end row (the ghost equivalent to death row), but it is still important to establish that some societies do allow the victim to do it themselves.

It's also possible, that if the victim is actually given clearance to kill their murderer, if they don't have the stomach to perform the job, they can then request someone else do the deed, whether it be performed as part of end row or an outright assassination. If they are given that clearance, then neither the judicial system of the IR nor anyone else would have any right to interfere. Sure, someone is more than allowed to change the victim's mind, but they can't outright interfere.

—

However, there is definitely a different precedence when it comes to ghost on ghost forced cessation (called ectocide) which is treated much more strictly. It is generally conducted much more similarly to living world court.

In the case of Plasmius vs Phantom, Ellie specifically, practically an entirely new precedence would need to be created as not only are both halfas, but in my hc, Vlad did technically kill her, if just briefly, even though she was already half-ghost herself at the time. While one could compare her situation to having been resuscitated after being killed, to Ghosts, if all your bodily functions cease, even temporarily, then you died, if only briefly. As, you see, death leaves a sort of residue that ghosts can sense.

Vlad could easily get charged with outright murder (which would mean that he'd also be charged with attempted murder because, logically, if you managed to kill someone intentionally, then at some point you had attempted to kill them).

Because the case would be so complicated, it would require a lot of investigation, which would turn up the fact that Vlad had stolen Danny's dna, created Ellie via cloning without the boy's expressed permission, had used her, then when she refused to put herself & Danny in danger, he turned on her, chased her all over the world, & eventually melted her down resulting in a temporary cessation of all bodily functions.

That's not even getting into the fact that Elle qualifies as a baby ghost & thus is considered very precious in ghostly society.

In this case, it'd be something of a mix of ectocide & right of retribution.

By ghost law, even if someone is resuscitated, if they were medically considered dead for any amount of time, then it is still considered murder to them. The reason being that, in ghost terms, even a medically temporary cessation of life gives one a certain, albeit small, connection to death. A residue as mentioned before. And the longer that one is dead, the larger that connection will steadily become.

Even though in human terms, true death is only a thing if the person never comes back, ghosts know that there is more to it than that.

In this case, halfas are beings who die, develop a core, then are revived with that core still inside them, thus making them both alive & ghosts. In order to become a ghost & form a core, you have to have truly died. Cessation may have been temporary, but death is still death.

Which is another important thing here, the acknowledgement that a cessation took place & one's own part in it. In the case of Plasmius VS Fenton. This would very explicitly come up as not only would the Drs. Fenton be forced to acknowledge the fact that their negligence killed their son, but Danny would also be forced to acknowledge it as well. It wouldn't matter if he refused to enact his right upon them, facts are facts & the facts are that his parent's obsession killed him. And it'd be a hard pill to swallow.

---

Furthermore, during the investigation of Jack, it is very highly likely that the case would be brought to a higher court due to the danger that both he & Maddie are to ghostly society because of their ectocidal tendencies.

Because of this & the fact that they directly hunt/torture ghosts, there'd be no need to try & hide, & instead the pair would both be taken in & tried in the high court.

While they'd likely think it was all rediculous, it'd become quickly apparent that ghosts had a full & in-tact judicial system.

Both Danny & Vlad would be required to appear in court & testify under a Pheonix Song Oath to tell the truth.

It'd surprise both Vlad & Danny very deeply. Vlad due to Maddie being tried too & Danny because, despite what he keeps telling himself, when the truth of what happened comes pouring from his lips & deep inside, he knows that none of it was a lie.

Then, the confusion & horror on both of the parents' faces when Vlad & Danny are forced to reveal their secrets to the pair.

The 2 would react very differently. Maddie in abject denial & Jack with horror bordering on sickness as everything comes crashing down around him.

---

It's also important to note that sane & insane means little to nothing in ghost law, especially in the face of actions.

The biggest issue holding most cases back is time. Remember, the Realms are literally infinite & there are only so many Retributive Investigators & committees to go around. So, it can take time to get through them all. Cases related to serial killers & mass murderers tend to get handled the quickest as the many victims tend to gather together & make sort of petitions. The more victims, the more attention it draws & the more committees will notice.

So, if Jason Todd had become a ghost during his brief time dead, he & other Joker victims could've signed up for Retributive Measures & the high profile would've pushed the case through & gotten it investigated incredibly quickly. The investigators wouldn't have even needed to try too hard, Jokers crimes, mass murdering tendencies, disregard for life, his unapology, his wanton destruction, it would've insured a very rapid, very decisive guilty verdict.

Therefore, every victim would've been given full clearance to do whatever they saw as being just. The problem? Batman prevents their success at every turn.

Like, it'd be one thing if Arkham actually kept the bastard there & treated him. But they don't. Arkham is practically a revolving door for the criminally insane. Which, among retributive committees would disqualify it as a proper place to keep the Joker. Hell, it'd even be one thing if the Joker was actually effing receptive to help, but he isn't. And if there's one thing that such old committee members know from direct experience, it's where to spot someone who will never change because they don't want to. Not to mention how to identify a sane person who's just grifting in order to keep from ending up in actual jail & off death row.

Every instance in which Joker has come close to dying or even outright died? At least one of his victims were behind it.

Thing is, if Jason were to ever remember this, if he could get his hands on proof of his death from both living realm & Infinite Realms, thus proving his Infinite Realms Citizenship, register Gotham as his official haunt & even lair with the Spirit of Gotham's support, as well as an official copy of his Legal Clearance for Retributive Measures (LCRM), he could prove that he has a legal right to kill Joker & by Batman trying to stop him it makes him liable to at least a hundred years jail time in the Ghost Zone for interfering with a ghost's right to seek peace & recover mental health.

Making it clear that ghosts don't possess the same psychological structure as humans. For one, a ghost's mental state is directly connected with their physical state. That while revenge does corrupt ghosts much like it does humans, retribution does not because it is fueled by righteous fury & justified anger. By not allowing Jason to fulfill his need for retribution, he is causing many of Joker's victims to spiral ever deeper into mental & medical torment as a ghost's killer is a highly traumatic subject for them. That the killer's continued ability to keep performing such acts causes their victims ghosts to suffer more in a physical manner.

That since Jason is an Ecto-Liminal whose experienced death & thus part of both the Living & Infinite Realms at once, that means that he is allowed to take retribution directly & without restraint.

That because Gotham herself has given him permission to call Gotham his official haunt, that means that the laws of the Infinite Realms extends here & with just a few negotiations between the mayor of Gotham & the Beating-Heart Boyking, Jason will be given temporary leave of humanity so that human law will not apply to him so long as the Joker remained alive. And until that fucker is dead for good, it'll be clown season & nothing Bruce does would be able to stop him.

Either way, when a ghost's killer is dealt with, the ghost word for it roughly translates to "freeing."

For more, go to my full Ghost Zone Masterlist.

#danny phantom #dp #headcanon #danny phantom headcanon #right to retribution #retribution #revenge #ghost psychology #ghost law #ghost lore #aikoiya hc #writing prompt

[schraubd]

Bruen's Goose Continues To Not Apply to the Gander

The thing about the Fifth Circuit's recent ruling that the Second Amendment gives men under domestic abuse restraining orders an inalienable right to bear arms is that it is (a) insane and (b) absolutely defensible under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. This is because the Bruen decision will regularly and predictably lead to insane results.

That said, I did want to flag something in the opinion that I've picked up on before -- namely, the inconsistent commitment to Bruen's supposed prohibition on weighing or considering "social policy" considerations. Judge Wilson, writing for the panel, expressly cites to this portion of Bruen, saying that while the prohibition on gun possession by domestic abusers "embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society ... Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right." This principle is, perhaps above all else, the crux of Bruen's standard -- no matter how ridiculous, or absurd, or unfair, or chaotic the policy outcomes are, courts are not permitted to "weigh" them against the historical limitations that bounded the Second Amendment. The latter begins and ends the conversation.

Again, that principle is absurd. But it's Bruen's principle, and the Fifth Circuit gleefully cites it to explain why the prospect of terrified and murdered women can play no role in its legal analysis. But what happens if the historical arguments seem to counsel permitting more sweeping gun regulations than conservative jurists might like? All of the sudden, those social policy considerations come roaring back into view.

Addressing the historical precedents which did clearly envision government's authority to disarm "dangerous" persons, Judge Wilson explains that such exceptions must be narrowly construed so as not to apply to the case of domestic abusers. Why? Because, he asserts,

the Government’s proffered interpretation lacks any true limiting principle. Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “nonlaw abiding” people—however expediently defined—from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle?

I take no position on whether the government's interpretation is so expansive. But note that this line of argument is expressly an analysis of the proper policy sweep of government regulation. We should tailor our interpretation of the Second Amendment's scope so as to avoid a policy outcome whereby too few people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms; to avoid an outcome where the government is permitted to disarm people who these judges think it would be manifestly unfair to have their gun rights taken away.

This is exactly the sort of policy analysis Bruen purports to forbid, only here the "policy" concerns are ones counseling in favor of greater freedom to bear arms rather than reduced freedom to bear arms. Perhaps it seems absurd to permit the government to take away arms from people just for getting a speeding ticket. But so what?  Bruen was emphatic that this sort of social policy assessment has no role in Second Amendment adjudication. If the historical analogues give the state that sort of latitude, then that is supposed to end the conversation. Again, it is baked in the Bruen cake that it will lead to results that may appear to modern eyes ridiculous, because Bruen expressly instructs courts that they aren't allowed to care about those consequences no matter how absurd they might seem to be.

But as the Fifth Circuit's ruling makes clear, the Bruen prohibition on weighing policy consequences is, unsurprisingly, a one-way ratchet. Conservative courts will portentously declare that Bruen forbids them from considering the disastrous consequences of countless terrified or murdered women if it means taking away domestic abusers' guns -- but if history and tradition start to point towards enabling gun restrictions that the right finds too onerous, then all of the sudden we get a screeching parade of contemporary policy horribles that are treated as legally dispositive. This is what generates such well-deserved cynicism about the state of the judiciary today -- it's not just that the legal rules the governing class of jurists announce are absurd, it's that these jurists do not even pretend to be bound by them the second they prove inconvenient to their underlying politics.

The other thing to note about this case is that, if the Supreme Court reverses it -- and they might -- their reasoning will almost certainly purport to be based on some alternate assessment and reading of the historical sources. But this will be a naked smokescreen, and everyone will know it. If the Court reverses the Fifth Circuit here, it will be entirely and solely because the Court finds it too unreasonable and intolerable to permit domestic abusers free reign to carry arms -- a contemporary policy judgment anyway you look at it, no matter how much effort is or isn't expended to cloak it in some faux-historical garb. None of these judges abide by the rules they purport to lay out.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2icluJG

#constitution #gun control #guns #judiciary

[mirageindex]

Conlang Year: Possession

DAY 65: Consider different types of possession DAY 66: Identify any possessive markers you need DAY 67: Create forms for possessive constructions DAY 68: Write an overview for possession The language (I really need to settle on a name for it, I’ve tried out a bunch but nothing's stuck) distinguishes between alienable and inalienable possession. For inalienable the possessor is used like an adjective, while for alienable the word “lao” (of, from) precedes the possessor. So: mema poya: the squid’s mother but cipancu lao poya: the squid’s crab This also goes for anything to do with a noun’s intrinsic qualities, such as size, color, texture, etc. lavo esa: the stream’s edge inta lao esa: the stream’s rocks (which can be easily removed)

This works the same way for pronouns. moci va: my head ota taica lao va: my seven cups

#conlang #conlang year #conlangyear

[ffcrazy15]

"From the start of his pontificate, Pope Francis has invited the Church to “believe in a Father who loves all men and women with an infinite love, realizing that ‘he thereby confers upon them an infinite dignity.’” He has strongly emphasized that such immense dignity is an original datum (something given) that is to be acknowledged faithfully and welcomed with gratitude. Based on this recognition and acceptance of human dignity, a new coexistence among people can be established that develops social relationships in the context of authentic fraternity. Indeed, only by “acknowledging the dignity of each human person” can we “contribute to the rebirth of a universal aspiration to fraternity.” Pope Francis affirms that “the wellspring of human dignity and fraternity is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” but even human reason can arrive at this conviction through reflection and dialogue since “the dignity of others is to be respected in all circumstances, not because that dignity is something we have invented or imagined, but because human beings possess an intrinsic worth superior to that of material objects and contingent situations. This requires that they be treated differently. That every human being possesses an inalienable dignity is a truth that corresponds to human nature apart from all cultural change.” Pope Francis concludes, “human beings have the same inviolable dignity in every age of history, and no one can consider himself or herself authorized by particular situations to deny this conviction or to act against it.” From this perspective, Pope Francis’ encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, constitutes a kind of “Magna Carta” of our contemporary tasks to protect and promote human dignity." –Dignitas infinita, §6 *paragraph breaks added for clarity

#dignitas infinta #infinite dignity #human dignity #human rights #civil rights

[cheerfullycatholic]

First, while there has been a growing awareness of human dignity, many misunderstandings of the concept still distort its meaning. Some people propose that it is better to use the expression “personal dignity” (and the rights “of the person”) instead of “human dignity” (and the rights “of man”) since they understand a “person” to be only “one who is capable of reasoning.” They then argue that dignity and rights are deduced from the individual’s capacity for knowledge and freedom, which not all humans possess. Thus, according to them, the unborn child would not have personal dignity, nor would the older person who is dependent upon others, nor would an individual with mental disabilities.[39] On the contrary, the Church insists that the dignity of every human person, precisely because it is intrinsic, remains “in all circumstances.” The recognition of this dignity cannot be contingent upon a judgment about the person’s ability to understand and act freely; otherwise, it would not be inherent in the person, independent of the individual’s situation, and thus deserving unconditional respect. Only by recognizing an intrinsic and inalienable dignity in every human being can we guarantee a secure and inviolable foundation for that quality. Without any ontological grounding, the recognition of human dignity would vacillate at the mercy of varying and arbitrary judgments. The only prerequisite for speaking about the dignity inherent in the person is their membership in the human species, whereby “the rights of the person are the rights of man.”[40]

Dignitas Infinita, paragraph 24

#catholicism #catholic church #church document #pope francis #dignitas infinita

[strixcattus]

Conlang Year Day 82

At last I have emerged from Pronoun Hell. I look forward to the day I inevitably have to return to conjugate (nearly) all one hundred and twenty-six of these for tense.

(Nominative, accusative, dative, comitative, benefactive, and both possessives)

(Again I only now am noticing that the split-gender pronouns have identical forms for the accusative and inalienable possession. I'll change the latter to kieza. Can you tell I'm coming down with some sort of pronoun fatigue?)

3.5th-person pronouns in use:

Kola lolo. Their past self dreams. Zono deza nesai. Their alternate-universe self kills their future self. Gako neju kiona. They speak to their divergent self. Lio nejui gaiza sie gaiza. They walk with their alternate-universe selves. Kaodo neju diolo. They cook for their past self.

Ja temo juona: Their divergent self's mouth Ja mijei duzai: Their future self's house

#conlang #time travel conlang #conlang year #going to revel in every prompt that doesn't necessiate a table from now on

[fellow-weary-traveler]

Morals and Dogma Fellowcraft

Part II Truths are the springs from which duties flow; and it is but a few hundred years since a new Truth began to be distinctly seen; that MAN IS SUPREME OVER INSTITUTIONS, AND NOT THEY OVER HIM. Man has natural empire over all institutions. They are for him, according to his development; not he for them. This seems to us a very simple statement, one to which all men, everywhere, ought to assent. But once it was a great new Truth,—not revealed until governments had been in existence for at least five thousand years. Once revealed, it imposed new duties on men. Man owed it to himself to be free. He owed it to his country to seek to give her freedom, or maintain her in that possession. It made Tyranny and Usurpation the enemies of the Human Race. It created a general outlawry of Despots and Despotisms, temporal and spiritual. The sphere of Duty was immensely enlarged. Patriotism had, henceforth, a new and wider meaning. Free Government, Free Thought, Free Conscience, Free Speech! All these came to be inalienable rights, which those who had parted with them or been robbed of them, or whose ancestors had lost them, had the right summarily to retake. Unfortunately, as Truths always become perverted into falsehoods, and are falsehoods when misapplied, this Truth became the Gospel of Anarchy, soon after it was first preached.

#art #freemasonry #freemasons #masoniclodge #freemasonofamerica #freemasonic #masonictemple #Fellowcraft #occult #Albert pike