There is logic, there is language, and there is law. They are three different things. I would advise you don't get confused by trying to analyze one using the other two.
Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) held that no person born into slavery can ever be treated as a free person. This ruling superseded all cases of manumission, and therefore slavery was therefore extended into the "free" states. Then came the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) that, as a wartime measure, attempted to set the former slaves where the United States courts could not reach. This presidential directive was never legally challenged. When Amendment XIV was ratified by enough states (1866), no person could be held in bondage in the United States.
Now...
Your tautological argument could, based on your "logic," argue that no one is a human being because, after all, it's really just a state of mind. As is, based on your "reasoning," the state of slavery.
But...
This is a word game, nothing more. And a game of perceptions. Once again, don't confuse logic, the law, and language.
I very much understand that it is a 'game' of perceptions. That's what I was getting at. No one ids more free than what they perceive. Less, maybe, but not more.
And while I see your point concerning logic, language and law, they cannot possibly be kept separate. And should not be. We just need to keep track of which is which. I shudder any time a politician begins his speech with, "I know I speak on behalf of all Americans when I say that..." I know that he will be speaking on behalf of only some Americans, that there will be little reference to actual constitutional law, and even less logic.
There is logic, there is language, and there is law. They are three different things. I would advise you don't get confused by trying to analyze one using the other two.
Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) held that no person born into slavery can ever be treated as a free person. This ruling superseded all cases of manumission, and therefore slavery was therefore extended into the "free" states. Then came the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) that, as a wartime measure, attempted to set the former slaves where the United States courts could not reach. This presidential directive was never legally challenged. When Amendment XIV was ratified by enough states (1866), no person could be held in bondage in the United States.
Now...
Your tautological argument could, based on your "logic," argue that no one is a human being because, after all, it's really just a state of mind. As is, based on your "reasoning," the state of slavery.
But...
This is a word game, nothing more. And a game of perceptions. Once again, don't confuse logic, the law, and language.
I very much understand that it is a 'game' of perceptions. That's what I was getting at. No one ids more free than what they perceive. Less, maybe, but not more.
And while I see your point concerning logic, language and law, they cannot possibly be kept separate. And should not be. We just need to keep track of which is which. I shudder any time a politician begins his speech with, "I know I speak on behalf of all Americans when I say that..." I know that he will be speaking on behalf of only some Americans, that there will be little reference to actual constitutional law, and even less logic.