08 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMy undergraduate institution has a big heated pond on campus, and as a consequence ducks live there year round. Because of this, my education during those years was shaped not only by formal classes on the history of western thought, international politics, and Japanese short story, but also by spontaneous lessons which arose during "field trips" to the SUB or the athletic facility. The seasons of nature being as they are, on some of these outings I was subjected to the mating behavior of ducks. The images still burn in my mind, and I will recount here what I witnessed.
Since they are morally culpable in your and your God's view, should we have trials for murderer oxen? How about rapist oxen?
One might say that the mating behavior of ducks is not unlike that of certain jocks at Duke University. A duck, as the female is called, steps brisquely, like all the other bipedal pedestrians around her, on her little webbed feet to some special corner for relaxation, when suddenly, three drakes emerge from the crowd of passersby across the street. Paying no attention to infuriated drivers bleeting their horns in frustration, the cavalier trio moves across the road. They waddle with a cocky, yet awkward, gait, as if they are trying, unsuccessfully, to mask their stumpy, bald legs. Their colored, elegant markings decorate the pompous parade, and they mimic one another with incessant squawks and quacks, so that in all they look very much like young frat boys on their way to a formal dinner.
The gang of drakes and the duck become aware of each other's presence in the same moment. The female feigns indifference, but she noticeably accelerates her pace. The drakes also speed up, from a waddle to a rolling tumble, and their brackish banter takes on a sense of excitement and purpose. The drakes saddle up on all sides of the flustered duck. She alters her course smoothly, still pretending that everything's normal, but one of the males abruptly blocks her path. She turns another direction but is cut off again by a second of the hooligans.
For just a moment, the drakes and the duck freeze. The duck looks about helplessly for aid. Spotting an opening she makes a desperate dash, but the third drake seizes her neck in his bill and jerks her to the earth. Cacophonous chortles rise with wicked triumph as the first drake proudly totters up and brutally mounts the duck from behind. After a short period of static violence, the aggressors rotate, switching roles, and it continues.
When each male has had his turn, the ravagers saunter off again, now with an audible tone of satisfaction in their incessant chatter. Surely they are already rehashing their exploits, joking that they would share a round of high-fives, if only they possessed the proper limbs. Her attackers gone, the brutalized duck picks herself up carefully from the soil and gingerly takes the first steps of her shameful trek back to the pond. There she will lie in a furtive corner and affect indifference toward the giggling squawks and disapproving sideglances of the other ladies.
That was the sad fate that I saw played out many times. Even as I write I realize I've always wanted to see those bastards brought to justice. If those arrogant thugs could feel the fear that their victim suffered! I say the Freak is right. We should wipe off their smug ducky grins with a 12-gauge!
08 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionThuckin' thuckatash! Them drakeths and duckths are a motley group of groperths. And to think that one of them duckths wasth my dear mother!
My undergraduate institution has a big heated pond on campus, and as a consequence ducks live there year round. Because of this, my education during those years was shaped not only by formal classes on the history of western thought, international politics, and Japanese short story, but also by spontaneous lessons which arose during "field trips" to the SU ...[text shortened]... red! I say the Freak is right. We should wipe off their smug ducky grins with a 12-gauge!
08 Apr 06
2 edits
Although I'm sure that Jews are unqualified to interpret the provisions of Mosaic law, this Jewish commentary says this about verse 21 (which it translates as "survives for a day or two"😉:
But if he survives for a day or two he shall not be avenged If one day[’s survival] exempts him [from punishment], then would not [survival of] two days be even more obvious? [Why then, is the word יומים written?] Rather [it must be that we are speaking of] one day which is as two days, and what [kind of day] is that? A full, twenty-four hour period.
he shall not be avenged, because he is his property But if someone else struck him, even if he lingered for twenty-four hours before he died, he [the other person] is liable [to incur the death penalty].
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=9882&showrashi=true
Interestingly, the verse it uses to illuminate the meaning of verse 21 is verse 12: "One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." The point being that if you strike a man and he dies whether it be a day or two days or whatever later, you are liable for the death penalty but if you strike your slave and he dies a day later, you get a pass (they call it the "24 hour rule"😉.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI went to the provided site and read their take on the passage. While I do not agree with it, you are correct in saying that it agrees with your assertion. Further study is required, although I have offered a basic refutation that I believe will be the structure of the final argument, as well.
Although I'm sure that Jews are unqualified to interpret the provisions of Mosaic law, this Jewish commentary says this about verse 21 (which it translates as "survives for a day or two"😉:
But if he survives for a day or two he shall not be avenged If one day[’s survival] exempts him [from punishment], then would not [survival of] two days be even mor ...[text shortened]... ike your slave and he dies a day later, you get a pass (they call it the "24 hour rule"😉.
09 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhile appeals to authority are more up the theist's alley, in addition to the traditional Jewish interpretation, I would also point to two traditional and influential Protestant commentaries written in the 18th century. One is by Methodist Adam Clarke; the other is by Presbyterian Matthew Henry. They both agree that the clear meaning of Exodus 21:21 is that the slave survive a day or two and then die. I cannot find any commentary or any translation written before the late 20th Century supporting the "gets up" language and scenario that Freaky is espousing.
I went to the provided site and read their take on the passage. While I do not agree with it, you are correct in saying that it agrees with your assertion. Further study is required, although I have offered a basic refutation that I believe will be the structure of the final argument, as well.
Clark's and Henry's commentaries on Exodus 21 and that of others is at http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/Exodus/21.html
EDIT: But apparently such traditional commentary and interpretation is merely "Akin to something you'd expect from a junior high school student who figured they'd 'get to the bottom of all this.' - Freaky, p. 10.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderTouche on the edit: you at least are putting forth an effort to research your position and I have to tip my hat to the effort.
While appeals to authority are more up the theist's alley, in addition to the traditional Jewish interpretation, I would also point to two traditional and influential Protestant commentaries written in the 18th century. One is by Methodist Adam Clarke; the other is by Presbyterian Matthew Henry. They both agree that the clear meaning of Exodus 21:21 is t ...[text shortened]... gh school student who figured they'd 'get to the bottom of all this.' - Freaky, p. 10.
That being said, however...
When you cite sources, it makes more sense to go with those sympathetic to your cause. In citing Clarke and Henry, you do not strengthen your argument of the servant dying at the hand of his master.
With respect to v21, Clarke, leaning more toward the side of caution, relating to "to stand" says:
"But if he survived the beating a day or two the master was not punished, because it might be presumed that the man died through some other cause."
Same verse, Henry:
"Care is here taken, that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not follow."
Further research is obviously warranted.
09 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am completely puzzled by your reading of Clarke; "it might be presumed that the man DIED through some other cause" (emphasis mine) seems crystal clear to me. How can you possibly twist that into supporting your "no major injury" stance? I would say that this reasoning again shows the irrationality of the law; no such presumption is made in verse 12 regarding the striking of a non-slave.
Touche on the edit: you at least are putting forth an effort to research your position and I have to tip my hat to the effort.
That being said, however...
When you cite sources, it makes more sense to go with those sympathetic to your cause. In citing Clarke and Henry, you do not strengthen your argument of the servant dying at the hand of his maste done to a person, though death do not follow."
Further research is obviously warranted.
Please cite where in Henry the statement you cited is made; it is NOT made in reference to Exodus 21:21. But this statement is:
But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master's reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley.[chance-medley is what we would call manslaughter in law today]
Again, quite clear.
EDIT: The commentary you cited of Henry's is in regard to verse 18, not 21. Further research may be required by you, but try not to be soooooooo sloppy in it.
v. 18: 18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: 19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
09 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHow can you possibly twist that into supporting your "no major injury" stance?
I am completely puzzled by your reading of Clarke; "it might be presumed that the man DIED through some other cause" (emphasis mine) seems crystal clear to me. I would say that this reasoning again shows the irrationality of the law; no such presumption is made in verse 12 regarding the striking of a non-slave.
Please cite where in Henry the s it: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
No twisting is required here. Because the verb 'to stand,' is taken to mean that the slave apparently recovered after a day or more, and further, if death then follows--- seemingly not from the beating--- the master is absolved of murder... according to Clarke.
Henry completed his commentary in 1706. The etymology of chance-medley is from c. 1374, then meaning "an occurence, incident, event," from O. Fr. accident, from L. accidentum, generally growing in meaning from "something that happens, an event," to "something that happens by chance," and finally to "mishap."
The American Heritage Dictionary, fourth edition, puts it as:
"A random, haphazard action or occurrence"
Although not completely out of the question, I could find no support for your assertion that chance-medley evolved into the legal term manslaughter.
I quoted from Henry's commentary on the whole Bible, same link, albeit under "Commentary," it was the fifth link. However, it, too, references v21 and specifically, the treatment of slaves.
EDIT: The link you provided was an abbreviated version of Henry's commentary. My next post has his entire commentary on that passage. Prepare yourself, because it ain't pretty.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou really just make this up as you go along, don't you??
[b]How can you possibly twist that into supporting your "no major injury" stance?
No twisting is required here. Because the verb 'to stand,' is taken to mean that the slave apparently recovered after a day or more, and further, if death then follows--- seemingly not from the beating--- the master is absolved of murder... according to Clarke.
Henry ...[text shortened]... k. However, it, too, references v21 and specifically, the treatment of slaves.[/b]
Clarke never translates the Hebrew word as "to stand". Here's his ENTIRE commentary on Exodus 21:21:
If the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the master was punished with death; see Genesis ix. 5, 6. But if he survived the beating a day or two the master was not punished, because it might be presumed that the man died through some other cause. And all penal laws should be construed as favourably as possible to the accused.
Your interpretation is nonsense. Clarke is saying "it MIGHT be presumed that the man DIED through some other cause" because a "penal law should be construed as favorably as possibe to the accused". In essence, it is creating a legal presumption that applies only if the slave dies in a day or two. There would obviously be no need for such a presumption if the slave doesn't die in a day or two, would there???
To Henry in a minute; your assertions are similarly BS.
10 Apr 06
IV. Care is here taken that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not ensue, v. 18, 19. He that did the hurt must be accountable for damages, and pay, not only for the cure, but for the loss of time, to which the Jews add that he must likewise give some recompence both for the pain and for the blemish, if there were any.
V. Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph. 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13–15.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderClarke never translates the Hebrew word as "to stand".
You really just make this up as you go along, don't you??
Clarke never translates the Hebrew word as "to stand". Here's his ENTIRE commentary on Exodus 21:21:
If the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the master was punished with death; see Genesis ix. 5, 6. But if he survived the beating a day or two the m ...[text shortened]... r two, would there???
To Henry in a minute; your assertions are similarly BS.
Where in my post did I say he translated anything to "to stand?" That is the Hebrew! I said he took the Hebrew word to mean exactly what others have taken it to mean, namely, that the slave apparently recovered from the beating.
That this was laying the groundwork for legal standing is obvious. The issue YOU raised was an interpretation of the law which asserted:
It's not okay to beat your slave to death immediately, but
it is okay if he dies a few days later from that beating (paraphrasing, of course).
These two commentaries contradict such a position, as "to stand" a "day" or "two" assumes that, in the case that death follows a beating, and the death cannot be directly related to the beating (owing to the seeming recovery of the slave), the death is assumed accidental from other causes and therefore, no charges against the owner.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou're nuts. The passage says no such thing. It creates a legal presumption; it doesn't say it "cannot be directly related to the beating" or anything about any "seeming recovery of the slave". Clarke is saying the exact opposite of what you are and you're merely trying to pour your meaning in by distorting beyond meaning his words. Incredible.
[b]Clarke never translates the Hebrew word as "to stand".
Where in my post did I say he translated anything to "to stand?" That is the Hebrew! I said he took the Hebrew word to mean exactly what others have taken it to mean, namely, that the slave apparently recovered from the beating.
That this was laying the groundwork for legal standing is ob ...[text shortened]... is assumed accidental from other causes and therefore, no charges against the owner.[/b]
10 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is the exact same passage as I read. You're trying to place the Commentary regarding line 18 where someone is explicitly stated not to die with line 21 where Henry clearly refers to a death. The mind reels at such blatant sophistry.
IV. Care is here taken that satisfaction be made for hurt done to a person, though death do not ensue, v. 18, 19. He that did the hurt must be accountable for damages, and pay, not only for the cure, but for the loss of time, to which the Jews add that he must likewise give some recompence both for the pain and for the blemish, if there were any.
V. Di ...[text shortened]... enings (Eph. 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13–15.
EDIT: CHANCE-MEDLEY (from the A.-Fr. chance-medlee, a mixed chance, and not from chaude-medlde, a hot affray), an accident of a mixed character, an old term in English law for a form of homicide arising out of a sudden affray or quarrel. The homicide has not the characteristic of malice prepense which would raise the death to murder, nor the completely accidental nature which would reduce it to homicide by misadventure. It was practically identical, therefore, with manslaughter.
http://33.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CH/CHANCE_MEDLEY.htm
Guess you didn't look very hard.
EDIT2: What part of this is particulary hard to understand?
Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction
AND
the master was supposed to suffer enough by LOSING his servant,
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe mind reels at such blatant sophistry.
This is the exact same passage as I read. You're trying to place the Commentary regarding line 18 where someone is explicitly stated not to die with line 21 where Henry clearly refers to a death. The mind reels at such blatant sophistry.
EDIT: CHANCE-MEDLEY (from the A.-Fr. chance-medlee, a mixed chance, and not from chaude-medlde, a hot affray), an a ...[text shortened]... n
AND
the master was supposed to suffer enough by LOSING his servant,
This was answered in my previous post. I quoted from an abridged version (provided by you), and subsequently corrected it with the expanded version, which merely supports my case from a different angle. Sophistry indeed.
Following, I give you the etymology of the word Henry uses, chance-medley, dated from the 14th century, and you respond with an entry from a dictionary from 1911!?! Why was that so difficult for me to find, I wonder? Between the two of us, who's entry do you think was closer to the meaning of the word use by Henry in his commentary--- and, please, don't let the proximity of the dates influence your thinking.
BTW, concerning your dictionary (now added to my favorites, thank you), does it bolster or bounce your argument when it has the following disclaimer at the bottom:
"Since this information is from 1911 it is outdated and contains many OCR errors (typos)."
10 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou're getting more ridiculous with each post. The only "abridging" I've done is to quote the Commentary that is relevant as regards Exodus 21:21 rather than Commentary regarding passages that have no relevance to Exodus 21:21 as you have. And none of the Commentary support your claim in any way, shape or form. No translation before the late 20th Century uses "to stand" and no commentary interprets the passage as you claim. You're is a recent gloss to make it appear that the law isn't what it is: retarded.
[b]The mind reels at such blatant sophistry.
This was answered in my previous post. I quoted from an abridged version (provided by you), and subsequently corrected it with the expanded version, which merely supports my case from a different angle. Sophistry indeed.
Following, I give you the etymology of the word Henry uses, [i/]chance-medle
"Since this information is from 1911 it is outdated and contains many OCR errors (typos)."[/b]
Your second "point" is sub-moronic. The claim that a word that is dated from the 14th Century cannot be accurately rendered in a 1911 dictionary is below stupidity. You, of course, haven't shown a 14th Century dictionary either, but because you make a claim it must be accepted by fiat. Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856 gives the same meaning; a homicide by misadventure [i.e. manslaughter]. I can read Black's Law Dictionary now and know what habeas corpus means even though the word has ancient roots; are you really claiming that I must unearth a pre-1000 AD Latin dictionary or I can't use a definition of the term?? If so, I laugh at such desperate idiocy.