RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

Something I have learned over the years when talking with my 6 brothers and sisters is that "t***h" is not always as cut-and-dry as it might seem. Our PERSPECTIVE defines our t***h.

When my siblings and I discuss long-ago activities of our family, the reality of this is apparent. My oldest sister is 10 years older than I am. Her perspective of events in our family was much different than mine, especially when I was young (under 5). She was 15 when I was 5. Of course she saw things differently! However, her t***h is no more valid than my t***h. It's just that we see things from different perspectives, whether that is because of age, education, or life experience; we all, by definition, see things from our unique perspectives. That's one reason why 10 people who view an accident can all have different t***hs to tell about it.

Our t***hs about political goings-on aren't much different, except that our perspectives are created by the sources of our information. People who get their news only from sources that cater to their predetermined prejudices will perceive reality differently than someone who gets their news from multiple sources that have no biases. That's not easy today, with everyone with a computer and keyboard free to write wh**ever they want and claim it to be true, especially those who stand to profit by readers returning again and again for more kool-aid. Ka-ching! Ka-ching!

I long for the days when we could rely on what we heard from people like Walter Cronkite and Mike Wallace. I never doubted a word they said. It's the exact opposite today. I hardly believe anybody anymore, and that's a sad thing for me ... and for America.

bahmer

As you said everybody has a bias based on their age, g****r, color, religion etc. The nice thing that Walter Cronkite and Mike Wallace did is to report exactly what happened and who said what. Even though they both had their own political persuasion it wasn't evident in their news cast as we were allowed to draw our own conclusions. We weren't told what to think or how to react to a story. We were given pretty much "the facts maam just the facts" and then allowed to come to our own conclusions based on all of the things in us that makes us unique and different. Today everything comes with a bias already built in as if we were incapable of thinking for ourselves and this is very demeaning and juvenile to think that their opinion is any better than mine or yours.

Asiseeit

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

faithistheword

WOW! Very profound! Isn't it sad that t***h has become 'Old-Fashioned'?

faithistheword

Psychobabble ! Means NOTHING !

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

Yes, but why do I care what you think people who are not you think? If they object that is one thing, but you objecting for them is another thing altogether.

clarkwv Loc: west virginia

I just wonder went did inalienable, become God given?

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

the difference is conservatives try to do right but sometimes fall short where as liberals try to do wrong and sometimes fail to do so

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

the reason they are in alienable is because they are God given

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

inalienable
WOTD – 4 July 2009

Contents

1 English
1.1 Etymology
1.2 Pronunciation
1.3 Adjective
1.3.1 Usage notes
1.3.2 Synonyms
1.3.3 Antonyms
1.3.4 T***slations
1.4 References

English
Wikipedia has an article on:
Inalienable possession

Etymology

Borrowed around 1645 from French inaliénable, from in- +‎ aliénable (“alienable”).[1]
Pronunciation

(UK) IPA(key): /ɪˈneɪ.lɪ.ə.nə.bəl/
(US) IPA(key): /ɪˈneɪ.li.ə.nə.bəl/

Adjective

inalienable (not comparable)

Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or t***sferred to another; not alienable.

inalienable right a right that cannot be given away

(grammar) Of or pertaining to a noun belonging to a special class in which the possessive construction differs from the norm, especially for particular familial relationships and body parts.

Usage notes

While inalienable and unalienable are today used interchangeably with inalienable more common, the terms have historically sometimes been distinguished.[2]

Regarding current usage being interchangeable:[3]

The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away. However, the Founders used the word "unalienable" as defined by William B****stone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:93, when he defined unalienable rights as: "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."...in other words a person may do something to forfeit their unalienable rights...for instance the unalienable right to freedom which can be forfeited by the commission of a crime for which they may be punished by their loss of freedom. However, once they are freed after serving their punishment their right is restored.

In legal usage, Black’s 2004 defines inalienable as:[4]

Not t***sferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable.

In earlier legal usage the terms were distinguished, but not explicitly contrasted. Black’s 1910 defines inalienable as:[5]

Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or t***sferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.

while it defines unalienable as:

Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and t***sferred.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) defines the terms as follows:

INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully t***sferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.
UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being t***sferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or t***sfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

It is noteworthy that while Bouvier’s draws a distinction between the terms, it uses much the same examples (public roads, the right to liberty) for both, and does not specifically contrast them, nor is an example given of a thing that is one but not the other.

If there was a historical difference, it does not appear to be clear from the literature, and any such difference is now effaced.

Some authors draw a fine distinction, with unalienable being stronger and absolute, while (in this usage) inalienable is weaker and conditional. This draws on a more recent definition, given by the Missouri Court of Appeals, 1952:

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or t***sferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.[6]

The distinction is most often discussed, if at all, in the context of the Declaration of Independence, which uses the now less-common unalienable, but which is today frequently quoted using the now more-common inalienable, as in the 1997 film Amistad. Further, some drafts used inalienable, notably the draft by Thomas Jefferson.[7] Most authorities consider this an insignificant stylistic difference,[3][7] though some consider this a significant distinction.[2]
Synonyms

unalienable

Antonyms

(incapable of being alienated): alienable

T***slations
[show ▼]incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or t***sferred to another; not alienable
[show ▼]grammar: of a noun class belonging to a special class
References

^ “inalienable” in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Online
“Unalienable” vs. “Inalienable”, Alfred Adask, Adask’s law, July 15, 2009, 3:56 PM
The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style, Houghton Mifflin Company
^ Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition, 2004)
^ Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd Edition, 1910)
^ Morrison v. State, (Mo. App. 1952), 252 S.W.2d 97, 101
Unalienable / Inalienable

Asiseeit

Excellent! I am sure that the person who asked is now Gobsmacked!!! Very good!

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

I'm sure that was not the answer they were looking for. Probably the intent of the question was, "Who gave the non-existing God the right to give these rights." Perhaps I am being judgmental, I pray for forgiveness if I am. However they believe, a human or a group of humans cannot legislate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Oh wait, I suppose they can because these rights are being attacked by certain humans. What a world what a world.

clarkwv Loc: west virginia

I really find it interesting you can see into my mind as to what I am thinking, I asked the question for the simple reason when you look up the meaning of inalienable, God does not enter into the meaning.

But I have another question to those of you who feel these are God given rights and as we in this country are to recognize all religions what God are you talking about gave us those rights?

beammeupscotty Loc: 31°07'50.8"N 87°27'00.8"W

God or the Creator or wh**ever you like to call it gave you the POWER OF SPEECH......this is why the founders made sure that that was the first unalienable right....a right given by God or The Creator or wh**ever

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

At the time this was written, the founders believed in the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, and of Moses.