Why Person and Not Man?

[Chicknuggets]

Why does law keep referring to "persons", instead of "humans" or "men"?
Why has the fundamental explanation of a "person", as found in Black's, changed over last century, when substantive law has not?

[bmxninja357]

you really should go toss the word salad elsewhere.

[Gregg]

Because the secret distinction between person, human, strawman, all caps commercial entity crap is just that, crap, like your posts.
Its a matter of grammatical style.

And I will not allow you to run rampant across the sane world. If you want to play word games, go find David Merrill's website where the nuts will argue and debate for days this gibberish like monks arguing how many angels can cook meth on the head of a pin.

[NYGman]

FFS person is an all inclusive term meaning both the natural and legal persons under the law. It isn't a hard concept to grasp, and blacks law dictionary is not a source of law. Go back to the statutes and figure out out. But you probably need to drop your idiocy, as foolish interpretations to really understand. As Gregg said, go over to planet Merrill where your points will be accepted by an another bunch of idiots.

[Gregg]

My sleep deprived cranky ass isn't going to tolerate this garbage today....

LOCKED!

[bmxninja357]

changed over last century

what? you mean its not 1916 and things are different now? you mean women, the chinese, indians, irishmen, and even jews are considered persons now? you mean there is no difference between a person and a human?

back in my day sonny them types couldnt even vote. i remember long about 1916 we used to go out and talk about henry ford and good old adolf and read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. it wasnt even considered a forgery back then.

i think you need a time machine as the evolution of law over time seems to be lost on you.

ninj

[Pottapaug1938]

Why does law keep referring to "persons", instead of "humans" or "men"?
Why has the fundamental explanation of a "person", as found in Black's, changed over last century, when substantive law has not?

If you look to Black's Law Dictionary as an authoritative source of law, then your legal research skills are grossly inadequate. Now, either make your point -- the one which motivated your posts -- or, as others have suggested, go over to Saving to Suitors. They'll love you over there; but be careful to avoid heresy, as they will swiftly ban anyone who MIGHT have a connection with Quatloos or otherwise professes genuine legal knowledge.

[Dr. Caligari]

Why does law keep referring to "persons", instead of "humans" or "men"?

All dogs are mammals. Not all mammals are dogs.

All men are "persons." Not all "persons" are men.

[NYGman]

May need to summon the mods, looks like Gregg's Locked note didn't take hold.

But if I could have one last post here, person means what it means and then some. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. You post say Men excluded women and legal entities, humans excluded entire, persons is inclusive as it has been expanded by law. This isn't rocket science. And word salad is the using of words in ways they were not intended. This is what you seem to be trying to do

[Jeffrey]

Honestly it's Friday so why not waste some time.

Why Person? Because it'd take too long to write "men women and children" in every single fucking law.

substantive law has not changed in the last 100 years

Objectively false. Women weren't even given the right to vote until 1920, child labor laws took another 20 years to get going, and let's not even talk about blacks and other minorities.

You're beating a dead horse, arguing about the definition of Person won't get you anywhere. If your goal is to try to find some loophole so laws won't apply to you, it's not going to work. If you're a man then you're a person, if you're a woman then you're a person, if you're a little kid then you're a person.

It is not possible to be a man but not a person. It was possible a hundred years ago if you were black. It was also possible to be a man but not a person if you were Jewish in Nazi Germany. It is not possible in 2016.

Hell it's not something you want to accomplish. If you found a way to stop being a person, we could put a bullet in your head with impunity. You wouldn't have rights, you wouldn't be able to own property. You'd be lower than a dog. At least there are laws protecting dogs from abuse. As a non-person there would be zero protection afforded to you.

[Burnaby49]

I just sat through a morning watching a Russell Poriskly video where he was arguing that none of us are persons. At least for the purpose of the Income Tax Act.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I just sat through a morning watching a Russell Poriskly video ...

You need professional help.

[The Observer]

I just sat through a morning watching a Russell Poriskly video ...

You need professional help.

Well, at least he didn't spend an entire morning playing a Russell Porisky video game...

[AndyK]

PADLOCKED