Extra-credit: "Does God Exist?" Tosin Onibiyo.

This is the link to my extra credit video. Does God exist? I believe there is a God even though at the seminar there were a lot of people who believe God do not exist. I believe God exist even though I have not seen him but he shows His signs and wonders. He heals when we sick, he has risen the dead, He has performed miracles and I just believe totally in Him. The other opponent believe otherwise. They think the miracles we claim was just a coincidence of time, it's just human being getting lucky or you don't and so forth. And like said in the video, even though they have a pretty good point, I still believe God do exist. 

Link to video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQtn4Q2dnaw&hd=1

Enjoy! 

Conclusion of Nussbaum argument - Tosin Onibiyo

In my arguments, I noticed how McLean’s dissent in aspect to racism basically pointed out the Justice Taney’s historical errors once again, how irrational the decision was towards another fellow human being who was labelled as only a property of another, and how disgusted Justice Taney was towards Scott and classified him a non-citizen of the United States. Disgust relies on moral obtuseness. It is possible to view another human being as a slimy slug or a piece of revolting trash only if one has never made a serious good-faith attempt to see the world through that person’s eyes or to experience that person’s feelings. Disgust imputes to the other a subhuman nature. How, by contrast, do we ever become able to see one another as human? Only through the exercise of imagination.

The disgust statement above  in aspect of the Scott case explains how Justice McLean tend to emphasize that the other justices did not show much compassion before making the harsh decision they made against Dred Scott as per they saw him as just a slave, minority; a piece of property and not human just like they are. But in fact, Justice Mclean was a visionary for his time because he understood that justice couldn’t be in scarcity for an ethnic group in society. He firmly believed the Dred Scott decision was a miscarriage of justice and that decision could have farther consequences in the black community.

In the “disgust” perspective, the system did not accord any compassion for Scott, an attribute that is essential to fairly try a case and emphasize with fellow humans. However, Mclean did show emotions in his dissent although that did not stop the decision from taking effect. I welcomed emotions in my discourses and encouraged it to be part of court decisions. I also argue that, hiding behind the robes, judges and justices are making gigantic mistakes because their humanity is hidden which was the case for Dred Scott and his family. I argue the relevance of emotion for the law to be undeniable. It would be impossible to completely remove emotions from the law and transform it into a tool of pure logical analyses.

The second part I am discussing disgust on will is the same sex marriage/homosexuality scenarios. Today, disgust is not much defended as a ground for sodomy laws, but it does play a prominent role in debates over gay rights. Same-sex relationships have been disgusted by so many in the society even states enacted laws upholding sodomy acts to be illegal practice and a crime. In Bowers v Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexual after Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while he was engaged in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. He was thereby been charged with violation of the Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy. Hardwick challenged the statute but to no avail (although this case was later overturned in 2003). Another example, campaign literature on behalf of Colorado’s Amendment Two (the law that denied local communities the right to make non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation, overturned in Romer v. Evans – a case which Supreme Court ruled that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause) said that gay men drink raw blood and eat feces.

There have been quite a few cases in which people who kill a gay man have been able to win a reduction from classified degree murder to manslaughter on the grounds that they were disgusted by the person’s sexual appearance. For some people, the disgust towards homosexuality is traditional to them, and some, based on culture. When one never grew up to see such happen in the society before and it starts to happen, they immediately project this unexplainable disgust towards suchpeople and activities. Because it was not the norm of the societyduring their time or has never really been seen or done. This will then bring about disgust in such society and then the separationof the disgusted from those groups as emphasized earlier and there comes hatred; separations and can sometimes in rare occasions can lead to killing of such person(s). For example, there have been couples of scenarios where gay students get bullied or frustrated by their fellow classmates and due to too much pressure, they either become depressed, sad, or suicidal and kill themselves. But nowadays, even though some certain people still do not and will not accept this to be a part of the society norm, it sure has improved drastically over the years and we also do have important people in the society coming out of their “shells” and announcing that they are gay and such. It is much acceptable in the society than it was about ten years ago and most states in the U.S are accepting this to be a part of our lives and society today.

Speaking as Nussbuam in perspective to "Disgust" - Slavery and same-sex marriage. By Tosin Onibiyo. Part 1.

In “Hiding from Humanity,” I clarified how disgust has traditionally played large roles on certain issues in the society generally. And I will focus on the legality of slavery in aspect to racism and same-sex marriage and/or relations of it in this paper today. To start with, disgust cognitive content involves a shrinking from contamination that is associated with a human desire to be non-animal. And of course, that desire is irrational in the sense that we people know we cannot succeed trying to fulfil it and it mostly ends in a pernicious manner. Psychological research have shown that people tend to project disgust properties onto groups of people in their own society; people who usually are different and act different of what the norms of the society entails. For example: gender, same-sex marriage, slavery, and so forth. By branding members of these groups as disgusting, awful, slimy, foul or smelly, the dominant group is able to drastically distance itself even further from its ownanimality.   Such irritation projections have been involved in more localized forms of discrimination, hatred, racism, and inequality in the society against slavery, homosexuals and allsort.

However, disgust does not provide the disgusted person or persons with reasons as to why they are disgusted in public or private scenarios. For example, If a particular person happens to feel that gay men or homosexuals are disgusting, that person cannot and will not be able to offer any reasoning that will persuade another to share the emotion; there isn’t anything per se that would make the dialogue a real piece of persuasion unlike anger. Anger will bring about enough reasoning for the persuasion. With this been said, I will discuss briefly on the slavery aspect and the same-sex/homosexuals aspect. From the previous case studies done; Scott v. Sanford (1857); Justice John McLean, in his dissent to the decision pointed out Taney's historical errors. He emphasize the time of the Founding of the United States, and how several states had admitted free persons of the color to the suffrage-thereby recognizing them as citizens and few other arguments he and Justice Curtis made.

Continuation of Dworkin theory on equality - Tosin Onibiyo

Now, to the two general theories of distributional equality I proposed to talk about earlier in this paper. The first I call equality of welfare and the second I called equality of resources. I will be speaking briefly about this two in this part of the essay. Equality of welfare can be well described as an interpretation of treating people as equals. In other words, it holds that a distributional scheme when it transfers or distributes resources among people, it treats them as equal. But when it no longer transfers, this would leave them more equal in welfare. On the other hand, equality of resources holds that distributional scheme treats people as equals when it distributes or transfers so that no further transfer would leave their shares of the total resources more equal.

These two theories as just stated are very abstract because each holds different interpretation and theories to it. If a man with wealth for example was to draw his will based on equality of welfare, between six kids; where one is deaf, another a pimp with quality rich taste, the third a writer with less-expensive taste, another a successful governor with expensive ambitions, and so forth. If he was to base this on equality of welfare, he has to take all differences between his children into account so as to not leave them equal shares according to my article on “What is equality.” Why is or should this be so?  The ideal of equality of welfare may seem a plausible explanation of why this is so. Because when we look at the example closely enough, we will see that those who are handicapped like the deaf child in all fairness should be entitled to more wealth than the others. He is deaf and for this reason, he will need more resources to achieve the equal welfare. Even with this equal welfare analysis, this same example provides some problems for the ideal. Some might insist that the governor will need more of the wealth than the deaf because he will need more money to run his political campaigns. Some might say it’s the pimp who needs more money than the writer to continuously look expensive and flashy. We can say the governor case from this example is much stronger than that of others but weaker in comparison to the deaf child. But if it were to be based on equality of resources, he need not worry on how to not leave them with equal share but how to equally divide his wealth assuming the children have almost the same wealth as the other. Furthermore, I argue that equality ofresources presupposes an economic market of some form,mainly as an analytical mechanism but also, to a certain extent, as an actual political institution. And economic market have been seen as a device for both defining and achieving certain community-wide goals variously described as prosperity, efficiency, and overall utility. Also as a necessary condition of individual liberty, the condition under which free men and women may exercise individual initiative and choice so that their fates lie in their own hands. But the economic market has during this same period come to be regarded as the enemy of equality, largely because the forms of economic market systems developed and enforced in industrial -countries have permitted and indeed encouraged vast inequality in property.

The two theories of equality from Ronald Dworkin - By Tosin Onibiyo. Part 1

Two general theories Ronald Dworkin emphasized about in his article "Equality." 

(Talking like Dworkin the author here): 

The first I call equality of welfare and the second I called equality of resources. I will be speaking briefly about this two in this part of the essay. Equality of welfare can be well described as an interpretation of treating people as equals. In other words, it holds that a distributional scheme when it transfers or distributes resources among people, it treats them as equal. But when it no longer transfers, this would leave them more equal in welfare. On the other hand, equality of resources holds that distributional scheme treats people as equals when it distributes or transfers so that no further transfer would leave their shares of the totalresources more equal.

These two theories as just stated are very abstract because each holds different interpretation and theories to it. If a man with wealth for example was to draw his will based on equality of welfare, between six kids; where one is deaf, another a pimp with quality rich taste, the third a writer with less-expensive taste, another a successful governor with expensive ambitions, and so forth. If he was to base this on equality of welfare, he has to take all differences between his children into account so as to not leave them equal shares according to my article on “What is equality.” Why is or should this be so?  The ideal of equality of welfare may seem a plausible explanation of why this is so. Because when we look at the example closely enough, we will see that those who are handicapped like the deaf child in all fairness should be entitled to more wealth than the others. He is deaf and for this reason, he will need more resources to achieve the equal welfare. Even with this equal welfare analysis, this same example provides some problems for the ideal. Some might insist that the governor will need more of the wealth than the deaf because he will need more money to run his political campaigns. Some might say it’s the pimp who needs more money than the writer to continuously look expensive and flashy. We can say the governor case from this example is much stronger than that of others but weaker in comparison to the deaf child. But if it were to be based on equality of resources, he need not worry on how to not leave them with equal share but how to equally divide his wealth assuming the children have almost the same wealth as the other.

Team 5 video blog - video 4

We all talked about the Patriot Act in the last team video blog (video 4). It was how the Patriot Act as changed out lives in the country in our own different opinions. We talked about how there is no more securities or much privacy in our separate lives anymore since it's was enacted. In my opinion how things we do like right now can be used against us all in future when we want to get some government job or confidential job. That's why the secret service will bring all the things you've said in your private email or messages or what you have posted on social media against you and will not allow you to be able to get the jobs. The Patriot Act is good to some clarification but also derive you of certain privacies. Learn more from what's been said from the videos: links below... Enjoy! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a_CumXthGw / part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AGsNikkxNs - part 2. 

Video link to team 5 video 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRa6osJNr3U

All about the same sex ideas 

Enjoy

Justice McLean Analysis of Dred Scott in Nussbuam perspective; Disgust - Tosin Onibiyo

Justice John McLean, in his dissent to the decision in the case Scott v. Sandford (1857), pointed out Taney's historical errors. He emphasize the time of the Founding of the United States, and how several states had admitted free persons of the color to the suffrage-thereby recognizing them as citizens and few other arguments he and Justice Curtis made…

According to Nussbaum; Hiding from Humanity, Justice McLean’s dissent in aspect to racism as per this case was about; basically pointed out the Justice Taney’s historical errors, how irrational the decision was towards fellow human being; Dred Scott, how disgusted Justice Taney and others were and making such decision of how Scott cannot be called a citizen of the United States. As Nussbaum as said:

“Disgust relies on moral obtuseness. It is possible to view another human being as a slimy slug or a piece of revolting trash only if one has never made a serious good-faith attempt to see the world through that person’s eyes or to experience that person’s feelings. Disgust imputes to the other a subhuman nature. How, by contrast, do we ever become able to see one another as human? Only through the exercise of imagination.”

This quote in this case explains how Justice McLean tend to emphasize that the other justices did not show much compassion before making the harsh decision they made against Dred Scott as per they saw him as just a slave, minority; a piece of property and not human just like they are. But in fact, McLean showed much compassion as well as Justice Curtis, they sympathized with Scott in ‘good-faith’, saw and felt what he was going through even though the majority opinion still prevailed.

 

 

Slave codes analysis - North Carolina (Tosin Onibiyo)

In my opinion, a slave can be a crime victim even though in the North Carolina slave code, a master must not necessarily kill his/her own servants/slaves. And according to this slave code; for example:  a slave who is obligated to do exactly as his/her master have said can be a victim of crime of whatever unlawful act that master have asked that slave to do. And the slave been obligated once again to do as the master say; if not done, might suffer severe consequences, will do as his/her master have said and pay the price of what’s been done by getting beaten, transported or death. For instance, section 36 states “Slaves and free negroes not to preach in public.” If for any reason, a slave’s master told him/her to go to town and preach, the slave is obligated tohearken his master’s voice and at the same time, the act is forbidden. If not done as told, the slave suffers. And if done as instructed, he faces the consequences of punishment making that slave a crime victim at this point. 

 

Legal restriction is seen as legal framework when it comes to the slaves. Even though as Holmes explained in “Agency”; “As at Rome, the analogies of the familia were extended to free agents” he also made it clear that “The Roman law held that the possession of a slave was the possession of his master, on the practical ground of the master’s power” (p 9); and as said in relations with the North Carolina slave code, slaves are mostly held as properties just like any other inanimate objects are and can be sold anytime the master wishes, put away and much more; which made the legal restrictions on this slaves a legal framework of property. This can be understood in terms of contractual agency law because masters have to ability to trade an agent/slave for money or something beneficiary to them as they please. They can be sold, transported and used for other purposes in this aspect. Why? Because “servants have no possession of property in their custody” (p 9) but they are properties to their masters.

Part 2 of my slave codes views - The constraints instituted by North Carolina for it's slaves - Tosin Onibiyo.

​The slave-to-slave constraints instituted in the North Carolina Codes includes:

Section 29; “If any slave shall teach or attempt to teach, any other slave to read or write, the use of figures excepted, he or she may be carried before any justice of the peace, and on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes on his or her bare back.” 

Here, it shows the restriction between two slaves or more in the aspect of helping/teaching one another how to read or write. This code might be so for different reason: might be so the slaves don’t come together and rebel against their master, so they don’t try to escape or get too smart for their masters and for other reasons.

Section 37; Conspiracy of slaves.

“If any number of slaves shall at any time hereafter, consult, advise or conspire to rebel or make insurrection, or shall plot or conspire the murder of any person, or persons whatsoever, every such consulting, plotting or conspiring, shall be adjudged and deemed felony, and the slave or slaves convicted thereof in the manner prescribed by law, shall suffer death or be transported, as hereinafter provided.’’ 

To my understanding, slaves shall not come together to conspire to rebel against any person(s). And if done, they shall be put to death or transported.

Section 81 through 85 also focused on how free blacks/negroes not allowed to associate whatsoever with slaves

...free black not allowed to “entertain any slave in his house during Sundays or in the night between sunset and sunrise”

83. “If any free negro or mulatto, shall entertain any slave in his or her house during the sab-bath, or in the night between sun set and run-rise, he or she shall, for entertaining such slave, be subject to a fine of two dollars for the first offence, and four dollars for every subsequent offence, to be recovered on conviction before any one justice of the peace, and applied to the use of the poor of the county in which the offence shall be committed, saving to the party the right of appealing.”

Section 38,39,40 and 41 discusses in case slaves rebels amongst each other and the consequences of death or transportation “awarded’’ to such slave(s).

My views on the slave codes of North Carolina in the aspect of criminal menace and the restrictions placed on the slaves - Tosin Onibiyo

​In my perspective and to my understanding, first of, criminal menace is the act whereby the master is placing/putting his slave in jeopardy of injury or death. And criminal law/menace in the southern states such as the North Carolina Code Act tends to lump together these three categories without any clear differentiation; blacks, slave or free. Part of the code and not specifically described how a master can criminally menace his slave into doing something unlawful for his own benefits/gain and getting the slave suffer for such consequences such as getting convicted for the crime receiving several strokes of lashes, getting transported or even deathpenalty though a master is mostly prohibited in the North Carolina Code from executing their personal slaves or another’s.

 

​Reading the Act concerning slaves and free persons of Color, Congress established and placed some restrictions on Negro slaves. Most which stated below:

Section 25 of the slave code describes how slaves are not to be armed with guns, swords, cub or any kind of weapon, and when they do, they have to be punished by the person or persons who saw the slave(s) possessing such weapon as well as take such weapon from the slave.

A slave cannot go off his master’s plantation without a certificate of leave in writing.

 26. No slave shall go from off the plantation or seat of land where such slave shall be appointed to live without a certificate of leave, in writing, for so doing from his or her master or overseer.

No slave is allowed to raise stocks whatsoever, and when a slave does, it shall be seized and sold by the country.

 27. No slave shall be permitted on any pretence whatever, to raise any horses, cattle, hogs or sheep, but all such belonging to any slave, or in any slave's mark, shall be seized and sold by the county. Wardens as directed in the act entitled an act concerning the Poor.

No slave who is able to read or write is allowed to teach another how too. And when done, the slave shall be convicted and receive 39 lashes on bare back.

29. If any slave shall teach or attempt to teach, any other slave to read or write, the use of figures excepted, he or she may be carried before any justice of the peace, and on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes on his or her bare back.

No slaves are allowed to sell spirituous liquors

30. If any Negro slave shall presume to sell any spirituousliquors by retail or otherwise, such slave so offending shall be taken before a magistrate of the county, where he may have committed such offence, and if found guilty, shall receive not exceeding thirty-nine lashes, on his or her bare back.

31. It shall not be lawful for any slave or slaves to play at any game of cards, dice, nine-pins, or any game of hazard or chance, for any money, liquor, or any kind of property, whether the same be staked or not; and any slave so offending shall, upon conviction before a justice of the peace, receive a whipping on his or her bare back, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.

32. Any slave convicted of setting fire to any woods, under circumstances which, if the offence were committed by a free person, would subject such free person to a penalty, shall be ordered to receive on his bare back thirty-nine lashes.

34. No slave to go at large as a freeman; No slave shall be a freeman fully.

35. No person shall grant permission for any meeting or meetings of the negroes of others, or people of colour, at his, her or their houses, or on his, her or their plantation for the purpose of drinking or dancing, under the penalty of forfeiting twen y dollars on conviction of such offence, in any court having jurisdiction thereof, unless such slave shall have a special permit in writing or otherwise from his or her owner for that purpose.

36. Slaves and free Negroes not to preach in public…And few others.