In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[MichaelCollins]

And we find our flaccid little flower opts for the always popular COMBO! She realized she had no means to support her now indisputably discredited 'point of view' and returned to poor yet another impotent screed on the discussion...

Notice that in the italicized first paragraph that she feigns an impotent attempt at superiority via empty projections, but moves directly to establish as her main point that she feels VERY STRONGLY that truth is rooted in the popularity of a given position... where we can rest assured that on any given day, on any given issue, that Mike Collins will follow the crowd like a fart in the breeze...

Now friends... Mike Collins here is typical of the Euro-Idiocracy. Her personality; hier species of intellect (for what it is...) would be precisely that type which was illustrated in the Opening Scenario... knocking down the door, with the bag of dismembered heads, reacting to the popularly held public whim of the day... certain that 'its Right' because 'everyone is doing it!'

She's the "Party Member" that tows conventional wisdom, never questioning the reasoning, simply because she lacks the means to do so... the very BEST we will EVER see out of Michael Collins is a trail of clumsily advanced clichés which are designed to evoke the empty platitudes of ‘populism’...

Mikey... you pathetic heap of idiocy... I am going to tell you something that IF, as unlikely as it is, YOU CAN FIND THE INTELLECTUAL STRENGTH TO CONSIDER IT and actually COMPREHEND IT... it could change your entire life. I want you to finish reading this post, print it if you need to... then turn off your computer and THINK... Do NOT spend a SECOND trying to determine how you "FEEL ABOUT IT," THINK ABOUT THIS PRINCIPLE AND REALIZE THE TRUTHS WHICH REST DIRECTLY UPON IT: (Now get ready cause here it comes)

"THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE VALIDITY AND TRUTH INHERENT IN A GIVEN POSITION AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ADHERE TO IT. " Publius Infinitum. circa 1996...

(Just to give you a fighting chance here... that means that God's existence doesn't hinge on how many people believe in him; it means that the number of people that would laugh at a given position has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that position is founded in truth and whether or not its conclusion rests upon a valid logic construct...)

Now turn off that computer sis and try, to the degree that you're able, to focus on the incontrovertible truth in this bedrock principle of human interaction...

I did as you asked... and i decided that Jesus Christ is my saviour... or is it Harry Potter?

Thank you so much.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Exactly. American rights are described and guaranteed by America, Chinese rights are described and guaranteed by China and Human rights are described and guaranteed by Humanity.

Sucks to be historically party to so many broken promises, eh?

Let me ask, are there any rights described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

Anybody?

-J

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Exactly. American rights are described and guaranteed by America, Chinese rights are described and guaranteed by China and Human rights are described and guaranteed by Humanity.

Sucks to be historically party to so many broken promises, eh?

Let me ask, are there any rights described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

Anybody?

-J

I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to say here, but American rights are described and guaranteed by America? Really?
.
.
.
.
Joe, are you sure about that?

And do you think it wise to rest the potential of any argument on guarantees provided by the Communist... I imagine that those people trampled by the tanks in Tiananmen Square ([ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGJoaHr2QdM]YouTube - Tiananmen Square Massacre[/ame]) were comforted by their rights having been described and guaranteed by the government that deployed those tanks to strip them of their means to exercise those rights. What’s more, the Constitution of the Soviet Union had a detailed list guaranteeing 'the Rights of the People' but in practice, those guarantees didn't keep anyone out of the gulags...

Also Joe, where is humanity keeping the list describing our ‘humanities rights’ and precisely what segments of humanity are guaranteeing those writes?

The US Constitution does not provide, invoke or pronounce a single right upon anyone. It specifically provides enumerated limitations on the power of the US Government, which simply prohibits the US Government from using its inherent power to infringe on the means of the individual to exercise those rights… The framers wanted to provide a few examples of certain Rights, that they felt essential to a free individual sovereign; which by extension are essential to a free nation; but in the debates preceding the Bill of Rights, many were concerned that future generations would misconstrue the Bill of Rights as representing a complete list of their Rights; they worried that people would think that they (The Framers) had assumed themselves as God or King and were, through the Bill of Rights, pronouncing Rights upon the people. A notion which was anathema to those men as they had just come through a brutal revolution which was based upon their human Rights pre-existing the British Crown, which of course pre-existed the US and her new Constitution… They understood, Joe, that Human Rights are inherent in the individual; endowed by their Creator as part and parcel of the God’s gift of life; and what’s more Joe, the US Constitution specifically states that all rights which are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution, are retained by the the sum of individuals; OKA: “The People.”

Don’t you see that Rights are inherent in each one of us? That the only thing that stands between an individual and the means to exercise their individual rights is an opposing power? And that the only thing which can prevent that opposing power from usurping the means of the individual to exercise their Rights is that a superior power which must be comprised of individuals that recognize that they inherently possess those rights on the certain authority of that well beyond any power which would seek to deny them... If the people do not believe in a higher authority than that of themselves or the collective sum of themselves; then they will most certainly be lead to conclude that the majority collective decrees is just and that it must by virtue of its ‘authority’ BE RIGHT and thus stands as that which determine what will be the extent OF THEIR RIGHTS at any given moment.

When in reality, what the collective majority deems a right, is nothing more than a privilege of popular whimsy… and not a Right at all. Thus a culture which leans upon humanism is a culture which will suffer under the weight of human frailties; a culture which determines that humanity itself is the highest authority and that the popular majority will stand as the arbiter of what ‘right’ the individual enjoys… That is a culture which is bound directly for tyranny.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to say here, but American rights are described and guaranteed by America? Really?
.
.
.
.
Joe, are you sure about that?

And do you think it wise to rest the potential of any argument on guarantees provided by the Communist... I imagine that those people trampled by the tanks in Tiananmen Square (YouTube - Tiananmen Square Massacre) were comforted by their rights having been described and guaranteed by the government that deployed those tanks to strip them of their means to exercise those rights. What’s more, the Constitution of the Soviet Union had a detailed list guaranteeing 'the Rights of the People' but in practice, those guarantees didn't keep anyone out of the gulags...

Also Joe, where is humanity keeping the list describing our ‘humanities rights’ and precisely what segments of humanity are guaranteeing those writes?

The US Constitution does not provide, invoke or pronounce a single right upon anyone. It specifically provides enumerated limitations on the power of the US Government, which simply prohibits the US Government from using its inherent power to infringe on the means of the individual to exercise those rights… The framers wanted to provide a few examples of certain Rights, that they felt essential to a free individual sovereign; which by extension are essential to a free nation; but in the debates preceding the Bill of Rights, many were concerned that future generations would misconstrue the Bill of Rights as representing a complete list of their Rights; they worried that people would think that they (The Framers) had assumed themselves as God or King and were, through the Bill of Rights, pronouncing Rights upon the people. A notion which was anathema to those men as they had just come through a brutal revolution which was based upon their human Rights pre-existing the British Crown, which of course pre-existed the US and her new Constitution… They understood, Joe, that Human Rights are inherent in the individual; endowed by their Creator as part and parcel of the God’s gift of life; and what’s more Joe, the US Constitution specifically states that all rights which are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution, are retained by the the sum of individuals; OKA: “The People.”

Don’t you see that Rights are inherent in each one of us? That the only thing that stands between an individual and the means to exercise their individual rights is an opposing power? And that the only thing which can prevent that opposing power from usurping the means of the individual to exercise their Rights is that a superior power which must be comprised of individuals that recognize that they inherently possess those rights on the certain authority of that well beyond any power which would seek to deny them... If the people do not believe in a higher authority than that of themselves or the collective sum of themselves; then they will most certainly be lead to conclude that the majority collective decrees is just and that it must by virtue of its ‘authority’ BE RIGHT and thus stands as that which determine what will be the extent OF THEIR RIGHTS at any given moment.

When in reality, what the collective majority deems a right, is nothing more than a privilege of popular whimsy… and not a Right at all. Thus a culture which leans upon humanism is a culture which will suffer under the weight of human frailties; a culture which determines that humanity itself is the highest authority and that the popular majority will stand as the arbiter of what ‘right’ the individual enjoys… That is a culture which is bound directly for tyranny.

"Chinese rights". by definition are the rights one has while in China and they may be different for citizens than they are for tourists. The communists in China are an excellent example of given and withheld "rights".

Same thing as "American rights". I don't have the 'right' to drive 110 mph on American highways, even if I and my machine are more than capable of handling it. The rest of you, acting as a government, removed that right from me. On the other hand, the rest of you, acting as a government have guaranteed me the right to cross state lines without hassle, fear or a border check-point on those same highways.

Rights everywhere are arbitrarily given and withheld by mutual agreement or some level of applied force. That is why 'Human Rights' are not the same in every neighborhood.

Again, I ask: Are there any rights described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

 

[WhiteLion]

Debating such issue with people who are psychotic for GOD is largely an exercise in futility.

They have an escape clause from dialogue logic called BLIND FAITH.

Not as bad as debating one thats a atheistic DEAD END road....

 

[frazzledgear]

is your scenerio insinuating that to be human one MUST believe in God? and is this God the one YOU decide is proper?

Human rights have less to do with God and more to do with common decency. You can be a good and decent person and not believe in God. You can also respect your fellow man and not inflict your will upon him without believing in God.

Obviously you are no student of history -or you wouldn't make the idiotic claim that human rights have more to do with "common decency". Something humans are always short on, especially when acting in concert -is COMMON DECENCY. Even among people that at other times are quite "decent". Otherwise we wouldn't have a global history of mass annihilations, slavery (which still exists -the sex slave trade is a booming business), summary executions and genocide, would we?

The problem with claiming human rights come from ANYWHERE else but God -is that can ONLY mean they come from man himself. Pretty limited choice on where they originate if you rule out God, isn't it?

And here is the problem you have with that assumption. What one man can give -another can take away -and claim FULL AUTHORITY as HIS right for doing so. Which makes YOU in violation of that man's law with no inherent right to challenge it. Your "rights" are merely whatever the man willing to slaughter the most people to grab power says they are. And then HE is fully within HIS rights to kill those unwilling to accept that.

But no man has a legitimate authority to strip others of those God-given rights. It doesn't matter how many they are willing to slaughter, those with God-given rights ALWAYS have the greater right to refuse to accept and bow down to the tyranny and deprivation of human rights by another man. It doesn't mean other men haven't or won't act on their attempts to strip others of their God-given rights. But the fact that there really are people who believe these are God given rights is the reason such people have been resisted and fought against - and ultimately defeated. It is the reason our founders said our rights were given by the Creator -it means NO ONE in this country can EVER claim a legitimate authority to strip us of them.

Frankly I prefer my own belief in God given rights over the naive, dangerous and even murderous notion of yours.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Obviously you are no student of history -or you wouldn't make the idiotic claim that human rights have more to do with "common decency". Something humans are always short on, especially when acting in concert -is COMMON DECENCY. Even among people that at other times are quite "decent". Otherwise we wouldn't have a global history of mass annihilations, slavery (which still exists -the sex slave trade is a booming business), summary executions and genocide, would we?

The problem with claiming human rights come from ANYWHERE else but God -is that can ONLY mean they come from man himself. Pretty limited choice on where they originate if you rule out God, isn't it?

And here is the problem you have with that assumption. What one man can give -another can take away -and claim FULL AUTHORITY as HIS right for doing so. Which makes YOU in violation of that man's law with no inherent right to challenge it. Your "rights" are merely whatever the man willing to slaughter the most people to grab power says they are. And then HE is fully within HIS rights to kill those unwilling to accept that.

But no man has a legitimate authority to strip others of those God-given rights. It doesn't matter how many they are willing to slaughter, those with God-given rights ALWAYS have the greater right to refuse to accept and bow down to the tyranny and deprivation of human rights by another man. It doesn't mean other men haven't or won't act on their attempts to strip others of their God-given rights. But the fact that there really are people who believe these are God given rights is the reason such people have been resisted and fought against - and ultimately defeated. It is the reason our founders said our rights were given by the Creator -it means NO ONE in this country can EVER claim a legitimate authority to strip us of them.

Frankly I prefer my own belief in God given rights over the naive, dangerous and even murderous notion of yours.

Again, I ask: Are there any rights that are described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

 

[Diuretic]

Come on fraz, your post is full of assumptions.

The problem with claiming human rights come from ANYWHERE else but God -is that can ONLY mean they come from man himself. Pretty limited choice on where they originate if you rule out God, isn't it?

Human rights come from humans as a recognition of the relationship we have with each other - or how we'd like it to be. That's it. But this phrasing you've used is so circular you must be dizzy. It proves nothing.

Here's a thought. We all have a right to life. But sometimes we forfeit that right to life. In some places in the world the death penalty is used against criminals. The state effectively takes away the right to life. It surrounds that awesome ability with all sorts of legislative wording but strip all that way and the state has assumed the power to take away someone's right to life.

If that's so then isn't the state in defiance of God? If God has given humans the right to life isn't it then the case that the state is assuming god-llike authority? Even those legislators in some places who reject the theory of evolution and bang on about God feel they can legislate to defy their own God. There's a big mess there.

But if we understand that human rights are socially negotiated then it makes sense. If someone breaches the negotiated human rights of another (eg they murder someone) then society, which has negotiated these rights, has the moral authority to remove that person from society for their actions.

No problem there now, see?

Human rights come from humans to humans. Human rights don't come from a creator.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"Chinese rights". by definition are the rights one has while in China and they may be different for citizens than they are for tourists. The communists in China are an excellent example of given and withheld "rights".

Same thing as "American rights". I don't have the 'right' to drive 110 mph on American highways, even if I and my machine are more than capable of handling it. The rest of you, acting as a government, removed that right from me. On the other hand, the rest of you, acting as a government have guaranteed me the right to cross state lines without hassle, fear or a border check-point on those same highways.

Rights everywhere are arbitrarily given and withheld by mutual agreement or some level of applied force. That is why 'Human Rights' are not the same in every neighborhood.

Again, I ask: Are there any rights described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

Well THERE's your problem, Joe... and it's a common problem.

You're confusing government sponsored privilege with Human Rights... which is the fast track to tyranny buddy. If you believe that your rights are what the government says they are... then you're what nature has routinely designates as "FOOD."

 

[MichaelCollins]

Not as bad as debating one thats a atheistic DEAD END road....

So you think that it is preferable to believe in a fairytale..and its always the fairytale of the country that you are in...why is that? Why not choose the hindu fairytale or the islamic one? strange that...sounds extremely convenient and lazy to me.

Most people who choose not to be cowards..and to face reality without the support of a fairytale...are agnostics and not atheists.

Admitting that we dont know why we are here or if there is any purpose beyond life...is much more rational and less cowardly.

Perhaps that is why the US people support so many terrorist campaigns on women and children? Religious people = cowardly and lazy and non thinking...
The US has more religious people than any other western nation...

Therefore US people support massacring innocents...because you are cowards.

It all makes sense now.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Again, I ask: Are there any rights that are described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

Yes Joe, you're guaranteed by God to have, upon conception, a right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that right.

"How do we know? Where did God guarantee that?"

We know because we are... We did create ourselves, thus we were created by a force other than ourselves; we did nothing to deserve life, thus life is a gift... So the question becomes since we were created, who did it?

In short God did it... Define him anyway you like; High Power, Infinite force of Nature; Frankly I don't care how each works it out; its less important that we understand what God is and how he works, than to recognize his existance and appreciate our position with respect to him.

God wouldn't have given us the gift if he didn't want us to be free to pursue its fulfillment; thus our life comes (as Jefferson noted) with certain unalienable rights...

Now that you believe it or don't believe it in no way correlates to the truth and reality of it... You remain endownd by your Creator with the right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life; Rights which come with sacred responsibilities to maintain them by jealously defending your rights and those fo your neighbors and through constant vigilence to not infringe on the rights of other as you exercise your own.

Which is more evidence of the divine origin... its' perfect reasoning. Your given your right as a gift you did nothing to deserve; but you earn the rights you were given as you overtly practice exercising them as you pursue the fulfillment of that life, without hurting someone elses ability to exercise their own... you pay the price by doing the right thing and as a result, you're not prone to let others infringe on your rights, because you practice not infringing on theirs... and the circle of life spins on. Like the ten commandments, they work to perfection wherever and whenever they're practiced.

Which by comparison, there is absolutely NOTHING of which is conceived by a humanist (Read Leftists) that has ever or WILL ever work; let alone to perfection.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Yes Joe, you're guaranteed by God to have, upon conception, a right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that right.

"How do we know? Where did God guarantee that?"

We know because we are... We did create ourselves, thus we were created by a force other than ourselves; we did nothing to deserve life, thus life is a gift... So the question becomes since we were created, who did it?

In short God did it... Define him anyway you like; High Power, Infinite force of Nature; Frankly I don't care how each works it out; its less important that we understand what God is and how he works, than to recognize his existance and appreciate our position with respect to him.

God wouldn't have given us the gift if he didn't want us to be free to pursue its fulfillment; thus our life comes (as Jefferson noted) with certain unalienable rights...

Now that you believe it or don't believe it in no way correlates to the truth and reality of it... You remain endownd by your Creator with the right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life; Rights which come with sacred responsibilities to maintain them by jealously defending your rights and those fo your neighbors and through constant vigilence to not infringe on the rights of other as you exercise your own.

Which is more evidence of the divine origin... its' perfect reasoning. Your given your right as a gift you did nothing to deserve; but you earn the rights you were given as you overtly practice exercising them as you pursue the fulfillment of that life, without hurting someone elses ability to exercise their own... you pay the price by doing the right thing and as a result, you're not prone to let others infringe on your rights, because you practice not infringing on theirs... and the circle of life spins on. Like the ten commandments, they work to perfection wherever and whenever they're practiced.

Which by comparison, there is absolutely NOTHING of which is conceived by a humanist (Read Leftists) that has ever or WILL ever work; let alone to perfection.

You truly need to seek some serious medical assistance.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And we find our flaccid little flower opts for the always popular COMBO! She realized she had no means to support her now indisputably discredited 'point of view' and returned to poor yet another impotent screed on the discussion...

Notice that in the italicized first paragraph that she feigns an impotent attempt at superiority via empty projections, but moves directly to establish as her main point that she feels VERY STRONGLY that truth is rooted in the popularity of a given position... where we can rest assured that on any given day, on any given issue, that Mike Collins will follow the crowd like a fart in the breeze...

Now friends... Mike Collins here is typical of the Euro-Idiocracy. Her personality; hier species of intellect (for what it is...) would be precisely that type which was illustrated in the Opening Scenario... knocking down the door, with the bag of dismembered heads, reacting to the popularly held public whim of the day... certain that 'its Right' because 'everyone is doing it!'

She's the "Party Member" that tows conventional wisdom, never questioning the reasoning, simply because she lacks the means to do so... the very BEST we will EVER see out of Michael Collins is a trail of clumsily advanced clichés which are designed to evoke the empty platitudes of ‘populism’...

Mikey... you pathetic heap of idiocy... I am going to tell you something that IF, as unlikely as it is, YOU CAN FIND THE INTELLECTUAL STRENGTH TO CONSIDER IT and actually COMPREHEND IT... it could change your entire life. I want you to finish reading this post, print it if you need to... then turn off your computer and THINK... Do NOT spend a SECOND trying to determine how you "FEEL ABOUT IT," THINK ABOUT THIS PRINCIPLE AND REALIZE THE TRUTHS WHICH REST DIRECTLY UPON IT: (Now get ready cause here it comes)

"THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE VALIDITY AND TRUTH INHERENT IN A GIVEN POSITION AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ADHERE TO IT. " Publius Infinitum. circa 1996...

(Just to give you a fighting chance here... that means that God's existence doesn't hinge on how many people believe in him; it means that the number of people that would laugh at a given position has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that position is founded in truth and whether or not its conclusion rests upon a valid logic construct...)

Now turn off that computer sis and try, to the degree that you're able, to focus on the incontrovertible truth in this bedrock principle of human interaction...

ROFLMNAO... Let the record reflect that Lil' Mikey Collins lacked the means to respond (for obvious reasons) and opted instead to cast a little flaccid Neg-rep wherein she informs me that she feels I lack intelligence and so on.

Which is kinda sad when ya think about it... I mean if I AM a dumbass, then Lil' Mikey Collins is in effect admitting that she is OWNED by a COMPLETE DUMBASS!

ROFL... Poor Mikey... But let's give credit where credit is due...

Mikey... I want you to know (and I think we can all agree here...) that you've made it clear that you're doing THE VERY BEST YOU CAN! Godbless ya!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Obviously you are no student of history -or you wouldn't make the idiotic claim that human rights have more to do with "common decency". Something humans are always short on, especially when acting in concert -is COMMON DECENCY. Even among people that at other times are quite "decent". Otherwise we wouldn't have a global history of mass annihilations, slavery (which still exists -the sex slave trade is a booming business), summary executions and genocide, would we?

The problem with claiming human rights come from ANYWHERE else but God -is that can ONLY mean they come from man himself. Pretty limited choice on where they originate if you rule out God, isn't it?

And here is the problem you have with that assumption. What one man can give -another can take away -and claim FULL AUTHORITY as HIS right for doing so. Which makes YOU in violation of that man's law with no inherent right to challenge it. Your "rights" are merely whatever the man willing to slaughter the most people to grab power says they are. And then HE is fully within HIS rights to kill those unwilling to accept that.

But no man has a legitimate authority to strip others of those God-given rights. It doesn't matter how many they are willing to slaughter, those with God-given rights ALWAYS have the greater right to refuse to accept and bow down to the tyranny and deprivation of human rights by another man. It doesn't mean other men haven't or won't act on their attempts to strip others of their God-given rights. But the fact that there really are people who believe these are God given rights is the reason such people have been resisted and fought against - and ultimately defeated. It is the reason our founders said our rights were given by the Creator -it means NO ONE in this country can EVER claim a legitimate authority to strip us of them.

Frankly I prefer my own belief in God given rights over the naive, dangerous and even murderous notion of yours.

 

[MichaelCollins]

There is no point arguing with the weak willed cowards...who prefer to submit to stone age fairytales..because it makes their lives so much easier.

Let them be... they dont want to think... they offered their minds at the altar of submission.... either as a brainwashed child or after a mental breakdown.

Do not mock them.. they are simply choosing the easy avenue as the rest of us face reality. They are weaker and more cowardly ...yes However we should not judge them for that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Human rights come from humans as a recognition of the relationship we have with each other - or how we'd like it to be. That's it. But this phrasing you've used is so circular you must be dizzy. It proves nothing.

Would you take a moment and diagram the specific segments of the argument you feel is circular. I ask this because you made the assertion and failed to support it... and it’s been my experience that when people of your 'feelings' make that assertion, it is almost never true...

I would say that it is NEVER true... but that wouldn't be valid because while in all of my years of dragging leftists around by their intellectual nose... of the several thousand examples which I've witnessed where not one leftist has ever failed to advanced that charge in error... I've not seen every single one... and ya never know... YOU could be the one (as unlikely as that is).

Here's a thought. We all have a right to life. But sometimes we forfeit that right to life. In some places in the world the death penalty is used against criminals. The state effectively takes away the right to life. It surrounds that awesome ability with all sorts of legislative wording but strip all that way and the state has assumed the power to take away someone's right to life.

ROFL... The state doesn't take away the RIGHT! The individual that usurped the human right of another FORFEITED their right. The state has no means to take a right from anyone; the maximum a State or any other power can do is prohibit the individual from being able to exercise their right.

Unalienable... look it up. Human Rights are inherent in human life; endowments from the Creator; The Creator who gave us life; the State can't give life; thus the State can't give or remove that which it cannot provide or replace.

If that's so then isn't the state in defiance of God? If God has given humans the right to life isn't it then the case that the state is assuming god-llike authority? Even those legislators in some places who reject the theory of evolution and bang on about God feel they can legislate to defy their own God. There's a big mess there.

Humanity stands in a constant state of defiance of God... (See: The Good News)

But if we understand that human rights are socially negotiated then it makes sense.

That's FASCINATING! Now the Opening Post advanced just such a 'socially negotiated' reshuffling of human rights... Yet you declared that you'd murder those law abiding citizens that were simply enforcing the Social Contract as a popular majority and the Supreme Court representing the final decision of 'the people's' representatives that invoked legislation that determined the terms of that contract...

So can you clear this up for us? How is it that HERE you're all about 'socially negotiated rights' and THERE you were prepared to murder innocent citizens in total defiance of the socially negotiated rights?

If someone breaches the negotiated human rights of another (eg they murder someone) then society, which has negotiated these rights, has the moral authority to remove that person from society for their actions.

WOW... Now I AM confused... You're saying that in the opening scenario YOU were prepared to murder innocent citizens carrying out the socially negotiated rights... which if memory serves you claimed was your right... and NOW you've concluded that the State has the 'moral authority' to remove you, who was operating within your rights... from society.

No problem there now, see?

LOL.. Buddy your argument is an intellectual train-wreck... As a general rule, that's a pretty significant problem.

Human rights come from humans to humans. Human rights don't come from a creator.

A FINE baseless conclusion... of course those dudes are absolutely without value... is there any chance that you'll be providing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid basis for it at some point?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is no point arguing with the weak willed cowards...

A FABULOUS example of pointless weak willed cowardous...

 

[MichaelCollins]

Would you take a moment and diagram the specific segments of the argument you feel is circular. I ask this because you made the assertion and failed to support it... and it’s been my experience that when people of your 'feelings' make that assertion, it is almost never true...

I would say that it is NEVER true... but that wouldn't be valid because while in all of my years of dragging leftists around by their intellectual nose... of the several thousand examples which I've witnessed where not one leftist has ever advanced that charge in error... I've not seen every single one... and ya never know... YOU could be the one (as unlikely as that is).



ROFL... The state doesn't take away the RIGHT! The individual that usurped the human right of another FORFEITED their right. The state has no means to take a right from anyone; the maximum a State or any other power can do is prohibit the individual from being able to exercise their right.

Unalienable... look it up. Human Rights are inherent in human life; endowments from the Creator; The Creator who gave us life; the State can't give life; thus the State can't give or remove that which it cannot provide or replace.



Humanity stands in a constant state of defiance of God... (See: The Good News)



That's FASCINATING! Now the Opening Post advanced just such a 'socially negotiated' reshuffling of human rights... Yet you declared that you'd murder those law abiding citizens that were simply enforcing the Social Contract as a popular majority and the Supreme Court representing the final decision of 'the people's' representatives that invoked legislation that determined the terms of that contract...

So can you clear this up for us? How is it that HERE you're all about 'socially negotiated rights' and THERE you were prepared to murder innocent citizens in total defiance of the socially negotiated rights?

If someone breaches the negotiated human rights of another (eg they murder someone) then society, which has negotiated these rights, has the moral authority to remove that person from society for their actions.

WOW... Now I AM confused... You're saying that in the opening scenario YOU were prepared to murder innocent citizens carrying out the socially negotiated rights... which if memory serves you claimed was your right... and NOW you've concluded that the State has the 'moral authority' to remove you, who was operating within your rights... from society.



LOL.. Buddy your argument is an intellectual train-wreck... As a general rule, that's a pratty significant problem.



A FINE baseless conclusion... of course those dudes are absolutely without value... is there any chance that you'll be providing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid basis at some point?

Such as believing in a stone age fairytale?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Such as believing in a stone age fairytale?

Sis, I'm going to give you ONE MORE CHANCE... I have a rule that I only debate with adults or those with the potential to become adults... you're not showing much promise; but I am all about the fair play and towards that end I want you to know where ya stand and give you a chance to fix yourself.

The next time you advance a post which responds to a comment of mine you need to make sure that you properly organize the quote.

You need to have a well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid response... Suffice it to say that not a single post through which you're responded on this thread meets those minimal requirements.

Now if you fail, I'm simply going to wash you off my screen, relegating you to the ranks of 'who gives a damn what she says.' So there ya go, take it as ya will... you can rest assured that I don't care which way you go... but if you can't find the intellectual steam to bring your game up to minimal levels... you will go.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well THERE's your problem, Joe... and it's a common problem.

You're confusing government sponsored privilege with Human Rights... which is the fast track to tyranny buddy. If you believe that your rights are what the government says they are... then you're what nature has routinely designated as "FOOD."

That's a bunch of crap, man! Please name one, single, solitary 'right', human or otherwise, that is not in the hands of a government or the meanest son-of-a-bitch in the valley to grant or withhold.

There are no God given rights! There are no 'rights' period! Only rules to be adhered to by agreement or by force... Nobody on this planet is promised a rose garden.

Again, I ask: Can anyone name any rights described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe