Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Rulers and laws can respect rights, or infringe rights. Rulers and laws cannot grant or revoke rights. Rights exist regardless of rulers and laws, and regardless of whether they are respected or infringed. A woman has a right not to be raped, even during the act of rape. The infringement of the right does not negate the actuality of the right.
It's a cute "kumbaya" point, but meaningless without some entity to protect her from or punish the perpetrator of the rape.
This guy seems to think protecting yourself isn't an option.
It's a cute "kumbaya" point, but meaningless without some entity to protect her from or punish the perpetrator of the rape.
This guy seems to think protecting yourself isn't an option.
NO, I'm saying protecting yourself is your ONLY natural right. Any other right is the product of our banding together into associations we usually call 'government'. I also don't say they're something given to us by some entity outside of ourselves, but rights we've given TO ourselves. Absent such "associations", your only "natural right", if I'm stronger than you, is to sit meekly by while I take what I want.
No they don't. Take away our laws, and pray you do not have something I want, which I can take from you, killing you if I have to, with impunity. (Note that last word. Punative measures and mechanisms supporting them are the only thing protecting your rights.)
My rights exist in the absence of laws.
I have a challenge for you, find a single legal document anywhere that says that either natural or human rights exist only because there are governments to enforce them. It should be pretty easy, if you are right.
LOL! You're asking for a legal(government) document to prove your point? By merely asking for such proof, you're proving the opposite!
Astonishing. Not how it works. You can seek monetary damages from me, and make my further divulging of it contempt of court, only because WE PROTECT PRIVACY RIGHTS. (not your privacy; but rights to it) Without it I could say whatever I wish about you, true or not, to as many as I wish, and you have no protections nor recourse if I do. That PROTECTS and does not limit your rights.
Now to right of free speech. How does that limit your rights?
Or right to your papers, property and person against unreasonable search a seizure. That protects you, and does not limit your rights.
Need I go on?
And as an aside, what in the fuck are they doing wrong at U of A?
Why on Earth would you have access to my private information? The only possible reason is that the government required me to give it to you, or to someone else who gave it to you. Either way, my right to privacy was violated as a result of the government demanding I hand the information over, not because I gave it to you voluntarily, because I don't give anyone stuff like that voluntarily. That limited my right, the protection you are so fond of is simply an acknowledgement of the existing violation.
None I can think of. It was a hypothetical. (ftlg; get a clue)
Back to the questions you're dodging as best you can, albeit poorly, so allow me:
1. Pirvacy rights, which are protected under law
2. Free speech rights, which are protected under law
3. Right to person, papers and place against unreasonable search, which are protected under law.
None of those limit, in any way, your rights, and IN FUCKING FACT DEFINE AND PROTECT THEM!!!!
To suggest that government only limits rights speaks to the depth of your ignorance and does discredit to any institution of higher "learning" you attended.
Why on Earth would you have access to my private information? The only possible reason is that the government required me to give it to you, or to someone else who gave it to you. Either way, my right to privacy was violated as a result of the government demanding I hand the information over, not because I gave it to you voluntarily, because I don't give anyone stuff like that voluntarily. That limited my right, the protection you are so fond of is simply an acknowledgement of the existing violation.
None I can think of. It was a hypothetical. (ftlg; get a clue)
Back to the questions you're dodging as best you can, albeit poorly, so allow me:
1. Pirvacy rights, which are protected under law
2. Free speech rights, which are protected under law
3. Right to person, papers and place against unreasonable search, which are protected under law.
None of those limit, in any way, your rights, and IN FUCKING FACT DEFINE AND PROTECT THEM!!!!
To suggest that government only limits rights speaks to the depth of your ignorance and does discredit to any institution of higher "learning" you attended.
That explains why I used a rhetorical question in response, and then set out to demolish your premise that the government somehow protects my rights by requiring me to comply with their demand to surrender them. Yet you keep ignoring the actual post and concentrate on pointing out how smart you are to be able to use schoolyard taunts.
I admit it, your government can beat up my rights, which is why I don't want your government in charge.
None I can think of. It was a hypothetical. (ftlg; get a clue)
Back to the questions you're dodging as best you can, albeit poorly, so allow me:
1. Pirvacy rights, which are protected under law
2. Free speech rights, which are protected under law
3. Right to person, papers and place against unreasonable search, which are protected under law.
None of those limit, in any way, your rights, and IN FUCKING FACT DEFINE AND PROTECT THEM!!!!
To suggest that government only limits rights speaks to the depth of your ignorance and does discredit to any institution of higher "learning" you attended.
That explains why I used a rhetorical question in response, and then set out to demolish your premise that the government somehow protects my rights by requiring me to comply with their demand to surrender them. Yet you keep ignoring the actual post and concentrate on pointing out how smart you are to be able to use schoolyard taunts.
I admit it, your government can beat up my rights, which is why I don't want your government in charge.
Rhetorical questions end with a period or a question-mark in quotes or brackets. Better communication will help us both save time. It's a win-win.
That explains why I used a rhetorical question in response, and then set out to demolish your premise that the government somehow protects my rights by requiring me to comply with their demand to surrender them. Yet you keep ignoring the actual post and concentrate on pointing out how smart you are to be able to use schoolyard taunts.
I admit it, your government can beat up my rights, which is why I don't want your government in charge.
Rhetorical questions end with a period or a question-mark in quotes or brackets. Better communication will help us both save time. It's a win-win.
Huh? Are you trying to rewrite grammar books now? The only reason to use quotes is when I am quoting someone, not to set a rhetorical question apart. A basic understanding of English already serves me quite well, I would suggest you start your journey to a similar position by forgetting everything you were told in school.
Next thing you are going to tell me is that there are three tenses in English.
Can't answer that question posed in the OP.
Does the poster mean the Natural Law? Nature really isn't a "thing" or "preson" with the ability to "give" us anything.
But let's say some law-breaker does that to you or me. (ignores BUT DOES NOT REMOVE your/my rights, because we have fucking LAWS and mechanisms to support and protect them.) Our police will hunt them down, and if found our criminal justice system will make an example of them. (we penalize and do not reform) So it's a very remote risk in America, that may never happen to you, me or anyone we know.
You are truly naive if you think the police are going to track down and arrest someone who robbed you. When I lived in Baltimore, I was robbed 7 times. The police never did a thing.
Studies have been done that show hard core criminals who are released from prison commit at least 160 robberies a year.
that's because white fags who troll after black youth and get robbed in the process are a low priority in Baltimore
With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?
typical liberal question...usually used as a diversion.
Learn to understand context. Liberals love to ignore context and simply take the words spoken and apply it to whatever "definition" meets their agenda.
Learn to apply context. It will make you a more pleasant person.
Right and wrong are human constructs.
So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.
But most people agree on what "birth" and "death" are.
Not so much with "right" and "wrong".
If asked, everyone on the planet would have a different idea as to "right" and "wrong". If we can't decide what "right" and "wrong" are, how can they exist outside of our own personal constructions?
In comparative mythology we learn similar concepts with differing realities/outcomes/definitions of right and wrong do exist in different place and at different times.
Right and wrong are moral concepts that it is easy to prove evolve with mankind. We have written and oral history as well as archeological data as proof.
Rights as human constructs also easy to prove. Rights exist in the mind of man and not in the physical world
Otto Rank, Adolf Bastian, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell
Whatever you want to be considered natural rights. Reminds me of the label 'organic' in grocery stores.With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?
