A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people

[WillowTree]

I got your drift Holos. Everyone has rights except those you disagree with.

If you are a lawful abiding agent, yes. Then social disruption can't prevail nor hide.

So people you disagree with have no rights. We have it.

 

[Holos]

I got your drift Holos. Everyone has rights except those you disagree with.

If you are a lawful abiding agent, yes. Then social disruption can't prevail nor hide.

So people you disagree with have no rights. We have it.

All people have rights.

Some more than others, according to the conditions they find themselves in, according to the decisions they have made or the decisions they were not capable of making. The law works to maintain those rights distributed and effectual, according to the priority of national independence and sovereignty in contrast to misguided individual liberty erroneously thought of as a human right.

If I happen to disagree with any who, like myself, are rightful in provision, it is because they are not righteous in exercising the given law, and are probably misguided by indulging in the pursuit of individual liberty, instead of pursuing constitutionally accredited happiness.

The right of liberty, as proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson, isn't to pursue liberty, but it is a further civil application from liberty already established.

 

[westwall]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

Making people subsidize booger-eaters in the name of booger-eating is not a right.

You don't have a right to kill, beat or attack them either!

He never claimed he did. What he did claim is that YOU don't have the right to take money from people (at gun point) to give to those you wish to have vote for you.

 

[westwall]

I got your drift Holos. Everyone has rights except those you disagree with.

If you are a lawful abiding agent, yes. Then social disruption can't prevail nor hide.

So people you disagree with have no rights. We have it.

All people have rights.

Some more than others, according to the conditions they find themselves in, according to the decisions they have made or the decisions they were not capable of making. The law works to maintain those rights distributed and effectual, according to the priority of national independence and sovereignty in contrast to misguided individual liberty erroneously thought of as a human right.

If I happen to disagree with any who, like myself, are rightful in provision, it is because they are not righteous in exercising the given law, and are probably misguided by indulging in the pursuit of individual liberty, instead of pursuing constitutionally accredited happiness.

The right of liberty, as proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson, isn't to pursue liberty, but it is a further civil application from liberty already established.

Nobody has more "Rights" than others. What you are describing is a political class that has exempted itself from the laws that govern WE the People. That is an affront to the Founders of this nation, and to the People as a whole.

 

[Holos]

Nobody has more "Rights" than others. What you are describing is a political class that has exempted itself from the laws that govern WE the People. That is an affront to the Founders of this nation, and to the People as a whole.

Actually, yes, some have more "Rights" than others. But I am not describing any exemption from law as you so suggest.

Let's take the example of a person with a gun. The person can choose either to murder or to safely enclose and securely lock the weapon.

If the person decides to murder, their "Right" to have a gun is taken from them as they require law enforcement to overlook their actions, either by a minimum or by a maximum penalty, which may or may not have the final intention to rehabilitate.

What ability then, you may ask, is going to be the focus of law enforcement in that case, if the person is already so able to murder?

How is any institution, agency or law to rehabilitate a murderer?

Although there may be large segments of the world population who believe the rehabilitation of a murderer is a null paradox, therefore that there is no rehabilitation (that Rights are inherent and irrevocable), except for the executive measure of another "more {{temporarily}} reliable" murderer, as either a state agent, or a painless but fatal prick, causing vicious and never ending growing cycles of partisan vengeance, relative vindication, and innocent bewildered victim involvement, the truth is that once the law is disregarded and crime committed to as the only possible dignifying endeavor, the law takes effect to have the citizen in question recognize their lawful and law abiding dutiful Rights again which by their very own mistaken option had been previously forsaken.

Again, Rights aren't needs or necessities. Rights are duties. If a person is not educated or is not provided adequately in regards to their natural talents and joyous propensities to cooperate, create or cater according to nationally agreed standards, then their Rights require reconstitution for having been absent or dormant under the disabling circumstances, which is why rehabilitation comes to be the appropriate policy for those who have either impended upon the rights of neighbors or have actually infringed upon them.

All are born equal in ability and dutifulness, but throughout their life circumstances may bring isolating questions for the enhancement of their collaborative skills. When Rights are of a political nature, isolated citizens do not have the same Rights as socially inclusive citizens, which must be restored accordingly to their given working abilities to provide for the socially inclusive and political community from which they have at some point deviated and to which at some point they righteously represent.

Was your question answered?

 

[WillowTree]

That was just a whole lotta bullshit.

 

[westwall]

Nobody has more "Rights" than others. What you are describing is a political class that has exempted itself from the laws that govern WE the People. That is an affront to the Founders of this nation, and to the People as a whole.

Actually, yes, some have more "Rights" than others. But I am not describing any exemption from law as you so suggest.

Let's take the example of a person with a gun. The person can choose either to murder or to safely enclose and securely lock the weapon.

If the person decides to murder, their "Right" to have a gun is taken from them as they require law enforcement to overlook their actions, either by a minimum or by a maximum penalty, which may or may not have the final intention to rehabilitate.

What ability then, you may ask, is going to be the focus of law enforcement in that case, if the person is already so able to murder?

How is any institution, agency or law to rehabilitate a murderer?

Although there may be large segments of the world population who believe the rehabilitation of a murderer is a null paradox, therefore that there is no rehabilitation (that Rights are inherent and irrevocable), except for the executive measure of another "more {{temporarily}} reliable" murderer, as either a state agent, or a painless but fatal prick, causing vicious and never ending growing cycles of partisan vengeance, relative vindication, and innocent bewildered victim involvement, the truth is that once the law is disregarded and crime committed to as the only possible dignifying endeavor, the law takes effect to have the citizen in question recognize their lawful and law abiding dutiful Rights again which by their very own mistaken option had been previously forsaken.

Again, Rights aren't needs or necessities. Rights are duties. If a person is not educated or is not provided adequately in regards to their natural talents and joyous propensities to cooperate, create or cater according to nationally agreed standards, then their Rights require reconstitution for having been absent or dormant under the disabling circumstances, which is why rehabilitation comes to be the appropriate policy for those who have either impended upon the rights of neighbors or have actually infringed upon them.

All are born equal in ability and dutifulness, but throughout their life circumstances may bring isolating questions for the enhancement of their collaborative skills. When Rights are of a political nature, isolated citizens do not have the same Rights as socially inclusive citizens, which must be restored accordingly to their given working abilities to provide for the socially inclusive and political community from which they have at some point deviated and to which at some point they righteously represent.

Was your question answered?

What? You go from "Murder" to locking your gun up. What the hell are you talking about. Neither one of those option has the slightest thing to do with Rights.

Take your meds.

 

[Rustic]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

Tell that to the progressives

 

[Katzndogz]

This is what happens when the values of the people are diametrically opposed. When there is no point on which the people can agree then freedom for one is oppression for another. We do not have a homogenous people. Stop pretending we do and there can be some kind of unity. It will get lots worse.

 

[TooTall]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

Making people subsidize booger-eaters in the name of booger-eating is not a right.

You don't have a right to kill, beat or attack them either!

I do have a right to ignore them, however I have two lesbians and two gay men for neighbors and we get along just fine.

 

[Holos]

Nobody has more "Rights" than others. What you are describing is a political class that has exempted itself from the laws that govern WE the People. That is an affront to the Founders of this nation, and to the People as a whole.

Actually, yes, some have more "Rights" than others. But I am not describing any exemption from law as you so suggest.

Let's take the example of a person with a gun. The person can choose either to murder or to safely enclose and securely lock the weapon.

If the person decides to murder, their "Right" to have a gun is taken from them as they require law enforcement to overlook their actions, either by a minimum or by a maximum penalty, which may or may not have the final intention to rehabilitate.

What ability then, you may ask, is going to be the focus of law enforcement in that case, if the person is already so able to murder?

How is any institution, agency or law to rehabilitate a murderer?

Although there may be large segments of the world population who believe the rehabilitation of a murderer is a null paradox, therefore that there is no rehabilitation (that Rights are inherent and irrevocable), except for the executive measure of another "more {{temporarily}} reliable" murderer, as either a state agent, or a painless but fatal prick, causing vicious and never ending growing cycles of partisan vengeance, relative vindication, and innocent bewildered victim involvement, the truth is that once the law is disregarded and crime committed to as the only possible dignifying endeavor, the law takes effect to have the citizen in question recognize their lawful and law abiding dutiful Rights again which by their very own mistaken option had been previously forsaken.

Again, Rights aren't needs or necessities. Rights are duties. If a person is not educated or is not provided adequately in regards to their natural talents and joyous propensities to cooperate, create or cater according to nationally agreed standards, then their Rights require reconstitution for having been absent or dormant under the disabling circumstances, which is why rehabilitation comes to be the appropriate policy for those who have either impended upon the rights of neighbors or have actually infringed upon them.

All are born equal in ability and dutifulness, but throughout their life circumstances may bring isolating questions for the enhancement of their collaborative skills. When Rights are of a political nature, isolated citizens do not have the same Rights as socially inclusive citizens, which must be restored accordingly to their given working abilities to provide for the socially inclusive and political community from which they have at some point deviated and to which at some point they righteously represent.

Was your question answered?

What? You go from "Murder" to locking your gun up. What the hell are you talking about. Neither one of those option has the slightest thing to do with Rights.

Take your meds.

One murder prevented for the sake of one life continued.

I'll take it, tell me what Rights are really about then.

 

[Holos]

This is what happens when the values of the people are diametrically opposed. When there is no point on which the people can agree then freedom for one is oppression for another. We do not have a homogenous people. Stop pretending we do and there can be some kind of unity. It will get lots worse.

How can a homogeneous people assist in establishing multiple values?
I don't think anyone here even knows what homogeneous people means to be pretending about it.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is what happens when the values of the people are diametrically opposed. When there is no point on which the people can agree then freedom for one is oppression for another. We do not have a homogenous people. Stop pretending we do and there can be some kind of unity. It will get lots worse.

How can a homogeneous people assist in establishing multiple values?
I don't think anyone here even knows what homogeneous people means to be pretending about it.

Try it from another direction. We are so diverse that we no longer share any traditions or values that knit a people together into a functioning society. Diversity is not a strength. It is a weakness. Diversity is a fracture line.

 

[NCC1701]

Try it from another direction. We are so diverse that we no longer share any traditions or values that knit a people together into a functioning society. Diversity is not a strength. It is a weakness. Diversity is a fracture line.

yup

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.


The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe

 

[PK1]

Are you anti-American?
OP's definition of a civilized country represents the USA.

Wrong! But thanks for playing.

Feel free to elaborate & express some intelligence, if you can.

The freedom to express and practice religion is the first ******* amendment. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion. Those are American.

I agree. The 1st Amendment is vital, including the freedom to criticize religion or certain lifestyles or even "racial behaviors".
However, business discrimination toward customers is a tricky matter.

The rights of those customers was not violated. No one has a right to force anyone to do anything. That couple could have gone to one of several other bakers, but they went to the Christian baker for the specific purpose of causing a problem. The 1st Amendment rights of the baker was clearly violated.

In a civil society, there needs to be a balance or compromise among individuals to lessen conflict, and respect all individual rights.

The 1st Amendment does not provide full freedom of speech within certain contexts, e.g., an individual does not have the right to unfairly **** other individuals by falsely yelling "bomb" in an airplane, or fire in a crowded theater.
A public office should not discriminate between "protected categories" of people, but i believe there should be some freedom for private business owners to discriminate, as they do when they have a sign "no shirt or shoes, no service".
The gay cake is a grey area, and i lean toward the owner's liberty to reject customer service when the customer demands an item not normally sold by the owner.
.

 

[LuckyDuck]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

Well, if it's civilized nations you're looking for, you can cross off any and all Islamic ones.

 

[Vastator]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

Your entire premise is flawed. The greatest civilizations in human history most certainly didn't follow your suggested format. None of them...

 

[FJO]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

So, show a good example by not calling everyone who dares to disagree with you offensive names, which I won't repeat, because it I did, then I would be like you.

 

[Holos]

This is what happens when the values of the people are diametrically opposed. When there is no point on which the people can agree then freedom for one is oppression for another. We do not have a homogenous people. Stop pretending we do and there can be some kind of unity. It will get lots worse.

How can a homogeneous people assist in establishing multiple values?
I don't think anyone here even knows what homogeneous people means to be pretending about it.

Try it from another direction. We are so diverse that we no longer share any traditions or values that knit a people together into a functioning society. Diversity is not a strength. It is a weakness. Diversity is a fracture line.

If we are to go to another direction, where should we first meet to therefrom part?

I know where you are coming from, but do you really know where I am coming from?

Your statements seem contradicting to me, and although they do "diverge" without the "weakening detrimental diversity" you so suggest the essence of diversity to be, the divergence proposed as a unifying strategy is not explicitly evident, nor prospectively proposed.

Take the simple example of our alphabet, our grammar, our syntax.
Don't you find those aspects of our shared communication traditional and valuable, enabling at least some sense of social functionality between us?

In how many ways, for example, can a single word be used through the English language in which we are capable of concurrent exchange and developing recognizing? Is that not representative of a strongly established diversity to you? Is that not how you have been taught to present your arguments, your perspectives, your representative statements?

 

[Katzndogz]

Try it from another direction. We are so diverse that we no longer share any traditions or values that knit a people together into a functioning society. Diversity is not a strength. It is a weakness. Diversity is a fracture line.

yup

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.


The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe

After the Northridge earthquake non diverse neighborhoods organized. Many put up barricades to keep looters out. They emptied non working freezers and refrigerators and had block parties. They cooked on charcoal grills in the street and pooled what they had.

I lived in a very diverse neighborhood. When the shaking stopped, people came out of their darkened homes to assess damage. Because everyone spoke a different language there was no pulling through this together. No neighbors helping neighbors. Screw 'em.