Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
natural law already has an understood definition GT. youre making a symantic argument?
I'm disagreeing with its understood definition.
natural law already has an understood definition GT. youre making a symantic argument?
I'm disagreeing with its understood definition.
that would make it a question of symantics: that you feel the words used to describe the concept arent fitting. notwithstanding, there is a concept named natural law which addresses humans independent from your lion and gazelle.
if you feel we should behave like lions and impalas because that's natural, that's a different story.
I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.
If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power. The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.
And even after 12 years... they still don't manage to learn the difference between an "unalienable right" and a fucking commodity.
A gun is a commodity. Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?
Wrong. A gun is NOT a commodity. It's a tool....and the right of citizens to bear arms here in America is guaranteed by the Constitution.
You need to learn the definition of words before you shoot your mouth off.
A gun is a commodity. Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?
Phillip's right. It's a tool, a weapon. And sure, they can be bought and sold. But you can also make your own if you have the talent to do so. We are human animals. And because we're capable of defending ourselves, capable of making tools which aid in that endeavor, we have a right to do so.
Self-defense is not an imposition upon any other American's citizen rights. It doesn't require the labor or property of another to accomplish. It takes nothing away from anyone but from the person (or persons) who attempt first to take something away from us.
Spare me the gradeschool tactics.
But no, Humans WERE Barbarians. Did you forget? In becoming Civilized, we assigned a list of inalienable rights. They were not assumed by Nature.
Which thus means that in that sense education is a right just as free speech is a right.
As to what appears to be the other question, which is, is it an American child's right to receive an education, regardless of the ability to pay,
the answer is also YES. If you say no, please list the circumstances under which an American child can be denied a public education.
No, education is not a right. Free exercise of religion is a right. In this case the education is merely ancillary to the exercise of religious rights.
Logic fail on your part.
An American child can be denied a public education if the proper legislation were passed.
I will point out that presently a very large percentage of American children are denied educations by being forced to go to local public schools.
In any case, your example is flawed. By analogy, emergency room treatment is a right because no one can be denied treatment. The fact thtat legally this is now the case does not argue for or against emergency room treatment being a right. A change in the law and this "right" would cease to exist.
That is not the case with other rights. If the city of Boston passed a law against printing the Boston Herald it would not stand up to court scrutiny because of hte 1st amendment.
By your logic no rights exist because any could be changed by legislation. The 2nd Amendment could be repealed, therefore there is no right to bear arms.
Spare me the gradeschool tactics.
But no, Humans WERE Barbarians. Did you forget? In becoming Civilized, we assigned a list of inalienable rights. They were not assumed by Nature.
And as I posted earlier... you, and others like you, view "unalienable rights" as arbitrarily assigned, which means you, and others like you, cannot be trusted to keep them sacrosanct. That which can be given, can be taken away. But that which exists naturally..continues to exist.
In your arrogance, you think you're smarter than our founders. You think you can reinvent the wheel. But they UNDERSTOOD things which your partisanship blinds you to seeing. These were men who lived close to the ground. They were studied in history and philosophy. They weren't distracted by baseball games and reality TV.
Our U.S. Constitution was written based, not on the issues of the day, but upon Human Nature. We are not fundamentally different, despite our technology, than our colonial ancestors were. We have the same concerns about survival, the same array of emotional response, etc.
The idea that YOUR baseless opinion could outweigh that of Benjamin Franklin's, James Madison's, or Thomas Jefferson's is laughable. These were thoughtful, studied men, whose planning and forethought have provided us with the best standard of living in the world. And it is thanks to them, that you are free to bore us with your insipid rantings.
Right, the minds of men provided these ideas through observation and called them Natural, I disagree with their findings of the "source" but agree that these rights should exist in a Civilized Society.
The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them. So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, dumbass. its an american thing... you'll know when you get there.
OK, so an ipse dixit fallacy is the best you can do here. It must be "self evident".
Hey, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. It's mine, I assure you. It's self evident.
What a 'tard.
while you assume it is retarded that rights exist through assertion, it is the basis of our government and many of the others which have patterned themselves after it. that you feel rights could be endowed by a piece of paper, be it a torah or the constitution is retarded. the constitution is a government charter and about the rights government has or defers to its constituent states and citizens. in that sense, i operate my on constitution where i feel i could pursue an education. its worked out for me beyond my capacity to make use of it. for you, its clearly still debatable whether you should learn anything or not.
The same people who guaranteed our unalienable rights, made a constitution which allowed for the eventual resolution of a moral wrong that was already identified as such.
Did they kick the can down the road? Yup. They did. And we paid for that mistake in blood. But... we didn't have to invalidate the entire U.S. Constitution to correct it, did we? All we had to do was add an amendment.
I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.
If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power. The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.
The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them. So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.
OK, so an ipse dixit fallacy is the best you can do here. It must be "self evident".
Hey, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. It's mine, I assure you. It's self evident.
What a 'tard.
while you assume it is retarded that rights exist through assertion, it is the basis of our government and many of the others which have patterned themselves after it. that you feel rights could be endowed by a piece of paper, be it a torah or the constitution is retarded. the constitution is a government charter and about the rights government has or defers to its constituent states and citizens. in that sense, i operate my on constitution where i feel i could pursue an education. its worked out for me beyond my capacity to make use of it. for you, its clearly still debatable whether you should learn anything or not.
It is amusing that you question my education when you cannot write a coherent sentence or reason logically. I've read the last three sentences of your post and still can't make any sense out of them.
In any case, while the Founders gave lip service to the idea of natural rights, in fact rights are only granted by society as a whole and enshrined in legislation and court decisions. Rights are a function of society, not bestowed by the Fairy Godmother or Sky Demon or anything else.
I dont know. I dont know what Murf's position is. He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong. But I can't tell.
The Constitution establishes that we collectively defend ourselves and yes that does take from some to defend all.
If you believe the NATION has a right to defend itself, then you believe that right can be justifiably accomplished by taking from others, including drafting citizens into the military and requiring them under threat of imprisonment
to fight and even die for their country.
Anyone who says that a right cannot take from others is daft.
The Constitution establishes that we collectively defend ourselves and yes that does take from some to defend all.
If you believe the NATION has a right to defend itself, then you believe that right can be justifiably accomplished by taking from others, including drafting citizens into the military and requiring them under threat of imprisonment
to fight and even die for their country.
Anyone who says that a right cannot take from others is daft.
The Constitution doesn't mention the words, "draft" or "conscription". It simply says that Congress may "raise and support Armies" and that the funding must be revisited every two years.
The traditional interpretation has supported citizen conscription... but this was never specified.
I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.
If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power. The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.
The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them. So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.
Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?
