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.
an inalienable right
example
a right to ''think'' what you want....there is no way for others to control your own thoughts...this is self evident, this is your own right that can not be given up.
That's a bad example because it's virtually impossible to restrict whereas the uh.....inalienable rights we're discussing in this document are possible to restrict and so it seems it's a different sort of "self evident," I'm assuming.
do a google on inalienable rights.....that's what i got out of it....
i don't totally understand it...admittingly!
That's a bad example because it's virtually impossible to restrict whereas the uh.....inalienable rights we're discussing in this document are possible to restrict and so it seems it's a different sort of "self evident," I'm assuming.
do a google on inalienable rights.....that's what i got out of it....
i don't totally understand it...admittingly!
The precise word used was "unalienable," rather than "inalienable."
Regardless - I think an "unalienabale" right, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, is simply a right that cannot be taken away from anyone by anyone - most of all, not by a government.
Really?
No explanation about why if no one has any inherent rights that those same people have the right to tell others what to do. Who gave others the right to tell others what to do if they don't have any to begin with. They only got that right from others that gave it to them but if they gave it to them then they must have had some to begin with because how can you give someone the right to rule over you if you didn't have any to begin with?
do a google on inalienable rights.....that's what i got out of it....
i don't totally understand it...admittingly!
The precise word used was "unalienable," rather than "inalienable."
Regardless - I think an "unalienabale" right, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, is simply a right that cannot be taken away from anyone by anyone - most of all, not by a government.
FYI
Unalienable / Inalienable
The precise word used was "unalienable," rather than "inalienable."
Regardless - I think an "unalienabale" right, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, is simply a right that cannot be taken away from anyone by anyone - most of all, not by a government.
FYI
Unalienable / Inalienable
FYI - I know/knew that, i.e., that there really is no difference between the meaning of "unalienable" and "inalienable." My only point was that the precise word used in the D of I was/is "unalienable."
I think most people (including myself) will use "inalienable" when quoting that particular phrase, rather than "unalienable." Frankly, I was surprised when I checked it and found that "unalienable" is the word that is used.
I didn't duck the question. I answered it quite specifically. Can you not read? It was the first fucking sentence.
No, those are not proofs. Proof means something that proves something. What you posted was evidence(s), and it's debatable whether they're adequate or correct as even evidence, but proof there is none. Now stfu and get back on your meds. I'm not interested in your corny games: "wouldn't ya say some opinions are better!?!?" - - - - yes. But not on this subject, because proof exists for noone.
"what determines who's opinion is weighed more" already answered for you as well.
Gee, a little touchy are we?
You did not answer the question.
Those are proofs. The fact that you personally do not find them adequate does not make them non-proofs.
So we go back to it: Are all opinions equal or are some better than others, and if so how do we know?
They're not proofs if you're logical. A logical proof....you know....PROVES something. God is not, to date, proven.
I ANSWERED YOUR FUCKING QUESTION 3 TIMES ALREADY. NO, ALL OPINIONS ARE NOT EQUAL. AND HOW DO WE KNOW(YOU ASKED PART ii OF THE QUESTION IN III DIFFERENT WAYS NOW, FYI): THAT'S A MATTER OF OPINION, SO THERE'S REALLY NO ADEQUATE FUCKING ANSWER. LEARN TO READ DIPSHIT, YOU'RE A WASTE OF TIME CONVERSING WITH, WHICH IS WHY I MAY "SEEM" TOUCHY, BUT CAPS IS FOR SHOW BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T READ THE SAME ANSWER THE LAST 3 TIMES. THANKS IN ADVANCE! TOODLES!
Really?
No explanation about why if no one has any inherent rights that those same people have the right to tell others what to do. Who gave others the right to tell others what to do if they don't have any to begin with. They only got that right from others that gave it to them but if they gave it to them then they must have had some to begin with because how can you give someone the right to rule over you if you didn't have any to begin with?
This is some of the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard, and I'm not even trying to be coy or mean or anything. wow.
Really?
No explanation about why if no one has any inherent rights that those same people have the right to tell others what to do. Who gave others the right to tell others what to do if they don't have any to begin with. They only got that right from others that gave it to them but if they gave it to them then they must have had some to begin with because how can you give someone the right to rule over you if you didn't have any to begin with?
This is some of the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard, and I'm not even trying to be coy or mean or anything. wow.
Let me go more slowly for you then with an easier example.
See dick on an island. He plays all by himself. He does what he wants. Now Jane arrives. Jane says he can't do all the things that he could do before. Dick get angry
Dick ask Jane what right does she have to tell him what to do. Jane said because we have to agree on everything we do. Dick says thats bullshit. Dick fears everything he could do before is subject to her opinion whether if he can do it. Dick ask where did she get the right to but into his life. Jane has no answer. Dick goes onto doing whatever he wants to do in life. Jane can't mind her business. Jane is a totalitarian whore who can't stand the idea that other little boys and girls are playing the games they want to. Jane begins to pout because they are not playing the games she wants them to play. This make Jane miserable and Dick very happy because he can do whatever he wants.
The End
Do you want to be mature and tell me what right others have to have a say in what other people can do when, according to you, they are born with no inherent rights whatsoever? Who gave them that right and why would this person have that right while the person being told what to do not have an equal or greater say in the things they want to do for themselves in their own life?
This is some of the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard, and I'm not even trying to be coy or mean or anything. wow.
Let me go more slowly for you then with an easier example.
See dick on an island. He plays all by himself. He does what he wants. Now Jane arrives. Jane says he can't do all the things that he could do before. Dick get angry
Dick ask Jane what right does she have to tell him what to do. Jane said because we have to agree on everything we do. Dick says thats bullshit. Dick fears everything he could do before is subject to her opinion whether if he can do it. Dick ask where did she get the right to but into his life. Jane has no answer. Dick goes onto doing whatever he wants to do in life. Jane can't mind her business. Jane is a totalitarian whore who can't stand the idea that other little boys and girls are playing the games they want to. Jane begins to pout because they are not playing the games she wants them to play. This make Jane miserable and Dick very happy because he can do whatever he wants.
The End
Do you want to be mature and tell me what right others have to have a say in what other people can do when, according to you, they are born with no inherent rights whatsoever? Who gave them that right and why would this person have that right while the person being told what to do not have an equal or greater say in the things they want to do for themselves in their own life?
This is still fucking dumb, dudette.
Here's what your reasoning looks like: "because someone does something, proves they were born with the right to do it"
which, if you had a brain, you'd see how ridiculous that is.
This is some of the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard, and I'm not even trying to be coy or mean or anything. wow.
Let me go more slowly for you then with an easier example.
See dick on an island. He plays all by himself. He does what he wants. Now Jane arrives. Jane says he can't do all the things that he could do before. Dick get angry
Dick ask Jane what right does she have to tell him what to do. Jane said because we have to agree on everything we do. Dick says thats bullshit. Dick fears everything he could do before is subject to her opinion whether if he can do it. Dick ask where did she get the right to but into his life. Jane has no answer. Dick goes onto doing whatever he wants to do in life. Jane can't mind her business. Jane is a totalitarian whore who can't stand the idea that other little boys and girls are playing the games they want to. Jane begins to pout because they are not playing the games she wants them to play. This make Jane miserable and Dick very happy because he can do whatever he wants.
The End
Do you want to be mature and tell me what right others have to have a say in what other people can do when, according to you, they are born with no inherent rights whatsoever? Who gave them that right and why would this person have that right while the person being told what to do not have an equal or greater say in the things they want to do for themselves in their own life?
This is still fucking dumb, dudette.
Here's what your reasoning looks like: "because someone does something, proves they were born with the right to do it"
which, if you had a brain, you'd see how ridiculous that is.
Let me go more slowly for you then with an easier example.
See dick on an island. He plays all by himself. He does what he wants. Now Jane arrives. Jane says he can't do all the things that he could do before. Dick get angry
Dick ask Jane what right does she have to tell him what to do. Jane said because we have to agree on everything we do. Dick says thats bullshit. Dick fears everything he could do before is subject to her opinion whether if he can do it. Dick ask where did she get the right to but into his life. Jane has no answer. Dick goes onto doing whatever he wants to do in life. Jane can't mind her business. Jane is a totalitarian whore who can't stand the idea that other little boys and girls are playing the games they want to. Jane begins to pout because they are not playing the games she wants them to play. This make Jane miserable and Dick very happy because he can do whatever he wants.
The End
Do you want to be mature and tell me what right others have to have a say in what other people can do when, according to you, they are born with no inherent rights whatsoever? Who gave them that right and why would this person have that right while the person being told what to do not have an equal or greater say in the things they want to do for themselves in their own life?
This is still fucking dumb, dudette.
Here's what your reasoning looks like: "because someone does something, proves they were born with the right to do it"
which, if you had a brain, you'd see how ridiculous that is.
I would say that if you can do something then you were born with the right to do it because if nature did think that other people can determine what we do then their would be some kind of natural blocking mechinism for that behavior that others can implement on us. I would imagine that their would be some kind of remote for us that other people would have for us. They would be able to press a button and action a would be stopped but their isn't. Action a is not stoppable by other people without the use of force against that person which would be nothing more than beating someone into submission and that doesn't sound like a state of freedom.
Jefferson was just a man, ladies and Gentlemen.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
John Hancock
an inalienable right
example
a right to ''think'' what you want....there is no way for others to control your own thoughts...this is self evident, this is your own right that can not be given up.
Of course there are proofs of a Creator.
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God
I'm not saying these proofs are adequate or correct. But it is incorrect to say there are no proofs of a Creator when clearly there are.
But you are ducking the question: Are all opinions the same or are some better than others?
an inalienable right
example
a right to ''think'' what you want....there is no way for others to control your own thoughts...this is self evident, this is your own right that can not be given up.
Hey...that's a damned good bid.
But let ask you...do you think you have that right but it cannot be alienated from you?
How about if somebody put a bullet through your head?
Did they alienate your right to think as you choose if they did that?
I think they did.
Of course there are proofs of a Creator.
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God
I'm not saying these proofs are adequate or correct. But it is incorrect to say there are no proofs of a Creator when clearly there are.
But you are ducking the question: Are all opinions the same or are some better than others?
In my opinion, which is, of course, vastly superior to all other opinions, all opinions are of equal worth.
rabbi
They BOTH equally, have the right, to their own opinion or thoughts...
and YOU have the right to your own thoughts on their opinions....and Editec has the right to his own thoughts on their opinions, and he has a right to his opinion of your opinion...yahdeedah yadeedah.
rabbi
They BOTH equally, have the right, to their own opinion or thoughts...
and YOU have the right to your own thoughts on their opinions....and Editec has the right to his own thoughts on their opinions, and he has a right to his opinion of your opinion...yahdeedah yadeedah.
No one is talking about having a right to an opinion. I am asking whether one is superior to the other or are all opinions of the same worth.
