Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

[The Rabbi]

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.

yes, that is what you are trying to ask....but each person, discerning the other person's opinion, IS THE ONE WHO WEIGHS IT, through their own thoughts....and NOT EVERYONE will think that kissinger's opinion out weighs or is more worthy than the Dixie chick's opinion...in fact, there are probably millions of people who would agree with the dixie chicks making more sense to them than a Kissinger.

ONLY YOU can determine for yourself, that kissinger's opinion has more value than the Dixie chicks and you can NOT do a damn thing about the other people, who think differently than you and see the dixie chicks opinion on war or whatever, as being more valuable or of greater weight than Kissinger's.

THAT'S LIFE rabbi....and that is also, what is protected....your opinion, or kissinger's opinion, is no greater than the next guys when said....

the others hearing it, have the unalienable right to give greater weight to kissinger's opinion than to the dixie chicks, or visa versa...

So you are saying that the Dixie Chicks' opinion of foreign affairs is just as valid as Kissinger's?

 

[G.T.]

People's opinions on certain subjects are more well-informed than others' and that's an obvious consideration. But the writers of our "inalienable" rights coming from our "creator" do not have a better opinion than I do ..... on that subject ........ because they didn't sit down with the Creator over tea and Rights discussions.

 

[The Rabbi]

People's opinions on certain subjects are more well-informed than others' and that's an obvious consideration. But the writers of our "inalienable" rights coming from our "creator" do not have a better opinion than I do ..... on that subject ........ because they didn't sit down with the Creator over tea and Rights discussions.

So are you saying that the only thing that validates an opinion is the personal experience of the individual expressing it? Thus, a person who had cancer has a more valid opinion than an oncologist?

 

[G.T.]

People's opinions on certain subjects are more well-informed than others' and that's an obvious consideration. But the writers of our "inalienable" rights coming from our "creator" do not have a better opinion than I do ..... on that subject ........ because they didn't sit down with the Creator over tea and Rights discussions.

So are you saying that the only thing that validates an opinion is the personal experience of the individual expressing it? Thus, a person who had cancer has a more valid opinion than an oncologist?

The only thing that validates? No.

An "opinion" can't really be validated, if it could than it becomes a fact and it's not an opinion. I'm saying that people can have more expertise in some arenas than others so of course they can be closer to accurate, or should be "weighted" more, but the people doing the "weighing" are only offering an "opinion" to reach said weight regardless.

And anyways, stop beating around the bush and get to your flippin point.

 

[The Rabbi]

People's opinions on certain subjects are more well-informed than others' and that's an obvious consideration. But the writers of our "inalienable" rights coming from our "creator" do not have a better opinion than I do ..... on that subject ........ because they didn't sit down with the Creator over tea and Rights discussions.

So are you saying that the only thing that validates an opinion is the personal experience of the individual expressing it? Thus, a person who had cancer has a more valid opinion than an oncologist?

The only thing that validates? No.

An "opinion" can't really be validated, if it could than it becomes a fact and it's not an opinion. I'm saying that people can have more expertise in some arenas than others so of course they can be closer to accurate, or should be "weighted" more, but the people doing the "weighing" are only offering an "opinion" to reach said weight regardless.

And anyways, stop beating around the bush and get to your flippin point.

My point is to figure out whether you think every opinion is as valid as every other opinion. And if not, what factors make some opinions more valid than others.

 

[G.T.]

So are you saying that the only thing that validates an opinion is the personal experience of the individual expressing it? Thus, a person who had cancer has a more valid opinion than an oncologist?

The only thing that validates? No.

An "opinion" can't really be validated, if it could than it becomes a fact and it's not an opinion. I'm saying that people can have more expertise in some arenas than others so of course they can be closer to accurate, or should be "weighted" more, but the people doing the "weighing" are only offering an "opinion" to reach said weight regardless.

And anyways, stop beating around the bush and get to your flippin point.

My point is to figure out whether you think every opinion is as valid as every other opinion. And if not, what factors make some opinions more valid than others.

No, they're not equally as valid. Factors: Knowledge and a keen ability to apply it with an even hand.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only thing that validates? No.

An "opinion" can't really be validated, if it could than it becomes a fact and it's not an opinion. I'm saying that people can have more expertise in some arenas than others so of course they can be closer to accurate, or should be "weighted" more, but the people doing the "weighing" are only offering an "opinion" to reach said weight regardless.

And anyways, stop beating around the bush and get to your flippin point.

My point is to figure out whether you think every opinion is as valid as every other opinion. And if not, what factors make some opinions more valid than others.

No, they're not equally as valid. Factors: Knowledge and a keen ability to apply it with an even hand.

How do we judge "a keen ability to apply it with an even hand"?

 

[G.T.]

My point is to figure out whether you think every opinion is as valid as every other opinion. And if not, what factors make some opinions more valid than others.

No, they're not equally as valid. Factors: Knowledge and a keen ability to apply it with an even hand.

How do we judge "a keen ability to apply it with an even hand"?

We who?

Every and anyone doing the judging is simply formulating another opinion, like I said before.

I judge an ability to apply knowledge using my own practical (and sexy) mind, and it's not something I can teach.

But what's your point in asking?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Disagree. Men deemed what were and were not unalienable rights, and so, they're alienable.

I know people pass laws restricting the freedom of other people all the time but that is not a justification for the theft of someone's freedom because if it was then slaves had no right to be free because 'men deemed what were and were not unalienable rights' for them.

Thieves and murderers also decide what rights are inalienable. A thief decides that someone's right to their property is removable but decides that person's right to their life is also unremoveable while a murderer decides that a person's right to live is removable. Doesn't the victim have an absolute say in what their rights are over these matters?

What if it is a group of thieves or murderers who collectively decide to do it and sanctify their actions by saying it is the will of the collective? What makes the collective so holy that anything it thinks of is the equal to the will of God?

Taxation for the proper running of a government and taking care of its weakest citizens never has been thievery, ihef. And the government can, if empowered by the citizens, to do things that individuals cannot do to one another.

Your problem is that you don't believe in the social compact in which we give up a bit in order to receive much.

Really go back and take Government 101, read Locke and Jefferson again, then consider the Federalist Papers.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they're not equally as valid. Factors: Knowledge and a keen ability to apply it with an even hand.

How do we judge "a keen ability to apply it with an even hand"?

We who?

Every and anyone doing the judging is simply formulating another opinion, like I said before.

I judge an ability to apply knowledge using my own practical (and sexy) mind, and it's not something I can teach.

But what's your point in asking?

To discover your view on this.
I seem to be failing.
So now opinions can be more or less valid based on knowledge but they are still equal to anyone based on one's own "practical (and sexy[sic]) mind." And that isn't teachable.
So it seems we are back to saying that even if opinions are better or worse they are all potentially equal if everyone can have a different opinion of that opinion. So while an opinion might be more or less valid, an opinion of an opinion is always valid.
Do I have that right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My point is to figure out whether you think every opinion is as valid as every other opinion. And if not, what factors make some opinions more valid than others.

No, they're not equally as valid. Factors: Knowledge and a keen ability to apply it with an even hand.

How do we judge "a keen ability to apply it with an even hand"?

By reading your opinion, Rab, and take the opposite coursse.

 

[G.T.]

How do we judge "a keen ability to apply it with an even hand"?

We who?

Every and anyone doing the judging is simply formulating another opinion, like I said before.

I judge an ability to apply knowledge using my own practical (and sexy) mind, and it's not something I can teach.

But what's your point in asking?

To discover your view on this.
I seem to be failing.
So now opinions can be more or less valid based on knowledge but they are still equal to anyone based on one's own "practical (and sexy[sic]) mind." And that isn't teachable.
So it seems we are back to saying that even if opinions are better or worse they are all potentially equal if everyone can have a different opinion of that opinion. So while an opinion might be more or less valid, an opinion of an opinion is always valid.
Do I have that right?

The source you're coming to for an answer is: Me.

The answer came from: Me. I don't speak for anyone else. I know my own mental capabilities, and they can't be applied to everyone or taught. I trust mine, but I don't make any rules for Humans.

So, back to my answers then: No, opinions are not equal. Yes, some have more weight than others. What factors go into weighting them? MY OPINION of the (source's) knowledge and ability to apply said knowledge. How do I determine that? I'm confident that I'm practical and full of common sense. Also, I'm dead fucking sexay.

I don't think I can say it in any lamer terms.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. So you cannot make a statement about anyone else's opinions. Or at least their opinions of opinions.

 

[G.T.]

OK. So you cannot make a statement about anyone else's opinions. Or at least their opinions of opinions.

That's not what I said at all. I don't even come close to even alluding to that.

 

[ihopehefails]

Disagree. Men deemed what were and were not unalienable rights, and so, they're alienable.

I know people pass laws restricting the freedom of other people all the time but that is not a justification for the theft of someone's freedom because if it was then slaves had no right to be free because 'men deemed what were and were not unalienable rights' for them.

Thieves and murderers also decide what rights are inalienable. A thief decides that someone's right to their property is removable but decides that person's right to their life is also unremoveable while a murderer decides that a person's right to live is removable. Doesn't the victim have an absolute say in what their rights are over these matters?

What if it is a group of thieves or murderers who collectively decide to do it and sanctify their actions by saying it is the will of the collective? What makes the collective so holy that anything it thinks of is the equal to the will of God?

Taxation for the proper running of a government and taking care of its weakest citizens never has been thievery, ihef. And the government can, if empowered by the citizens, to do things that individuals cannot do to one another.

Your problem is that you don't believe in the social compact in which we give up a bit in order to receive much.

Really go back and take Government 101, read Locke and Jefferson again, then consider the Federalist Papers.

I am beginning to read a lot and realizing their is quite a difference between Locke and Rosseiu in which he said crazy things like the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Its crazy but then I hear the same stuff being repeated in modern liberals like "we give up a bit in order to receive much".

I also read the part where Jefferson and Locke believed we had certain inalienable rights among witch are the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or Life, Liberty, and property (Locke). Those rights give me the power to deny anyone else access to those things which includes the government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know people pass laws restricting the freedom of other people all the time but that is not a justification for the theft of someone's freedom because if it was then slaves had no right to be free because 'men deemed what were and were not unalienable rights' for them.

Thieves and murderers also decide what rights are inalienable. A thief decides that someone's right to their property is removable but decides that person's right to their life is also unremoveable while a murderer decides that a person's right to live is removable. Doesn't the victim have an absolute say in what their rights are over these matters?

What if it is a group of thieves or murderers who collectively decide to do it and sanctify their actions by saying it is the will of the collective? What makes the collective so holy that anything it thinks of is the equal to the will of God?

Taxation for the proper running of a government and taking care of its weakest citizens never has been thievery, ihef. And the government can, if empowered by the citizens, to do things that individuals cannot do to one another.

Your problem is that you don't believe in the social compact in which we give up a bit in order to receive much.

Really go back and take Government 101, read Locke and Jefferson again, then consider the Federalist Papers.

I am beginning to read a lot and realizing their is quite a difference between Locke and Rosseiu in which he said crazy things like the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Its crazy but then I hear the same stuff being repeated in modern liberals like "we give up a bit in order to receive much".

I also read the part where Jefferson and Locke believed we had certain inalienable rights among witch are the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or Life, Liberty, and property (Locke). Those rights give me the power to deny anyone else access to those things which includes the government.

No where are you going to find a denial by Locke and Jefferson about a government's right or power in taxation, ihef. You are carrying the libertarian position to goofiness.

 

[ihopehefails]

Taxation for the proper running of a government and taking care of its weakest citizens never has been thievery, ihef. And the government can, if empowered by the citizens, to do things that individuals cannot do to one another.

Your problem is that you don't believe in the social compact in which we give up a bit in order to receive much.

Really go back and take Government 101, read Locke and Jefferson again, then consider the Federalist Papers.

I am beginning to read a lot and realizing their is quite a difference between Locke and Rosseiu in which he said crazy things like the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Its crazy but then I hear the same stuff being repeated in modern liberals like "we give up a bit in order to receive much".

I also read the part where Jefferson and Locke believed we had certain inalienable rights among witch are the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or Life, Liberty, and property (Locke). Those rights give me the power to deny anyone else access to those things which includes the government.

No where are you going to find a denial by Locke and Jefferson about a government's right or power in taxation, ihef. You are carrying the libertarian position to goofiness.

The government has the power to tax because we gave that right to them. The constitution gives the government that right to levy taxes on us. That is the nature of the contract where we give it certain rights for certain purposes that we want and we individually retain every other one for ourselves.