Liberals! Where Is Your Self-Respect??

[NYcarbineer]

Poorly decided decision.
It is not in the enumerated powers.

What powers? It's a privacy issue. The fetus has no rights in the Constitution. In order to constitutionally violate a woman's right to privacy you have to invent personhood for the fetus.

"What powers? It's a privacy issue."

Article I, section 8, dunce.

No. State your case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have the right to jump off the Empire State building...but due to safeguards engineered into the building, I do not have the ability to exercise that right.

Does that mean I don't have the right to jump?

You have the ability to jump off, but "right" is a different question. Why should anyone have the right to endanger those on the street below? If you're talking suicide in general, it's a choice and "right" doesn't seem to come into it at all.

You don't believe in rights anyway, so it's useless discussing this with you.

Is the right to an abortion a natural right? Is it an inalienable right, an endowment from the Creator.

If not why not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

This is wrong.

PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?

Nothing. But how does that negate my rights?

Hint: It doesn't.

Did you ever hear the joke about the difference between theory and reality?

 

[daveman]

You have the ability to jump off, but "right" is a different question. Why should anyone have the right to endanger those on the street below? If you're talking suicide in general, it's a choice and "right" doesn't seem to come into it at all.

You don't believe in rights anyway, so it's useless discussing this with you.

Is the right to an abortion a natural right? Is it an inalienable right, an endowment from the Creator.

If not why not?

It's not, because it takes an innocent life.

 

[daveman]

PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?

Nothing. But how does that negate my rights?

Hint: It doesn't.

Did you ever hear the joke about the difference between theory and reality?

Are you joining konrad in his silly view that a right that's violated isn't a right at all?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What powers? It's a privacy issue. The fetus has no rights in the Constitution. In order to constitutionally violate a woman's right to privacy you have to invent personhood for the fetus.

"What powers? It's a privacy issue."

Article I, section 8, dunce.

No. State your case.

Although the case is very simple....it remains far too abstruse for those of your limitations.

Here we are discussing the Constitution, and you claim to have cachet in the discussion....yet you have no idea of the enumerated powers.


To be clear... I am not removing you from the discussion...it is your paucity of knowledge that makes you ineligible.

On the other hand, I enjoy your attempts to embarrass yourself.
Proceed.

 

[konradv]

Then rights changed when you cross national borders?

Do people in China have the innate human right to free speech or not?

There is no such thing as an innate human right. It's something that needs to be fought for and protected. Absent that, they're just words.

This reveals a great deal about you.

And it's not complimentary.

It reveals a great deal about you, that you're willing to believe fairy tales. If you believe human rights are inalienable, why do you protest anytime it looks like someone wants to take your guns? Because I believe what I do doesn't mean I don't believe in human rights, just that there's nothing natural about them. In nature it's strength that rules. If we don't have an entity backing up our rights, we have to keep one eye open every second and as soon as we fall asleep they could be gone. That's the real world.

 

[daveman]

There is no such thing as an innate human right. It's something that needs to be fought for and protected. Absent that, they're just words.

This reveals a great deal about you.

And it's not complimentary.

It reveals a great deal about you, that you're willing to believe fairy tales. If you believe human rights are inalienable, why do you protest anytime it looks like someone wants to take your guns? Because I believe what I do doesn't mean I don't believe in human rights, just that there's nothing natural about them. In nature it's strength that rules. If we don't have an entity backing up our rights, we have to keep one eye open every second and as soon as we fall asleep they could be gone. That's the real world.

...says the guy who wants to take away my inherent right to self-defense.

 

[konradv]

This reveals a great deal about you.

And it's not complimentary.

It reveals a great deal about you, that you're willing to believe fairy tales. If you believe human rights are inalienable, why do you protest anytime it looks like someone wants to take your guns? Because I believe what I do doesn't mean I don't believe in human rights, just that there's nothing natural about them. In nature it's strength that rules. If we don't have an entity backing up our rights, we have to keep one eye open every second and as soon as we fall asleep they could be gone. That's the real world.

...says the guy who wants to take away my inherent right to self-defense.

More fairy tales. When have I ever said that? You have to start trying to live in the real world.

 

[Londoner]

Dewey's objection to Natural Rights does not stem from a belief that the individual has no rights. It stems from a rejection of the concept of natural rights, which holds that there are universal, eternal, divinely ordained rights. He doesn't think Rights come from God, nor does he think they are absolute, timeless or unchanging.

He believes that Rights emerge democratically from free citizens who take an active role in constructing the world in which they live. Dewey believed that citizens should be empowered to vote on the standards by which they live - and select Rights which reflect those standards.

The reason he does not believe in one set of Absolute Universal Rights for all time is that he thinks, with Darwin, that humans evolve and change. So for instance, in the 1800s, a white man did not have the right to marry a black woman. However, over time, our moral and political standards changed - so too did our beliefs about human nature. We no longer think of blacks as less human (or fundamentally different) than Whites. And so… as our beliefs changed, we revised our Rights according to our changing situation. Therefore, today, a black human has a Right to marry white Humans. Rights changed with our evolving beliefs/standards. This contradicts the theory of Natural Rights, which holds that there is one set of permanent unchanging Rights delivered by God (or Nature or History, in the Hegelian sense).

If you read Dewey's "Democracy and Education" you will see what he means. He believes that students are not mere receptacles for the traditions/beliefs of their ancestors - they are instead active participants in creating the kind of world they live in. He thinks that a citizenry should have the freedom to analyze their world and select their own personally meaningful values/traditions. For Dewey the most precious thing is human freedom, specifically the Right to choose the kind of world you want to live in. He didn't subscribed to anarchy, with each person deciding for himself which Rights/Laws have authority; he believed in Democracy, and returning power to the people by allowing them to debate and vote on the rules by which to live.

What really separates Dewey from the Right is that he had greater allegiance to Democracy than Tradition or Religion. For the Right, we must live in the world as God intends. For Dewey, we must live in the world as the people intend (through democratic institutions like public debate and voting)

There are great arguments against Dewey's concept of Rights, but it's false to say that his objection to Natural Rights is an objection of individual Rights per se. They are two very different things. This post reflects the kind of intellectual dishonesty and laziness that has marked the Right since it became an activist movement. Rather than a concern for truth, our greatest political party has become a collection of think tanks which spread talking points to useful idiots.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dewey's objection to Natural Rights does not stem from a belief that the individual has no rights. It stems from a rejection of the concept of natural rights, which holds that there are universal, eternal, divinely ordained rights. He doesn't think Rights come from God, nor does he think they are absolute, timeless or unchanging.

He believes that Rights emerge democratically from free citizens who take an active role in constructing the world in which they live. Dewey believed that citizens should be empowered to vote on the standards by which they live - and select Rights which reflect those standards.

The reason he does not believe in one set of Absolute Universal Rights for all time is that he thinks, with Darwin, that humans evolve and change. So for instance, in the 1800s, a white man did not have the right to marry a black woman. However, over time, our moral and political standards changed - so too did our beliefs about human nature. We no longer think of blacks as less human (or fundamentally different) than Whites. And so… as our beliefs changed, we revised our Rights according to our changing situation. Therefore, today, a black human has a Right to marry white Humans. Rights changed with our evolving beliefs/standards. This contradicts the theory of Natural Rights, which holds that there is one set of permanent unchanging Rights delivered by God (or Nature or History, in the Hegelian sense).

If you read Dewey's "Democracy and Education" you will see what he means. He believes that students are not mere receptacles for the traditions/beliefs of their ancestors - they are instead active participants in creating the kind of world they live in. He thinks that a citizenry should have the freedom to analyze their world and select their own personally meaningful values/traditions. For Dewey the most precious thing is human freedom, specifically the Right to choose the kind of world you want to live in. He didn't subscribed to anarchy, with each person deciding for himself which Rights/Laws have authority; he believed in Democracy, and returning power to the people by allowing them to debate and vote on the rules by which to live.

What really separates Dewey from the Right is that he had greater allegiance to Democracy than Tradition or Religion. For the Right, we must live in the world as God intends. For Dewey, we must live in the world as the people intend (through democratic institutions like public debate and voting)

There are great arguments against Dewey's concept of Rights, but it's false to say that his objection to Natural Rights is an objection of individual Rights per se. They are two very different things. This post reflects the kind of intellectual dishonesty and laziness that has marked the Right since it became an activist movement. Rather than a concern for truth, our greatest political party has become a collection of think tanks which spread talking points to useful idiots.

Reality is defined by actions, rather than words.


Dewey linked arms, in every sense, with those who believe that killing a few million human beings is just peachy-keen, if it establishes your view of a 'worker's paradise.'


Wise up....Dewey was just another thug hiding behind socialist theory.

 

[Moonglow]

when you peel back the onion, all they really care about is the free gubmint stuff.

yes , there is polly parrot, mimicing the so called great idealism which the gop has built their house upon. Such a rotten structure of hate and envy. Please tell me what free stuff i get, i would like to know considering i do not qualify for any free gubmit stuff. But you probably know, since that is the best education you have, and the ability to embrace. Keep on with that stupid statement and the gop's house will continue to be vacant after the next presidential elections.

we have a winner!!!


in the category of "unintentional humor"....it's

(drum roll......)

.........drop-draws!!!! Hooray!



Now....let's get this straight....
...you support an administration that won on class warfare.....

...........against the 'evil rich'.....


....and you think...(did i inadvertently suggest that drop-draws thinks???)....


....it's the gop that's built on "a rotten structure of hate and envy..."

knee-slapper right there!!


Now....before you collect your prize, you'll need to take a urine test to see how many drugs you're on.....unless you live in washington or colorado.....

gfy

 

[daveman]

It reveals a great deal about you, that you're willing to believe fairy tales. If you believe human rights are inalienable, why do you protest anytime it looks like someone wants to take your guns? Because I believe what I do doesn't mean I don't believe in human rights, just that there's nothing natural about them. In nature it's strength that rules. If we don't have an entity backing up our rights, we have to keep one eye open every second and as soon as we fall asleep they could be gone. That's the real world.

...says the guy who wants to take away my inherent right to self-defense.

More fairy tales. When have I ever said that? You have to start trying to live in the real world.

Really? You don't want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own weapons?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't believe in rights anyway, so it's useless discussing this with you.

Is the right to an abortion a natural right? Is it an inalienable right, an endowment from the Creator.

If not why not?

It's not, because it takes an innocent life.

No. I don't consider it an innocent life. It is not even considered an innocent life in the US Constitution that was written by the men who also, generally, signed onto the Declaration of Independence which is one of the sources of this concept of inalienable rights.

Isn't it my inalienable right to decide what is or isn't a natural right? Didn't my Creator endow me with that liberty?

It's very convenient for you conservative dictators to first decide what game we're going to have to play,

and then decide that it's you conservative dictators who will dictate the rules of that game.

According to the conservative,

there are of course natural rights that God chose to endow us with, and now I'll tell you what they are,

because, by some form of magic, I, the conservative dictator, was chosen to speak for God.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"What powers? It's a privacy issue."

Article I, section 8, dunce.

No. State your case.

Although the case is very simple....it remains far too abstruse for those of your limitations.

Here we are discussing the Constitution, and you claim to have cachet in the discussion....yet you have no idea of the enumerated powers.


To be clear... I am not removing you from the discussion...it is your paucity of knowledge that makes you ineligible.

On the other hand, I enjoy your attempts to embarrass yourself.
Proceed.

In other words, you don't like abortion rights, you don't like Roe v. Wade, you can proclaim it wrong,

but you don't have a clue as to how to make a case to support that proclamation.

The smokescreen of bluster and feigned superiority you throw up in lieu of an intelligent argument,

well, you insult my intelligence to think that I can't see through that.

1. There are no protections for the fetus as a person in the Constitution.

2. In the absence of that constitutional protection, the abortion becomes a permissible act protected by a woman's right to privacy.

3. Any state or federal law that would violate that right to privacy is in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...says the guy who wants to take away my inherent right to self-defense.

More fairy tales. When have I ever said that? You have to start trying to live in the real world.

Really? You don't want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own weapons?

You are not entitled to unfettered, unlimited rights in the Constitution.

 

[koshergrl]

The constitution doesn't create rights, it protects them.

RvW cannot and did not establish a RIGHT, regardless of the wording of it or the lies told by progressive death cultists. There is no right to kill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

This is wrong.

There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.

I have the right to jump off the Empire State building...but due to safeguards engineered into the building, I do not have the ability to exercise that right.

Does that mean I don't have the right to jump?

1. Is it constitutional for the government to prevent you (as best it can) from exercising your right to jump off the Empire State Building?

2. If suicide is a God given natural right, doesn't that make assisted suicide, for both the assisted and the assistant, natural rights? And thus doesn't that make any governmental action to make illegal, criminalize, etc.,

assisted suicide a human rights violation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution doesn't create rights, it protects them.

RvW does not establish a RIGHT, regardless of the wording of it or the lies told by progressive death cultists. There is no right to kill.

Then you would agree with the statement that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a massive human rights violation.

 

[Staidhup]

Dewey was nothing more than the run of the mill elitist progressive with all the answers to what ails society. By focusing his primary philosophical belief in targeting education he believed one could mold and direct the evolution of society which would then be fit to determine what rights one should receive in the perfect society. Kum Ba Yah....Oh by the way, did anyone mention his belief in eugenics? How does that fit in your idyllic world?