What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

God's existence is only an opinion, therefore any claim of anything coming from God is also only an opinion.
Therefore if Natural Rights are rights claimed to have come from God, that is merely an opinion of their source,

and since a God has never demonstrated his own ability to protect your rights, but government has,

it is a better argument, between the two, that rights in practice come from the government that establishes and protects them, not from a supernatural being who exists only as an exercise of faith.

Who do you turn to for redress if your rights are violated in America? God or the government?

I turn to God First.

This Government broke away from Britain because We Claimed Inalienable Right? Would You have us give everything back. Just because You do not agree with a premise, do not use your disbelief to fabricate History. Your God may Very well be Society or Government, yet those Roots are more exposed than the Acknowledgement that God Is. The only thing You Represent is the Hi-Jacking of History, and Government. Yet You can Neither Create nor Destroy Conscience.

The vision of 'inalienable rights' was immaterial to our rebellion against Great Britain. It was nothing more than rhetorical embellishment.

You turn to God first if your rights are violated? If the police searched your premises without a warrant, or if your town board passed an ordinance banning all guns, you go to your church, or fall down on your knees and pray for redress? No, you wouldn't. You'd go to court, at least you would if you actually wanted the situation remedied.

Nope. First One needs to be grounded. When Tragedy Strikes, when The Unexpected Strikes, is the Best Time to Soul Search. Then Proceed. I don't Personally go to Church to Pray. That's two wrong assumptions right there. Why not cut bait?

 

[Intense]

I can't understand it because it isn't English.
So as long as I have an equal amount of rights with, say, Barney Frank then I have rights?
Civilization evolves towards natural rights? That is self contradictory. If rights are natural, then everyone has them. If it takes an evolution of civilization to insure them, then they aren't natural rights.
And can you point out the difference between a tyrant violating rights and a tyrant taking away rights? A practical difference, I mean.

If you can't read, then I can't really justify helping you learn without due compensation. To untwist your purposeful distortion of my claims, civilization evolves toward a recognition that all have equal rights, making the concept a natural one because the evolution is a natural process. Yes, natural rights are natural and everyone has them. Thanks for the (uncharacteristically reasonable) concession.

Tyrant violates rights:

The people can rebel and (hopefully) overcome the tyrant.

Tyrant "takes away" rights:

People are somehow deprived of their agency and are rendered unable to act in their own interests because of some mind control ray that the tyrant has.


Could you clarify where you think rights come from? Just curious.

Armed rebellion is unconstitutional.

Armed Rebellion Against Legal Government Is Unconstitutional, So is An Illegal Government that Ignores and Fails to Defend The Constitution. Why not Just say that You are a Statist, and when your kind are in control, they can do no wrong. It's Total Bullshit, Your God being the Consensus of the State, but you would at least be Honest about your convoluted views.

 

[Intense]

I can't understand it because it isn't English.
So as long as I have an equal amount of rights with, say, Barney Frank then I have rights?
Civilization evolves towards natural rights? That is self contradictory. If rights are natural, then everyone has them. If it takes an evolution of civilization to insure them, then they aren't natural rights.
And can you point out the difference between a tyrant violating rights and a tyrant taking away rights? A practical difference, I mean.

If you can't read, then I can't really justify helping you learn without due compensation. To untwist your purposeful distortion of my claims, civilization evolves toward a recognition that all have equal rights, making the concept a natural one because the evolution is a natural process. Yes, natural rights are natural and everyone has them. Thanks for the (uncharacteristically reasonable) concession.

Tyrant violates rights:

The people can rebel and (hopefully) overcome the tyrant.

Tyrant "takes away" rights:

People are somehow deprived of their agency and are rendered unable to act in their own interests because of some mind control ray that the tyrant has.


Could you clarify where you think rights come from? Just curious.

M reading is fine. Your ability to think and express those thoughts logically and coherently is at issue here.
So you are saying that rights are "natural" because society's evolution is a natural process? I guess the Soviet Union didn't have natural rights because their society was maed by artificial process.
So in your example rights are synonymous with individual agency and/or will?

To clarify my position: rights are artificial constructs of society and depend on what people generally and characteristically believe those rights to be.
So a racist sheriff in rural Alabama might believe Blacks have no right to due process but through appeals the judicial system will enforce society's belief to the contrary.

Not big on Faith and God Rabbi? You sure of the Path You are on? King David would agree with You? I don't think so. When Solomon dedicated The temple in 1 Kings Chapter 8, Who was it dedicated to? Whom did He Petition for Justice?

 

[rubberhead]

I can't understand it because it isn't English.
So as long as I have an equal amount of rights with, say, Barney Frank then I have rights?
Civilization evolves towards natural rights? That is self contradictory. If rights are natural, then everyone has them. If it takes an evolution of civilization to insure them, then they aren't natural rights.
And can you point out the difference between a tyrant violating rights and a tyrant taking away rights? A practical difference, I mean.

If you can't read, then I can't really justify helping you learn without due compensation. To untwist your purposeful distortion of my claims, civilization evolves toward a recognition that all have equal rights, making the concept a natural one because the evolution is a natural process. Yes, natural rights are natural and everyone has them. Thanks for the (uncharacteristically reasonable) concession.

Tyrant violates rights:

The people can rebel and (hopefully) overcome the tyrant.

Tyrant "takes away" rights:

People are somehow deprived of their agency and are rendered unable to act in their own interests because of some mind control ray that the tyrant has.


Could you clarify where you think rights come from? Just curious.

M reading is fine. Your ability to think and express those thoughts logically and coherently is at issue here.
So you are saying that rights are "natural" because society's evolution is a natural process? I guess the Soviet Union didn't have natural rights because their society was maed by artificial process.
So in your example rights are synonymous with individual agency and/or will?

To clarify my position: rights are artificial constructs of society and depend on what people generally and characteristically believe those rights to be.
So a racist sheriff in rural Alabama might believe Blacks have no right to due process but through appeals the judicial system will enforce society's belief to the contrary.

I argue that the Soviet Union failed because they failed to respect the rights of others and they weren't legitimate enough to survive. Some would argue that the USSR is just sleeping, but I'll leave that to history. If a republic violates its peoples' rights or those of external people, then they will undergo selection pressure as a species or more specifically an allele does when it expresses some trait that affects the fitness of an organism. Ultimately, the republic that respects the rights of the people the most will be the strongest, because it will be the most prosperous and capable (because it lacks the level of internal friction of totalitarian states) and its people, being free, will be more dedicated to its survival in general. The stronger entity survives, the weaker one dies. That's how evolution works.

So you believe that society can exist without a concept of rights? Who agrees upon those rights? What do people have before society emerges? To What is the emergence of society a reaction?

I have to second the notion that your bit about the sheriff is incoherent. You need to come up with a better counterexample.

The sheriff may violate the rights of blacks, but he cannot remove those rights and that is proven by the recourse of the blacks be it a legal recourse or otherwise. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Are you just trying to be contrary? Or has your mind already changed but you don't want to admit it here in the most anonymous of forums? The word hard-headed is not strong enough to describe your pathos.

 

[Contumacious]

If you can't read, then I can't really justify helping you learn without due compensation. To untwist your purposeful distortion of my claims, civilization evolves toward a recognition that all have equal rights, making the concept a natural one because the evolution is a natural process. Yes, natural rights are natural and everyone has them. Thanks for the (uncharacteristically reasonable) concession.

Tyrant violates rights:

The people can rebel and (hopefully) overcome the tyrant.

Tyrant "takes away" rights:

People are somehow deprived of their agency and are rendered unable to act in their own interests because of some mind control ray that the tyrant has.


Could you clarify where you think rights come from? Just curious.

Armed rebellion is unconstitutional.

Armed Rebellion Against Legal Government Is Unconstitutional, So is An Illegal Government that Ignores and Fails to Defend The Constitution. .

I see.

So the Jews had no choice but to meekly march to the gas chambers, right?


What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? -- Thomas Jefferson



What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson


.

 

[Intense]

Armed rebellion is unconstitutional.

Armed Rebellion Against Legal Government Is Unconstitutional, So is An Illegal Government that Ignores and Fails to Defend The Constitution. .

I see.

So the Jews had no choice but to meekly march to the gas chambers, right?


What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? -- Thomas Jefferson

What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson


.

Losing continuity here. What is the point and what is the connection?

Jews had choice, Jews fought for USA in Europe and The Pacific, they fought Valiantly with Yugoslavia? Some trusted in the Powers of Government and either stayed too long, or did not have the chance to leave.

 

[rubberhead]

Interesting that you both consider taxation to be the equivalent to theft. I hate to break it to you boys, but taxation has been an anthropological element of societal belonging for literally thousands of years. Its time to start getting used to it- you know, evolve with the rest of us, and all that jazz.

This is a straw man if I've ever seen one. I'm not saying that taxation to fund those services that protect my rights is theft. Because I consent to it since I do not wish to attempt to provide those services for myself. However, if there is a service that I do not wish to use or I don't think it's the governments place to provide that "service" for me, then I am being plundered when I am coerced by force of law to pay for those services. If someone believes that it benefits all of society to "spread the wealth", then let them do so of their own free will. I'm not sure if you are arguing for entitlement programs, but if you are let your argument be buried with Teddy Kennedy. Oh, and the fact that you are a soldier, while I thank you for your service, adds absolutely no weight to your argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you can't read, then I can't really justify helping you learn without due compensation. To untwist your purposeful distortion of my claims, civilization evolves toward a recognition that all have equal rights, making the concept a natural one because the evolution is a natural process. Yes, natural rights are natural and everyone has them. Thanks for the (uncharacteristically reasonable) concession.

Tyrant violates rights:

The people can rebel and (hopefully) overcome the tyrant.

Tyrant "takes away" rights:

People are somehow deprived of their agency and are rendered unable to act in their own interests because of some mind control ray that the tyrant has.


Could you clarify where you think rights come from? Just curious.

M reading is fine. Your ability to think and express those thoughts logically and coherently is at issue here.
So you are saying that rights are "natural" because society's evolution is a natural process? I guess the Soviet Union didn't have natural rights because their society was maed by artificial process.
So in your example rights are synonymous with individual agency and/or will?

To clarify my position: rights are artificial constructs of society and depend on what people generally and characteristically believe those rights to be.
So a racist sheriff in rural Alabama might believe Blacks have no right to due process but through appeals the judicial system will enforce society's belief to the contrary.

I argue that the Soviet Union failed because they failed to respect the rights of others and they weren't legitimate enough to survive. Some would argue that the USSR is just sleeping, but I'll leave that to history. If a republic violates its peoples' rights or those of external people, then they will undergo selection pressure as a species or more specifically an allele does when it expresses some trait that affects the fitness of an organism. Ultimately, the republic that respects the rights of the people the most will be the strongest, because it will be the most prosperous and capable (because it lacks the level of internal friction of totalitarian states) and its people, being free, will be more dedicated to its survival in general. The stronger entity survives, the weaker one dies. That's how evolution works.

So you believe that society can exist without a concept of rights? Who agrees upon those rights? What do people have before society emerges? To What is the emergence of society a reaction?

I have to second the notion that your bit about the sheriff is incoherent. You need to come up with a better counterexample.

The sheriff may violate the rights of blacks, but he cannot remove those rights and that is proven by the recourse of the blacks be it a legal recourse or otherwise. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Are you just trying to be contrary? Or has your mind already changed but you don't want to admit it here in the most anonymous of forums? The word hard-headed is not strong enough to describe your pathos.

The Weimar Republic had one of the strongest statements of rights in history. The Soviet constitution of 1925 also had strong statements of rights. History seems to be contradicting you.
Societies have existed without a concept of rights right up until the Enlightenment in W.Europe. Many still do today. Saudi Arabia would be a good example. Sudan probably another one. There is no such concept in the "Old Testament" and probably not in the New either, despite what one forum dipshit here thinks. They didnt even have words for what we call "natural rights".
The recourse of the Blacks testifies only to my idea that it is society in general that decides what rights are. If they never found a court or authority that agreed with them, they wouldn't have those rights.
I am sorry that this concept is so alien to you and you cannot wrap your mind around it. But there it is.

 

[rubberhead]

Armed Rebellion Against Legal Government Is Unconstitutional, So is An Illegal Government that Ignores and Fails to Defend The Constitution. .

I see.

So the Jews had no choice but to meekly march to the gas chambers, right?


What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? -- Thomas Jefferson

What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson


.

Losing continuity here. What is the point and what is the connection?

Jews had choice, Jews fought for USA in Europe and The Pacific, they fought Valiantly with Yugoslavia? Some trusted in the Powers of Government and either stayed too long, or did not have the chance to leave.

Yeah, there are so many examples of Jewish resistance that it's not even really worth mentioning. Those who could not escape the gas chamber were an unfortunate consequence of the force gathered by Hitler. A force that he would not have had if Germans had realized that he had no power without their consent. Oh well, I guess we don't have to make that mistake again!

 

[The Rabbi]

I see.

So the Jews had no choice but to meekly march to the gas chambers, right?

Some of them fled. Others went into hiding for the duration. Some committed suicide.
But you pretty well prove they didn't enjoy human rights.

 

[Intense]

The Contradiction is in Your Rationalization. The conflict with Man playing God, through Decree, is when the Decree violates or falls short, or misses the mark, like the argument of some. If there was No Right, there would be No Sin. Even Hammurabi Got that part Right.

 

[rubberhead]

M reading is fine. Your ability to think and express those thoughts logically and coherently is at issue here.
So you are saying that rights are "natural" because society's evolution is a natural process? I guess the Soviet Union didn't have natural rights because their society was maed by artificial process.
So in your example rights are synonymous with individual agency and/or will?

To clarify my position: rights are artificial constructs of society and depend on what people generally and characteristically believe those rights to be.
So a racist sheriff in rural Alabama might believe Blacks have no right to due process but through appeals the judicial system will enforce society's belief to the contrary.

I argue that the Soviet Union failed because they failed to respect the rights of others and they weren't legitimate enough to survive. Some would argue that the USSR is just sleeping, but I'll leave that to history. If a republic violates its peoples' rights or those of external people, then they will undergo selection pressure as a species or more specifically an allele does when it expresses some trait that affects the fitness of an organism. Ultimately, the republic that respects the rights of the people the most will be the strongest, because it will be the most prosperous and capable (because it lacks the level of internal friction of totalitarian states) and its people, being free, will be more dedicated to its survival in general. The stronger entity survives, the weaker one dies. That's how evolution works.

So you believe that society can exist without a concept of rights? Who agrees upon those rights? What do people have before society emerges? To What is the emergence of society a reaction?

I have to second the notion that your bit about the sheriff is incoherent. You need to come up with a better counterexample.

The sheriff may violate the rights of blacks, but he cannot remove those rights and that is proven by the recourse of the blacks be it a legal recourse or otherwise. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Are you just trying to be contrary? Or has your mind already changed but you don't want to admit it here in the most anonymous of forums? The word hard-headed is not strong enough to describe your pathos.

The Weimar Republic had one of the strongest statements of rights in history. The Soviet constitution of 1925 also had strong statements of rights. History seems to be contradicting you.
Societies have existed without a concept of rights right up until the Enlightenment in W.Europe. Many still do today. Saudi Arabia would be a good example. Sudan probably another one. There is no such concept in the "Old Testament" and probably not in the New either, despite what one forum dipshit here thinks. They didnt even have words for what we call "natural rights".
The recourse of the Blacks testifies only to my idea that it is society in general that decides what rights are. If they never found a court or authority that agreed with them, they wouldn't have those rights.
I am sorry that this concept is so alien to you and you cannot wrap your mind around it. But there it is.

Blacks don't need the courts to have recourse. That's my point, dumbass. The courts simply make their recourse more peaceful (hopefully). I'm looking into the Soviet Constitution because you haven't graced us with the evidence to back up your claim. Now towel off your anus and prepare for another rhetorical raping, unless you want to just concede by ceasing to follow this thread. I would not protest since you seem incapable of properly making your case.

 

[rubberhead]

I see.

So the Jews had no choice but to meekly march to the gas chambers, right?

Some of them fled. Others went into hiding for the duration. Some committed suicide.
But you pretty well prove they didn't enjoy human rights.

I guess your advocating bringing back the principles that allowed Hitler to seize power... Hardly the sentiment of a Rabbi... Maybe you miss the days of Jews being victimized... Nothing to complain about? Check out the Israel, I'm sure you can find out something in current events that will catch your fancy!

 

[The Rabbi]

I argue that the Soviet Union failed because they failed to respect the rights of others and they weren't legitimate enough to survive. Some would argue that the USSR is just sleeping, but I'll leave that to history. If a republic violates its peoples' rights or those of external people, then they will undergo selection pressure as a species or more specifically an allele does when it expresses some trait that affects the fitness of an organism. Ultimately, the republic that respects the rights of the people the most will be the strongest, because it will be the most prosperous and capable (because it lacks the level of internal friction of totalitarian states) and its people, being free, will be more dedicated to its survival in general. The stronger entity survives, the weaker one dies. That's how evolution works.

So you believe that society can exist without a concept of rights? Who agrees upon those rights? What do people have before society emerges? To What is the emergence of society a reaction?

I have to second the notion that your bit about the sheriff is incoherent. You need to come up with a better counterexample.

The sheriff may violate the rights of blacks, but he cannot remove those rights and that is proven by the recourse of the blacks be it a legal recourse or otherwise. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Are you just trying to be contrary? Or has your mind already changed but you don't want to admit it here in the most anonymous of forums? The word hard-headed is not strong enough to describe your pathos.

The Weimar Republic had one of the strongest statements of rights in history. The Soviet constitution of 1925 also had strong statements of rights. History seems to be contradicting you.
Societies have existed without a concept of rights right up until the Enlightenment in W.Europe. Many still do today. Saudi Arabia would be a good example. Sudan probably another one. There is no such concept in the "Old Testament" and probably not in the New either, despite what one forum dipshit here thinks. They didnt even have words for what we call "natural rights".
The recourse of the Blacks testifies only to my idea that it is society in general that decides what rights are. If they never found a court or authority that agreed with them, they wouldn't have those rights.
I am sorry that this concept is so alien to you and you cannot wrap your mind around it. But there it is.

Blacks don't need the courts to have recourse. That's my point, dumbass. The courts simply make their recourse more peaceful (hopefully). I'm looking into the Soviet Constitution because you haven't graced us with the evidence to back up your claim. Now towel off your anus and prepare for another rhetorical raping, unless you want to just concede by ceasing to follow this thread. I would not protest since you seem incapable of properly making your case.

So how do you expect them to enjoy their alleged human rights? Rioting? DO you really think rights come out of the barrel of a gun? You sound more like Mao Tse Tung every post.
Rhetorical raping? You can't articulate what you yourself believe in a way that makes any sense. Societies evolving? WTF? Do you even know what you mean?

 

[Intense]

I argue that the Soviet Union failed because they failed to respect the rights of others and they weren't legitimate enough to survive. Some would argue that the USSR is just sleeping, but I'll leave that to history. If a republic violates its peoples' rights or those of external people, then they will undergo selection pressure as a species or more specifically an allele does when it expresses some trait that affects the fitness of an organism. Ultimately, the republic that respects the rights of the people the most will be the strongest, because it will be the most prosperous and capable (because it lacks the level of internal friction of totalitarian states) and its people, being free, will be more dedicated to its survival in general. The stronger entity survives, the weaker one dies. That's how evolution works.

So you believe that society can exist without a concept of rights? Who agrees upon those rights? What do people have before society emerges? To What is the emergence of society a reaction?

I have to second the notion that your bit about the sheriff is incoherent. You need to come up with a better counterexample.

The sheriff may violate the rights of blacks, but he cannot remove those rights and that is proven by the recourse of the blacks be it a legal recourse or otherwise. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Are you just trying to be contrary? Or has your mind already changed but you don't want to admit it here in the most anonymous of forums? The word hard-headed is not strong enough to describe your pathos.

The Weimar Republic had one of the strongest statements of rights in history. The Soviet constitution of 1925 also had strong statements of rights. History seems to be contradicting you.
Societies have existed without a concept of rights right up until the Enlightenment in W.Europe. Many still do today. Saudi Arabia would be a good example. Sudan probably another one. There is no such concept in the "Old Testament" and probably not in the New either, despite what one forum dipshit here thinks. They didnt even have words for what we call "natural rights".
The recourse of the Blacks testifies only to my idea that it is society in general that decides what rights are. If they never found a court or authority that agreed with them, they wouldn't have those rights.
I am sorry that this concept is so alien to you and you cannot wrap your mind around it. But there it is.

Blacks don't need the courts to have recourse. That's my point, dumbass. The courts simply make their recourse more peaceful (hopefully). I'm looking into the Soviet Constitution because you haven't graced us with the evidence to back up your claim. Now towel off your anus and prepare for another rhetorical raping, unless you want to just concede by ceasing to follow this thread. I would not protest since you seem incapable of properly making your case.

I just Finished "We The Living" by Ayn Rand, a First Class Account (Fiction) of Life in Russia during those times. I highly recommend it. From the Afterword in the Book


A young Russian said to her at a party in 1926,just before she left for America: "When you get there, tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are all dying". We the Living told them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some of them fled. Others went into hiding for the duration. Some committed suicide.
But you pretty well prove they didn't enjoy human rights.

I guess your advocating bringing back the principles that allowed Hitler to seize power... Hardly the sentiment of a Rabbi... Maybe you miss the days of Jews being victimized... Nothing to complain about? Check out the Israel, I'm sure you can find out something in current events that will catch your fancy!

Did you pull that out of your ass? Again?
What in my post could possibly have been mangled in your warped mind to suggest I thought that?

 

[Contumacious]

That's fine and dandy.

But the welfare state has no authority to steal from "A" in order to give to "B". So the bureaucrats failed or refused to abide by due process of law as far as the taxpayers are concerned.

I have to second that "huh?" and add a little something that has changed my mind about entitlement programs (which most often fail because they are not self sufficient and thus have no incentive to be efficient, as Social Security is failing now). A person's right to property is inherent to their right to life and liberty and here's why. Anything that a person works for (i.e. spends their time earning), they have a right to keep because it is a result of their effort and therefore an extension of their life. There is no room for interpretation here. If you force a person to give 15% of their earnings to government entitlement programs that they do not benefit from, then you are making those people 15% forced laborers. Why? because they are working for 15% of their time and they don't get to keep what they earn. It is as simple as that.


Don't even bother with the appeals to emotion because I believe that entitlement programs are just a way for demagogues to make voters dependent on them. This is the most despicable form of political advancement that our world has ever seen. Good riddance, Teddy Kennedy, I hope your special place in hell is nice and warm.

Interesting that you both consider taxation to be the equivalent to theft. I hate to break it to you boys, but taxation has been an anthropological element of societal belonging for literally thousands of years. :

I understand that parasitism has been around for thousands of year and I won't get use to it.


.

 

[rubberhead]

The Weimar Republic had one of the strongest statements of rights in history. The Soviet constitution of 1925 also had strong statements of rights. History seems to be contradicting you.
Societies have existed without a concept of rights right up until the Enlightenment in W.Europe. Many still do today. Saudi Arabia would be a good example. Sudan probably another one. There is no such concept in the "Old Testament" and probably not in the New either, despite what one forum dipshit here thinks. They didnt even have words for what we call "natural rights".
The recourse of the Blacks testifies only to my idea that it is society in general that decides what rights are. If they never found a court or authority that agreed with them, they wouldn't have those rights.
I am sorry that this concept is so alien to you and you cannot wrap your mind around it. But there it is.

Blacks don't need the courts to have recourse. That's my point, dumbass. The courts simply make their recourse more peaceful (hopefully). I'm looking into the Soviet Constitution because you haven't graced us with the evidence to back up your claim. Now towel off your anus and prepare for another rhetorical raping, unless you want to just concede by ceasing to follow this thread. I would not protest since you seem incapable of properly making your case.

So how do you expect them to enjoy their alleged human rights? Rioting? DO you really think rights come out of the barrel of a gun? You sound more like Mao Tse Tung every post.
Rhetorical raping? You can't articulate what you yourself believe in a way that makes any sense. Societies evolving? WTF? Do you even know what you mean?

No, rights don't come out of the barrel of a gun. In fact, I believe that's what you are arguing. I am merely arguing that rights can be asserted by the barrel of a gun if persistently violated. They can also be asserted, though less effectively, by civil disobedience. Again I'm sorry if you can't understand what I'm saying, maybe I can suggest some reading comprehension exercises... Yes, I believe that societies experience selection pressure from within and without and must evolve accordingly in order to survive. Those that don't die, as all of your heretofore examples (other than the PRC, which actually is evolving if you haven't noticed).

 

[rubberhead]

Some of them fled. Others went into hiding for the duration. Some committed suicide.
But you pretty well prove they didn't enjoy human rights.

I guess your advocating bringing back the principles that allowed Hitler to seize power... Hardly the sentiment of a Rabbi... Maybe you miss the days of Jews being victimized... Nothing to complain about? Check out the Israel, I'm sure you can find out something in current events that will catch your fancy!

Did you pull that out of your ass? Again?
What in my post could possibly have been mangled in your warped mind to suggest I thought that?

Well, you believe that the government holds all the power right? The collective distributes the rights don't they? That's just what Hitler believed. I'm going to start calling you Rabbi Hitler, because I can see no reasonable alternative.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The vision of 'inalienable rights' was immaterial to our rebellion against Great Britain. It was nothing more than rhetorical embellishment.

Yeah, sure... except that such is the very basis on which the Founder's of America issued the Declaration, on which the US Revolutionary War rested... Such is just the central core to the entire exercise... that's all; and what's more, such stands as the founding and thus sustaining principle on which the very concept of America rests.

You turn to God first if your rights are violated? If the police searched your premises without a warrant, or if your town board passed an ordinance banning all guns, you go to your church, or fall down on your knees and pray for redress? No, you wouldn't. You'd go to court, at least you would if you actually wanted the situation remedied.

Nope... I'd turn to God for the courage to recognize and respect and MAINTAIN, my sacred responsibilities to DEFEND MY RIGHTS... to disregard such laws and to go to work redressing the government, which operates upon and within the constraints set forth within the constitution; that rests upon principles declared and enumerated in the Founding Charter, which precludes such usurpations of the MEANS to exercise the PRE-EXISTING HUMAN RIGHTS; which enumerated SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS in that Constitution which preclude the government from advancing such unjustifiable usurpations of the means to exercise those pre-existing, God given rights.

And where such redress fails... to destroy the government, thus destroying those individuals who adhere to such; towards re-establishing the protections for those pre-existing rights...

What?! lol. God will not protect your rights. Your government will.

The only thing threatening my rights is human power and there is no greater huan power than human governance... thus only an imbecile would rely upon the greatest threat to their rights, to defend them.

Here's the thing you need to understand dumbass... YOU and ONLY YOU are responsible for defending your human rights; and FYI: you're also responsible for defending your neighbors rights...

Where you 'rely' upon the government to defend your rights, you concede whatever right that is, to the government... Thus you are no longer rightfully entitled TO whatever that is, as YOU FORFEITED such by conceding the sustaining responsibility to that government.

Now friends... examine this idiots point of view.

Understand what she is saying... She is saying that it is the GOVERNMENT that determines your rights... She has stated such EMPHATICALLY and under no uncertaint terms.

Now imagine that if tomorrow, the Government issued the decree that feminized panty-waist Leftists were persona-non-grata and put a bounty of $50 on the head of such.

Further declaring it the DUTY of every American to ferret out such individuals, kill them and severe their heads from their bodies; and to turn in those heads for the aforementioned $50 bounty.

Now does anyone here actually believe that this moonbat would conclude that the Government determines her rights and that the Government as the Alpha and Omega had deterined that she has not rights and as a result, she's no choice but to turn herself in for 'termination...'?

Oh NOoooooouuu... She'd be scrambling around for a second opinion... DESPITE HAVING ADVOCATED FOR PRECISELY THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO MAKE SUCH ABSURD CALLS.

Thus demonstrating her status as thread Jester.

LOL...












Leftists...