What Constitutes a "Right?"

[The Rabbi]

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).

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.

Geez are you stupid. Rights can be asserted by the barrel of a gun? WTF? What is the difference between "asserting" rights and creating rights? There is none. Zero.
I have never said government creates rights. I challenge you to find one post where I wrote that. Or that government holds all the power. Maybe to your simpleton's mind it sounds kind of like what I was saying, sort of. But in reality they are night and day.

That societies evolve isn't an issue. Of course they do. That they realize human rights by doing so is absurd. It is the most absurd assertion you've made, although I wouldn't swear to that since so much of what you've written is wrong, muddle headed, unsupported, and confused.
Societies had no, zero, concept of human rights until the Enlightenment. Do you mean that societies never evolved before that?

 

[rubberhead]

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.

Excellent quote. I wonder why there weren't a bunch of Americans clamoring to get into the USSR? Maybe it was all the anti-communism propaganda that they were indoctrinated with. OR, maybe it's that people are naturally attracted to freedom and the best of us happily give our lives in its name. The rest of us humans call themselves Rabbi Hitler in hopes that our collectivist views and pathological hypocrisy will give us good standing with the overlords that methodically executed our ancestors. I'm glad those people will eventually be extinct because they give the human race a bad name and worse yet, they give me gas.

 

[The Rabbi]

God, are you that ******* stupid? I guess so. I see conversation is rapidly becoming impossible because you are too ******* dumb to see the difference between a constitution and actual society. Did I say the Soviet Union had the most human rights? No, I did not. But your lame brain can't grasp the difference.
Geez, are you a ******* intellectual deadweight. I think I'll go debate a bowl of jello. It will have more intelligent responses than you do.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's odd that the founders claim inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, that all men are created equal, etc., but then managed also to divine from God's message that specifically he meant all white males of property and position are created equal.

When did we decide God was wrong?

What's wierd is your stark decifiency in terms of intellectual means and your adamant desire to demonstrate such.

Your entire screed proves to an absolute certainty that you are grossly unqualified to be taken seriously by anyone but the most pathetic of fools; where is it stated, anywhere in the founding charter, or by any founding Father, that only white males are created equal?

 

[rubberhead]

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).

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.

Geez are you stupid. Rights can be asserted by the barrel of a gun? WTF? What is the difference between "asserting" rights and creating rights? There is none. Zero.
I have never said government creates rights. I challenge you to find one post where I wrote that. Or that government holds all the power. Maybe to your simpleton's mind it sounds kind of like what I was saying, sort of. But in reality they are night and day.

That societies evolve isn't an issue. Of course they do. That they realize human rights by doing so is absurd. It is the most absurd assertion you've made, although I wouldn't swear to that since so much of what you've written is wrong, muddle headed, unsupported, and confused.
Societies had no, zero, concept of human rights until the Enlightenment. Do you mean that societies never evolved before that?

So you argue that a society's formal recognition of rights is required for those rights to exist? It sounds to me like collectivist garbage Rabbi Hitler and a direct contradiction to the first paragraph of the very same post. Yes, I am a simpleton in that I like to keep things simple. Let me ask you a simple question Rabbi Hitler, WHERE DO RIGHTS COME FROM? Also, if you would, riddle me this Rabbi Adolf Hitler, murderer of countless innocent Jewish people, just what constitutes a society formally recognizing individuals' rights? Would it be laws? Don't worry I'll have the common decency to give you a reach around once this rhetorical raping is over.

 

[rubberhead]

God, are you that ******* stupid? I guess so. I see conversation is rapidly becoming impossible because you are too ******* dumb to see the difference between a constitution and actual society. Did I say the Soviet Union had the most human rights? No, I did not. But your lame brain can't grasp the difference.
Geez, are you a ******* intellectual deadweight. I think I'll go debate a bowl of jello. It will have more intelligent responses than you do.

So you concede? God I'm glad that's over Rabbi Hitler. At least you had the common decency to mask your concession in a blubbering idiotic rant that I can barely make sense out of. Sorry, that's the best I could do for a rhetorical reach-around. Maybe next time just be honest about losing the debate.

 

[jillian]

Excellent quote. I wonder why there weren't a bunch of Americans clamoring to get into the USSR? Maybe it was all the anti-communism propaganda that they were indoctrinated with. OR, maybe it's that people are naturally attracted to freedom and the best of us happily give our lives in its name. The rest of us humans call themselves Rabbi Hitler in hopes that our collectivist views and pathological hypocrisy will give us good standing with the overlords that methodically executed our ancestors. I'm glad those people will eventually be extinct because they give the human race a bad name and worse yet, they give me gas.

people go where there is MONEY...and FOOD...and where they can raise their families. People, largely, didn't go to the soviet union because there were no jobs, there was no food and you couldn't afford to live there.

hence them coming HERE...

do you really think "freedom" is the predominant reason people come here now? i suppose it was when the tsar's minions were breaking windows and doors on jewish homes during the pogroms, but I doubt it has muvh to do with anything now.

 

[The Rabbi]

You sound like Obama, declare victory and go home.
You are a complete ******* moron. You are unfit for debate because even the simplest differences elude you. You cannot express whatever it is you think you believe in terms that anyone could understand. When called on it, you deflect and name call.
My positions have been laid out over and over and you still refuse to wrap your tiny mind around it.
So go ahead and enjoy your fantasy that you made any sense.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

ROFLMNAO...

Armed Rebellion is only unconstitutional where there exists a governent which is operating within the scope of the US Constitution; which would necessarily mean that any armed rebellion would be AGAINST such a just and viable government...

The US Bill of Rights, makes it clear that Armed Rebellion by the sum of individuals that comprise the citizenry, is necessary to secure the freedom of the culture (State); and that amendment to the US Constitution, specifically preserves the right of the individual to keep and bear arm for just that purpose.

Armed Rebellion against ANY GOVERNMENT which seeks to distance itself from the US Constitution is thus the DUTY of each American.

 

[Intense]

Excellent quote. I wonder why there weren't a bunch of Americans clamoring to get into the USSR? Maybe it was all the anti-communism propaganda that they were indoctrinated with. OR, maybe it's that people are naturally attracted to freedom and the best of us happily give our lives in its name. The rest of us humans call themselves Rabbi Hitler in hopes that our collectivist views and pathological hypocrisy will give us good standing with the overlords that methodically executed our ancestors. I'm glad those people will eventually be extinct because they give the human race a bad name and worse yet, they give me gas.

people go where there is MONEY...and FOOD...and where they can raise their families. People, largely, didn't go to the soviet union because there were no jobs, there was no food and you couldn't afford to live there.

hence them coming HERE...

do you really think "freedom" is the predominant reason people come here now? i suppose it was when the tsar's minions were breaking windows and doors on jewish homes during the pogroms, but I doubt it has muvh to do with anything now.

Just a minor reference the Mass Graves would have been a nice touch. Totalitarianism is about as low as it gets. There is no excuse.

 

[rubberhead]

You sound like Obama, declare victory and go home.
You are a complete ******* moron. You are unfit for debate because even the simplest differences elude you. You cannot express whatever it is you think you believe in terms that anyone could understand. When called on it, you deflect and name call.
My positions have been laid out over and over and you still refuse to wrap your tiny mind around it.
So go ahead and enjoy your fantasy that you made any sense.

Well, Rabbi Adolf Hitler, you've come a long way since your last unintelligible rant. You're a little bit more irate and making so much less sense. I see that you feeling that my intellectual raping of you has wronged you and you are now considering aborting the resulting pregnancy of new ideas. I can only say that I will support the baby if you would only endure the labor. But, being that you are Rabbi Adolf Hitler the Promoter of the Genocide of Innocent German Jewish People By the Millions, I can only expect you will be compelled to do everything in your power to destroy that beautiful human life because after all, you are Rabbi Adolf Hitler. I pray for your soul (if you have one) and the health of the child in your intellectual womb

 

[Intense]

God, are you that ******* stupid? I guess so. I see conversation is rapidly becoming impossible because you are too ******* dumb to see the difference between a constitution and actual society. Did I say the Soviet Union had the most human rights? No, I did not. But your lame brain can't grasp the difference.
Geez, are you a ******* intellectual deadweight. I think I'll go debate a bowl of jello. It will have more intelligent responses than you do.

So you concede? God I'm glad that's over Rabbi Hitler. At least you had the common decency to mask your concession in a blubbering idiotic rant that I can barely make sense out of. Sorry, that's the best I could do for a rhetorical reach-around. Maybe next time just be honest about losing the debate.

Lets distinguish between God, Church, Individual, Society, Law, And Government while We are at it. Let's not confuse them, or blame one for something they had no say or power over.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's convoluted to believe that armed rebellion is unconstitutional? lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

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


.

Well, when tyranny returns, in a form more real than the fevered hallucinations of the wingnuts, then maybe Jefferson's quote will be applicable.

or as someone else put it, some people are confusing tyranny with losing an election.

 

[rubberhead]

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.

It's convoluted to believe that armed rebellion is unconstitutional? lol

There's no better way for a constitution to prove its legitimacy by encouraging armed rebellion against a government that violates the principles enshrined in the constitution. Does that make any sense? It does to me.

 

[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. 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.

It's convoluted to believe that armed rebellion is unconstitutional? lol

Armed Rebellion Against a Lawful Government is an attack on the Constitution, should the Government become an Enemy to The Constitution it would no longer be a Lawful Government. Armed Rebellion against Tyranny Is Lawful. It's sort of mandated. You may be taking allot for granted in relation to the Authority of The State. Above All Else the State needs to be, needs to remain Justified or it will crumble.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[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...

..

Such shrillness, very unbecoming.

Actually there are several hundred thousand government employees overseas defending your rights, aren't there?

They're called soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

 

[The Rabbi]

You sound like Obama, declare victory and go home.
You are a complete ******* moron. You are unfit for debate because even the simplest differences elude you. You cannot express whatever it is you think you believe in terms that anyone could understand. When called on it, you deflect and name call.
My positions have been laid out over and over and you still refuse to wrap your tiny mind around it.
So go ahead and enjoy your fantasy that you made any sense.

Well, Rabbi Adolf Hitler, you've come a long way since your last unintelligible rant. You're a little bit more irate and making so much less sense. I see that you feeling that my intellectual raping of you has wronged you and you are now considering aborting the resulting pregnancy of new ideas. I can only say that I will support the baby if you would only endure the labor. But, being that you are Rabbi Adolf Hitler the Promoter of the Genocide of Innocent German Jewish People By the Millions, I can only expect you will be compelled to do everything in your power to destroy that beautiful human life because after all, you are Rabbi Adolf Hitler. I pray for your soul (if you have one) and the health of the child in your intellectual womb

You have yet to restate what I think in a way that shows you actually understand it, much less can form an argument against it. You are the intellectual equivalent of fast food. When faced with questions you cannot answer or that would reveal the gaping holes in whatever you call a view you change subjects or declare victory.
Total waste of DNA.

 

[Intense]

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.

It's convoluted to believe that armed rebellion is unconstitutional? lol

There's no better way for a constitution to prove its legitimacy by encouraging armed rebellion against a government that violates the principles enshrined in the constitution. Does that make any sense? It does to me.

Totally, Most of the Founders were more concerned about the Threat of Encroachment, Usurpation, and Tyranny, over all other threats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's convoluted to believe that armed rebellion is unconstitutional? lol

Armed Rebellion Against a Lawful Government is an attack on the Constitution, should the Government become an Enemy to The Constitution it would no longer be a Lawful Government. Armed Rebellion against Tyranny Is Lawful. It's sort of mandated. You may be taking allot for granted in relation to the Authority of The State. Above All Else the State needs to be, needs to remain Justified or it will crumble.

There is no lawful course for armed rebellion. And we are not even remotely anywheres near having an unlawful tyrannical anti-constitutional government in place.