What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

X, being omniscient, would know that those 'ways' would hinder its progress and thus would find other ways (being omnipotent as well as omniscient).

The Skeptic's Field Guide: Moving the Goalposts

If the goals of X might be met in a number of ways, then X would be restricted to one of those ways. X would not be able to take a course that would lead to a mistake. The freedom to make mistakes is an integral part of free will.

Really? You're assuming X is bond (by what?) to only courses of action which bring X closer to its goals.

I attack your person because you're clearly a dipshit. But now I see that you're a crying dipshit. Sorry I made you cry dipshit.

I see, Child, that you're not only unable to refute anything I've said or defend any of your assertions, but you've reached that point where you must result to your childish antics yet again.

I accept your behavior as a concession.

Come back when you're able to act like a mature adult.

 

[Setarcos]

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.

Then no government can be based on justice, for the mob is always the ultimate decider. At most, the minority can limit the options of the masses to obedience or war. The decision to obey or fight, however, always rests, in the end with the mob and those who comprise it.

Simply not so. The Persians and the Romans demonstrated what can happen to a mob.

As did these men

Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and Americans love them for it.

So did these men

October Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and these, as well

Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our U.S. government backed down the farrighoid mobs at the townhall meetings, telling them to behave or go to jail.

The government is but the facade placed upon the greater mob.

 

[Setarcos]

No, I did not contradict Myself.

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.

Another basic point is that the majority is not always out of phase with Justice.

You are disingenous, and playing word games

Says the one who keeps redefining things at the tip of a hat.

 

[Setarcos]

The member seta has repeatedly for herself making emphatic assertions which have been repeatedly, directly and unambiguously challenged; challenges which she has overtly ignored; and where such has lead to sound and wholly incontrovertible refutation, she has ignored the refutation and remained to post on the pretense that her position remains whole.

1) Please try to learn how to construct a coherent sentence

2) Setarcos is a male

3) I know you're trying really hard to sound educated, but all you're doing is making yourself sound ignorant. Stick to language you understand (and punctuation) how to use, so that we can actually make an attempt at decrypting your posts.

As such she is hereby judged immoral,

By whom? You? First, how is that even remotely relevant and secondly, why do you think I care?

lacking sufficient character required to participate in adult discourse; particularly where such discourse pursues the basis of truth in sustainable governance; and as a result is sentenced to ignore.

TTFE ya lyin' sack of shit.

You certainly are a master of irony, aren't you?

Now, if you have nothing to contribute but childish attacks, I'll ask you to kindly excuse yourself from the discussion.

 

[Setarcos]

Oh look a pile-on!

As if Setarcos could give a **** eh?

Why the bloody hell does it have to get personal? Yes the style is reminiscent of someone who has sipped - watch out wanker literary reference incoming - from the Pierian Spring but so what? The style doesn't invalidate the points made.

But here we have a pile-on and Pub doing his trivilialising "she" thing. What the ****'s with that? Is it useful to use the female pronoun as an insult? Is it somehow devastating to - in a medium that doesn't count gender as being important - call a poster who is probaby a male, a female?

Yes there could be some growing up done here, but it's not limited to one of us.

sipped?

you're mean

 

[rubberhead]

Wow, setarcos has a lot to say. Too bad he's on my ignore list. I can't hear you setarcos! a little bit louder now. Maybe you can just start another account so that I can ignore you again!

 

[Setarcos]

Let the record reflect that RubberHead as offered a concession and admitted to having no rebuttal and Setarcos has accepted.

 

[Intense]

At least We are not Totally alone in Our Concept of Rights. If only there was a way to encourage compliance with action. The Lip Service is there. Guess Who?

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[Setarcos]

A fine example of the creation of positive rights through the legal machinations of the representative body of the masses

 

[rubberhead]

What was that Setarcos? I can't hear you. Speak up!

 

[Diuretic]

Oh look a pile-on!

As if Setarcos could give a **** eh?

Why the bloody hell does it have to get personal? Yes the style is reminiscent of someone who has sipped - watch out wanker literary reference incoming - from the Pierian Spring but so what? The style doesn't invalidate the points made.

But here we have a pile-on and Pub doing his trivilialising "she" thing. What the ****'s with that? Is it useful to use the female pronoun as an insult? Is it somehow devastating to - in a medium that doesn't count gender as being important - call a poster who is probaby a male, a female?

Yes there could be some growing up done here, but it's not limited to one of us.

sipped?

you're mean

True enough!

 

[rubberhead]

Oh look a pile-on!

As if Setarcos could give a **** eh?

Why the bloody hell does it have to get personal? Yes the style is reminiscent of someone who has sipped - watch out wanker literary reference incoming - from the Pierian Spring but so what? The style doesn't invalidate the points made.

But here we have a pile-on and Pub doing his trivilialising "she" thing. What the ****'s with that? Is it useful to use the female pronoun as an insult? Is it somehow devastating to - in a medium that doesn't count gender as being important - call a poster who is probaby a male, a female?

Yes there could be some growing up done here, but it's not limited to one of us.

sipped?

you're mean

True enough!

Aw, do you have to quote him?

The style doesn't invalidate the points the quibbling pedantry and insistence on "logic" without defining any terms or accepting any axioms invalidates the points.

 

[Intense]

Ditto! I prefer not to see too many details in the train wreck style postings. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This issue is resolved...

Humanity is endowed by Nature's God with the INDIVIDUAL LIVES and with those lives, individual Rights... and with those INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, come sacred responsibilities.

The ENTIRE argument of the Humanist is designed to avoid those responsibilities and the simple fact is that without responsibility; there can be no Right.

Thus the entire premise of the Humanist Left is to undermine the very concept of Human Right... and as a result, Humanists, Leftists and anyone who supports ANY FACET of such... AT ANY LEVEL... FOR ANY REASON is the mortal enemy of all free people and should be destroyed... in defense of those rights.

And it's just no more complex than that.

The good news is that they are pushing the US towards a civil war... and when they succeed... it will be the sacred duty of every American to seek them out and remove them from this life; thus destroying the cultural killing virus which they carry.

And let me tell you something... when they're being frog marched out of where ever it is that they're hiding... individually; each one will be praying to that God... and they'll be DEMANDING RESPECT for their unalienable rights, from those they tried so hard to con free people out of; having failed to recognize and respect the inherent responsibilities which sustain those rights.

Sadly, as a result... they will have forfeited their rights and will be summarily sent to stand for their final accounting; before God, who they spent so much of their life's effort to separate from his people.

The debate is over...

 

[Setarcos]

This issue is resolved...

Yes, it is

Humanity is endowed by Nature's God with the INDIVIDUAL LIVES and with those lives, individual Rights... and with those INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, come sacred responsibilities.

Define:Nature's God

Demonstrate that with life comes "sacred responsibilities"

SO all lives have these responsibilities, or only humans?

The ENTIRE argument of the Humanist is designed to avoid those responsibilities and the simple fact is that without responsibility; there can be no Right.

Actually, secular humanism requires you be responsible for your own actions and not simply pass your cruelties off as demanded by your god. Unlike your religion, secular humanists would generally condemn genocide in all instances.

And it's just no more complex than that.

Simple answers for the simpleminded

The good news is that they are pushing the US towards a civil war... and when they succeed... it will be the sacred duty of every American to seek them out and remove them from this life; thus destroying the cultural killing virus which they carry.

As I was saying about GENOCIDE...

And let me tell you something... when they're being frog marched out of where ever it is that they're hiding... they will be praying to that God... and they'll be DEMANDING RESPECT for their unalienable rights...

so you are able to justify GENOCIDE on the grounds that a man will gamble on anything when he's about to die?

The debate is over...

-and it end with you demanding GENOCIDE as a sign of your superior morality and recognition of human rights

Aren't there agencies that watch lunatics like this to prevent such atrocities?

 

[Setarcos]

Anyone have this guys real name so I can report him and the other wackos in this thread to Genocide Watch and their local police so they can keep an eye on them?

 

[rubberhead]

aww... he's trying to say something. that's so cute!

 

[Diuretic]

Pub, you know medical science can cure premature acclamation don't you?

 

[editec]

God may have "given us" rights.

But they're obviously not inalieable rights.

Any fool with a knife can take away every one of your so-called inalienable rights by killing you.

If it can be taken away from you, it's not inalienable, folks....it's far too alienable in that case.

 

[Intense]

God may have "given us" rights.

But they're obviously not inalieable rights.

Any fool with a knife can take away every one of your so-called inalienable rights by killing you.

If it can be taken away from you, it's not inalienable, folks....it's far too alienable in that case.

What You are claiming is that Our Nation has no foundation. What you misunderstand is the meaning of Inalienable Rights.




UNALIENABLE.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights