Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 46 of 300 (658970)
04-11-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by caffeine
04-11-2012 3:41 AM


caffeine writes:
The third option you seem to be taking, that people don't really have these rights if they can't defend them for any reason, leads to some strange conclusions. It means that, if someone breaks into your house and steals all your possessions, then you don't actually have any right to those possessions, since you obviously don't have them any more.
Other than your attempt to put words into my mouth I can’t see anything in my previous post that leads you into thinking that is my position.
I simply responded to the idea that human rights don’t stop at the US border, with an example of human rights that do stop at the US border. Of course your response would be to ignore it and make up something else ::rolls eyes::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 04-11-2012 3:41 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:20 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 66 by caffeine, posted 04-12-2012 8:16 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 47 of 300 (658971)
04-11-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 10:47 AM


Re: Human Rights
I know right. Democrats....the best thing you can do is not vote for them, and hope they stop destroying the constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 3:33 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 48 of 300 (658989)
04-11-2012 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Artemis Entreri
04-10-2012 5:55 PM


do you have any idea how sustainable the seal population is? Do you have any idea how sustainable the Minke Whale population is?
I know how sustainable the blue whale population is . . . not very. Nearly went extinct due to whaling. We almost lost walrus populations as well. Are you really unaware of this?
Lets take a look at the difference of human rights in Ciudad Juarez and across the border at El Paso, Texas.
Human rights are the same for everyone, no matter their nationality. That is why they are called unalienable. Do governments violate human rights? Yes. Does this mean that human rights don't exist? No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-10-2012 5:55 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-11-2012 5:16 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 49 of 300 (658990)
04-11-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Artemis Entreri
04-11-2012 12:11 PM


Re: Human Rights
I know right. Democrats....the best thing you can do is not vote for them, and hope they stop destroying the constitution.
How are they destroying the Constitution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-11-2012 12:11 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 50 of 300 (658991)
04-11-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 10:47 AM


Re: Human Rights
Ergo, your rights aren't unalienable...
Proof: Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
Most of them were american citizens.
Their human rights were violated. That is quite different from unalienable rights not existing. You might as well claim that speed limits do not exist since your car can go 70 mph in a 55 zone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 4:10 PM Taq has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 300 (658997)
04-11-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
04-11-2012 3:34 PM


Re: Human Rights
Their human rights were violated. That is quite different from unalienable rights not existing.
So if you loose your rights, how do you still have them?
You might as well claim that speed limits do not exist since your car can go 70 mph in a 55 zone.
Right, to the person claiming that, because of the speed limit, I can't drive faster than 55 I would... those signs don't really limit your speed.
Just like a government defining a right as unalienable doesn't mean they can't be taken away from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 3:34 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Shield, posted 04-11-2012 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


(1)
Message 52 of 300 (658999)
04-11-2012 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 4:10 PM


Re: Human Rights
So if you loose your rights, how do you still have them?
They did not loose their basic human rights. They were violated.
Right, to the person claiming that, because of the speed limit, I can't drive faster than 55 I would... those signs don't really limit your speed.
Having rights, dosent mean they cannot be violated. Speeding limits work the same way.
Just like a government defining a right as unalienable doesn't mean they can't be taken away from you.
There is a difference between beeing stripped of your rights, and having them violated.
The UN has a set of global human rights and if goverments violate those rights, other UN participating goverments should intervene. Somehow.
--
Rights can be kind of a weird construct though. In the danish constitution, we have the freedom of expression, but at same time we have laws against expressing racist thoughts (Call someone a nigger or the danish equalent, Perker, on TV or in a paper interview, and you WILL get fined) and we have blaspemy laws. Danish ISPs also block ThePirateBay, AllOfMP3, and Grooveshark.
[edit] I'm sorry i answered your questions directed at Taq, but i couldnt help my self..
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 53 of 300 (659000)
04-11-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 4:10 PM


Re: Human Rights
So if you loose your rights, how do you still have them?
You don't lose your rights. You always have the rights that all humans have. Whether those rights are violated is a separate issue.
Right, to the person claiming that, because of the speed limit, I can't drive faster than 55 I would... those signs don't really limit your speed.
Correct, but doing 70 in a 55 does not make the speed limit go away. It is still there. You can still be ticketed for breaking the speed limit.
Violating a person's human rights does not make those rights go away. They are not lost. They are still there.
Human rights are not things that humans are physically incapable of doing. They are moral guidelines of how we should treat each other. To reference Hume, human rights are an ought, not an is. We can say that slavery is bad because it violates human rights. Showing that someone owns a slave does not make this human rights violation go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 5:20 PM Taq has replied
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2012 10:03 AM Taq has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 54 of 300 (659001)
04-11-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Taq
04-11-2012 3:32 PM


weak sauce
taq writes:
I know how sustainable the blue whale population is . . . not very. Nearly went extinct due to whaling. We almost lost walrus populations as well. Are you really unaware of this?
when in doubt change the topic. is this your attitude? your weak tactics. this isn't about blue whales and walruses, I swear you are like talking to a little kid.
I wasn’t even talking to you and each reply you go from one tangent to the next, put the bong down for a second and pay attention man.
And what is with your silly insinuations about what I am talking about or what I know when each response is clearly a made up tangent that has nothing to do with what I am talking about?
taq writes:
Human rights are the same for everyone, no matter their nationality. That is why they are called unalienable. Do governments violate human rights? Yes. Does this mean that human rights don't exist? No.
Roflmfao @ u.
You got pwnd. You stated they don’t stop at the border, I gave evidence that they do, and now you move the goalposts. LOL
Next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 3:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:24 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 300 (659002)
04-11-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
04-11-2012 5:15 PM


Re: Human Rights
Speed limits are a great example to refute inalienable rights.
There is no "right of speed limits", rather they are a consensus of a government. The fact that you have the right to drive 70mph on one road does not mean you have that right in a different jurisdiction.
Using speed limits as an example of some "Natural Right" is simply silly and irrelevant.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:22 PM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 56 of 300 (659003)
04-11-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Artemis Entreri
04-11-2012 12:10 PM


I simply responded to the idea that human rights don’t stop at the US border, with an example of human rights that do stop at the US border.
You actually didn't give any examples. Is there something intrinsic in Mexicans that prevents them from having human rights? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that they are sub-human and deserve the same treatment as dogs or cattle simply because of their geographic position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-11-2012 12:10 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-04-2012 12:24 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(3)
Message 57 of 300 (659004)
04-11-2012 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
04-11-2012 5:20 PM


Re: Human Rights
Speed limits are a great example to refute inalienable rights.
Speed limits were merely an analogy.
There is no "right of speed limits", rather they are a consensus of a government.
No one is saying that speed limits are an unalienable right. They were simply an example of the difference between absence and violation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 5:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 5:30 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 58 of 300 (659005)
04-11-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Artemis Entreri
04-11-2012 5:16 PM


Re: weak sauce
when in doubt change the topic.
And here I thougt the topic was harvest of animals. I agree that well managed hunting is fine. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is unfettered harvesting with no regulations.
You got pwnd. You stated they don’t stop at the border, I gave evidence that they do, and now you move the goalposts. LOL
And that evidence would be . . . what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-11-2012 5:16 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 300 (659006)
04-11-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
04-11-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Human Rights
But the rights are granted by a government and apply only within a given context.
We might believe certain rights "should be" inalienable, but that is simply our position. Those rights do not exist except within "our" belief context.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:22 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:35 PM jar has replied
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2012 7:22 PM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 60 of 300 (659008)
04-11-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
04-11-2012 5:30 PM


Re: Human Rights
But the rights are granted by a government and apply only within a given context.
Human rights are intrinsic to being human, and no government can take them or grant them. At least that is what Locke and many others have argued, and what the Founding Fathers alluded to as well. Governments can only protect or violate human rights.
Going back to the water example, if Congress passes a bill stating that water is no longer wet does water stop being wet? No. Wetness is intrinsic to water. In the same way, some rights are intrinsic to being human (e.g. life and liberty). These are the natural human rights.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 5:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 04-11-2012 5:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024