Define "rights".

[haymarket]

Obviously. That's why we more formally define reason, logic, math, science. As a way to test whether they are, or are not, reasonable, logical, true, science, etc. If we're not being reasonable or logical, you could show us where. As we are showing you the holes in your reasoning. I'm not saying it's obvious....but it is straightforward once you understand it. I'm as skeptical as they come, and I hate in my bones academic elitism and all that big word bull**** and pontification and pseudo-science time wasting This, is not that.

So then it is entirely possible that this ability to think is simply creating this whole idea of natural rights?

I think it is obvious that the big hole in your reasoning is that this belief in natural rights is a self imposed belief that is not provable in and of itself.

 

[Master PO]

I don't quite understand your statement, but I must confess that I have half a glass of vodka in my system. I agree that people are confused.

thanks for the question.

chuck ....in exercising our liberty, the freedom to DO, allows citizens to do many things, and some things we as citizens do other citizens do like LIKE, notice the word LIKE, even though a citizen is exercising a right which does not infringe on another persons rights in any way, you have people who just dont LIKE how you exercise them, and they wish to use the power of government to stop you.

liberty means people are able to do things others dont like, ...........that is what freedom means.

we have a right to free speech, and what is free speech? ...........it is speech you disagree with, if we all agreed with everyone's speech, .........we would not need the right to free speech.

i am going to give an example of what i meant when you asked me a question, and i going to use racism as the tool of my example.



the founders gave us equality UNDER THE LAW.....not............not equality BY LAW.

by the founders, they meant when a government [local, state, or federal] created a law, that law must apply equally to every citizen, and no one is exempt from that law.........so every citizen is under that same law.

where people are confused---->today people think it is EQUALITY BY LAW......and this is not correct.............which is government using force of law they create...... to force people to do things against their will, even though they have not committed a crime...IE...a health or safety issue ..OR infringed on another persons rights at all.


example:

if i own a store which sells products......it is my store, ........it belongs to me..........it is my property.

so in running my property , i have the power to run it according to how i wish to run it, ......as long as i do not infringe on another persons rights, commit crimes or violate TAX and commerce laws,........which deals with taxes, .....and regulation which are designed, for health and safety reasons..........commerce laws are not designed for MORAL purposes.

so if as a business owner ..... if i am white ,and black man enters my store...i have every right to refuse to serve him......there is no right to be served.......you only have a privilege in my store, and i can deny you that privilege at any time.

what government does is try to create equality by law, ..so they create laws which force me to serve people i do not wish to serve, by fining me, and force me to change my ways, ...........or put me out of business.

so government is creating a law based on morality.........government is not a moral entity, it is given no authority under a constitution to force people to behave in a moral fashion, if they had that power, government could tell us what to eat, drink, say, behave, ..........in essence dictate to the people.

when governments force citizens to serve other people, against their will .....................they are violating the 13th amendment to the constitution......becuase they are putting a citizen into "involuntary servitude".......which is unconstitutional.

13th amendment---Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

however governments do not care, and people do not care that governments are violating the constitution........because they based on how .....they LIKE something to be.

so government again.....is using law, and creating morality laws to make people behave in the way government wants them to behave using force, and calling it.................. equality under law..............however its really equality by law......which is unconstitutional.


remember ...........life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...........happiness means property.

14th amendment--Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th says, government will not discriminate.......it does not say a citizen or a business, and it states ........life liberty or property

5th amendment--No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

property is a right, and government has no authority to dictate how i use it, UNLESS...i infringe on another rights / commit a crime, or cause a health or safety issue............government has no authority to create laws to make me moral according to their standards or code of conduct...to not discriminate.


liberty means being able to do things, other people..........just dont LIKE.

 

[Green Man]

Get off it already. I read your comment about sucking the dick of the state. Forget you.

Are you saying you don't want to accurately present your position?

You've stated that people ought not be treated as property. Do you mean they ought not be treated as property regardless of what the government says?

 

[haymarket]

Are you saying you don't want to accurately present your position?

You've stated that people ought not be treated as property. Do you mean they ought not be treated as property regardless of what the government says?

I am saying you can drop over dead and I could not care less.

Here is what you said in ax exchange with other posters about my position in this debate

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/175763-define-rights-195.html

#1950

I think it's an "I suck the state's dick" thing.

So get off the pretend phony nonsense. You are disgusting and vile and your comments are not worthy of anyone with decency and a brain.

 

[haymarket]

first:.... i notice you did not reference your so-called other fact i challenged, .....and you were in error over, .....so it seems you have just cast it out of your conversation all together.

second:.. you have changed your original statement.....here it is again from your post 1904.. "The Bill of Rights - the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were ratified as announced by Thomas Jefferson on March 1, 1792 - two and one half years later.

you stated ratification of the constitution took place in Sept 1788 in your other so-called fact.......adding 2 1/2 years to that from your second so -called fact , would put it at march 1792...so by your statement, you showed you believed ratification of the bill of rights was in march of 1792.

your squirming and trying to free yourself from that box, you put yourself in.....however by just not admitting your error, and moving on that box is getting tighter around you.

All I am trying to do is to get a straight answer out of you and that seems impossible.

Again - You do realize that the date in that statement #3 refers to the announcement by Jefferson of the ratification?

 

[Green Man]

I am saying you can drop over dead and I could not care less.

Here is what you said in ax exchange with other posters about my position in this debate

So get off the pretend phony nonsense. You are disgusting and vile and your comments are not worthy of anyone with decency and a brain.

Suit yourself. I accept you concession.

 

[haymarket]

Suit yourself. I accept you concession.

I have no concession to someone who has their mind in the gutter. Your comment was vile, disgusting and a total revealing of just how phony you have been in this exchange.

 

[Master PO]

All I am trying to do is to get a straight answer out of you and that seems impossible.

Again - You do realize that the date in that statement #3 refers to the announcement by Jefferson of the ratification?

oh!...i really do understand the point you are trying to get across to me.........an you could have made a good escape of your statement.........however your doomed, by the 2 1/2 years you tacked on to it.

 

[Green Man]

I have no concession to someone who has their mind in the gutter. Your comment was vile, disgusting and a total revealing of just how phony you have been in this exchange.

You realize, of course, that my comment was rhetorical. The state doesn't actually have a dick. The state is an abstraction.

However, the gist of my comment still stands. You love the state, and you hate the individual. You believe we should treat people the way the state tells us to treat them, and you have no sense of morality that would cause you to ever doubt anything the state ever does.

 

[Mach]

So then it is entirely possible that this ability to think is simply creating this whole idea of natural rights?
I think it is obvious that the big hole in your reasoning is that this belief in natural rights is a self imposed belief that is not provable in and of itself.

Haymarket, we use our brains to create all ideas, including logic, science, math, all of which are self imposed (or self-evident!).

And what it this "provable in and of itself"? Is math provable "in and of itself"? Is all of science? Is logic?

 

[Mach]

However, the gist of my comment still stands. You love the state, and you hate the individual. You believe we should treat people the way the state tells us to treat them, and you have no sense of morality that would cause you to ever doubt anything the state ever does.

If you, for example, abused individuals for your career by using the state to line your pockets, you may rationalize it that way too. Fascinating on one hand, entirely predictable on the other.

 

[Green Man]

Haymarket, we use our brains to create all ideas, including logic, science, math, all of which are self imposed (or self-evident!).

And what it this "provable in and of itself"? Is math provable "in and of itself"? Is all of science? Is logic?

Is the admonition "do not murder" provable? Does that make it invalid.

 

[Green Man]

If you, for example, abused individuals for your career by using the state to line your pockets, you may rationalize it that way too. Fascinating on one hand, entirely predictable on the other.

I find it amazing when people who want to use the force of government to boss people around and take their property get offended when they are mocked for their immoral behavior.

 

[Mach]

Is the admonition "do not murder" provable? Does that make it invalid.

Provable like math? No. But then my keyboard is not provable mathematically either, so it's a faux-requirement.

The notion that rights are rights because we say they are rights..it's just tautology. If it's OK for the opposition to use it, why can't we simply say natural rights are natural rights because we say they are...if that's valid reasoning then it holds true for both...and leads directly to contradiction. We could then say that about anything, or everything, and it's equivalent to "saying nothing at all" as a result. Using that reasoning leads to basically "saying nothing". Or if one is foolish enough to say something using it, just makes them wrong!

Or better still, it may imply to them that this is why we use majority rules, or might makes right. If we can't agree on the abstract, then we'll just shoot them...
primitives

 

[haymarket]

oh!...i really do understand the point you are trying to get across to me.........an you could have made a good escape of your statement.........however your doomed, by the 2 1/2 years you tacked on to it.

Glad to see you have conceded point three and understand what it says and does not say.

What is wrong with that time frame? You miss the larger point that goes beyond a match calculation and that is chuck contended that the original Constitution contained the Bill of Rights and I was pointing out
1- that it did NOT contain the Bill of Rights
2- it was years later when the Bill of Rights was adopted

You wanna gloat about a year miscalculation - go for it. It in no way shape or from changes the point that I was correct about. So you can look at one tree that I may have miscounted the rings on by one or you can look at the whole forest which I correctly identified.

 

[haymarket]

You realize, of course, that my comment was rhetorical. The state doesn't actually have a dick. The state is an abstraction.

However, the gist of my comment still stands. You love the state, and you hate the individual. You believe we should treat people the way the state tells us to treat them, and you have no sense of morality that would cause you to ever doubt anything the state ever does.

Your comment was vile, repulsive and disgusting. You have revealed your true character. The really ironic thing is that you preach about morality and right and wrong and you go and say something despicable like that. Like the old adage - give em enough rope and they will hang themselves. You are now dangling with your feet high off the ground and a new necktie courtesy of the rope company.

 

[Green Man]

Your comment was vile, repulsive and disgusting. You have revealed your true character. The really ironic thing is that you preach about morality and right and wrong and you go and say something despicable like that. Like the old adage - give em enough rope and they will hang themselves. You are now dangling with your feet high off the ground and a new necktie courtesy of the rope company.

According to your belief system, were my actions wrong?

 

[haymarket]

According to your belief system, were my actions wrong?

According TO YOUR OWN LANGUAGE it was repulsive, vile and disgusting and has no place here.

 

[Green Man]

According TO YOUR OWN LANGUAGE it was repulsive, vile and disgusting and has no place here.

Really? According to my own language? Do you have a quote?

 

[haymarket]

Really? According to my own language? Do you have a quote?

Your quote has been given to you. Do you really need to read it again? Do you get some cheap thrill reading vile words like that? Do you need a judge to tell you such things have no place here?

You really do not get it do you? Or are you just playing dumb again waving your hand in the back of the class.... "oh Mr. Teacher could you please explain it to me ... again for the tenth time?"

You used your stupid full of crap phrase yet again "according to your belief system". So I responded with the line about according to your language ... you see its vileness and its level of disgusting filth would be.... what do you call it again..... oh yes.... SELF EVIDENT.

So put your hand down mister and stop the act. You have been identified.

 

[Green Man]

Really? According to my own language? Do you have a quote?

What do you mean, "according to my own language it was repulsive"?

 

[Green Man]

Your quote has been given to you. Do you really need to read it again? Do you get some cheap thrill reading vile words like that? Do you need a judge to tell you such things have no place here?

You really do not get it do you? Or are you just playing dumb again waving your hand in the back of the class.... "oh Mr. Teacher could you please explain it to me ... again for the tenth time?"

You used your stupid full of crap phrase yet again "according to your belief system". So I responded with the line about according to your language ... you see its vileness and its level of disgusting filth would be.... what do you call it again..... oh yes.... SELF EVIDENT.

So put your hand down mister and stop the act. You have been identified.

What do you mean, "according to my own language it was repulsive"?

 

[haymarket]

What do you mean, "according to my own language it was repulsive"?

Your quote has been given to you. Do you really need to read it again? Do you get some cheap thrill reading vile words like that? Do you need a judge to tell you such things have no place here?

You really do not get it do you? Or are you just playing dumb again waving your hand in the back of the class.... "oh Mr. Teacher could you please explain it to me ... again for the tenth time?"

You used your stupid full of crap phrase yet again "according to your belief system". So I responded with the line about according to your language ... you see its vileness and its level of disgusting filth would be.... what do you call it again..... oh yes.... SELF EVIDENT.

So put your hand down mister and stop the act. You have been identified.

 

[Green Man]

Your quote has been given to you. Do you really need to read it again? Do you get some cheap thrill reading vile words like that? Do you need a judge to tell you such things have no place here?

You really do not get it do you? Or are you just playing dumb again waving your hand in the back of the class.... "oh Mr. Teacher could you please explain it to me ... again for the tenth time?"

You used your stupid full of crap phrase yet again "according to your belief system". So I responded with the line about according to your language ... you see its vileness and its level of disgusting filth would be.... what do you call it again..... oh yes.... SELF EVIDENT.

So put your hand down mister and stop the act. You have been identified.

I'm sorry, I don't see what you consider to be repulsive, or why you consider it repulsive.

 

[Master PO]

Glad to see you have conceded point three and understand what it says and does not say.

What is wrong with that time frame? You miss the larger point that goes beyond a match calculation and that is chuck contended that the original Constitution contained the Bill of Rights and I was pointing out
1- that it did NOT contain the Bill of Rights
2- it was years later when the Bill of Rights was adopted

You wanna gloat about a year miscalculation - go for it. It in no way shape or from changes the point that I was correct about. So you can look at one tree that I may have miscounted the rings on by one or you can look at the whole forest which I correctly identified.

sorry your attempts of trying to justify your error has failed.

even though the correct time frame was 3 1/2 years not the .....2 1/2 you used............, it is the 1/2 year [6months] which doom you, you see you stated Sept for ratification of the constitution..... and the month of March 1792 which is were you got the 6 months, because you believed ratification happened in Sept 1788, and 2 years 6 months from that Sept....... is March when you thought ratification of the bill of rights took place, however you were still off 1 full year...because it would have been only march of 1791...one year from Jefferson's announcement.