I see. Violence is OK in your book huh?
A political solution is a solution which determines the impact and consequences for society. Are women and unborn fetuses not part of society? Are they not, under the liberal model, both individuals deserving of autonomy, human rights, and self determination?
Obviously they are, which is why the state must intervene and make a pragmatic political decision based on what we agree is the most sensible. This is because the state has the ability to use force and strip away the rights of individuals. A woman has no jurisdiction over the fetus, nor does the fetus have jurisdiction over the woman. The state has jurisdiction over both, however, and so the state must act on behalf of one or the other. As I said, it's a regrettable and nasty business no matter which way you cut it, but we have to make a decision nonetheless.
Something tells me you didn't read them, either.I didn’t write the laws concerning “fighting words”.
Violence does seem to be okay with Trump and his supporters given his pardoning of the Jan 6ers.
The article lists very few details about the actual trial itself, but mentions that the racial remark was part of the defendants case for why he assaulted the other two guys.And what's listed in the OP's link says nothing about confirmed fighting words, but about some unhinged, violent leftist flipping out over a supposed "what he perceived to be a racial remark."
According to the Const, your basic premise in the first paragraph is incorrect. Rights of the individual come foremost. Then the courts must prove govt actions counter to that with things like "states' interest.' But that is not a given. There have to be legitimate "political/legal" reasons to violate individual rights.
I'm not saying that the way people's rights are protected/not dont affect society. I'm saying that the politics (legal aspects) are very different. As the Founding Fathers intended.
(And no the unborn are not part of society.)
I didn’t write the laws concerning “fighting words”.
Violence does seem to be okay with Trump and his supporters given his pardoning of the Jan 6ers.
Rights come from the state, Lursa. If the government wants to come to your house and blow your head off and then seize all of your assets, it can make that legal. There is no such thing as "individual rights" or "human rights" which aren't underneath the shadow of the state. Whatever the state determines is legitimate, is legitimate, as the state is the executor of legitimacy!
I'm not sure what this means.
I mean, I would agree but understand this is simply a matter of taste. A conservative Christian could give an equally compelling argument citing natural law & inalienable universal rights - which informed the founders - and it would be a sound moral and logical argument.
That was perceived.The article lists very few details about the actual trial itself, but mentions that the racial remark was part of the defendants case for why he assaulted the other two guys.
Yes, thay are. Whats your point?Amputating a hand as a criminal punishment would be just a medical procedure. Amputating a head would also be just a medical procedure.
What makes you think abortion is not bound to medical ethics and regulations or standards of practice? Society doesn't get to determine if one can have a medical procedure or not. That is between the patient and doctor. Neither is anyone's medical procedure society's business or concern.The fact that something is a medical procedure does not authomatically shield it from ethical or social objections.
Broken bones and injury in his eye that is likely permanent is not considered serious?
Yes, thay are. Whats your point?
What makes you think abortion is not bound to medical ethics and regulations or standards of practice? Society doesn't get to determine if one can have a medical procedure or not. That is between the patient and doctor. Neither is anyone's medical procedure society's business or concern.
Now you are just rambling. I've been sticking with the laws in the US as intended and practiced. And I am open to debating those.
It's obvious from this administration that "the state" can go rogue. If you are just going to erase reality and propose anything, then there's no point in debating this.
It means that yes, of course the consequences of laws/lack of affect society as a whole. Was society affected by the legalization of SSM? However that came about because of the recognition of equal rights for individuals.
Or you can use the ending of Jim Crow and segregation the same way, same cause and effect. Individual rights protected...and did affect society.
Btw, where did you get this: Are women and unborn fetuses not part of society? Are they not, under the liberal model, both individuals deserving of autonomy, human rights, and self determination?"
Do you have any sources for that? Re: the liberal view or 'model."
There is a certain element in this nation that has decided "he's a Jesus freak. Let Jesus save him" is appropriate in the law.Broken bones and injury in his eye that is likely permanent is not considered serious?
Emotionalistic rhetoric. Can you answer the questions or not?It is truly difficult to speak with someone who has so thoroughly dehumanized others.
In other words, you can't refute the facts. Got it!I'm sorry but this hurts my head to read.
No, this isn't rambling. This is an extremely important discussion about the ontology of rights.
I see. You're really discussing apples and oranges here. Abortion is more morally comparable to the waging of war, not emancipation of slaves.
Uhm, pretty much every liberal philosopher from Rousseau to Locke advocated for a universal concept of inalienable human rights which was pseudo-religious in nature. A pro-life person could present a logically and morally sound argument for why a fetus, as human life, is just as deserving of those inalienable rights as the mother is, which means the mother would have no right to have an abortion under that assumption.
Conversely, people like you will claim that a fetus is not a part of any society or community just yet and so the fetus does not have "rights" yet, as it is not under the jurisdiction of the state.
In a similar way you don't have the "right" not to be killed by the Taliban if you go walking around in Afghanistan, since you are outside the jurisdiction of the American state. This is also a compelling argument which I tend to agree with, but the point is what we're quibbling about is the authority of the state - i.e. we're arbitrarily drawing a distinction about how individual rights are defined and when they can be violated.
So. I got suspended for speaking the truth. That's life.This is another example of why it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an honest and reasonable discussion with leftists. They utterly IGNORE all facts and reality. If the leftist is pro-choice and a violent leftist viciously, and without provocation, attacks a peacefully protesting pro-life person, the leftist will always side with the violent attacker.
Now watch me get dinged by "moderation" for telling the truth.
That doesn't make a good case for fighting words. It makes an excellent case for the assailant being a violent leftist lunatic.The article lists very few details about the actual trial itself, but mentions that the racial remark was part of the defendants case for why he assaulted the other two guys.
Are you just being as absurd as possible?
Yes it is rambling. If you want to strictly debate rights...then start a thread on it. Here we're discussing abortion and how the law has protected, or not, rights for women. It does not recognize any for the unborn.
If you want to discuss "IF" such rights should be recognized, that is a fine debate. But here you are just pretending that anyone and their perception of rights...religious beliefs, 'natural rights,' federally recognized rights...are all equally weighted and equally recognized. You want it both ways.
So feel free to start a thread on "the ontology of rights" and I'm happy to participate. And can easily use abortion or other examples.
No, and you are intentionally misinterpreting my post. Please be specific...how are the individual rights involved in abortion different from the individual rights of black Americans?
Pro-life people are almost explicitly conservative, not liberal. "I" understand the distinction you are making...but you arent applying accuratelyin the current political climate.
So your claim is that rights are based on location? Seriously?
If you don't recognize why the ontology of rights is important to understand in the discussion about abortion, I don't think there's room for intelligent discussion.
Well that's obvious. A woman's individual right to abortion involves the extinguishment of human life. Individual rights for black Americans doesn't mean anyone or any "thing" needs to die. I'll repeat it again although its probably futile: whether or not you agree that a fetus is human life is really a matter of taste. The opposition could just as easily make a compelling argument for the inverse - that it is human life with individual rights - and you both could scream at each other until you're blue in the face because the logical conclusions of both arguments are equally satisfactory in a liberal society.
Most conservatives are liberal in the classical sense. They recognize the same dogmas of inalienable human rights as contemporary liberals do.
Yes, obviously. How are they not?
I'm sure the guy that got beat said he didn't mean it as a racial slur, and I'm sure that the writer of the article is going to pick language that doesn't make his company liable for any sort of defamation lawsuit. Wordsmithing an article that doesn't have much details about the actual trial isn't really helpful.That was perceived.
Doesn't mean it was.
Just to point out the obvious....the case was made in court. This is a writer just giving as a brief outline of the situation.That doesn't make a good case for fighting words. It makes an excellent case for the assailant being a violent leftist lunatic.
Evidence a hypothetical situation happened?Evidence that happened?
You didn't even post what was said, or even what allegedly was said. Did he call him the n-word or something?I'm sure the guy that got beat said he didn't mean it as a racial slur,
and I'm sure that the writer of the article is going to pick language that doesn't make his company liable for any sort of defamation lawsuit. Wordsmithing an article that doesn't have much details about the actual trial isn't really helpful.
Gee, thanks! Very, very nice excuse, but you keep using this premise to try and excuse the violent actions of this unhinged leftist lunatic. So it's sort of up to you to provide the details if you're gonna keep doing that.Just to point out the obvious....the case was made in court. This is a writer just giving as a brief outline of the situation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?