Thank you it would be too much to ask what year?
Governments come to power in a number of different ways. Will of the people, divine right, military power.
If you think you are going to circle around in an effort to save your previous (wrong) answer, don't bother. You were wrong, just eat it and move on.
Who is "they," anyway? Educated people? Dems? Either way, you aren't representing your team very well here.
I didn't ask how governments come to power. I asked where the people in government get the rights you say they possess.
What team am I on?
"They" are the people who legitimize the "right" of a man to brutalize members of his family.
It means my argument worked and I’ve been waiting for you to get around it."Nuh-Uh" doesn't mean your original argument worked. If your original argument had worked, your support of it wouldn't have had to be a fallacy.
Perhaps Phoenix University or DeVry.
WTF is that even referring to?
It means my argument worked and I’ve been waiting for you to get around it.
I wish I could see their face when I say that cars are not regulated.They confuse rights and privileges. It's why they so often mess up demanding guns be regulated like cars. I don't mind, because it never works out in their favor anyway, but still...
Well my first thought was he's not a lawyer he's just lying and then it dawned on me we have a supreme Court Justice that graduated from Harvard and he or she cuz we don't know we're not biologists is more dumb than a sack of potatoes. Or lied and pretended to be stupid so is not to have to address a pertinent question.Saying the government has a bag of rights to hand out like Halloween candy or tossing a quarter to a panhandler as the mood strikes, just cheapens the concept of rights.
Yeah I always deflect to the declaration of Independence it says where rights come from I think it's a little off because rights come from violence.With that system of rights, they could bestow rights on your cat that are superior to your own. Such garbage shouldn't even be legitimized to the extent of calling it rights.
Well I was hoping that I could narrow your incompetence down to an actual professor but I guess you have to protect that.Yes, it would be.
I wasn't asking anything that would have identified you unless it was a graduating class of one that year. I don't know what race you are I don't know how old you are I don't even know what sex you are I don't really care you I just want to make sure that I don't get someone like you defending my rights.What's your SSN, anyway? I mean, just to verify that you are a real American...
Because you're a lawyer right and I'm an astrophysicist.As for the rest of your post, you're just doubling down on a losing hand. Know when to fold 'em.
I am aware you wish to characterize my argument as a rebuttal. I am simply dismissing your dishonesty here.No, if your original argument worked you wouldn't have had to support it with a fallacy. Your original argument was rebutted, and when you answered with fallacy to support it against the rebuttal, then the rebuttal stands.
I wish I could see their face when I say that cars are not regulated.
You can buy $630 of them on one day go to the courthouse and have entitled in your name even if you don't have a license even if you have felony convictions so I would probably think it's a little too loose for guns to be regulated like cars.
A friend of mine has a salvage yard and I remember going with him to the courthouse, he had a little trouble with English and getting the titles of a couple of hundred cars put in his name.
Well my first thought was he's not a lawyer he's just lying and then it dawned on me we have a supreme Court Justice that graduated from Harvard and he or she cuz we don't know we're not biologists is more dumb than a sack of potatoes. Or lied and pretended to be stupid so is not to have to address a pertinent question.
Essentially she/he/it is saying that you have no idea if your heterosexual or homosexual because you're not a biologist.
If you're dumb enough to believe this trash Harvard should strip you of your diploma. If you're slimy enough to say this lip service the federal government should strip you of all positions.
So just because someone went to law school doesn't mean they're smart
Yeah I always deflect to the declaration of Independence it says where rights come from I think it's a little off because rights come from violence.
The only way we got to the point where we could write a constitution was killing a bunch of people.
Don't tread on me is not a cry out for mercy it's a threat.
So who were the children that died when I purchased my guns and show me that they died because I purchased the guns.I am aware you wish to characterize my argument as a rebuttal. I am simply dismissing your dishonesty here.
I am aware you wish to characterize my argument as a rebuttal. I am simply dismissing your dishonesty here.
I'm not of that opinion maybe violence isn't the right word force is.They might be protected with violence, but that isn't the source unless jungle law is to your liking.
Well I don't think it's even that it's the belief that rights exist or to believe that you're all just subjects of a government that chooses what to let you do no it's very much the other way around we do what we want or we kill youIt's the difference between a belief that every person has rights, and a belief that only certain people have rights.
Your post. That's what it's referring to. You wrote some things and I responded. That's kinda how things work here.
I’ve already pointed out your straw man here.So who were the children that died when I purchased my guns and show me that they died because I purchased the guns.
If you do this I'll change my position I'll admit that you were right and I'll even film myself cutting my guns up I've got a ban saw.
If you are unable to read my simple statement in the last post this explains why you’ve gotten so confused during the course of this conversation.I didn't characterize your argument as a rebuttal. That makes little sense.
"They" are the people who legitimize the "right" of a man to brutalize members of his family."
That. What is that referring to?
Yeah lawyers can be idiots. I remember working as a mechanic and I had a few clients that were lawyers most of them great people one or two of them very uncommon with his group they were just complete assholes. I remember telling them if they're so smart they can fix their own damn car.He might indeed be a lawyer. It can be attractive to certain people to think they are part of a system that gives or takes away rights at their whim. It's a feeling of power over others. Many lawyers are possessed of a pompous sense of their own superiority over lesser mortals, and don't mind expressing it. That might be why they continually rank high on lists of most hated professions.
If you are unable to read my simple statement in the last post this explains why you’ve gotten so confused during the course of this conversation.
But you seem to think the only way they can stop them is through a court proceeding."They" are the people who legitimize the "right" of a man to brutalize members of his family."
That. What is that referring to?
I think we have finally gotten somewhere in this conversation and now its obvious why you thought you had a sufficient rebuttal.It makes no sense to say I characterized your argument as a rebuttal when:
A. I didn't.
B. It wouldn't have any bearing anyway.
Someone who says government gives rights and this country has rights and that country has rights and they're all different. There are countries that have bestowed a "right" to men to brutalize their family members. If rights come from governments, then those rights are as legitimate as any.
Now.. where did the people in government get their rights?
But you seem to think the only way they can stop them is through a court proceeding.
i agree. There is no such thing as natural rights. The state of nature is the usage of force instead. Humankind has discovered that it is often useful to come up with this or that ideology of rights and form a culture and government around that belief though as doing so tends to increase our comfort, chances of procreation, and lifespan. While useful, any rights are entirely arbitrary in nature though.If those rights exist somewhere (I'll have to take your word on that), happily it's not here. I'm guessing somewhere in the Middle East?
Anyway, rights come from the government. If you think that rights are natural, or come from God, or anyplace else but the government, explain how your rights are protected if not by your government. That goes for rights you may not agree with, too. Most Europeans think that our gun laws and gun culture are barbaric. Just like you think your example is barbaric.
It's not the people in government; it's all people under a government. A government comes to power, usually draws up some sort of charter, enacts some laws, and off you go. Court rulings flesh out how our rights work in practice; they may expand them or curb them as they interpret the laws. Basic civics.
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?