Never let a crisis go to waste

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Thank you it would be too much to ask what year?

Yes, it would be.

What's your SSN, anyway? I mean, just to verify that you are a real American...

As for the rest of your post, you're just doubling down on a losing hand. Know when to fold 'em.

 

[RF667799]

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. I certainly don't want to embrace those sort of "rights".

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

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.

WTF is that even referring to?

 

[Slartibartfast]

"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.

It means my argument worked and I’ve been waiting for you to get around it.

 

[RF667799]

Perhaps Phoenix University or DeVry.

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.

 

[RF667799]

WTF is that even referring to?

Your post. That's what it's referring to. You wrote some things and I responded. That's kinda how things work here.

 

[RF667799]

It means my argument worked and I’ve been waiting for you to get around it.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes, it would be.

Well I was hoping that I could narrow your incompetence down to an actual professor but I guess you have to protect that.

What's your SSN, anyway? I mean, just to verify that you are a real American...

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.

As for the rest of your post, you're just doubling down on a losing hand. Know when to fold 'em.

Because you're a lawyer right and I'm an astrophysicist.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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 am aware you wish to characterize my argument as a rebuttal. I am simply dismissing your dishonesty here.

 

[RF667799]

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.

They might be protected with violence, but that isn't the source unless jungle law is to your liking.

It's the difference between a belief that every person has rights, and a belief that only certain people have rights.

 

[CLAX1911]

I am aware you wish to characterize my argument as a rebuttal. I am simply dismissing your dishonesty 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.

 

[RF667799]

I am aware you wish to characterize my argument as a rebuttal. I am simply dismissing your dishonesty here.

I didn't characterize your argument as a rebuttal. That makes little sense.

 

[CLAX1911]

They might be protected with violence, but that isn't the source unless jungle law is to your liking.

I'm not of that opinion maybe violence isn't the right word force is.

You let us have guns or we will kill you. We speak freely or we will burn down the capital you don't have to burn down the capital you don't have to kill people you just have to make them think that you will.

And that's the only thing there's nothing else the piece of paper can be ripped up and thrown away while this could be changed

If you rip that Constitution up and throw it away and install a king or a dictator you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

That's how you maintain rights

It's the difference between a belief that every person has rights, and a belief that only certain people have rights.

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 you

We've done that multiple times revolutionary war war of 1812 Barbary wars civil war Spanish-American war we killed hundreds of thousands of people.

It's true the tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of patriots

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Your post. That's what it's referring to. You wrote some things and I responded. That's kinda how things work here.

"They" are the people who legitimize the "right" of a man to brutalize members of his family."

That. What is that referring to?

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.

I’ve already pointed out your straw man here.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't characterize your argument as a rebuttal. That makes little sense.

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.

 

[RF667799]

"They" are the people who legitimize the "right" of a man to brutalize members of his family."

That. What is that referring to?

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?

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

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.

I remember one of them pretty well he drove a Land Rover. If you bought one of those new you have a lot more dollars than you have sense.

 

[RF667799]

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.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

"They" are the people who legitimize the "right" of a man to brutalize members of his family."

But you seem to think the only way they can stop them is through a court proceeding.

That. What is that referring to?

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.

I think we have finally gotten somewhere in this conversation and now its obvious why you thought you had a sufficient rebuttal.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

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.

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.

Now.. where did the people in government get their rights?

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.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

But you seem to think the only way they can stop them is through a court proceeding.

You are, once again, confused. He was referring to laws (Sharia law, maybe?) in another country.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.

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.