God the Constitution and RIGHTS

[Mr. P]

I ran across this Poll question today. IMO the writer has little to no understanding of the Constitution.

What do you think?



If Rights come from God, not the government - and the 2nd amendment declares that the People have a right to keep and bear arms - do non-citizens have the right to own and carry a gun in public within the United States?

[Gaffer]

Gotta be a liberal cause he has no clue.

[Mr. P]

Gotta be a liberal cause he has no clue.
From some of the other polls he/she has posted I'd say liberal for sure.

[Thunderknuckles]

Where the hell did you find that poll? There's no way that can be serious.

[Mr. P]

Where the hell did you find that poll? There's no way that can be serious.
It's from an internet radio directory I use. There is always a poll and most are ridiculous. Representative of the owner I guess.

[Thunderknuckles]

Ahh, they must be doing the political spin on "Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy" :laugh:

[Pagan]

I ran across this Poll question today. IMO the writer has little to no understanding of the Constitution.

What do you think?

This is a common mistake people make, they think the Constitution "grants" us our rights. The Constitution does NOT grant the people rights, it lists the ONLY rights/power Government has. If it's NOT in the Constitution the Government does not have ANY legal authority/power.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Noir]

It's all moot, rights are not god given, they are human given.

[crin63]

Personally I don't have a problem with a non-citizen carrying around firearms so long as they are here legally. It took my Armenian friends almost 18 years before they became citizens. I would've had no problem with them carrying guns in public.

[Mr. P]

This is a common mistake people make, they think the Constitution "grants" us our rights. The Constitution does NOT grant the people rights, it lists the ONLY rights/power Government has. If it's NOT in the Constitution the Government does not have ANY legal authority/power.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yes, and I'm confident most on this board know that. So, how would you answer the poll question based on the Constitution and inalienable rights?

[Pagan]

Yes, and I'm confident most on this board know that. So, how would you answer the poll question based on the Constitution and inalienable rights?

Easy -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Mr. P]

Easy -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Are you saying that a non-citizen has the right to carry a gun then?

[Pagan]

Are you saying that a non-citizen has the right to carry a gun then?

If they're here "legally", mmmmm I would say yes, but I'm no legal expert and that would define what laws are there that regulate "legal" non-citizens.

[SassyLady]

Are soldiers who are here legally, and join the military before they become citizens, allowed to carry guns?

[Kathianne]

If they're here "legally", mmmmm I would say yes, but I'm no legal expert and that would define what laws are there that regulate "legal" non-citizens.

As far as I know, with the exception of voting, anyone here legally is entitled to all protections, liberties, and rights as given under the Constitution.

[Mr. P]

If they're here "legally", mmmmm I would say yes, but I'm no legal expert and that would define what laws are there that regulate "legal" non-citizens.
Well, lets just forget about laws and just frame this on the Constitution and inalienable rights. Do you believe then that a "non-citizen", legal or not, has a right to carry a gun in the USA?

[Pagan]

As far as I know, with the exception of voting, anyone here legally is entitled to all protections, liberties, and rights as given under the Constitution.

I would say that's a safe assumption

[LuvRPgrl]

It's all moot, rights are not god given, they are human given.

so you were ok with slavery pre 1860?

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, lets just forget about laws and just frame this on the Constitution and inalienable rights. Do you believe then that a "non-citizen", legal or not, has a right to carry a gun in the USA?

I would say not automatically cuz we dont know if they have criminal background.

[Noir]

so you were ok with slavery pre 1860?

No ofcourse not. That just shows how 'human' the rights are. Surly if they were god given then he wouldn't of a-okay'd slavery, right?

All of your rights where decided, written or given to you by other humans.

[Joe Steel]

It's all moot, rights are not god given, they are human given.

That's an unusually intelligent comment for this forum. Rights are, in fact, created by laws, constitutions, administrative decisions and other forms of human declarations. They do not come from God.

[Mr. P]

It's all moot, rights are not god given, they are human given.


That's an unusually intelligent comment for this forum. Rights are, in fact, created by laws, constitutions, administrative decisions and other forms of human declarations. They do not come from God.
Well.....

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) and political scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science). Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evident) and universal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism). They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.So with that in mind...we all have our Natural rights. It's men and Government that restrict,prevent or limit them, NOT GIVE THEM. Sorry, you both fail.

[Noir]

Okay Mr. P, gimme a list of say three 'natural rights' that are god given (or at the very least not human given)

[Mr. P]

Okay Mr. P, gimme a list of say three 'natural rights' that are god given (or at the very least not human given)
Not human given but Natural rights..I and everyone else were born with the right to choose. We all have the right of action or inaction. We all have the right to reap what we sow. These Natural rights can only be taken by man, NOT GIVEN by man. Our founders, your worst nightmare :poke:, were
very aware of these natural rights and incorporated them into our founding documents.

[Noir]

Not human given but Natural rights..I and everyone else were born with the right to choose. We all have the right of action or inaction. We all have the right to reap what we sow. These Natural rights can only be taken by man, NOT GIVEN by man. Our founders, your worst nightmare :poke:, were
very aware of these natural rights and incorporated them into our founding documents.

But surly you can not know rights without limits. In the same way you can not know good without evil or love without hate, inwhich case natural rights need human made rights to exist. You need only glance at the animal world to see what rights to have when there are no limits on any rights. (ie. None.)

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Well, lets just forget about laws and just frame this on the Constitution and inalienable rights. Do you believe then that a "non-citizen", legal or not, has a right to carry a gun in the USA?

Well, if that is the parameter of discussion then the proper answer is yes, anyone, anywhere has the right to carry any weapon in any manner. There is no explicit grant of power anywhere in the federal Constitution granting power to the federal government to have any interest in the personal arms of a private person.

Whatever power that could be argued to exist could only be found under a state constitution, restrained by the declaration of rights of that state's constitution.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Rights are, in fact, created by laws, constitutions, administrative decisions and other forms of human declarations.

Do you believe that we must discuss the concept of rights and governmental powers with at least a few tendrils connecting our thoughts with those of the founders?

If not, then do you believe that the fundamental principles of the rights theory embraced by the founders does not exist?

Do you believe that humans have a right join together into a society and to establish their own government?

If so, from where does that right emanate?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Okay Mr. P, gimme a list of say three 'natural rights' that are god given (or at the very least not human given)

In Lockean thought they would be Life, Liberty and Property. Those concepts were articulated by Jefferson to be Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Those are deemed inherent rights, rights possessed simply by being human. They also encompass inalienable rights, rights that can not be legitimately surrendered to anyone.

This fundamental rights theory was in direct opposition to Monarchical Rule where the King enjoyed an unquestioned divine right to rule however he deemed appropriate.

The passage in the Declaration, that we posses rights endowed in us by a Creator was simply an oppositional justification for shaking off illegitimate rule. It was a philosophical rebuttal to the belief that the King had a divine right to tyrannize. I do not read it to be a theological statement and I think those who do read it that way are incorrect.

The Declaration of Independence was merely a political endorsement of the philosophical arguments of John Locke and Algernon Sidney in rebuttal to treatises endorsing Monarchical Absolutism.

So, do you embrace Locke or Bodin?

What are inalienable rights to you?

[Mr. P]

But surly you can not know rights without limits. In the same way you can not know good without evil or love without hate, inwhich case natural rights need human made rights to exist. You need only glance at the animal world to see what rights to have when there are no limits on any rights. (ie. None.)
There are Natural limits imposed by nature. Choose to take a stick and beat a bee hive, your right of course, but you'll find a natural limit to that right post hast. Good and evil are morals or lack of, not rights, love and hate, emotions.

[SassyLady]

There are Natural limits imposed by nature. Choose to take a stick and beat a bee hive, your right of course, but you'll find a natural limit to that right post hast. Good and evil are morals or lack of, not rights, love and hate, emotions.

Must spread rep!!!
:clap::clap:

[abso]

But surly you can not know rights without limits. In the same way you can not know good without evil or love without hate, inwhich case natural rights need human made rights to exist. You need only glance at the animal world to see what rights to have when there are no limits on any rights. (ie. None.)

good and evil or live and hate, this black and white thing doesnt apply here, this has no relation at all with the subject.

you dony need someone to tell you the limitation of your freedom to be able to understand that you are actually free, when you are in town, you already know that you can move around freely and go everywhere in it, when someone comes to you and tell you that you cant go to certain areas in the town, thats when your freedom gets restricted and limited by other humans who tell you what to do, but the main principle already existed, that you had teh Natural Right to move around wherever you wished, you dont need someone to tell you that you cant go to New York so that you can understand that you can actually go to California, because you already had the right to go to both cities before someone forbid you from going to New York, he just limited your freedom and rights, not created it because it was already existing.

So yes, rights are God given, God created us free, which mean that he gave us the right to do anything we want, he have restricted our rights and freedom and regulated them by religions to stop us from doing bad deeds, but he already gave us the capacity for doing anything we want, be it good or bad, so he created us free and with all the rights in the world.

Rights are God given, but what you are talking about is privileges which is man made rights, privileges are given by humans, but there is a difference between rights and privileges.

a privilege is a right given to you by humans which may be revoked under determined circumstances, as an example, we are all born with the right to be free, and with the privilege of staying out of prison, but when one of us commits a crime, he then has revoked his privilege of staying out of prison, so he is sent to prison for some time until he is given this privilege again be finishing his sentence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is a right vs. a privilege?

A right is something you are born with, and you will
die with, granted to you by your "Creator" (whatever you
imagine He/She/It/Them to be). A privilege is granted to
you by the King, General, Church, or the State, and may be
revoked at any time, if one loses favor. This is usually
caused by a failure "consider the king", a failure to pay
the "royalty", tax, indulgence, tithe, license fee, etc.

So-called "Civil Rights" are by definition, conveyed by
positive law, and thus are more akin to privileges than
to natural rights. So-called "Civil Liberties" are by
definition natural immunities to government interference,
and are thus are more akin to proper natural rights.

Rights exist before, and are thus superior to, privileges.

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/lawful-arrest/3-7-What-is-a-right-vs-a-privilege.html

[abso]

That's an unusually intelligent comment for this forum. Rights are, in fact, created by laws, constitutions, administrative decisions and other forms of human declarations. They do not come from God.

So if you are in a place with now law, no government, no constitution, then you dont have any rights ?

[Noir]

@Absos comments to me,

So tell me this, do I have a) the 'god-given' right to live? And b) do I have the god given right to kill someone?

@Absos comment to JoeSteel,

While I can't answer for JS, my answer to that would be you have the right to do everything, which ofcourse is cancelled out but they fact that everyone else has the right go do everything aswell. Ergo you has no rights because everyone has the right to do everything without limits.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

So am I to assume that nobody in this thread desires to discuss rights theory within a philosophical framework?

Arguing that our rights come from government (or simply do not exist) is fine but that doesn't leave you standing on a foundation that wavers much from Absolutism (even if it a "benevolent" absolutism LOL).

I would like to ask, what does the term "Inalienable rights" mean to someone who dismisses (or is ignorant of) the fundamental political philosophy in which it is significant?

[revelarts]

I'd love to talk about this from every perspective but I'm not. I did want to manke one comeent though.
you can guess I understand rights come from God.

But if you step outside of that understanding I come at it from the other direction.
What RIGHT has anyone to bring anyone else under subjugation?

If there is anything such thing as a right? It seems you'd have a much harder time trying establish a "right" to rule and control others, with much more convincing proofs than to establish the "right" of a person to rule themselves.

Self rule, as some have said, is "Natural". And self evident IMO.
Subjection to parents , for a time , is natural as well.
Seems Everything beyond that is taught, assumed, taken and given.

[avatar4321]

It's all moot, rights are not god given, they are human given.

If man gave us rights, man can take them away.

God given rights cannot be taken away.

Which would you prefer?

[avatar4321]

To answer the question. I have a natural right to life. Because I have a right to life, I likewise have a right to preserve my own life by force if necessary.

The Constitution provides us with the right to bear arms specifically to enable us to exercise our right to life.

It seems logical to me that even those who are visiting our nation would be entitled to the same right to life.

I dont know if the law supports that. But reason to me does.

[Noir]

If man gave us rights, man can take them away.

God given rights cannot be taken away.

Which would you prefer?

Who cares which I prefer? What I prefer dos not have any bearing on reality. I may 'prefer' the idea that I could instantly teleport fom place to place by tapping my ruby red slippers together, doesn't make it so.

As Bertrand Russell said "Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only at the facts and what the facts bear out"

Now, can you list a 'god given right' that man can not take away?

[Pagan]

To answer the question. I have a natural right to life. Because I have a right to life, I likewise have a right to preserve my own life by force if necessary.

The Constitution provides us with the right to bear arms specifically to enable us to exercise our right to life.

It seems logical to me that even those who are visiting our nation would be entitled to the same right to life.

I dont know if the law supports that. But reason to me does.

Nope, the Constitution does not provide the people any rights, it provides the ONLY rights Government has. People are born with rights, no one not even an invisible mythical being grants any rights.

[LuvRPgrl]

No ofcourse not. That just shows how 'human' the rights are. Surly if they were god given then he wouldn't of a-okay'd slavery, right?

All of your rights where decided, written or given to you by other humans.

Nope, slaves were free until "captured", rights are God given, we are born with them, people and govt's take them away.

Writers of the Cotus were stating that the Govt's function was not to provide rights, but to protect God given rights from those who would wish to take them away, and it limited its ability to take them away in cases of accused criminality

If rights are God given, then it is a constant, the rights remain the same throughout eternity

If they are given by man, they are maliable, they can be changed, given, taken away, based on the whims of man

[LuvRPgrl]

Who cares which I prefer? What I prefer dos not have any bearing on reality. I may 'prefer' the idea that I could instantly teleport fom place to place by tapping my ruby red slippers together, doesn't make it so.

As Bertrand Russell said "Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only at the facts and what the facts bear out"

Now, can you list a 'god given right' that man can not take away?

The right to believe or not believe in a Diety up and until their death

[LuvRPgrl]

No morality, no rights
No God, no morality.
No God, no rights, just survival of the fittest, might makes right.


Who cares which I prefer? What I prefer dos not have any bearing on reality. I may 'prefer' the idea that I could instantly teleport fom place to place by tapping my ruby red slippers together, doesn't make it so.

As Bertrand Russell said "Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only at the facts and what the facts bear out"

Now, can you list a 'god given right' that man can not take away?

[Noir]

The right to believe or not believe in a Diety up and until their death

Countless man-made outs, what about hypnosis? When someone is 'under' you can make them believe whatever you want to. It is not unreasonable to assume that in the future we will be able to directly manipulate thoughts and beliefs. Somewhat like in 'A Clodkwork Orange' were desire itself becomes repulsive.

Or there's a much more direct example, someone who is retarded to the point that they are not able to co-ordinate thoughts to be able to express themselves or learn, why were they born without the 'god-given' right to believe?

[Noir]

No morality, no rights
No God, no morality.
No God, no rights, just survival of the fittest, might makes right.

Yeah, that's obviously what I believe...

[Pagan]

No morality, no rights
No God, no morality.
No God, no rights, just survival of the fittest, might makes right.

Really?

This sure is "Moral" it's it?

A very small sample of the "Morality" of the God Christians, Jews and Muslims worship.

Numbers 31:7-18 (King James Version)

7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 (King James Version)

12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;

13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

[revelarts]

So by whose standard do you call any of that immoral?

But much of that was temporary war time and situation specific measures, but if you notice torture isn't among them. As some modern fairly moral folks in this board promote as justified wartime activities. And there are many more -and more significant- verses that promote long term universal love kindness, the brotherhood of all mankind, the protection of the young and unborn, the care of the sick, the poor, and the prisoners, respect for the elderly, No undo harsh treatment toward animals, Fair and equal treatment before the law. there's more , I can quote the verses for you if you like.
Or you can camp out in the darker land specific wartime verses of the old testament if you don't want to respond honestly to the larger picture Pagan.

[Pagan]

So by whose standard do you call any of that immoral?

But much of that was temporary war time and situation specific measures, but if you notice torture isn't among them. As some modern fairly moral folks in this board promote as justified wartime activities. And there are many more -and more significant- verses that promote long term universal love kindness, the brotherhood of all mankind, the protection of the young and unborn, the care of the sick, the poor, and the prisoners, respect for the elderly, No undo harsh treatment toward animals, Fair and equal treatment before the law. there's more , I can quote the verses for you if you like.
Or you can camp out in the darker land specific wartime verses of the old testament if you don't want to respond honestly to the larger picture Pagan.

Rape, Murder, Genocide commanded by your god, that's Moral? Read the verses, god commanded Genocide, raping and killing children.

Well if you worship that, that's your Morals not mine.

And people have to ask why I believe Religion to be the root of Evil.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1acqGJBJuuQ/TGcGciRobpI/AAAAAAAABFM/he8W4v7pZyk/s1600/1293978130_ecbdbce6f6.jpg

[avatar4321]

God created us. He has the right to determine when we live and when we die. He has paid in blood the price to ensure us immortality and Eternal Life. It's His right to tells us if we must die or kill.

Murder is the unlawful taking of life.
Adultry/fornication - the unlawful giving of life.

Is it any shock that God has reserved this right to control the giving and taking of life to Himself?

If God commands a life is taken. He is the Supreme Lawgiver. It cannot be murder because it's not unlawful. And He has already paid the price to bring them back from the dead in the resurrection.

How is this unjust? Especially since He paid for this right with His own life.

Where was Rape ever commanded?

[LuvRPgrl]

Countless man-made outs, what about hypnosis? When someone is 'under' you can make them believe whatever you want to. ?

You cant force me into hypnosis.


It is not unreasonable to assume that in the future we will be able to directly manipulate thoughts and beliefs. Somewhat like in 'A Clodkwork Orange' were desire itself becomes repulsive.?

until we can, you cant use that arguement.



Or there's a much more direct example, someone who is retarded to the point that they are not able to co-ordinate thoughts to be able to express themselves or learn, why were they born without the 'god-given' right to believe?

obviously you dont know much about "retardation" in regards to ones IQ and other levels such as idiot, moron, etc.

[Noir]

You cant force me into hypnosis.

Ofcourse you can, don't be daft.


until we can, you cant use that arguement.

Lol, okay, we can already manipulate thoughts to the point of controli g people short term though.


obviously you dont know much about "retardation" in regards to ones IQ and other levels such as idiot, moron, etc.

if you want to play with words, fine. But I'm not interested in that and it looks weak.
Now then, if someone is born with the inability to talk, feed themselves, operate any tools, read/write, etc. Why don't they have the 'god given right' to question meta-physical beliefs?

[Pagan]

God created us. He has the right to determine when we live and when we die. He has paid in blood the price to ensure us immortality and Eternal Life. It's His right to tells us if we must die or kill.

Murder is the unlawful taking of life.
Adultry/fornication - the unlawful giving of life.

Is it any shock that God has reserved this right to control the giving and taking of life to Himself?

If God commands a life is taken. He is the Supreme Lawgiver. It cannot be murder because it's not unlawful. And He has already paid the price to bring them back from the dead in the resurrection.

How is this unjust? Especially since He paid for this right with His own life.

Where was Rape ever commanded?

You've made my point in regards to Morals here .......

Oh and in reference to you question on rape,

Numbers 31:18 (King James Version)

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Here's another one -

Deuteronomy 20:14 (King James Version)

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

But hey since your god tells you to do it it's not Rape, Murder and Genocide eh?

Since as a Society we've evolved mostly as a whole away by outlawing Rape, Murder and Genocide as being acceptable. So it's pretty damn clear that Morals are established by Society and not given by god. For if it was true that as you say "No God, no morality" Rape, Murder and Genocide would be acceptable as Moral.

It's man who establishes Morality of the society, not some invisible mythical being/power.

[LuvRPgrl]

IMAGINE NO RELIGION
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1acqGJBJuuQ/TGcGciRobpI/AAAAAAAABFM/he8W4v7pZyBik/s1600/1293978130_ecbdbce6f6.jpg

Yea,they tried that, 40 years of communism left more dead than all the Biblical years combined.

2031

[Noir]

Yea,they tried that, 40 years of communism left more dead than all the Biblical years combined.

2031

Good job on not replying to my post and using the same old stupid communist line of attack, Stalinism was a religion, don't try and pretend it wasn't.

[fj1200]

Good job on not replying to my post and using the same old stupid communist line of attack, Stalinism was a religion, don't try and pretend it wasn't.

No.

[abso]

@Absos comments to me,

So tell me this, do I have a) the 'god-given' right to live? And b) do I have the god given right to kill someone?

@Absos comment to JoeSteel,

While I can't answer for JS, my answer to that would be you have the right to do everything, which ofcourse is cancelled out but they fact that everyone else has the right go do everything aswell. Ergo you has no rights because everyone has the right to do everything without limits.

Yes you have all the rights, to live or to kill, thats a choice of what you do with your freedom, and its restricted by law, not given.

about your answer for JS:
does the right need to be exclusive to be called a right ?
yes you have the right of freedom to do anything you want, the fact that there is no law, means that there is no punishment if you choose to use your freedom in a wrong way, but you have the right to do anything, having the right, just means that you are able to do it and you are free to do it.

but if you want to discuss that from the moral aspect, then alot of rights wont become rights, but we are not talking about morals right now.

[LuvRPgrl]

Good job on not replying to my post and using the same old stupid communist line of attack, Stalinism was a religion, don't try and pretend it wasn't.

Hey, Im no young punk living in mommies basement thinking I have all the idealistic cures for the world, with enough time to stand around and have a self portrait drawn up so I can show myself off to the world

I'm a father of 7 kids, I work alot and dont always have time to post, so get your head out of the darkness, and wake up and realize that not everybody has your situation. OUT

[LuvRPgrl]

Every time they attack the Bible, they have to take stuff out of context.


So by whose standard do you call any of that immoral?

But much of that was temporary war time and situation specific measures, but if you notice torture isn't among them. As some modern fairly moral folks in this board promote as justified wartime activities. And there are many more -and more significant- verses that promote long term universal love kindness, the brotherhood of all mankind, the protection of the young and unborn, the care of the sick, the poor, and the prisoners, respect for the elderly, No undo harsh treatment toward animals, Fair and equal treatment before the law. there's more , I can quote the verses for you if you like.
Or you can camp out in the darker land specific wartime verses of the old testament if you don't want to respond honestly to the larger picture Pagan.

[LuvRPgrl]

Repeating yourself is NOT answering to his post.


Rape, Murder, Genocide commanded by your god, that's Moral? Read the verses, god commanded Genocide, raping and killing children.

Well if you worship that, that's your Morals not mine.

And people have to ask why I believe Religion to be the root of Evil.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1acqGJBJuuQ/TGcGciRobpI/AAAAAAAABFM/he8W4v7pZyk/s1600/1293978130_ecbdbce6f6.jpg

NO religion, NO Alcoholics Anonymous, millions of peoples lives literally saved, not to mention the damage to their friends and families that wasn't done.

NO religion, no Ghandi

No mother Teresa

NO religion, no Jesus,
millions upon millions who have turned from a wicked life of crime and destruction to a life of helping others and being an upstanding citizen

NO JESUS, NO PEACE ---- KNOW JESUS, KNOW PEACE,,,The truth shall set you free

No religion, no morality, might makes right

[Noir]

Hey, Im no young punk living in mommies basement thinking I have all the idealistic cures for the world, with enough time to stand around and have a self portrait drawn up so I can show myself off to the world

I'm a father of 7 kids, I work alot and dont always have time to post, so get your head out of the darkness, and wake up and realize that not everybody has your situation. OUT

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

As a side note, I would of rathered you spent you time reply to my other post rather than that tosh above, but whatever ticks your clock.

[Noir]

Yes you have all the rights, to live or to kill, thats a choice of what you do with your freedom, and its restricted by law, not given.

So our 'god-given' rights can be taken away by anyone at any moment. Which makes them totally useless.


about your answer for JS:
does the right need to be exclusive to be called a right ?
yes you have the right of freedom to do anything you want, the fact that there is no law, means that there is no punishment if you choose to use your freedom in a wrong way, but you have the right to do anything, having the right, just means that you are able to do it and you are free to do it.

but if you want to discuss that from the moral aspect, then alot of rights wont become rights, but we are not talking about morals right now.

you have to have a limit in order to have a right.
For example I have the 'god-given' right to life.
But someone else also has the 'god-given' right to kill
They want to kill me
They kill me
What happened to my right to life?
A right that can be taken away by anyone, at any time, for any reason is not a right, right?

[LuvRPgrl]

So our 'god-given' rights can be taken away by anyone at any moment. Which makes them totally useless.?

Nope, thats one of the reasons we create govts. together, the people have the power to protect those rights.

One does not have the right to kill, actually, murder another human, unless they give up their right by murdering, or attempting murder on someone.

Killing is reserved for survival, kill another human if they threaten your life, or animals to eat.




you have to have a limit in order to have a right.
For example I have the 'god-given' right to life.
But someone else also has the 'god-given' right to kill
They want to kill me
They kill me
What happened to my right to life?
A right that can be taken away by anyone, at any time, for any reason is not a right, right?

A limit of what?
What would be their reason to want to kill you?
They cannot be taken away by anyone, at any time, for any reason.

If our rights are given to us by ourselves, then they will have no consistency, or inherent value. All,or any of them can be taken away if the people decide it is no longer a right.

[abso]

So our 'god-given' rights can be taken away by anyone at any moment. Which makes them totally useless.



you have to have a limit in order to have a right.
For example I have the 'god-given' right to life.
But someone else also has the 'god-given' right to kill
They want to kill me
They kill me
What happened to my right to life?
A right that can be taken away by anyone, at any time, for any reason is not a right, right?

Simple Question:
do you need a government or a law to tell you that you have the right to exist and live, or that you have the right to eat, to drink, to walk, to talk, to sleep ?

government does not create your right, they just regulate them and restrict your freedom of doing bad deeds, since your ultimate right is to be FREE to do anything, govenment had to force laws that forbid people from killing, stealing, raping, .....etc.

the uselessness of your rights is not the issue, that depend on the area you live in, as rights protection and violation varies from a place to place, depend on the government and how its protecting your rights, or if the government itself is violating your rights, then some of your rights at that certain time is useless, but that doesn't deny their existence, that just makes them temporarily deactivated, until the government is changed or you change the area you live in, so a right is only as good as you are permitted to practice it, but the fact is that it exist, doesn't matter if you are allowed to practice it or not, its your right to do so, thats what makes people rebel against oppressing governments that violate their rights, because they already know that they had the rights that this government is violating.

but if violating a right means that it doesn't exist, then none will ever rebel against any oppressing government.

and no, rights can not be taken away, but they can be violated, when someone kill you, that doesnt mean that he took away your right to live, he just violated that right, like when a cop hits you while arresting you, he didnt take away the right you had to be treated with dignity, and such violation doesnt have to be repeated, such rights are something up to the government to protect.

the fact that your right can be violated by someone does not make it "NOT A RIGHT", any right can be violated, even by government itself sometimes, sometimes a government can be cruel and torture its own people, governments can violate rights or protect them, but that doesnt mean that they does not exist.

when someone hits you, what make you hit back ?, its because you are free to react the way you want, that is a right given to you by GOD, he allowed you to hit back or forgive or walk away, you can choose your reaction freely depending on the GOD given freedom, but of course you have to take into your consideration the freedom restrictions enforced by the government.

by using your rights you can violate or protect other's rights, you can choose to be a policeman or a thug, one protect rights and the other violate them, but if you say that violating them mean that they doesn't exist, then why are we protecting them in the first place if they doesn't exist ?

again even without a government you already know that you have the right to live and not to be beaten by anyone, you dont need a policeman who forbid people from killing you so that you know that you have the right to live.

you don't need to protect something to prove its existence, and violating that thing doesn't deny its existence, because its existence is a FACT that can't be denied, but you protect it to preserve its existence from those who choose to violate it.

[abso]

Good job on not replying to my post and using the same old stupid communist line of attack, Stalinism was a religion, don't try and pretend it wasn't.

how was Stalinism a religion ?

[LuvRPgrl]

Good job on not replying to my post and using the same old stupid communist line of attack, Stalinism was a religion, don't try and pretend it wasn't.



Stalinism was a religion? Where do you come up with this stuff?
Religions dont just come and go over a 20-30 year period, and since it is called Stalinism, it wasnt around before Stalin, and since you say it WAS a religion, it has no longer been in existence, hence it isnt a religion, never was.

[LuvRPgrl]

You've made my point in regards to Morals here .......

Oh and in reference to you question on rape,

Numbers 31:18 (King James Version)

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Here's another one -

Deuteronomy 20:14 (King James Version)

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

But hey since your god tells you to do it it's not Rape, Murder and Genocide eh?

Since as a Society we've evolved mostly as a whole away by outlawing Rape, Murder and Genocide as being acceptable. So it's pretty damn clear that Morals are established by Society and not given by god. For if it was true that as you say "No God, no morality" Rape, Murder and Genocide would be acceptable as Moral.

It's man who establishes Morality of the society, not some invisible mythical being/power.

So you are admitting that in those days "man's" morality allowed for rape, murder and genocide. So I guess it wasnt just religion causing all the evils, according to your statements

Not to mention,, you take those things out of context.

Plus, to say that the women and children are theirs to take, doesnt mean he is saying they can rape them.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ofcourse you can, don't be daft.



Lol, okay, we can already manipulate thoughts to the point of controli g people short term though.



if you want to play with words, fine. But I'm not interested in that and it looks weak.
Now then, if someone is born with the inability to talk, feed themselves, operate any tools, read/write, etc. Why don't they have the 'god given right' to question meta-physical beliefs?



You cant force me into hypnosis, I wanted to get hypnotized once, and the person said I have to much self will or something and I wont go under.

Who says they dont have that God given right>

[DragonStryk72]

Personally I don't have a problem with a non-citizen carrying around firearms so long as they are here legally. It took my Armenian friends almost 18 years before they became citizens. I would've had no problem with them carrying guns in public.

Actually, I have no problem with anyone openly carrying a gun. The guys who are clearly carrying a holstered weapon are not likely to be the ones you have to worry about. It's when people are sneaking guns that they're up to something

[Gaffer]

You cant force me into hypnosis, I wanted to get hypnotized once, and the person said I have to much self will or something and I wont go under.

Who says they dont have that God given right>

You're right. You can't be hypnotized against your will. Anyone with a strong personality or will power will automatically resist hypnosis. And even if hypnotized you can't be made to do things you would not normally do.

[Noir]

Nope, thats one of the reasons we create govts. together, the people have the power to protect those rights.

One does not have the right to kill, actually, murder another human, unless they give up their right by murdering, or attempting murder on someone.

Killing is reserved for survival, kill another human if they threaten your life, or animals to eat.

Exactly, we have goverments that protect rights, because protecting rights is the giving of a right. The right to live is useless without the right not to be randomly murdered at will. Therefore the 'man made' rights that stop you being murdered at will 'grant' you the right to live.

If the right to life was 'god-given' and could not be taken away then no one would be able to murder anyone, and we obviously can.



A limit of what?
What would be their reason to want to kill you?
They cannot be taken away by anyone, at any time, for any reason.

If our rights are given to us by ourselves, then they will have no consistency, or inherent value. All,or any of them can be taken away if the people decide it is no longer a right.

Very true, rights are inconsistent. Thats why we have quiet allot of rights, and the little peoples of China don't, for example.

and yes, thats exactly what happens, when 'rights' are decided (generally by goverments) that certain 'rights' are not 'rights' anymore they are taken away.

[Noir]

Stalinism was a religion? Where do you come up with this stuff?
Religions dont just come and go over a 20-30 year period, and since it is called Stalinism, it wasnt around before Stalin, and since you say it WAS a religion, it has no longer been in existence, hence it isnt a religion, never was.

Explain to me how exactly it isn't.
All dictatorships are quasi-religions, with the dictator as the God on top.
Stalin was (i'm sure you won't deny) treated by his followers as a god on earth (in the same manor in which the Tzars were) He was the ultimate authority on everything and anything, miracles were forthcoming (multiple yearly harvests etc) and ofcourse the promised land of plenty for all (do i even need to point that out?)

A more modern example is North Korea, its parrellels are even more obvious, the 'Great' leader is still in charge of the country (though he is long since dead) His 'sprite' entered the body of his son, the 'dear' leader, when he died, the birds in the sky broke into Korean songs when he was born, everything you have you must be thankful to the dear leader for giving, you must praise him and love him and anything said against him will result is sever punishment etc etc etc. You must see the parallels.

They are/were 'gods' on earth, and it all sounds very familiar.

[Noir]

You cant force me into hypnosis, I wanted to get hypnotized once, and the person said I have to much self will or something and I wont go under.

Who says they dont have that God given right>

With the right drugs you'd of been more than able to go under.

You mean to tell me that those who can't even understand the concept of a language are able to engage in meta-physical and theological discussion with themselves?

[revelarts]

Noir if I'm reading you correctly what your describing is not "rights".
it seems like your describing "power".

If someone can't protect their life then the person doesn't have the "right" to it. So If someone can't "will" themselves to live you say they don't have the "right" too.

By that definition literally "might makes "right"". (which would be consistent with an evolutionary POV BTW.)
And we know that's no good.

Rights come from a recognition of moral standing beyond the power to control circumstances.
If not the the state would not be justified in punishing anyone for anything. How can you punish someone for exercising there "right " to kill? Unless the state is just using it's collective power over that person.

We're back to the question of where do moral come from, someone suggested a philosophical base, I think there's a fair but thin case to made there but the weightier case is made by simply stating the fact that GOD said X is right and Y is wrong.
God made man and no other man has the right to take that life , except under certain conditions. period.
God made man in his image. To beat and abuse another human is wrong. they have a right to live without hassle.
That's not based on power but on a moral order, that transcends personal or collective abilities.

Sure rights don't PROTECT themselves but they are real despite there constant abuse.

This idea comes forth not only from the scriptures but from the honest cry of the souls of most humans when we look a situation and say
"THAT"S NOT FAIR" or "THAT"S NOT RIGHT" . there's a moral compass in everyone (no matter how bent) that screams that humans have an obligation to moral dealings.

[CAPTDASH]

This is a horse I beat to death on another forum today about the 2nd A. Several of those smog infected dipsticks from ATL kept referring to God-given rights. I told them there was no such thing as a God- Given right. They argued that the Constitution is our God-given rights. I say BS. You only the have the rights for which you embrace and defend. The constitution is a document written by men, just like the Bible. If men can write it, then men can change it and take it away.

The US Constitution was written by men. It has to be upheld by men. It can be changed by men, both positively and negatively. The Bible was written by men. All religions are created by men. I guess in the absense of faith in a grander being we would wonder around aimlessly.

I have the right to eat, live, and take care of my business by any means necessary as long is does not violate another's rights to do the same.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you dont believe in God, then we have no God given rights, if you do, then we do.

If we dont have God given rights, then we are just another in the long list of animals and we have no rights.

rights come from the idea someone can do something wrong. Animals dont do things "wrong", they have no guilt, they kill another and think nothing of it. Humans have a conscious, an ability to choose right and wrong, to do things evil, for the pure sake of total greed.

Nobody has the "right" to take anothers life, Im not sure where people got that idea. Taking anothers life is WRONG, not RIGHT, unless you are defending yourself, (and the death penalty can be argued as a part of that self defense)

The Constitution was written by God fearing men, and they put in the God given rights. Whether you like it or not, thats the truth.

iF the govt tries to over write the "rights" in there, it will be declared unconstitutional by the court , theoretically,

If the people get so warped they decide that some rights are no longer rights, i.e. the right to life, then a vast majority of people will have to agree to take them away, and it actually wont be a taking away of that right, but simply that the govt will no longer enforce its job of protecting the right to life of the citizens,

because homicide will no longer be illegal, if someone decides to kill another, they can do it, AND THE GOVT WONT PROTECT THE CITIZENS FROM THAT, but that right doesnt go away even if the people vote to no longer protect it.

and, people will stil protect themselves from being killed, and nobody would say there is anything wrong with it, because we know its RIGHT to protect ;your life, and people will band together if necessary to protect their lives, and if I kill someone protecting my life, well, that wont be wrong no matter what, cuz the people have already decided there is nothing wrong with killing, so we will still have the right and continue to defend that right we smply no longer will have the govt protecting us.

unless you want to argue the govt is going to sponsor ending peoples lives.....but then everyone would wind up dead,[/


This is a horse I beat to death on another forum today about the 2nd A. Several of those smog infected dipsticks from ATL kept referring to God-given rights. I told them there was no such thing as a God- Given right. They argued that the Constitution is our God-given rights. I say BS. You only the have the rights for which you embrace and defend. The constitution is a document written by men, just like the Bible. If men can write it, then men can change it and take it away.

The US Constitution was written by men. It has to be upheld by men. It can be changed by men, both positively and negatively. The Bible was written by men. All religions are created by men. I guess in the absense of faith in a grander being we would wonder around aimlessly.

I have the right to eat, live, and take care of my business by any means necessary as long is does not violate another's rights to do the same.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you dont believe in God, then we have no God given rights, if you do, then we do.

If we dont have God given rights, then we are just another in the long list of animals and we have no rights.

rights come from the idea someone can do something wrong. Animals dont do things "wrong", they have no guilt, they kill another and think nothing of it. Humans have a conscious, an ability to choose right and wrong, to do things evil, for the pure sake of total greed.

Nobody has the "right" to take anothers life, Im not sure where people got that idea. Taking anothers life is WRONG, not RIGHT, unless you are defending yourself, (and the death penalty can be argued as a part of that self defense)

The Constitution was written by God fearing men, and they put in the God given rights. Whether you like it or not, thats the truth.

iF the govt tries to over write the "rights" in there, it will be declared unconstitutional by the court , theoretically,

If the people get so warped they decide that some rights are no longer rights, i.e. the right to life, then a vast majority of people will have to agree to take them away, and it actually wont be a taking away of that right, but simply that the govt will no longer enforce its job of protecting the right to life of the citizens,

because homicide will no longer be illegal, if someone decides to kill another, they can do it, AND THE GOVT WONT PROTECT THE CITIZENS FROM THAT, but that right doesnt go away even if the people vote to no longer protect it.

and, people will stil protect themselves from being killed, and nobody would say there is anything wrong with it, because we know its RIGHT to protect ;your life, and people will band together if necessary to protect their lives, and if I kill someone protecting my life, well, that wont be wrong no matter what, cuz the people have already decided there is nothing wrong with killing, so we will still have the right and continue to defend that right we smply no longer will have the govt protecting us.

unless you want to argue the govt is going to sponsor ending peoples lives.....but then everyone would wind up dead,

mmmmm

[CAPTDASH]

If you dont believe in God, then we have no God given rights, if you do, then we do.

If we dont have God given rights, then we are just another in the long list of animals and we have no rights.

rights come from the idea someone can do something wrong. Animals dont do things "wrong", they have no guilt, they kill another and think nothing of it. Humans have a conscious, an ability to choose right and wrong, to do things evil, for the pure sake of total greed.

Nobody has the "right" to take anothers life, Im not sure where people got that idea. Taking anothers life is WRONG, not RIGHT, unless you are defending yourself, (and the death penalty can be argued as a part of that self defense)

The Constitution was written by God fearing men, and they put in the God given rights. Whether you like it or not, thats the truth.

iF the govt tries to over write the "rights" in there, it will be declared unconstitutional by the court , theoretically,

If the people get so warped they decide that some rights are no longer rights, i.e. the right to life, then a vast majority of people will have to agree to take them away, and it actually wont be a taking away of that right, but simply that the govt will no longer enforce its job of protecting the right to life of the citizens,

because homicide will no longer be illegal, if someone decides to kill another, they can do it, AND THE GOVT WONT PROTECT THE CITIZENS FROM THAT, but that right doesnt go away even if the people vote to no longer protect it.

and, people will stil protect themselves from being killed, and nobody would say there is anything wrong with it, because we know its RIGHT to protect ;your life, and people will band together if necessary to protect their lives, and if I kill someone protecting my life, well, that wont be wrong no matter what, cuz the people have already decided there is nothing wrong with killing, so we will still have the right and continue to defend that right we smply no longer will have the govt protecting us.

unless you want to argue the govt is going to sponsor ending peoples lives.....but then everyone would wind up dead,[/



They do sponsor ending people's lives. Have you ever heard of abortion, the death penalty, WAR.

[Noir]

Noir if I'm reading you correctly what your describing is not "rights".
it seems like your describing "power".

You're reading me wrongly.


If someone can't protect their life then the person doesn't have the "right" to it. So If someone can't "will" themselves to live you say they don't have the "right" too.

Even if a person can protect their life, that does not mean they have a 'natural' or 'god-given' right to it. Rights are only conferred by humans and given to other humans.


By that definition literally "might makes "right"". (which would be consistent with an evolutionary POV BTW.)
And we know that's no good.

True, but that's not my definition, mines more along the lines of 'the majority make a right a right'


Rights come from a recognition of moral standing beyond the power to control circumstances.
If not the the state would not be justified in punishing anyone for anything. How can you punish someone for exercising there "right " to kill? Unless the state is just using it's collective power over that person.

Exactly, but the state (from the 'people') decided that we should not have the right to kill, therefore anyone who uses this outlawed right will be punished.


We're back to the question of where do moral come from, someone suggested a philosophical base, I think there's a fair but thin case to made there but the weightier case is made by simply stating the fact that GOD said X is right and Y is wrong.
God made man and no other man has the right to take that life , except under certain conditions. period.
God made man in his image. To beat and abuse another human is wrong. they have a right to live without hassle.
That's not based on power but on a moral order, that transcends personal or collective abilities.

Did god not also make animals in is image? But to beat and abuse them is fine?...
And live without hassle? Thats nice, I'm bothered all the time by people (mainly Christians you'll be surprised to hear) hassling me in the street, shouting things from their books, trying to 'save me' Next time I'll tell them that god doesn't want then hassling me.



Sure rights don't PROTECT themselves but they are real despite there constant abuse.

You're not looking at rights the right way,


This idea comes forth not only from the scriptures but from the honest cry of the souls of most humans when we look a situation and say
"THAT"S NOT FAIR" or "THAT"S NOT RIGHT" . there's a moral compass in everyone (no matter how bent) that screams that humans have an obligation to moral dealings.

and yet look what religion does to people, take those men that flew into the twin-towers. They honestly believed with ever fiber of their being that what they were doing what right and justified. We my scream about how sick and twisted it is, but it wasn't to them, it was oh so natural because they believed it was.

To take another example, one that you probably have no problem with, last year I went to a slaughter house that dealt with chickens and turkeys in the run up to Christmas. They supplied 2 big supermakets with 10,000 new dead animals a day, I stood and watched the conveyer belt move along as the chickens where clamped down, were electrocuted, had their throats slit and then had their blood drained out of them. The pace was constant and mechanical, it was probably the sickest moment of my life, and yet, there were people just doing it for a job, they'd just accepted that whatever they were doing, no matter how cruel, needless or sick was just fine. I would challenge any DP member to stand on that production line and not atleast feel something within then say 'this is wrong'

[CAPTDASH]

Noir would it bother you to watch me skin a deer? How about if I just take one of those yard birds running around? I just catch them, and hold their head on a chopping block, SLAM. Have you heard the expression" running around like a chicken with its head cut off"? It is quite disturbing to me as I salivate over that bbq'd chicken. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Noir would it bother you to watch me skin a deer? How about if I just take one of those yard birds running around? I just catch them, and hold their head on a chopping block, SLAM. Have you heard the expression" running around like a chicken with its head cut off"? It is quite disturbing to me as I salivate over that bbq'd chicken. :laugh:

Noir thinks killing any animals is murder. You've just confessed to a capital crime!! :lol:

While I don't agree with Noir's take, I am a huge animal lover and could never kill any animal myself. And I choose to remain a hypocrite and ignorant about where my food comes from.

I do kill spiders though. I hate those little motherfuckers.

[abso]

Noir thinks killing any animals is murder. You've just confessed to a capital crime!! :lol:

While I don't agree with Noir's take, I am a huge animal lover and could never kill any animal myself. And I choose to remain a hypocrite and ignorant about where my food comes from.

I do kill spiders though. I hate those little motherfuckers.

i follow the same policy, i like animals and can't kill them myself, but i can eat them and ignore where they come from.

we cant afford not to eat animals, they were created to feed us in the first place, but we should treat them well and only kill what we need to eat for our survival, not for pleasure or hunting.

killing cockroaches and spiders and ants who enter my house, that i don't have any problem with ;)

Noir is more of an idealistic person, he should try to be realistic sometimes.

[Noir]

Noir would it bother you to watch me skin a deer? How about if I just take one of those yard birds running around? I just catch them, and hold their head on a chopping block, SLAM. Have you heard the expression" running around like a chicken with its head cut off"? It is quite disturbing to me as I salivate over that bbq'd chicken. :laugh:

Ofcourse it would bother me, but as it's considered socially okay it may not bother other people, such is life.

[Noir]

@Jim & Abso if you guys want to live in ignorance fair enough, though I dont know what exactly that says about your personalities.

[Noir]

I liked this line allot (sorry for the treble post)

"Noir is more of an idealistic person, he should try to be realistic sometimes."

Yeah, I should be more realist by being activly ignorant about reality :laugh: So. Much. Ironyyyy.

[jimnyc]

@Jim & Abso if you guys want to live in ignorance fair enough, though I dont know what exactly that says about your personalities.

If you want to live thinking 90% of the world is murderers because we kill and eat our food, fair enough, but I think it says much about your friendly personality. Must be rough thinking the overwhelming majority of the world surrounding you are criminals! :coffee:

[Noir]

If you want to live thinking 90% of the world is murderers because we kill and eat our food, fair enough, but I think it says much about your friendly personality. Must be rough thinking the overwhelming majority of the world surrounding you are criminals! :coffee:

No it's remarkably easy because I know I'm living my life how I think I should, if others dont see it that way that's there problem as far as I'm concerned.

I also derive deep comfort from the knowledge that when people do ask to discuss meat-eating with me, as they occasionally do, the conversations always end with them saying something like 'yeah I agree with you but I just can't never eat chicken/bacon/ham again' etc which comes back to people like yourself who know that you don't want to know about the process and just want to live in ignorance instead.

[jimnyc]

No it's remarkably easy because I know I'm living my life how I think I should, if others dont see it that way that's there problem as far as I'm concerned.

I also derive deep comfort from the knowledge that when people do ask to discuss meat-eating with me, as they occasionally do, the conversations always end with them saying something like 'yeah I agree with you but I just can't never eat chicken/bacon/ham again' etc which comes back to people like yourself who know that you don't want to know about the process and just want to live in ignorance instead.

I simply mean about myself, is that I love animals and couldn't be the one doing hunting or working at a slaughterhouse. But I won't hesitate to eat any type of meat. Animals in the wild certainly don't become vegetarians because they would see it as murder - the food chain amongst animals will remain the same. WE are part of that food chain, even if you don't like it. While you make a personal choice not to involve yourself in nature's process, it's ludicrous to call us murderers if we choose to hunt/kill for our food.

I am an animal lover. I choose to remain ignorant about the "process" that goes on before the food reaches my plate. But I do not choose to remain ignorant to nature. As humans, we eat animals for meat. No amount of vegetarians, vegans or protesters are going to change that.

[revelarts]

Even if a person can protect their life, that does not mean they have a 'natural' or 'god-given' right to it. Rights are only conferred by humans and given to other humans.

my definition...more along the lines of 'the majority make a right a right'

Exactly, but the state (from the 'people') decided that we should not have the right to kill, therefore anyone who uses this outlawed right will be punished.



It seems like your still saying the same thing.
WHy can't the majority make a "wrong" a "right"?

Sounds like whatever the mob agrees to is "right".

Which makes any democratic law a right.


Your say you watched the work in a slaughter house and thought it was bad or "wrong". Understandable. Have you watched some of the ultra sound films of an abortion in progress? Or seen the body parts of a babies after the fact? Here in the U.S. we have tortured people, Egypt does it, many other countries too. You've spoken out against it. but the "majority" here have made it "legal".

is it therefore a "right"?

Race Slavery was once legal, the majority thought it was fine.
Was it a "right" then but after it was outlawed it suddenly became a crime?

I really can't come to another conclusion based on what you've said so far.

your Idea still sounds to me like -might makes right- I mean "majority" is just a 1 form "might" takes. . I'm not sure of the real difference.



It's my understanding that there are a couple of schools of thought on whats rights are.

basically and briefly-
1. People have a right to be treated well becuase they are made in the image of God.

2. says, each of us owns our own body, mind, mouth etc.. By nature they are ours and no one elses, therefore others should respect that...

3. we should all do what's best for the group therefore we should treat each other well to maximize group survival and prosperity.


If you agree with the 1st and/or 2nd version of rights, you've got a beginning point.
if you believe in the 3rd or your version
then rights are just any opinion of the day
with no basis even in the idea of the INDIVIDUAL.
It's a purely collective ideal with no boundary but the whim of the mob or -if you prefer- the wise council of the majority.





Did god not also make animals in is image?
No, only man was made in God's image.


But to beat and abuse them is fine?...

no it's not fine, Treating animals well and killing them humanly for food is prescribed in the Bible.


And live without hassle? Thats nice, I'm bothered all the time by people (mainly Christians you'll be surprised to hear) hassling me in the street, shouting things from their books, trying to 'save me' Next time I'll tell them that god doesn't want then hassling me.

shouting from books is hassling? sounds pretty tame. Small price to pay when living in an almost free society.

[revelarts]

...and yet look what religion does to people, take those men that flew into the twin-towers. They honestly believed with ever fiber of their being that what they were doing what right and justified. We my scream about how sick and twisted it is, but it wasn't to them, it was oh so natural because they believed it was.



I'm not sure what they believed, Mohamed Atta was seen regularly gambling, drinking and had a white live in girlfriend. Not exactly a devout Muslim from my understanding.

But frankly There are religious beliefs that are wrong, Your probably not surprised to here me say that. Even though you sometimes like to lump all religions together from time to time.

[CAPTDASH]

I assure you guys that I only kill what I will eat, or if I have plans to give some deer to someone else. I got a couple of old deputies that love deer, and they know who to call when They want some. I know who to call when I need something(we call it backscratching each other down here).

I do plan on killing a nice buck for nothing more than a trophy, but the meat will not go to waste mind you. If I happen not to get one in the next couple of weeks, I will just kill a couple does beside the road, and put in the freezer. I am eat filet mignon about 4 to 5 times a week. Those damn little country grocery stores are great. I can get a 3 plus pound filet cut up into 7 to 8 steaks for around 25 bucks, Tops. I eat like a king all week. I plan on killing two ducks tomorrow so my mom can make some duck dressing for Christmas. Yum Yum. Nothing like mom's cooking.

Those chickens you guys are talking about are so inbred and retarded, they don't know what is happening to them. Hell that must be what is wrong with all the liberals. :clap:

[chloe]

@Jim & Abso if you guys want to live in ignorance fair enough, though I dont know what exactly that says about your personalities.


I wonder about the personalities of Vegans that support abortions of human babies.

[LuvRPgrl]

They do sponsor ending people's lives. Have you ever heard of abortion, the death penalty, WAR.

common misconceptions.

Abortion, most actually dont support it, but due to the controversial nature of the condition it isnt as black and white as killing a born person, so dont hide behind that one

Death penalty is killing in self defense, as an individual or a society, its fine

war, same thing, a society defends itself for self defense,

the other complexities of war are way beyond this forum , but suffice to say, my statement was that a society does not promote the KILLING OF ITS OWN as a state issued edict.

[abso]

No it's remarkably easy because I know I'm living my life how I think I should, if others dont see it that way that's there problem as far as I'm concerned.

I also derive deep comfort from the knowledge that when people do ask to discuss meat-eating with me, as they occasionally do, the conversations always end with them saying something like 'yeah I agree with you but I just can't never eat chicken/bacon/ham again' etc which comes back to people like yourself who know that you don't want to know about the process and just want to live in ignorance instead.

do you think that Vegetables are enough for living a healthy life ?

animals were created in the first place for us humans, the whole planet were created for the humans to live in, and to use its natural resources, like it or not, the animals are part of the natural resources, i love them, i treat them very well, but its a fact that they were created for our survival, the whole food chain were created for a balance to exist in this world, if we stop eating meat, we will destroy that balance.

do you know that every year we eat 70 billion chickens, so if we dont, in just 10 years, we will have about 1 - 2 trillion more chikens, and maybe more.

so can you tell us, how can the world sustain 2 trillion chickens in addition to the pre existing 2 trillion chickens ?

you are just an idealistic, and you dont know what will happen to the world if everyone just lives the life that you want, you will have animals crowding the streets of your city in 20 - 30 years from now if everyone stopped eating meat.

there are about 1.6 billion cows in the world, we consume 300 - 400 million cow every year, so if we stop doing that, cows will exceed the numbers of the humans in just 15 years, and no grass in the world will be enough to feed them.

i can go on and tell you about the rest of the animals we eat, their numbers and the increase in it if we stopped eating, but anyway, it think you got the idea, stopping eating the meat will destroy the world in 50 years at most.

now if you prefer that the whole world is turned into a jungle, and you like to live that way, then you are more than welcome to leave the civilised world and go to live in an actual jungle :rolleyes:, but dont condemn us for eating meat to survive, and for not wanting our whole world to turn into a big animal shelter. :poke:

[Mr. P]

I assure you guys that I only kill what I will eat, or if I have plans to give some deer to someone else. I got a couple of old deputies that love deer, and they know who to call when They want some. I know who to call when I need something(we call it backscratching each other down here).

I do plan on killing a nice buck for nothing more than a trophy, but the meat will not go to waste mind you. If I happen not to get one in the next couple of weeks, I will just kill a couple does beside the road, and put in the freezer. I am eat filet mignon about 4 to 5 times a week. Those damn little country grocery stores are great. I can get a 3 plus pound filet cut up into 7 to 8 steaks for around 25 bucks, Tops. I eat like a king all week. I plan on killing two ducks tomorrow so my mom can make some duck dressing for Christmas. Yum Yum. Nothing like mom's cooking.

Those chickens you guys are talking about are so inbred and retarded, they don't know what is happening to them. Hell that must be what is wrong with all the liberals. :clap:
Yeah, that's one reason I don't hunt anymore, the other reason is cuz these damn clubs have all the land tied up, Damn it!! Hell, you can't even find a place to just go plink anymore.

[DragonStryk72]

Do you believe that we must discuss the concept of rights and governmental powers with at least a few tendrils connecting our thoughts with those of the founders?

If not, then do you believe that the fundamental principles of the rights theory embraced by the founders does not exist?

Do you believe that humans have a right join together into a society and to establish their own government?

If so, from where does that right emanate?

Actually, I do believe in the position put forth by Locke. When, at a certain, you deny those essential rights, either the institution denying them ends of collapsing, or the government in and of itself tends to fall apart.

This is a part of what Communism misses, that you cannot get around certain basic rights, such as the right to my own mind, or the right to own that which I have earned through payment and/or labor.

Simply because a right can be taken away does not mean it is not a right. For instance, here in the US, we have the right to bear arms, but of you use that right to bear arms against the owner of the local liquor store, then it's going away.

Every nation that has denied the inherent rights of its people has fallen to those who will not have those rights stripped of them, and yet still more try it later, not quite learning the lesson history has taught.

[LuvRPgrl]

seems to me that the thread should have started with a definition of a "right"

[Mr. P]

seems to me that the thread should have started with a definition of a "right"
Do you really think that would have made any difference?
The arguments would still be the same. Might be a good stand alone thread though..go fer it.