Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

Those two things are completely false. There is no evidence at all for a Creator of any kind, let alone one that grants rights. On the other hand, the evidence that it is governments that grants rights is overwhelming. After all, who ultimately granted the rights mentioned in the D o I? It was the new government of the US, covering their backs by mentioning the Creator, while ensuring that the rights were mentioned only applied to those who were white, male, rich and supported the new regime.(which is still largely the case.)
Let clear there is no evidence you recognize. Not the same. No the new government was established to protect them. You don't see the difference do you? By your reasoning when slavery was legal in America blacks didn't have a God given or inherent or inalienable, as the UN document called it, right to live freely. Complete idiocy.
As for the role of government, absolute tosh. In the first place there is no attempt whatever to protect the lives of US citizens. Otherwise you would have government funded healthcare and a sane firearms policy, a much lower child mortality and a tenth the fatal shootings. Liberty? You lock up more of your citizens than anywhere else in the western world. The pursuit of happiness? No worker rights, paid holidays, maternity or paternity leave, to say nothing of the opposition to those who seek happiness by changing gender or marrying someone of the same sex. There are ways to measure the happiness of a country. If your system is so great, why are your citizens so unhappy compared to the rest of the western world?
There is a right to pursue happiness not to be happy. Big difference. I would actually love it if people who are unhappy here moved somewhere else. Oh God please! BTW don't start unraveling now you have been doing a good d job avoiding the emotional but i am seeing a chink in the armour. Notice I added the "u" to be more inclusive.
 
Last edited:
Let clear there is no evidence you recognize. Not the same. No the new government was established to protect them. You don't see the difference do you? By your reasoning when slavery was legal in America blacks didn't have a God given or inherent or inalienable, as the UN document called it, right to live freely. Complete idiocy.
Frankly the notion that enslaved Africans transported to the US had the inalienable right to be free is as idiotic an idea as you can imagine. How was this right manifested? How did the writers of the D o I, many of whom owned slaves, reconcile their hypocrisy, let alone seek to enforce the rights they so proudly proclaimed? Where did they get the notion from anyway? Some kind of divine revelation, or were they just self-serving powerful men who realised that they would be more powerful if they became traitors?
There is a right to pursue happiness not to be happy. Big difference. I would actually love it if people who are unhappy here moved somewhere else. Oh God please! BTW don't start unraveling now you have been doing a good d job avoiding the emotional but i am seeing a chink in the armour. Notice I added the "u" to be more inclusive.
Lol! You have the choice between two systems. You can live somewhere where you have the right to be free and pursue happiness, but in reality your employer is free to exploit you and you will not be happy, or a system without the D o I, but where you will have actual rights, given you by your government, which you influence via the ballot box, and where incidentally your rights are better protected and you will be happier. There was a time when the USA was the flagship of freedom, where most people in most countries were both admiring and envious. That time has gone. The US will always be a superpower, because of the huge natural resources and technological power that it wields. It is no longer admirable, however. You are not alone in being beset with corruption in power. My own government is run by a man sacked from previous jobs for dishonesty, who is not sure how many children he has, whose venality, stupidity and vain glorious sense of entitlement is almost Trumpian. There is nothing exceptional about the D o I, just as there is nothing exceptional about the US. That ship sailed long ago.
 
Frankly the notion that enslaved Africans transported to the US had the inalienable right to be free is as idiotic an idea as you can imagine. How was this right manifested? How did the writers of the D o I, many of whom owned slaves, reconcile their hypocrisy, let alone seek to enforce the rights they so proudly proclaimed? Where did they get the notion from anyway? Some kind of divine revelation, or were they just self-serving powerful men who realised that they would be more powerful if they became traitors? Lol! You have the choice between two systems. You can live somewhere where you have the right to be free and pursue happiness, but in reality your employer is free to exploit you and you will not be happy, or a system without the D o I, but where you will have actual rights, given you by your government, which you influence via the ballot box, and where incidentally your rights are better protected and you will be happier. There was a time when the USA was the flagship of freedom, where most people in most countries were both admiring and envious. That time has gone. The US will always be a superpower, because of the huge natural resources and technological power that it wields. It is no longer admirable, however. You are not alone in being beset with corruption in power. My own government is run by a man sacked from previous jobs for dishonesty, who is not sure how many children he has, whose venality, stupidity and vain glorious sense of entitlement is almost Trumpian. There is nothing exceptional about the D o I, just as there is nothing exceptional about the US. That ship sailed long ago.
Here is the problem you think that because blacks were enslaved that they had no right to freedom. I can't think of a more asinine idea.
 
Here is the problem you think that because blacks were enslaved that they had no right to freedom. I can't think of a more asinine idea.
Whereas I think that the notion that they did have rights is asinine. Shall we ask them? What would they say if we asked "Do you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" A right that cannot be exercised is meaningless. Slaves were emancipated by those who wanted to extend to them the rights that other people had. Not too quickly, of course. Wouldn't want them voting or marrying white people or any more of that" pursuit of happiness" nonsense.
 
Whereas I think that the notion that they did have rights is asinine. Shall we ask them? What would they say if we asked "Do you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" A right that cannot be exercised is meaningless. Slaves were emancipated by those who wanted to extend to them the rights that other people had. Not too quickly, of course. Wouldn't want them voting or marrying white people or any more of that" pursuit of happiness" nonsense.
A right that cant be exercised is a crime but you don't see it that way. In America the "right" to an abortion will be going away and according to you and the other liberals there is no just reason for you to complain about it because government decides what your rights are. Very good.
 
A right that cant be exercised is a crime but you don't see it that way. In America the "right" to an abortion will be going away and according to you and the other liberals there is no just reason for you to complain about it because government decides what your rights are. Very good.
Ultimately for liberals, government is the end all and be all of everything---only when liberals are running it, of course.
 
A right that cant be exercised is a crime but you don't see it that way. In America the "right" to an abortion will be going away and according to you and the other liberals there is no just reason for you to complain about it because government decides what your rights are. Very good.
I think that we are talking across each other. I think that they ought to have rights, that all people, male, female, black, white, theist, atheist, should have rights. You think the same, but that they actually have rights, which are being suppressed. You have reified and objectified the concept of rights into a concrete entity, whereas I see rights as ephemeral, and in the gift of those in power. The end result is the same. Whether you say that an oppressed person has no rights or that their rights are criminally suppressed, makes no difference to them or their oppression. Essentially the argument is about semantics, or would be except for the unnecessary and distracting idea of God. Instead of arguing with oppressors to allow oppressed people to enjoy rights, we are arguing with each other over the existence of God. That is one of the main reasons that I find Christians do hypocritical. They would rather argue about who gives people rights than ensure that those who cannot enjoy rights are freed from oppression.
 
A right that cant be exercised is a crime but you don't see it that way. In America the "right" to an abortion will be going away and according to you and the other liberals there is no just reason for you to complain about it because government decides what your rights are. Very good.
It is good that Americans sort out their own issues with abortion. What is not good is that they are 60 years behind the rest of civilisation and travelling in the wrong direction. So much for the gold standard of government. Given the chance to decide on their own system of government, I cannot imagine anyone living in a democracy choosing the American system. I doubt there would be a majority of Americans choosing it either. That's what happens when you freeze your system so that it is 250 years out of date.
 
I think that we are talking across each other. I think that they ought to have rights, that all people, male, female, black, white, theist, atheist, should have rights. You think the same, but that they actually have rights, which are being suppressed.
Never said they "are being suppressed" so no idea what you're talking about. You are right though I think people have rights, they just aren't granted by the government. The government can suppress them, like happened with slavery but blacks had a right to freedom even when it was being suppressed. If not then they had claim to freedom. No one is entitled to something that isn't theres are they?
You have reified and objectified the concept of rights into a concrete entity, whereas I see rights as ephemeral, and in the gift of those in power. The end result is the same. Whether you say that an oppressed person has no rights or that their rights are criminally suppressed, makes no difference to them or their oppression. Essentially the argument is about semantics, or would be except for the unnecessary and distracting idea of God. Instead of arguing with oppressors to allow oppressed people to enjoy rights, we are arguing with each other over the existence of God. That is one of the main reasons that I find Christians do hypocritical. They would rather argue about who gives people rights than ensure that those who cannot enjoy rights are freed from oppression.
What I wrote above I think is the true essence of my position.
 
Never said they "are being suppressed" so no idea what you're talking about. You are right though I think people have rights, they just aren't granted by the government. The government can suppress them, like happened with slavery but blacks had a right to freedom even when it was being suppressed. If not then they had claim to freedom. No one is entitled to something that isn't theres are they?

What I wrote above I think is the true essence of my position.
I understand your position. I just think that it is totally bonkers. With or without God.
 
It is good that Americans sort out their own issues with abortion. What is not good is that they are 60 years behind the rest of civilisation and travelling in the wrong direction. So much for the gold standard of government. Given the chance to decide on their own system of government, I cannot imagine anyone living in a democracy choosing the American system. I doubt there would be a majority of Americans choosing it either. That's what happens when you freeze your system so that it is 250 years out of date.
How far behind we might be is completely and utterly irrelevant. That's a ridiculous comment. Sorry.

I explained that to you that decades of perverted teaching by left leaning teachers in America has had a devastating effect. The only thing wrong with the system is it's been infected with stupidity.
 
How far behind we might be is completely and utterly irrelevant. That's a ridiculous comment. Sorry.

I explained that to you that decades of perverted teaching by left leaning teachers in America has had a devastating effect. The only thing wrong with the system is it's been infected with stupidity.
I'm sorry, but you have no idea what "left leaning" means. Your system is totally dominated by two parties. One with a long history of racism and sexism which has gradually moved to a position that the rest of the world would consider is center right. The other is the Republican Party, which seems to oscillate between hard right and extremist, far-right popularism. You have no unions with any influence, no workers rights, no welfare state, and you think that teaching children to be tolerant of each other is leftist propaganda which is ruining the country.
 
I'm sorry, but you have no idea what "left leaning" means. Your system is totally dominated by two parties. One with a long history of racism and sexism which has gradually moved to a position that the rest of the world would consider is center right. The other is the Republican Party, which seems to oscillate between hard right and extremist, far-right popularism. You have no unions with any influence, no workers rights, no welfare state, and you think that teaching children to be tolerant of each other is leftist propaganda which is ruining the country.
You have no idea what "left leaning" means but feel comfortable commenting on it. That's what I love best about you people. Talk from ignorance but do it loudly and often.

Do you know who Thomas Sowell and/or who Walter Williams are?
 
Which reinforces the accuracy of my position. What are you entitled to that you don't own?
How does me thinking that your position is bonkers, reinforce it? I am entitled to free health care, including care and accommodation until death. I am entitled to the love of my family, to paid paternity and compassionate leave from work. I am entitled to not leave a gratuity without being guilt tripped by the appalling wages of restaurant staff. I am entitled to own a gun, as long as I pass certain conditions and secure it appropriately. I am entitled to access to the justice system and legal advice. I am entitled to a passport. I own none of these things. Many people in many countries are not entitled to these things because their governments do not grant them those entitlements. If you say that these are rights, that everybody owns, then do you own them?
 
You have no idea what "left leaning" means but feel comfortable commenting on it. That's what I love best about you people. Talk from ignorance but do it loudly and often.

Do you know who Thomas Sowell and/or who Walter Williams are?
I studied Economics at the LSE. Of course I know who they are. What's your point?
 
I think that we are talking across each other. I think that they ought to have rights, that all people, male, female, black, white, theist, atheist, should have rights. You think the same, but that they actually have rights, which are being suppressed. You have reified and objectified the concept of rights into a concrete entity, whereas I see rights as ephemeral, and in the gift of those in power. The end result is the same. Whether you say that an oppressed person has no rights or that their rights are criminally suppressed, makes no difference to them or their oppression. Essentially the argument is about semantics, or would be except for the unnecessary and distracting idea of God. Instead of arguing with oppressors to allow oppressed people to enjoy rights, we are arguing with each other over the existence of God. That is one of the main reasons that I find Christians do hypocritical. They would rather argue about who gives people rights than ensure that those who cannot enjoy rights are freed from oppression.
Are there no absolute rights?
 
How does me thinking that your position is bonkers, reinforce it?
LMBO
I am entitled to free health care, including care and accommodation until death.
Why? Only because your government says so right?
I am entitled to the love of my family, to paid paternity and compassionate leave from work. I am entitled to not leave a gratuity without being guilt tripped by the appalling wages of restaurant staff. I am entitled to own a gun, as long as I pass certain conditions and secure it appropriately. I am entitled to access to the justice system and legal advice. I am entitled to a passport. I own none of these things. Many people in many countries are not entitled to these things because their governments do not grant them those entitlements. If you say that these are rights, that everybody owns, then do you own them?
I like how you just break off into ranting.

So if everyone in my neighborhood owns a car, I don't own my car? That's beyond stupid.
 
Back
Top