Hitler Slavery and Abortion

[Eightcrackers]

Well if my rights only come FROM man then I have no recourse whatsoever but if I inherently have rights that someone takes away from me then I can demand them back at the point of a gun if necessary.

You can do this even if you think rights - including the 2nd Amendment - come from man, can't you?

What's to stop you?

I keep forgetting you are not an American and you think or give you your rights. As bad as it is that you're a shell of a human being who sees no recourse to those who would make your rights away from you, many people in a country that's was built on the exact opposite of what you think (America), actually agree with you. It actually makes me physically I to think about becomes some day we will have no rights whatsoever.

I think my rights come from men; you think they are "inherent".
What can you do that I can't, if each of us has our rights revoked?

What action/s can you take that proves that our rights don't come from men?

 

[Nedsk]

You can do this even if you think rights - including the 2nd Amendment - come from man, can't you?

What's to stop you?

I think my rights come from men; you think they are "inherent".
What can you do that I can't, if each of us has our rights revoked?

What action/s can you take that proves that our rights don't come from men?

No because man thinks he can take them away. He can't. I have rights that are inherent and do not come from man.

I've explained to you what I can do. If you think your rights only come from man then you have no more reason to resist. If however my rights are inherent then I have a very good moral reason to resist.

The exercise of my rights can be impeded by men their existence cannot. Quick question the for you and referring back to the title of the thread do you think Jews no longer had rights when hitler took them from them? I agree they could access them but they had no inherent right not it be killed?

 

[Eightcrackers]

No because man thinks he can take them away. He can't. I have rights that are inherent and do not come from man.

I'll ask again: what is the practical difference between an inherent right that men-in-power don't recognize, and a right that you don't have?

I've explained to you what I can do. If you think your rights only come from man then you have no more reason to resist. If however my rights are inherent then I have a very good moral reason to resist.

I'm not talking about the reason/s to resist.
I'm talking about how you go about resisting, and what you accomplish by resisting.

Because that is what matters - you can go down swinging, or go down quiet, but either way, you're going down.

The exercise of my rights can be impeded by men their existence cannot.

And the practical difference between unexercised and nonexistent is... what?

Quick question the for you and referring back to the title of the thread do you think Jews no longer had rights when hitler took them from them?

Yes - they were under Nazi German law, not ours.

We fought not to enforce their rights, but to be able to grant them rights.

Anti-abortion campaigners think that the unborn should have rights, and are fighting to get their government to grant them.

I agree they could access them but they had no inherent right not it be killed?

I reject the existence of inherent rights.
Rights are permissions and protections that we afford each other, and only matter when it comes to recognition and enforcement, IMO.

 

[Nedsk]

I'll ask again: what is the practical difference between an inherent right that men-in-power don't recognize, and a right that you don't have?

I'm not talking about the reason/s to resist.
I'm talking about how you go about resisting, and what you accomplish by resisting.

Because that is what matters - you can go down swinging, or go down quiet, but either way, you're going down.

And the practical difference between unexercised and nonexistent is... what?

Yes - they were under Nazi German law, not ours.

We fought not to enforce their rights, but to be able to grant them rights.

Anti-abortion campaigners think that the unborn should have rights, and are fighting to get their government to grant them.

I reject the existence of inherent rights.
Rights are permissions and protections that we afford each other, and only matter when it comes to recognition and enforcement, IMO.

I've told you over and over again. Why must I say it AGAIN.

Humans can take my inherent rights but it's unjust and justice is a higher moral value. Front your point if view you have no just cause to complain so sit down and shut up. That's not how this country was built but again sadly many people in America have been infected with that bull crap.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Front your point if view you have no just cause to complain so sit down and shut up.

That's not my point of view at all - if humans take away a right that I think I'm entitled to, I will fight to get it back.

Is it merely my opinion that I should have that right? Absolutely.
But it's also their opinion that I shouldn't, so we are equal footing.

That's not how this country was built but again sadly many people in America have been infected with that bull crap.

The US was built on the assumption that rights are granted by a god.
Assumption.
Assuming that your rights come from a god gives you no better ammunition than I.

Telling a mugger that you have a god-given right to life won't stop him from shooting you, and what good is a "god-given" right to life to your corpse?

 

[Nedsk]

That's not my point of view at all - if humans take away a right that I think I'm entitled to, I will fight to get it back.

Is it merely my opinion that I should have that right? Absolutely.
But it's also their opinion that I shouldn't, so we are equal footing.

The US was built on the assumption that rights are granted by a god.
Assumption.
Assuming that your rights come from a god gives you no better ammunition than I.

Telling a mugger that you have a god-given right to life won't stop him from shooting you, and what good is a "god-given" right to life to your corpse?

Based on what? If you believe someone's gives you your rights and they aren't hours you have no just reason to demand then back since man decides what you should have. That's foolish. You have no just cause to demand something be returned to to if you never owned it. How can you demand something from someone that you claim decides what to our get? You really need to rethink this

 

[Eightcrackers]

Based on what? If you believe someone's gives you your rights and they aren't ours you have no just reason to demand then back since man decides what you should have.

I am also a man, so I am involved in deciding what I should have.

By "just" reason, I assume you mean "objective" reason. And, as I've already said, I don't believe that either side has objective footing when granting, revoking, or seeking rights.

You have no just cause to demand something be returned to to if you never owned it.

No less just than those that took it from me.
Neither side has the advantage.

How can you demand something from someone that you claim decides what to our get?

1. By saying "give me this thing I want, or I will make trouble for you."
Same way women got the vote, same way blacks got the vote.

2. How do you respond when you say

"Recognize this thing my god gave me,"

and they answer

"LOL! No."

?

 

[Nedsk]

I am also a man, so I am involved in deciding what I should have.

By "just" reason, I assume you mean "objective" reason. And, as I've already said, I don't believe that either side has objective footing when granting, revoking, or seeking rights.

No less just than those that took it from me.
Neither side has the advantage.

1. By saying "give me this thing I want, or I will make trouble for you."
Same way women got the vote, same way blacks got the vote.

2. How do you respond when you say

"Recognize this thing my god gave me,"

and they answer

"LOL! No."

?

No by just I mean if my right freedom is strictly man made then when men take it from me I have no just cause to demand it back. It would be an injustice for me to demand it backs if it's theirs to give. If however my rights are inherent then when me take them from me I have a just cause to demand them back. This is very simple stuff my friend. You have no right to demand what is not yours. That's stealing.

 

[Eightcrackers]

No by just I mean if my right freedom is strictly man made then when men take it from me I have no just cause to demand it back.

Depends what you mean by "just cause" - you seem to think that not just the rights themselves, but the basis on which they are claimed, need to be somehow "objective".

I reject both, so appealing to subjectivity of the latter is pointless with me.

If however my rights are inherent then when me take them from me I have a just cause to demand them back.

OK - let's run with it.

I am a dictator, and I have taken your right to freely assemble.
Demand it back.

You have no right to demand what is not yours. That's stealing.

No less right than the government had to take it away.
Equal footing.

 

[Nedsk]

Depends what you mean by "just cause" - you seem to think that not just the rights themselves, but the basis on which they are claimed, need to be somehow "objective".

I reject both, so appealing to subjectivity of the latter is pointless with me.

OK - let's run with it.

I am a dictator, and I have taken your right to freely assemble.
Demand it back.

No less right than the government had to take it away.
Equal footing.

No it has nothing to do with "objective". Im not really sure why this is so complicated for you. I dont own something,in this case, my rights because they belong to someone else to disperse to me I have no reasonable argument to demand them from that person. But if however I own my rights and someone takes them it is not only my right but my duty to demand them back. I have no right to what is not mine. You aren't an advocate for stealing are you?

 

[Nedsk]

No it has nothing to do with "objective". Im not really sure why this is so complicated for you. I dont something in this my rights because they belong to someone else to disperse to me I have no reasonable argument to demand them from that person. But if however I own my rights and someone takes them it is not only my right but my duty to demand them back. I have no right to what is not mine. You aren't an advocate for stealing are you?

Deleted

 

[BMS]

It does not matter where they come from.
It only matters where the rubber meets the road.

But wouldn't it be better if we could get rid of gravity when we design planes?
The planes would be so much better!

The point is, we can't. Just as we can't get rid of the "problem" that our rights come down to human recognition and protection.

It's a hinderance to 100% efficient airplanes that weigh four ounces, instead of four hundred tons.

This post doesnt really say anything

 

[BMS]

I'll ask again: what is the practical difference between an inherent right that men-in-power don't recognize, and a right that you don't have?

I'm not talking about the reason/s to resist.
I'm talking about how you go about resisting, and what you accomplish by resisting.

Because that is what matters - you can go down swinging, or go down quiet, but either way, you're going down.

And the practical difference between unexercised and nonexistent is... what?

Yes - they were under Nazi German law, not ours.

We fought not to enforce their rights, but to be able to grant them rights.

Anti-abortion campaigners think that the unborn should have rights, and are fighting to get their government to grant them.

I reject the existence of inherent rights.
Rights are permissions and protections that we afford each other, and only matter when it comes to recognition and enforcement, IMO.

But the unborn human being in the west is no better off than the Jew in Nazi Germany neither have right to life. Your problem is you and the Nazi have different reasons and probably both think you are right.

 

[Eightcrackers]

No it has nothing to do with "objective". Im not really sure why this is so complicated for you. I dont own something,in this case, my rights because they belong to someone else to disperse to me I have no reasonable argument to demand them from that person.

Again, depends what you mean by "reasonable".

You can make a reasonable case that you should be given a right that you don't have - the argument doesn't stop being reasonable merely if it's rejected or ignored.

But if however I own my rights and someone takes them it is not only my right but my duty to demand them back.

And if you don't get them back, I don't see the practical difference.

And I only care about the practical difference.
A god-given right to life does a corspe no more good than does a man-given right to life.

 

[Nedsk]

This post doesnt really say anything

Well I've made the point to the poster that if rights come from men then men can dispense them because they own them. And that if they own them and they take them away from us then we have no right to demand them since that would be stealing. If however we own our rights then when someone tries to take them we would.have every right to demand them back as they our ours and not someone else's. It's a simplistic argument on my part so I apologize but j think it works

 

[BMS]

That's not my point of view at all - if humans take away a right that I think I'm entitled to, I will fight to get it back.

Is it merely my opinion that I should have that right? Absolutely.
But it's also their opinion that I shouldn't, so we are equal footing.

The US was built on the assumption that rights are granted by a god.
Assumption.
Assuming that your rights come from a god gives you no better ammunition than I.

Telling a mugger that you have a god-given right to life won't stop him from shooting you, and what good is a "god-given" right to life to your corpse?

So all kinds of people will be fighting for their rights but you should be the judge.

 

[Nedsk]

Again, depends what you mean by "reasonable".

You can make a reasonable case that you should be given a right that you don't have - the argument doesn't stop being reasonable merely if it's rejected or ignored.

And if you don't get them back, I don't see the practical difference.

And I only care about the practical difference.
A god-given right to life does a corspe no more good than does a man-given right to life.

I didn't say rights we dont have. If I don't inherently have rights then they are not mine. I use the word "own" for ease of discussion. If I dont own them I have no just cause to demand then back it would be an injustice on my part to demand them.

When the founders wrote the declaration of independence their claim was that our rights came from our creator not king George and since he took those rights it was proper for us to demand them back otherwise we would have been no better than petulant children.

You really should contemplate this a bit more.

 

[Nedsk]

So all kinds of people will be fighting for their rights but you should be the judge.

I can't fathom why we have to argue with another human being that's your rights shouldnt be dependent on other people or govts.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I didn't say rights we dont have. If I don't inherently have rights then they are not mine.

Only if you require that possession be inherent.

If I dont own them I have no just cause to demand then back it would be an injustice on my part to demand them.

Injustice by what standard?

I reject the concept of "inherent justice" as well, I should add - it is no more unjust that I demand a right back than it was for the government to revoke it in the first place.

When the founders wrote the declaration of independence their claim was that our rights came from our creator

Yes, it was.
But since it is humans that protect and enforce them, the practical manifestation and results cannot be distinguished from them being granted by men.

A god given right to life does no good to a corpse. I do not care about abstracts and hypotheticals.
I care about recognition and enforcement.

and since he took those rights it was proper for us to demand them back otherwise we would.have been no better than petulant children.

No more petulant - objectively speaking - than the ones that took them away.

You seem to think that, in removing objective grounding for the demander, it somehow "transfers" to the granter. I reject objectivity on both sides.

 

[Nedsk]

Only if you require that possession be inherent.

Injustice by what standard?

I reject the concept of "inherent justice" as well, I should add - it is no more unjust that I demand a right back than it was for the government to revoke it in the first place.

Yes, it was.
But since it is humans that protect and enforce them, the practical manifestation and results cannot be distinguished from them being granted by men.

A god given right to life does no good to a corpse. I do not care about abstracts and hypotheticals.
I care about recognition and enforcement.

No more petulant - objectively speaking - than the ones that took them away.

You seem to think that, in removing objective grounding for the demander, it somehow "transfers" to the granter. I reject objectivity on both sides.

Where did I say possession is a requirement for them to be inherent. In fact I said exactly the opposite. Want me to restate my position AGAIN?