[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Please lock (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 2/27/2014 6:12:12 PM EDT
| Derp brigade still at it. Homo say bump. |
|
Quoted:
In this context inalienable means that it cannot be taken away by the government without due process. It should also mean that you can legally do what is necessary to defend it. So does that just make it a very poor choice of words? That would be like saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed* |
|
Quoted:
So does that just make it a very poor choice of words? That would be like saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed* Quoted:
Quoted:
In this context inalienable means that it cannot be taken away by the government without due process. It should also mean that you can legally do what is necessary to defend it. So does that just make it a very poor choice of words? That would be like saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed* It means that you have a tenuous grasp of English at best. And you're a terrible troll. |
|
Winning |
|
Quoted:
So does that just make it a very poor choice of words? That would be like saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed* Quoted:
Quoted:
In this context inalienable means that it cannot be taken away by the government without due process. It should also mean that you can legally do what is necessary to defend it. So does that just make it a very poor choice of words? That would be like saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed* Seems pretty cut and dried to me. |
|
Quoted:
Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In this context inalienable means that it cannot be taken away by the government without due process. It should also mean that you can legally do what is necessary to defend it. So does that just make it a very poor choice of words? That would be like saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed* Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Note the asterisk |
|
Quoted:
Note the asterisk Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In this context inalienable means that it cannot be taken away by the government without due process. It should also mean that you can legally do what is necessary to defend it. So does that just make it a very poor choice of words? That would be like saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed* Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Note the asterisk What about it? |
|
Quoted:
What about it? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In this context inalienable means that it cannot be taken away by the government without due process. It should also mean that you can legally do what is necessary to defend it. So does that just make it a very poor choice of words? That would be like saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed* Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Note the asterisk What about it? An exception. No infringement, except for when it can be infringed... Inalienable right, a right that can't be taken away, except for when it can... |
|
If only there was a way to get rid of trolls. If only there was someone around with special buttons. 
|
|
That's the problem with a lot of conservatives. Have to create more division. Don't agree with someone over an online discussion? They're a fascist commie troll.
Heaven forbid you try to reason with people if you do disagree and win more people to your side. No, no, let's create more division. Let's piss off the atheists, remember Mormons aren't real Christians, gays should stay in the closet, legitimate rape, women shouldn't vote, why can't we win any elections???. Spiderface lol, what a ridiculous night. |
|
I don't know if the OP is trolling or if someone is really so dense as to not understand the difference between something being impossible versus something being wrong. The premise is that your life *can* be taken unjustly but that is wrong. Your RKBA *can* be taken unjustly but that is wrong. Your rights are violated...that is wrong...but it is not impossible. If he's talking about some kind of redress of grievance for such wrongs, that's another matter. |
|
Quoted:
An exception. No infringement, except for when it can be infringed... Inalienable right, a right that can't be taken away, except for when it can... Note due process. For instance would you want a convicted serial killer to have the right to bear arms? How about a 7 year old having the right to vote? Not all rights are inalienable. |
|
Quoted:
That's the problem with a lot of conservatives. Have to create more division. Don't agree with someone over an online discussion? They're a fascist commie troll. Heaven forbid you try to reason with people if you do disagree and win more people to your side. No, no, let's create more division. Let's piss off the atheists, remember Mormons aren't real Christians, gays should stay in the closet, legitimate rape, women shouldn't vote, why can't we win any elections???. Spiderface lol, what a ridiculous night. So... what you're saying is that you deserve to have a voice on a forum, even thought 99.9% of its membership disagree with you? Kind of like its a right, that's, um, what's the word? Inalienable? |
|
Nailed it. |
|
Quoted:
That's the problem with a lot of conservatives. Have to create more division. Don't agree with someone over an online discussion? They're a fascist commie troll. Heaven forbid you try to reason with people if you do disagree and win more people to your side. No, no, let's create more division. Let's piss off the atheists, remember Mormons aren't real Christians, gays should stay in the closet, legitimate rape, women shouldn't vote, why can't we win any elections???. Spiderface lol, what a ridiculous night. Let's clear this up.... as we tried to clear it up on your other thread. People are calling you a fascist because on your other thread on the front page you assert that parents do not have the right to raise their children with the values of their choosing. You also claim that a right does not exist if a superior force can violate it. Both of those claims make you a fascist. |
|
Quoted:
I can't comprehend the concept of an inalienable right to life, as an example. It just doesn't make sense to me. What does that right to life actually mean? What good is it to someone who is murdered? We talk about the government trying to take our RKBA away, so wouldn't killing somebody be taking their right to life away? And if you take someone's right away, then it's not inalienable. It seems like an impossible concept to me, like t<0 Life, Liberty and, the pursuit of happiness; that is where it begins. |
|
Rights are what belong to man and have always belonged to man, that have evolved with man, and are outside of the prevue of government.
Things that exist beyond government and should not be within the governments ability to control. Things that belong to the individual. the limit of rights is when they intersect, and interfere with another individuals rights. Natural rights. Examples. The Right to life, to exist. This should be yours, totally in your control, and no one should be able to take it from you. this includes the right to self defense, and defense of family. Your right to exist does not exist without the means to defend it. The means should include any method that might be required. Only when your right to life interferes with others right to life should there be intervention. Freedom. You should be able to come and go as you please, where and when you please. The only restriction is when it infringes on someone else's rights, for example, my right to go where I want doesn't include your private property. You have a right to privacy; my rights end where yours begin. My freedom to swing my fist ends at the beginning of your nose. Many things fall under this Right, such as the pursuit of happiness, to chose your means of existence, to follow your dreams as you see fit, so long as it doesn't hurt or interfere with others. The right to property. What you acquire belongs to you, and cannot be taken away, only released by your free will. The right to privacy, security. You should be able to have a place of refuge where you are secure and safe. Inalienable means it exists outside of government, not that it cannot be taken. Rights are constantly repressed or taken from people. Some rights we voluntarily compromise in order to live in a certain culture or society. When we form governments we assign certain aspects of our rights to government in exchange for certain benefits. For example, we give up certain amounts of freedom and property in exchange for security. But the whole concept of Rights has been twisted and subjugated by modern society, things that are called rights are not, and certain rights are taken or denied in the name of government. Read Thomas Paine's " Rights of Man", an inspirational defense of the French Revolution by one of our own Revolutionary heroes. These are basics |
|
Quoted:
I can't comprehend the concept of an inalienable right to life, as an example. It just doesn't make sense to me. What does that right to life actually mean? What good is it to someone who is murdered? We talk about the government trying to take our RKBA away, so wouldn't killing somebody be taking their right to life away? And if you take someone's right away, then it's not inalienable. It seems like an impossible concept to me, like t<0 A right is, the freedom to do as one wishes as long as it hurts no one physically. You will notice that your rights and how you exercise them is up to you and you alone. Government has no part in them, as long as you do not violate the rule of what a right is. Now there is a problem, what do you do if you violate someones rights or they violate yours? Yes you need some way to fix the problem, hence government. The problem being how much government, well the answer is simple, the more government the less rights, so if you like your rights you want a small government, if you want government running your life totally then you want total government. History tells us that almost all government officials lust for power and money with very few exceptions. Ask your self this and you will have the answer to what the inalienable right to life is, if the federal government sent you a letter saying that you were to report to the federal court house down town for termination by hanging, tomorrow morning at 8:00 as you were no longer a use to society, would you go or would you exercise you right to life and run fight or do whatever it took to stay alive? Yes it is that simple, the problem being that most in the US have grown up so accustomed to there rights they don't even recognize them, much akin to walking most don't think about what goes into it, they just do it. |
|
The common trait with this recent trend if troll threads is that the OP doesn't have a fundamental grasp that when you single one idea out you might miss the explanation somewhere else for it. A lot of things don't make sense if you only read the headline OP. So rather than accusing people of not being able to converse without name calling, get some copies of our founding documents and read. Then read about the people that wrote them. Then if you still have questions, ask. But accusing us of being assholes because you don't grasp concepts that should be covered in high school really shows your lack of character and knowledge. |
Oh a 14'r I see.
