Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

No officers directly charged with Breonna Taylor's death

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The way I see it, anyone who has broken the law has voluntarily ceded their basic rights. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be able to do much as arrest them.
    I disagree with this, at least if its is couched as a blanket term. Prisoners have an inviolable human dignity and cannot be treated as anything other than human beings. I see it as rights that supercede eachother. A persons right to freedom can get into conflict with the right of people to live in an ordered and free society, and this right is greater, therefore it becomes permissible for those who hold the peace to cause some harm to a person's freedom in order for societal order to be preserved.

    As for drug laws I don't find them useful. At the very least I believe possession should be decriminalized.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post

      I disagree with this, at least if its is couched as a blanket term. Prisoners have an inviolable human dignity and cannot be treated as anything other than human beings. I see it as rights that supercede eachother. A persons right to freedom can get into conflict with the right of people to live in an ordered and free society, and this right is greater, therefore it becomes permissible for those who hold the peace to cause some harm to a person's freedom in order for societal order to be preserved.

      As for drug laws I don't find them useful. At the very least I believe possession should be decriminalized.
      It's odd that two of the three "inalienable" rights of every person can actually be taken away by the government. Not "inalienable" after all, I guess.
      America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
        Thanks, but I'll comment on what I choose to.
        If you prefer to spend your time replying to people's comments you mistakenly believe are directed at you, then by all means, waste your time. You do you.
        "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

        Comment


        • Originally posted by myth View Post

          If you prefer to spend your time replying to people's comments you mistakenly believe are directed at you, then by all means, waste your time. You do you.
          I don't need your permission to do as I please, but thanks for your meaningless consent.
          America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Electric Septic View Post
            It's odd that two of the three "inalienable" rights of every person can actually be taken away by the government. Not "inalienable" after all, I guess.
            Not "taken away by the government" but voluntarily ceded by someone when they choose to become criminals.

            Let's put it this way: when someone chooses to live outside of the law, then they can no longer claim certain protections offered within the law.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Not "taken away by the government" but voluntarily ceded by someone when they choose to become criminals.
              Firstly, that's nonsense. They don't surrender those things - they are taken away from them. To claim that they surrender them is nonsense.

              Secondly, part of 'inalienable' is that those rights cannot be surrendered.

              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Let's put it this way: when someone chooses to live outside of the law, then they can no longer claim certain protections offered within the law.
              Which demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence is simply wrong when it states that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Two of the three 'inalienable rights' are, in fact, alienated from people daily.

              America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Electric Septic View Post
                Firstly, that's nonsense. They don't surrender those things - they are taken away from them. To claim that they surrender them is nonsense.

                Secondly, part of 'inalienable' is that those rights cannot be surrendered.


                Which demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence is simply wrong when it states that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Two of the three 'inalienable rights' are, in fact, alienated from people daily.
                So you are opposed to criminals being arrested because it violates their right to liberty? Because that is the logical implication of your argument.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • It's obvious that even if a right is god-given (unalienable) it can be legitimately abridged under certain circumstances. Even in the bible where God says "Do not kill" there were still laws that when broken resulted in capital punishment decreed by God himself.




                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    So you are opposed to criminals being arrested because it violates their right to liberty? Because that is the logical implication of your argument.
                    Just noticed your childishness. Goodbye.
                    America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      It's obvious that even if a right is god-given (unalienable) it can be legitimately abridged under certain circumstances. Even in the bible where God says "Do not kill" there were still laws that when broken resulted in capital punishment decreed by God himself.
                      Inalienable does not mean god-given. If a right is inalienable, it cannot be alienated from you. Two of the three rights in the DoI are alienated by the government - they're not inalienable at all.
                      America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Electric Septic View Post
                        Just noticed your childishness. Goodbye.
                        Just noticed you can't answer my question.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                          Inalienable does not mean god-given. If a right is inalienable, it cannot be alienated from you. Two of the three rights in the DoI are alienated by the government - they're not inalienable at all.
                          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights



                          Of course they CAN be abridged. Just look at the history of the world. It means that they are not supposed to be abridged. That even when they are, a person still has them despite being repressed. And it doesn't mean there are no exceptions where they can be abridged legally. Like I said, even in the OT there were exceptions where someone gave up their rights, like if they broke the Mosaic Law.



                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
                            Sorry, but "unalienable" still doesn't mean god-given. These particular rights are (claimed to be) both god-given and unalienable; the two are not synonymous.



                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Of course they CAN be abridged. Just look at the history of the world. It means that they are not supposed to be abridged.
                            Sorry, but that's not what the word means. IT means they cannot be alienated, not just that they are not supposed to be.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            That even when they are, a person still has them despite being repressed.
                            So every time the government jails or executes someone, they are violating an unalienable right?

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            And it doesn't mean there are no exceptions where they can be abridged legally.
                            Sure, proving they are not unalienable in the first place.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Like I said, even in the OT there were exceptions where someone gave up their rights, like if they broke the Mosaic Law.
                            Completely irrelevant. We are talking about man-made laws, not religious claims.
                            America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Of course they CAN be abridged.
                              Exactly. Otherwise, it would be immoral to arrest and imprison people for committing crimes. But rather than admit that, the electric moron decided to ignore me instead.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                                Sorry, but "unalienable" still doesn't mean god-given. These particular rights are (claimed to be) both god-given and unalienable; the two are not synonymous.




                                Sorry, but that's not what the word means. IT means they cannot be alienated, not just that they are not supposed to be.


                                So every time the government jails or executes someone, they are violating an unalienable right?


                                Sure, proving they are not unalienable in the first place.


                                Completely irrelevant. We are talking about man-made laws, not religious claims.
                                You seem to be very literal minded. If you have an unalienable right to say, life, does that make you immortal or something? What's to stop someone from violating your right and murdering you? It doesn't mean you don't have the right, just that someone didn't respect that right and violated it.


                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                85 responses
                                393 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X