Governator of California Vetoes Equal Rights for Gol Darn Homos - Page 3

Matteo Martini · 22nd September 2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

How the hell can it be "words in your mouth" when he said, practically word for word, what you actually said?

Hey!!

You said you were leaving!!

Lonewulf · 22nd September 2007, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

Hey!!

You said you were leaving!!

Sorry to disappoint.

Upchurch · 22nd September 2007, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

How the hell can it be "words in your mouth" when he said, practically word for word, what you actually said?

What he said.

Matteo Martini · 22nd September 2007, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Sorry to disappoint.

No, no.
More than happy to see you again

UserGoogol · 23rd September 2007, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Perhaps in the UK, but you will find that the foundational document regarding "rights" for the American form of governance and legal system is that all rights are reserved to the people, except as modified by either the Constitution, or due process of law. In that respect, there are inherent rights, such as my right to stare at the wall, in abundance.

The problem with the Ninth Amendment, as much as I like it in principle, (I don't believe in natural rights, but I believe that there's more to rights than just legal rights) is that there is no mechanism for determining what an unenumerated right is. The Judiciary Branch, by definition, concerns itself with law, and therefore rights that are not granted by law (explicitly or implicitly) are unknowable to it.

Hell, one might even argue that if the judiciary branch was to delve into philosophy to try to determine what rights were, they'd be breaking the first amendment. (It's a creative interpretation, but surely if government can't make law establishing religion, establishing philosophy must also be unconstitutional, since allowing "philosophy" would be such a huge loophole as to render the amendment toothless.)

RandFan · 23rd September 2007, 12:32 AM

I'm disapointed but not surprised. I live in California, a blue state. California voted overwhelmingly for the defense of marriage act. I think the tide is turning for Dems but they still are against gay marriage.

FTR, I've been a Republican all of my life but I've decided to register independant. The whole us vs them crap is growing awfuly thin.

I like that the Dems are more likely to be tolerant to atheists and they are much more tolerant of minorities and civil rights but they've got thier issues also.

Count me out.

Lonewulf · 23rd September 2007, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

No, no.
More than happy to see you again

Okay, that's good.

Nice to see you again, as well.

Misunderstood the intentions of your post.

Yeah, I can't stay away. There's a few posters here that I actually respect, and quite frankly, I shouldn't leave just because there's some people I can't stand.

From now on, when I see someone hijacking a thread to do "dawkins bashing", and repeat the same old arguments over and over, I'm just going to put them on ignore. Someone that's so imperceptive as to think that they're actually bringing up something new while they hijack a thread to do it, really aren't worth my time. In fact, to my mind, they're little more than selective trolls. As for Ion and Oliver, it wasn't them that were really ticking me off. It was people that really seem like they should know better.

Ion and Oliver... well, they just are. I think they're unrecoverable, in the end, although I do hope for the slimmest hope that Oliver might actually one day come to the realization that Germany isn't as perfect as he thinks it is. (Although I live here in Eppelheim, near Heidelberg, and I DO admit that at times it DOES seem like paradise here).

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

The problem with the Ninth Amendment, as much as I like it in principle, (I don't believe in natural rights, but I believe that there's more to rights than just legal rights) is that there is no mechanism for determining what an unenumerated right is. The Judiciary Branch, by definition, concerns itself with law, and therefore rights that are not granted by law (explicitly or implicitly) are unknowable to it.

Hell, one might even argue that if the judiciary branch was to delve into philosophy to try to determine what rights were, they'd be breaking the first amendment. (It's a creative interpretation, but surely if government can't make law establishing religion, establishing philosophy must also be unconstitutional, since allowing "philosophy" would be such a huge loophole as to render the amendment toothless.)

That's a Good Thing (tm). The law is set down, and the judiciary is set down, to police what is strictly truly harmful to society, as passed down by Legislation and Executive branches (which sometimes are influenced by the People). They don't tell you what is "right", or the "right" way to behave. They tell you the WRONG way to behave; at least, wrong enough to be sent in jail, not wrong as in "don't commit adultery", no matter what the personal feelings of judges are. That's not the purpose of Law, and the Judiciary. They're there to police with the laws handed to them by the other branches and the People, and that's the way I think it should be.

I don't want to be ruled over by a "philosopher-king", or a "philosopher-judiciary" that polices me with their own personal philosophy. Keeping that out of the Judiciary is not a bug, it's a feature. (Note: I do realize that the construction of the current government is based on the philosophy set down by the Founding Fathers; but I consider it more of a political philosophy, mixed in with some other philosophical precepts, with the good parts unchanging and the other stuff up to the will of the government under it, so long as certain basic principles are not broken; such as the Bill of Rights).

gumboot · 23rd September 2007, 03:09 AM

I have to say I find it kind of odd that the United States can have a Federal Constitution, that is meant to be the fundamental principals upon which the entire nation is founded and established, and yet states within said country can pass laws in direct contradiction of said Constitution.

I'm trying to imagine the local city council (we only have the two tiers of government) trying to pass a bylaw that directly contradicted parliament. It just wouldn't work.

You Americans and your crazy country...

-Gumboot

gumboot · 23rd September 2007, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

That's a Good Thing (tm). The law is set down, and the judiciary is set down, to police what is strictly truly harmful to society, as passed down by Legislation and Executive branches (which sometimes are influenced by the People). They don't tell you what is "right", or the "right" way to behave. They tell you the WRONG way to behave; at least, wrong enough to be sent in jail, not wrong as in "don't commit adultery", no matter what the personal feelings of judges are. That's not the purpose of Law, and the Judiciary. They're there to police with the laws handed to them by the other branches and the People, and that's the way I think it should be.

I very much see law as having a similar function. Governments should not tell people how to live their lives. Their only role is to set up a boundary, which marks the limits of acceptable behaviour in society. Inside those boundaries citizens should be free to do whatever they please.

When you get an over zealous government your legislation becomes less like a giant field with a perimeter fence, and more like a maze, with walls everywhere and only one way through. That's not how it should be.

-Gumboot

Matteo Martini · 24th September 2007, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Okay, that's good.

Nice to see you again, as well.

Misunderstood the intentions of your post.

Yeah, I can't stay away. There's a few posters here that I actually respect, and quite frankly, I shouldn't leave just because there's some people I can't stand.

From now on, when I see someone hijacking a thread to do "dawkins bashing", and repeat the same old arguments over and over, I'm just going to put them on ignore. Someone that's so imperceptive as to think that they're actually bringing up something new while they hijack a thread to do it, really aren't worth my time. In fact, to my mind, they're little more than selective trolls. As for Ion and Oliver, it wasn't them that were really ticking me off. It was people that really seem like they should know better.

Ion and Oliver... well, they just are. I think they're unrecoverable, in the end, although I do hope for the slimmest hope that Oliver might actually one day come to the realization that Germany isn't as perfect as he thinks it is. (Although I live here in Eppelheim, near Heidelberg, and I DO admit that at times it DOES seem like paradise here).

I do not understand all this bashing at Oliver, who has some weird opinions ( OBL is a " freedom figther " ), but is one of the few who sings outside the chorus.
He should be considered as " precious ".
I do

Lonewulf · 24th September 2007, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by Matteo Martini

I do not understand all this bashing at Oliver, who has some weird opinions ( OBL is a " freedom figther " ), but is one of the few who sings outside the chorus.
He should be considered as " precious ".
I do

Personally, I consider him as precious as a piece of lint.

The Central Scrutinizer · 24th September 2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by FenrisWolf

The Central Scrutinizer: Do you have a point?

Yes. Thank you for asking. Do you?

Originally Posted by FenrisWolf

blah blah blah

So I suppose you can ignore all the political context of the "unalienable rights" phase and try to twist it around to mean something other than what the authors meant by it. But don't pretend you've contributed anything positive or profound by doing so.

You know, I'm getting old, and I've forgotten what my "natural" rights are. Can you give me a complete list? And don't forget any!

The Central Scrutinizer · 24th September 2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Are you not capable of perceiving contradictions? I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your "right" does not supercede my right. Thus... your argument is soundly refuted. (By the way, the "pursuit of happiness" originally was meant as "the pursuit of property"... so you destroying my property, I.E., my home, is also arguably a violation of my rights. This would also include my dogs. Nope, looks like I'm covered completely!)

Try again, Kemo-Sabe.

Heh... I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great... I mean, pursuit of happiness means any happiness, even that which supersedes other rights! I'm a GENIUS!" (No, don't worry, I don't actually believe that. My example required an actual thought...)

Seriously, 5 seconds of thought on the issue would have refuted the argument for you. Are you even trying?

I'd honestly LOVE to see this. Go ahead, Scrutinizer. Go ahead and demonstrate a single way you can simultaneously uphold your own rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously upholding mine and everyone else's, in a way that I could possibly disagree with. Here's a hint: You cannot contradict the idea. I.E., if you uphold your "right" to happiness by canceling my "right" to life or liberty, you lose the game. You up for it?

An ideal isn't a bad ideal merely because you misuse it and misunderstand it.

My rights supercede yours. But in fairness, how can I know if I am superceding your rights, if you can't even provide me a list of what they are?

Now, I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great!

pwn3d

The Central Scrutinizer · 24th September 2007, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

and so the assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago should be the basis of of political discourse today? The DoI forms no law, nor is it part of the US constitution, it was political pamphleteering- a call to arms
and they should not be challenged? Especially when their ideas are inherently self contradictory.

But waivign it abbout to deomnstreate eth exsisatnce of rights does contribute somthign eiterh profuound or positive?
really? what?

Scrut didn't bring up the DoI pgwenthold did, to "prove" that rights exsist seperate from the state.

One wonders why, if the the authors of the DoI beleievd that rights could come from without the state, they bothered going to the trouble of establishing one at all.

Bingo! We have a winner! You can choose any prize from the top shelf.

Lonewulf · 24th September 2007, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

My rights supercede yours.

Hence demonstrating that, not only do you not understand the ideal, but you're also not worth debating the ideal to. Congrats, you're on my "troll" list.

Once more, nonsense. You're good at that, Central Scrutinizer.

Do you have an ACTUAL argument?

Actually, I really couldn't care less. You've never provided one in the past, I don't see how today would be different.

Lonewulf · 24th September 2007, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

You know, I'm getting old, and I've forgotten what my "natural" rights are. Can you give me a complete list? And don't forget any!

It's amazing what you don't know when you're so lazy that you don't even take five minutes to do a google search. Truly, your research skills astound me. Then again, trolls never do any research, so I'm not surprised.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights

Still, I'm down with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which you have yet to debunk, albeit by making trollish non-arguments.

The Central Scrutinizer · 24th September 2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Hence demonstrating that, not only do you not understand the ideal, but you're also not worth debating the ideal to. Congrats, you're on my "troll" list.

Once more, nonsense. You're good at that, Central Scrutinizer.

Do you have an ACTUAL argument?

Actually, I really couldn't care less. You've never provided one in the past, I don't see how today would be different.

Since you and all the other "natural rights" loons won't provide a list of your "rights", I am free to make up my own rules. Ergo, my rights supercede yours, because I said so.

Stick to the scenario.

The Central Scrutinizer · 24th September 2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

It's amazing what you don't know when you're so lazy that you don't even take five minutes to do a google search. Truly, your research skills astound me. Then again, trolls never do any research, so I'm not surprised.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights

Still, I'm down with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which you have yet to debunk, albeit by making trollish non-arguments.

Oh dear. You really, truly don't get it, do you? And here I just thought you were being deliberately obtuse.

Here's a place to start: Show me where these "universal rights" are codified into US law. Then I'll laugh at you.

Lonewulf · 24th September 2007, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Since you and all the other "natural rights" loons won't provide a list of your "rights", I am free to make up my own rules. Ergo, my rights supercede yours, because I said so.

Stick to the scenario.

And, because it's so obvious that you're being deliberately obtuse (and thereby trolling), welcome to my ignore list.

22nd September 2007, 04:42 PM	#81
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,561	Originally Posted by Lonewulf How the hell can it be "words in your mouth" when he said, practically word for word, what you actually said? Hey!! You said you were leaving!!
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,561

22nd September 2007, 06:05 PM	#82
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini Hey!! You said you were leaving!! Sorry to disappoint.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

22nd September 2007, 10:17 PM	#84
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,561	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Sorry to disappoint. No, no. More than happy to see you again
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,561

23rd September 2007, 12:32 AM	#86
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 60,134	I'm disapointed but not surprised. I live in California, a blue state. California voted overwhelmingly for the defense of marriage act. I think the tide is turning for Dems but they still are against gay marriage. FTR, I've been a Republican all of my life but I've decided to register independant. The whole us vs them crap is growing awfuly thin. I like that the Dems are more likely to be tolerant to atheists and they are much more tolerant of minorities and civil rights but they've got thier issues also. Count me out.
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 60,134	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch?

23rd September 2007, 02:45 AM	#87
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini No, no. More than happy to see you again Okay, that's good. Nice to see you again, as well. Misunderstood the intentions of your post. Yeah, I can't stay away. There's a few posters here that I actually respect, and quite frankly, I shouldn't leave just because there's some people I can't stand. From now on, when I see someone hijacking a thread to do "dawkins bashing", and repeat the same old arguments over and over, I'm just going to put them on ignore. Someone that's so imperceptive as to think that they're actually bringing up something new while they hijack a thread to do it, really aren't worth my time. In fact, to my mind, they're little more than selective trolls. As for Ion and Oliver, it wasn't them that were really ticking me off. It was people that really seem like they should know better. Ion and Oliver... well, they just are. I think they're unrecoverable, in the end, although I do hope for the slimmest hope that Oliver might actually one day come to the realization that Germany isn't as perfect as he thinks it is. (Although I live here in Eppelheim, near Heidelberg, and I DO admit that at times it DOES seem like paradise here). Originally Posted by UserGoogol The problem with the Ninth Amendment, as much as I like it in principle, (I don't believe in natural rights, but I believe that there's more to rights than just legal rights) is that there is no mechanism for determining what an unenumerated right is. The Judiciary Branch, by definition, concerns itself with law, and therefore rights that are not granted by law (explicitly or implicitly) are unknowable to it. Hell, one might even argue that if the judiciary branch was to delve into philosophy to try to determine what rights were, they'd be breaking the first amendment. (It's a creative interpretation, but surely if government can't make law establishing religion, establishing philosophy must also be unconstitutional, since allowing "philosophy" would be such a huge loophole as to render the amendment toothless.) That's a Good Thing (tm). The law is set down, and the judiciary is set down, to police what is strictly truly harmful to society, as passed down by Legislation and Executive branches (which sometimes are influenced by the People). They don't tell you what is "right", or the "right" way to behave. They tell you the WRONG way to behave; at least, wrong enough to be sent in jail, not wrong as in "don't commit adultery", no matter what the personal feelings of judges are. That's not the purpose of Law, and the Judiciary. They're there to police with the laws handed to them by the other branches and the People, and that's the way I think it should be. I don't want to be ruled over by a "philosopher-king", or a "philosopher-judiciary" that polices me with their own personal philosophy. Keeping that out of the Judiciary is not a bug, it's a feature. (Note: I do realize that the construction of the current government is based on the philosophy set down by the Founding Fathers; but I consider it more of a political philosophy, mixed in with some other philosophical precepts, with the good parts unchanging and the other stuff up to the will of the government under it, so long as certain basic principles are not broken; such as the Bill of Rights).
	__________________ Writing.com Account Last edited by Lonewulf; 23rd September 2007 at 03:38 AM.

22nd September 2007, 08:27 PM	#83
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,465	Originally Posted by Lonewulf How the hell can it be "words in your mouth" when he said, practically word for word, what you actually said? What he said.

23rd September 2007, 12:16 AM	#85
UserGoogol Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,074	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Perhaps in the UK, but you will find that the foundational document regarding "rights" for the American form of governance and legal system is that all rights are reserved to the people, except as modified by either the Constitution, or due process of law. In that respect, there are inherent rights, such as my right to stare at the wall, in abundance. The problem with the Ninth Amendment, as much as I like it in principle, (I don't believe in natural rights, but I believe that there's more to rights than just legal rights) is that there is no mechanism for determining what an unenumerated right is. The Judiciary Branch, by definition, concerns itself with law, and therefore rights that are not granted by law (explicitly or implicitly) are unknowable to it. Hell, one might even argue that if the judiciary branch was to delve into philosophy to try to determine what rights were, they'd be breaking the first amendment. (It's a creative interpretation, but surely if government can't make law establishing religion, establishing philosophy must also be unconstitutional, since allowing "philosophy" would be such a huge loophole as to render the amendment toothless.)

23rd September 2007, 03:09 AM	#88
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	I have to say I find it kind of odd that the United States can have a Federal Constitution, that is meant to be the fundamental principals upon which the entire nation is founded and established, and yet states within said country can pass laws in direct contradiction of said Constitution. I'm trying to imagine the local city council (we only have the two tiers of government) trying to pass a bylaw that directly contradicted parliament. It just wouldn't work. You Americans and your crazy country... -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

23rd September 2007, 03:13 AM	#89
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Lonewulf That's a Good Thing (tm). The law is set down, and the judiciary is set down, to police what is strictly truly harmful to society, as passed down by Legislation and Executive branches (which sometimes are influenced by the People). They don't tell you what is "right", or the "right" way to behave. They tell you the WRONG way to behave; at least, wrong enough to be sent in jail, not wrong as in "don't commit adultery", no matter what the personal feelings of judges are. That's not the purpose of Law, and the Judiciary. They're there to police with the laws handed to them by the other branches and the People, and that's the way I think it should be. I very much see law as having a similar function. Governments should not tell people how to live their lives. Their only role is to set up a boundary, which marks the limits of acceptable behaviour in society. Inside those boundaries citizens should be free to do whatever they please. When you get an over zealous government your legislation becomes less like a giant field with a perimeter fence, and more like a maze, with walls everywhere and only one way through. That's not how it should be. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

24th September 2007, 12:33 AM	#90
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,561	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Okay, that's good. Nice to see you again, as well. Misunderstood the intentions of your post. Yeah, I can't stay away. There's a few posters here that I actually respect, and quite frankly, I shouldn't leave just because there's some people I can't stand. From now on, when I see someone hijacking a thread to do "dawkins bashing", and repeat the same old arguments over and over, I'm just going to put them on ignore. Someone that's so imperceptive as to think that they're actually bringing up something new while they hijack a thread to do it, really aren't worth my time. In fact, to my mind, they're little more than selective trolls. As for Ion and Oliver, it wasn't them that were really ticking me off. It was people that really seem like they should know better. Ion and Oliver... well, they just are. I think they're unrecoverable, in the end, although I do hope for the slimmest hope that Oliver might actually one day come to the realization that Germany isn't as perfect as he thinks it is. (Although I live here in Eppelheim, near Heidelberg, and I DO admit that at times it DOES seem like paradise here). I do not understand all this bashing at Oliver, who has some weird opinions ( OBL is a " freedom figther " ), but is one of the few who sings outside the chorus. He should be considered as " precious ". I do
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,561

24th September 2007, 03:03 AM	#91
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by Matteo Martini I do not understand all this bashing at Oliver, who has some weird opinions ( OBL is a " freedom figther " ), but is one of the few who sings outside the chorus. He should be considered as " precious ". I do Personally, I consider him as precious as a piece of lint.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

24th September 2007, 01:15 PM	#92
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by FenrisWolf The Central Scrutinizer: Do you have a point? Yes. Thank you for asking. Do you? Originally Posted by FenrisWolf blah blah blah So I suppose you can ignore all the political context of the "unalienable rights" phase and try to twist it around to mean something other than what the authors meant by it. But don't pretend you've contributed anything positive or profound by doing so. You know, I'm getting old, and I've forgotten what my "natural" rights are. Can you give me a complete list? And don't forget any!
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

24th September 2007, 01:19 PM	#93
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Are you not capable of perceiving contradictions? I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your "right" does not supercede my right. Thus... your argument is soundly refuted. (By the way, the "pursuit of happiness" originally was meant as "the pursuit of property"... so you destroying my property, I.E., my home, is also arguably a violation of my rights. This would also include my dogs. Nope, looks like I'm covered completely!) Try again, Kemo-Sabe. Heh... I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great... I mean, pursuit of happiness means any happiness, even that which supersedes other rights! I'm a GENIUS!" (No, don't worry, I don't actually believe that. My example required an actual thought...) Seriously, 5 seconds of thought on the issue would have refuted the argument for you. Are you even trying? I'd honestly LOVE to see this. Go ahead, Scrutinizer. Go ahead and demonstrate a single way you can simultaneously uphold your own rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously upholding mine and everyone else's, in a way that I could possibly disagree with. Here's a hint: You cannot contradict the idea. I.E., if you uphold your "right" to happiness by canceling my "right" to life or liberty, you lose the game. You up for it? An ideal isn't a bad ideal merely because you misuse it and misunderstand it. My rights supercede yours. But in fairness, how can I know if I am superceding your rights, if you can't even provide me a list of what they are? Now, I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great! pwn3d
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

24th September 2007, 01:21 PM	#94
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by brodski and so the assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago should be the basis of of political discourse today? The DoI forms no law, nor is it part of the US constitution, it was political pamphleteering- a call to arms and they should not be challenged? Especially when their ideas are inherently self contradictory. But waivign it abbout to deomnstreate eth exsisatnce of rights does contribute somthign eiterh profuound or positive? really? what? Scrut didn't bring up the DoI pgwenthold did, to "prove" that rights exsist seperate from the state. One wonders why, if the the authors of the DoI beleievd that rights could come from without the state, they bothered going to the trouble of establishing one at all. Bingo! We have a winner! You can choose any prize from the top shelf.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

24th September 2007, 01:50 PM	#95
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer My rights supercede yours. Hence demonstrating that, not only do you not understand the ideal, but you're also not worth debating the ideal to. Congrats, you're on my "troll" list. Once more, nonsense. You're good at that, Central Scrutinizer. Do you have an ACTUAL argument? Actually, I really couldn't care less. You've never provided one in the past, I don't see how today would be different.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

24th September 2007, 01:54 PM	#96
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer You know, I'm getting old, and I've forgotten what my "natural" rights are. Can you give me a complete list? And don't forget any! It's amazing what you don't know when you're so lazy that you don't even take five minutes to do a google search. Truly, your research skills astound me. Then again, trolls never do any research, so I'm not surprised. http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights Still, I'm down with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which you have yet to debunk, albeit by making trollish non-arguments.
	__________________ Writing.com Account Last edited by Lonewulf; 24th September 2007 at 01:56 PM.

24th September 2007, 02:21 PM	#97
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Hence demonstrating that, not only do you not understand the ideal, but you're also not worth debating the ideal to. Congrats, you're on my "troll" list. Once more, nonsense. You're good at that, Central Scrutinizer. Do you have an ACTUAL argument? Actually, I really couldn't care less. You've never provided one in the past, I don't see how today would be different. Since you and all the other "natural rights" loons won't provide a list of your "rights", I am free to make up my own rules. Ergo, my rights supercede yours, because I said so. Stick to the scenario.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

24th September 2007, 02:24 PM	#98
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by Lonewulf It's amazing what you don't know when you're so lazy that you don't even take five minutes to do a google search. Truly, your research skills astound me. Then again, trolls never do any research, so I'm not surprised. http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights Still, I'm down with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which you have yet to debunk, albeit by making trollish non-arguments. Oh dear. You really, truly don't get it, do you? And here I just thought you were being deliberately obtuse. Here's a place to start: Show me where these "universal rights" are codified into US law. Then I'll laugh at you.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

24th September 2007, 02:50 PM	#99
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Since you and all the other "natural rights" loons won't provide a list of your "rights", I am free to make up my own rules. Ergo, my rights supercede yours, because I said so. Stick to the scenario. And, because it's so obvious that you're being deliberately obtuse (and thereby trolling), welcome to my ignore list.
	__________________ Writing.com Account