Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 8, 2019 Author Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Pretty sure he'd starve in the US... Peak Tom. You, sir, just won the internets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: So help me to understand your position: Because truth is a "social construct," different cultures can espouse a different objective truth? If that's the case, is it incumbent on other cultures to accept one culture's objective truth? Should everyone everywhere accept everyone else's truth? How, in such a world can ANY objective judgement be made? At that point does social order become completely irrelevant? Example: Unbongo tribe from some remote island believes that beheading and eating the brains of one's enemies is morally acceptable, and even desirable. A member of said tribe moves to the US, kills his neighbor and eats his brains. Should we, as a society tolerate his "truth" and accept the behavior? my position is more to get one to think outside the social norms than anything else. we all exist on what we hold to be true for us, it is our moral compass, so to speak. i would be willing to bet that you have previously held a belief that you no longer believe to be so. that is a byproduct of your evolution in life and is based upon your beliefs. as such, you have held contradictions to your current positions. the issue of socially accepted norms is required for the advancement of a society, as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 8, 2019 Author Share Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: the issue of socially accepted norms is required for the advancement of a society, as a whole. Corollary: If there are no socially accepted norms, does society as a whole degrade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Corollary: If there are no socially accepted norms, does society as a whole degrade? within a group, of course. i am not/was not disagreeing with your initial position. rather, just trying to expand it a bit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 All major religions, if taken literally, are incompatible with Western civilization. The problem with Muslims is that they actually adhere to the principles of their antiquated literature. Christians have found a way to compartmentalize and that is to be lauded. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Those rights have always been there, as created by our Creator. They just weren't recognized by the Neanderthals of the time. Looking back on history and the subrogation of women by men was the men's loss as much as the women's loss. I say that not as a person trying to call men equal victims but lamenting the fact that men cheated themselves out of true partnership. What if you do not believe in a creator? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What if you do not believe in a creator? Then a belief in the absolute and intrinsic nature of rights becomes even more important. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, women always had those rights. Just as blacks did. (voting aside, as that's not a right, but rather a civil privilege) What was happening is that the rights of women (inalienable and intrinsic) were being systematically violated, and we're not protected by law. What wen fought for was to have their natural rights acknowledged and protected by their government. This is not a semantic difference If women did not have natural rights prior to their "emancipation" then there was nothing wrong with subjugating them, and no moral argument to be made for their liberation. If those rights did not exist prior, then no injustice existed in need of correction. Further, if they did not exist, then you are, quite literally, making the argument for the democratization of your (the literal you) rights; granting majority the just prerogative of stripping you of your rights with no moral argument against. If women have always had those rights, civilization and Roman law (full-citizen or not) and English law and (well, you get the idea) missed the memo. If you are speaking to the United States specifically, again women and blacks and even most men did not have those rights. Free white men who were property owners had them, but the rest of the people were pretty SOL. I guess everyone has come a long way! And I would hate to see the "civilized world" devolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What if you do not believe in a creator? Good question. If a person can't claim that their Creator gave them their rights then what basis do they have for claiming the rights? Fairness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Good question. If a person can't claim that their Creator gave them their rights then what basis do they have for claiming the rights? Fairness? That is a good question. And for me, it is earned... by blood in war and arguments in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: If women have always had those rights, civilization and Roman law (full-citizen or not) and English law and (well, you get the idea) missed the memo. If you are speaking to the United States specifically, again women and blacks and even most men did not have those rights. Free white men who were property owners had them, but the rest of the people were pretty SOL. I guess everyone has come a long way! And I would hate to see the "civilized world" devolve. Rights do not come from democracy, or majority, or government. If they do, then you have no basis to claim it would be wrong to strip you of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: That is a good question. And for me, it is earned... by blood in war and arguments in court. Did you argue on the basis of fairness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: That is a good question. And for me, it is earned... by blood in war and arguments in court. Those aren't rights then. Those are civil privileges which can be striped away without any moral opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: Those aren't rights then. Those are civil privileges which can be striped away without any moral opposition. If you are speaking of "human rights" they are based on the moral code of the day. However, I am speaking to "civil rights" which are fought for, earned, and can indeed be taken away or further expanded and granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: If you are speaking of "human rights" they are based on the moral code of the day. However, I am speaking to "civil rights" which are fought for, earned, and can indeed be taken away or further expanded and granted. Civil rights aren't rights. They are privileges. The term "civil rights" is just another example of a concept being modified ("civil" modifies "rights"), stripping away the meaning of the original modified term while attempting to borrow from it it's gravity, much in the same way "social justice" has nothing to do with the concepts of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Did you argue on the basis of fairness? Fairness, now there is a slippery slope. What is "fair"? What is "right"? What is "moral" and "just"? Those questions are the ponderance of philosophers and great legal minds - of which I am neither. (For what it is worth I am of the "if it doesn't hurt you (generic you), it should be legal" school of thought while recognizing that isn't always possible.) Edited January 8, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 silly rabbit, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: If you are speaking of "human rights" they are based on the moral code of the day. However, I am speaking to "civil rights" which are fought for, earned, and can indeed be taken away or further expanded and granted. REMINDER: in the recorded history of humanity, the philosophies of the past 200 years are the exception, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 55 minutes ago, DC Tom said: REMINDER: in the recorded history of humanity, the philosophies of the past 200 years are the exception, not the rule. ....so true. The past 200 years are quite radical. Well, I’d go 250 years at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 21 hours ago, The_Dude said: Haj should be interned and NOT in politics and that is an American scientific fact. ***** Haj. 1. Identify 2. Confiscate property 3. Intern 4. Relocate to someplace not in America, preferably sandy. They like sand. The Dude and Joe in Winslow. A match made in heaven.....or hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What if you do not believe in a creator? 2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Good question. If a person can't claim that their Creator gave them their rights then what basis do they have for claiming the rights? Fairness? I would posit that everyone has a Creator. The fact that you were created is self evident by your existence. We can debate the form that the Creator takes, whether it be the Judeo-Christian version of God, some other deity, your own parents, random chance, or something else entirely. To me, who or what the Creator is is of little importance in the context of natural rights. The bottom line is the rights are intrinsically yours based on the fact of your existence as a human being. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Chandemonium said: I would posit that everyone has a Creator. The fact that you were created is self evident by your existence. We can debate the form that the Creator takes, whether it be the Judeo-Christian version of God, some other deity, your own parents, random chance, or something else entirely. To me, who or what the Creator is is of little importance in the context of natural rights. The bottom line is the rights are intrinsically yours based on the fact of your existence as a human being. Your “rights” are based solely on your ability to enforce them. It has nothing to do with a creator. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 37 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: The Dude and Joe in Winslow. A match made in heaven.....or hell. Or Nuremberg. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 22 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Your “rights” are based solely on your ability to enforce them. It has nothing to do with a creator. I disagree. While the ability to enforce them is certainly important in making sure your rights are not abused by others, it is not the basis for their existence. This distinction is important because if rights come solely from you ability to enforce them, that leads to a “might makes right” situation where there is moral justification for the strong to prey on the weak, which flies in the face of the concept of rights. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 28 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Your “rights” are based solely on your ability to enforce them. It has nothing to do with a creator. sorry but no. it is however, not surprising that you equate everything to force or some sort or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 30 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Or Nuremberg. Idiot. 13 minutes ago, Foxx said: sorry but no. it is however, not surprising that you equate everything to force or some sort or another. It's only because I know of no superseding authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Idiot. You don't even know what I'm talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: You don't even know what I'm talking about... Right. Nuremberg...whatever could you mean? Almost impossible for a student of history such as myself to decipher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, The_Dude said: Right. Nuremberg...whatever could you mean? Almost impossible for a student of history such as myself to decipher. You're killing me... Edited January 8, 2019 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You're killing me... careful.... right on cue... see below. Edited January 8, 2019 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You're killing me... Figuratively or literally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 39 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Figuratively or literally? Tough guy. Oh damn I forgot to tell you where I was staying when I visited your fair city so we could have had a cup of coffee. How ever do you survive with all those black people living there? Must be very hard for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 8, 2019 Author Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: Or Nuremberg. Which one of us is a Jew hater again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 16 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Which one of us is a Jew hater again? Not i. I love Jews. See, the Jews and I have a mutual enemy — filthy, stinkin, sub-human, Haj. I am a friend to the Hebrews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 2 hours ago, The_Dude said: Figuratively or literally? You couldn't literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 9 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You couldn't literally. No, you couldn’t literally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 lol! rubber, glue... pork chop on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 9, 2019 Author Share Posted January 9, 2019 Still waiting to find out which one of us is a Jew hater. I KNOW he's not talking about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 13 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said: Still waiting to find out which one of us is a Jew hater. I KNOW he's not talking about me. Pretty sure it's me. Given that I hate everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts