reply to post by SpectreDC
It would be Unamerican to stop someone from bombing a building??? I mean that is what you said in response to someone, "That stopping a muslim bomber
would be "Unamerican". So in reference wouldn't it be "UnAmerican" To let him bomb the building because that impeeds on others "Natural"
freedoms? Another question that I also await a response too.
Unamerican people need to leave America, page 3
privacy
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:11 PM by Light of Night
reply to post by azzllin
Quit trying to blame the actions of a few on the whole lot of us. It is not my fault that people are getting paid slave wages for work. That is there country and their problem.
No it is not my attitude that the world is in the state that it is in, the world is in the state that it is in because that's the way things are and have always been. People have always taken advantage of people. People have always tried to oppress people. That is the way it is and the way it will always be.
Does it suck, it sure does, but I can't do anything about it all I can do is make sure the problems in my country are taken care of so my family can survive and enjoy even more freedoms that I enjoy now.
Quit trying to blame the actions of a few on the whole lot of us. It is not my fault that people are getting paid slave wages for work. That is there country and their problem.
No it is not my attitude that the world is in the state that it is in, the world is in the state that it is in because that's the way things are and have always been. People have always taken advantage of people. People have always tried to oppress people. That is the way it is and the way it will always be.
Does it suck, it sure does, but I can't do anything about it all I can do is make sure the problems in my country are taken care of so my family can survive and enjoy even more freedoms that I enjoy now.
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:17 PM by toshan11
reply to post by SpectreDC
First, it is interesting that you choose to leave out where Natural Law comes from and therefore, where our rights from. And that is God. But we can discuss that later. Yes, everyhuman has the rights endowed by his creator
you are correct. However, Natural Law does not include education, food
stamps, other welfare and the ability to not pay taxes as all other LEGAL citizens must do. That is why those founders you spoke so highly of,
included in the 18 enumerated powers, the responsibilty of the federal government to protect and defend our borders. In conclusion, yes we all have
the same rights that occur naturally and come from God, but no not everyone has the same right to the other benefits of living within these borders.
You know, those benefits that the rest of us have to pay for.
First, it is interesting that you choose to leave out where Natural Law comes from and therefore, where our rights from. And that is God. But we can discuss that later. Yes, everyhuman has the rights endowed by his creator
you are correct. However, Natural Law does not include education, food
stamps, other welfare and the ability to not pay taxes as all other LEGAL citizens must do. That is why those founders you spoke so highly of,
included in the 18 enumerated powers, the responsibilty of the federal government to protect and defend our borders. In conclusion, yes we all have
the same rights that occur naturally and come from God, but no not everyone has the same right to the other benefits of living within these borders.
You know, those benefits that the rest of us have to pay for.reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:23 PM by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC
That is exactly what this rant is all about Political Theory. You are talking about Law which at its core is Political. Oh yes, you will "trounce me" because I disagree with you?
What you are doing is strongly advocating Anarchy. And there is nothing to "trounce me" with because once again it is of your opinion. You have text book definitions of what it is and then you have political philosophies of what YOU think it is.
If you want natural law, go live in the wilderness.
First off, lets not make this an argument about political theory and especially anarchy, in which I will trounce the living hell out of you in.
That is exactly what this rant is all about Political Theory. You are talking about Law which at its core is Political. Oh yes, you will "trounce me" because I disagree with you?
What you are doing is strongly advocating Anarchy. And there is nothing to "trounce me" with because once again it is of your opinion. You have text book definitions of what it is and then you have political philosophies of what YOU think it is.
If you want natural law, go live in the wilderness.
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:25 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by sos37
Before responding to this, I am compelled to quote you yet again:
It is your own conceit that undermines your own argument. You wish to dismiss the assertion that all people are born with rights that are inherent and inalienable, but will concede that all people have the right to resist "the mandate of existing law". Your conceit lies in the fact that you willfully ignore, for example, The Constitution for the United States of America, which stands as the Supreme Law of the Land, and has placed clear and undeniable mandates, not upon the people, but the government Ordained by the People to serve the People.
Further, there is no comparison between those who assert "we are the only life in the universe" and those who assert what rights are inalienable. Even worse, you further argue that only might makes right, and while Natural Law often requires the use of force, indeed the implementation of Justice requires the use of force, it is your conceit that people only have rights due to the force others used to grant these rights. That there are those who would clearly abrogate and derogate the rights of others does not serve as evidence that inalienable rights are non-existent, but rather serves as evidence that tyranny does indeed exist, and it is your conceit to argue in favor of tyranny over freedom. After all, all tyrants gain their power through the same force you claim grants rights. Indeed, a so called benign tyrant may deign to "grant" rights, but this is merely their conceit thrust upon the ignorance of people who accept such conceit.
Your most egregious conceit is your fear mongering where you clearly hope to convince people that assertions of rights almost always come with certain death and/or imprisonment. You dismiss the right to speech, and the right to ones own beliefs but then turn around and suggest one has the right to resist and oppressor. Of course, it would be difficult to resist this oppressor without relying upon speech and belief, but this is a merely a quibble with one who is obviously selling tyranny as rightful and just, and that order could not possibly exist among the self governed, and that conceit is the most odious of all.
You scream and rant about "rights" that all people have imbued in them simply by being born. There is only one right that you have at any one time and that is the right to resist the mandate of the existing law (order).
Before responding to this, I am compelled to quote you yet again:
These "inalienable" rights you like to trumpet aren't imbued upon you simply because you are a born human being - that's the most SINGULAR CONCEITED, ARROGANT statement made, next to "We are the only life in the universe".
It is your own conceit that undermines your own argument. You wish to dismiss the assertion that all people are born with rights that are inherent and inalienable, but will concede that all people have the right to resist "the mandate of existing law". Your conceit lies in the fact that you willfully ignore, for example, The Constitution for the United States of America, which stands as the Supreme Law of the Land, and has placed clear and undeniable mandates, not upon the people, but the government Ordained by the People to serve the People.
Further, there is no comparison between those who assert "we are the only life in the universe" and those who assert what rights are inalienable. Even worse, you further argue that only might makes right, and while Natural Law often requires the use of force, indeed the implementation of Justice requires the use of force, it is your conceit that people only have rights due to the force others used to grant these rights. That there are those who would clearly abrogate and derogate the rights of others does not serve as evidence that inalienable rights are non-existent, but rather serves as evidence that tyranny does indeed exist, and it is your conceit to argue in favor of tyranny over freedom. After all, all tyrants gain their power through the same force you claim grants rights. Indeed, a so called benign tyrant may deign to "grant" rights, but this is merely their conceit thrust upon the ignorance of people who accept such conceit.
Your most egregious conceit is your fear mongering where you clearly hope to convince people that assertions of rights almost always come with certain death and/or imprisonment. You dismiss the right to speech, and the right to ones own beliefs but then turn around and suggest one has the right to resist and oppressor. Of course, it would be difficult to resist this oppressor without relying upon speech and belief, but this is a merely a quibble with one who is obviously selling tyranny as rightful and just, and that order could not possibly exist among the self governed, and that conceit is the most odious of all.
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:31 PM by Tempest333
Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by SpectreDC
Again, the only right you have to excercise as a human being is resistance. You may die for excercising that right, depending on who oppresses you, but you are free to excercise it.
Thanks you sos37 for this post.
And for those of you who jump the gun, fleeing is also a from of resistance.
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:34 PM by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by SpectreDC
That Black people were property and women couldn't own property, things like that. The Declaration and Constitution were great for their time but they are far from perfect.
There is no opinion that is Un-American because America is built upon DEFENDING the opinions of all. It's a little thing called Freedom of Speech, you might have heard about it. Most things a person can say are protected under free speech, including the opinion you quoted in your OP.
HMMM, I WONDER WHAT TRUTHS THEY WERE SAYING WERE SELF-EVIDENT?
That Black people were property and women couldn't own property, things like that. The Declaration and Constitution were great for their time but they are far from perfect.
There is no opinion that is Un-American because America is built upon DEFENDING the opinions of all. It's a little thing called Freedom of Speech, you might have heard about it. Most things a person can say are protected under free speech, including the opinion you quoted in your OP.
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:35 PM by SpectreDC
Lots of replies, I'll try to wade through those that are on topic and point.
Not exactly with the topic. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in members bringing up the founding fathers, the declaration of independence and the constitution and yet ignore the most important point the fathers and the constitution talk about; Natural Law and Natural Rights.
Feel free to make a topic debating Natural Law and I'll gladly debate it with you, but I feel moving on the point you are arguing in this thread goes away from the purpose of the thread.
The concept of Natural Law isn't necessarily dealing with God although there are certainly understandings of it that do.
Furthermore many of these concepts of Natural Law that may use the word "God" or "maker" often aren't referring to any specific religious belief.
The concept of Natural Law in America mainly come from Locke, Hobbes and Paine, and it didn't have any sort of religious bearing on it.
Noooonoononononnonono lol
You took that way wrong.
Of course we can stop someone from attacking one of our buildings. And if this person is arrested, we treat him/her just like we treat our own. We don't torture to gain information, or detain inhumanely. They get a fair and just trial, and they go to prison.
What I'm basically saying is that we don't sacrifice our principles to gain justice. Beyond the fact that it will likely not truly be just, we're just pegging ourselves down to their level in the end.
Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by SpectreDC
I don't agree with your diatribe. "Natural Rights" are a concept. An opinion of what you THINK you have, of what you deserve. Yes, I said an OPINION.
In reality you are born with nothing. You deserve nothing. You are given nothing except what those around you will give to you.
You scream and rant about "rights" that all people have imbued in them simply by being born. There is only one right that you have at any one time and that is the right to resist the mandate of the existing law (order).
These "inalienable" rights you like to trumpet aren't imbued upon you simply because you are a born human being - that's the most SINGULAR CONCEITED, ARROGANT statement made, next to "We are the only life in the universe".
The rights you enjoy now are due to soldiers who fight enemies who would take those "inalienable rights" away from you. And there will always, always be someone who will be ready to take away your rights. Rights are BORN out of superior resistance. And if at any time a superior force were to take over this country, you would quickly see that those "rights" you quack about being imbued on everyone would be taken away.
Try arguing that you have inalienable rights with the man who has a weapon pointed at your head. If he demands you do something or not do something, the only right you have is the right to resist his order. Try excercising your "inalienable" rights in a prison camp under the order running the camp. Again, the only right you have to excercise as a human being is resistance. You may die for excercising that right, depending on who oppresses you, but you are free to excercise it.
Not exactly with the topic. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in members bringing up the founding fathers, the declaration of independence and the constitution and yet ignore the most important point the fathers and the constitution talk about; Natural Law and Natural Rights.
Feel free to make a topic debating Natural Law and I'll gladly debate it with you, but I feel moving on the point you are arguing in this thread goes away from the purpose of the thread.
Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC
Well to throw a wrench in the works I'll add this; You call these laws "Natural" laws, a "God Given Right". So in reference how is this possible with the seperation of Church and State which the United States also upholds? I await any response.
The concept of Natural Law isn't necessarily dealing with God although there are certainly understandings of it that do.
Furthermore many of these concepts of Natural Law that may use the word "God" or "maker" often aren't referring to any specific religious belief.
The concept of Natural Law in America mainly come from Locke, Hobbes and Paine, and it didn't have any sort of religious bearing on it.
Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC
It would be Unamerican to stop someone from bombing a building??? I mean that is what you said in response to someone, "That stopping a muslim bomber would be "Unamerican". So in reference wouldn't it be "UnAmerican" To let him bomb the building because that impeeds on others "Natural" freedoms? Another question that I also await a response too.
Noooonoononononnonono lol
You took that way wrong.
Of course we can stop someone from attacking one of our buildings. And if this person is arrested, we treat him/her just like we treat our own. We don't torture to gain information, or detain inhumanely. They get a fair and just trial, and they go to prison.
What I'm basically saying is that we don't sacrifice our principles to gain justice. Beyond the fact that it will likely not truly be just, we're just pegging ourselves down to their level in the end.
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:37 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC
Well to throw a wrench in the works I'll add this; You call these laws "Natural" laws, a "God Given Right". So in reference how is this possible with the seperation of Church and State which the United States also upholds? I await any response.
The Establishment Clause does not preclude the notion of a "Creator" who preexisted the government "Ordained" by We the People. The Establishment Clause is a prohibition on government in establishing a national religion, but is in no way a prohibition on We the People. It is merely bad semantics to suggest that this Clause somehow refutes the notion of Natural Law and God given rights.
It matters not whether one believes in God or not, and you are free to disbelieve if you choose, however it is common sense that by asserting that rights are something granted by a higher power than humans, and therefore can not be granted, nor taken away by humans, without dire consequences. Even the staunchest atheist, if thinking rationally, comes to understand the importance of inalienable rights. It is moot whether the inherent rights of people are God Granted or not, and one is using such phraseology, what they are insisting is that no human may claim power to grant or take away the Natural Rights of people.
That people do abrogate and derogate the rights of others serves as evidence as to why we have governments, to protect those rights, and that so many governments willingly ignore such a mandate and instead attempt to consolidate power, only serves as evidence as to why it is so essential that all people jealously guard their inalienable rights and zealously assert those rights when necessary.
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:40 PM by SpectreDC
Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC
First off, lets not make this an argument about political theory and especially anarchy, in which I will trounce the living hell out of you in.
That is exactly what this rant is all about Political Theory. You are talking about Law which at its core is Political. Oh yes, you will "trounce me" because I disagree with you?
I'm not talking about law I'm talking about ethics. What, gravity is now in the realm of law because it's the "law of gravity"?
Natural Law has nothing to do with political theory, it has to do with ethics.
What you are doing is strongly advocating Anarchy.
I'm not advocating any political ideology because I'm not talking about political theory. I'm talking about Natural Law.
If you want natural law, go live in the wilderness.
So the United States of America, whose founding principles and beliefs are based off of Natural Law, which can not be argued as it is based off of Natural Law, is the wilderness?
reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 06:46 PM by NoJoker13
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Very well said but what your saying is that for these rights to be anything at all that I must hold them to a "higher" power??? I mean I'm a moral man who wouldn't want something done to me, that I wouldn't do to someone else. This isn't a principle that comes from seeing a "higher" power but simply a principal that comes from common sense. Also I find it very ignorant to suggest that I'm an athiest because I bring up "Natural" law as being "God's" law. People can be spiritual without believing in a MANMADE religion, maybe you should realize that and rethink your current sheeple stance (Where anyone who doesn't believe in "GOD" is an athiest.).
Very well said but what your saying is that for these rights to be anything at all that I must hold them to a "higher" power??? I mean I'm a moral man who wouldn't want something done to me, that I wouldn't do to someone else. This isn't a principle that comes from seeing a "higher" power but simply a principal that comes from common sense. Also I find it very ignorant to suggest that I'm an athiest because I bring up "Natural" law as being "God's" law. People can be spiritual without believing in a MANMADE religion, maybe you should realize that and rethink your current sheeple stance (Where anyone who doesn't believe in "GOD" is an athiest.).
Exclusive - Obama\'s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: \'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Haw
Posted 10 days ago with 242 member flags
Posted 10 days ago with 242 member flags
Ron Paul is NOT dropping out, the Mainstream Media is LYING.
Posted 13 days ago with 111 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 111 member flags
CNN Asks Ron Paul To Drop Out & Endorse Romney Despite His Chances To Win
Posted 17 days ago with 70 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 70 member flags
Fox News Analyst: First American to shoot down drone will be a hero
Posted 12 days ago with 68 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 68 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Bilderberg 2012 power masters to meet in the US (again - just like in 2008 !)
2012 US Elections: 1 hours ago
2012 US Elections: 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Picture Shows How All Humans On Earth Would Fit Into One 900 Meter-Wide Ball
Fragile Earth: 15 hours ago, 56 flags
Fragile Earth: 15 hours ago, 56 flags
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 24 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 24 flags
Fart joke leads to college student being arrested and charged
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 20 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 20 flags
As Commandos Raid Tampa, US State Dept Demands Power to Declare War?
New World Order: 6 hours ago, 12 flags
New World Order: 6 hours ago, 12 flags
How many Vietnam Veterans does it take to screw in a Light Bulb?
General Chit Chat: 12 hours ago, 7 flags
General Chit Chat: 12 hours ago, 7 flags
Unified Meditation Today (May 27, 2012) 15:00 EDT (other time zones listed)
Aliens and UFOs: 14 hours ago, 6 flags
Aliens and UFOs: 14 hours ago, 6 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Picture Shows How All Humans On Earth Would Fit Into One 900 Meter-Wide Ball
Fragile Earth: 15 hours ago, 95 replies
Fragile Earth: 15 hours ago, 95 replies
Fart joke leads to college student being arrested and charged
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 65 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 65 replies
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 49 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 49 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.294 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.294 seconds
