It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Back-pedalling would imply that I have recanted a previous statement or opinion.
3. To retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude:
I didn't say that I don't take inalienable rights seriously, I simply stated that they require definition and even then, are not 'inalienable' per se but simply an idealistic acme that we may strive to implement. Simply have the 'right to life' doesn't stop somebody from shooting you.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
There are plenty of people who perform the actions of killing, forcing sexual intercourse and taking other people's possessions all the time without necessarily thinking that they are doing something wrong.
You really want me to prove that there are people who kill others without thinking that it is wrong? Really? I mean, really? Such offenders may fear getting caught and recognise that they are unlawful, but that does not mean that they see their actions as 'wrong'. Do you think that every soldier who has killed a person in battle think that they were doing 'wrong'? I think that you'd be surprised at the number of soldiers who have no problem with killing the 'enemy'. Remorse is conditioned by society, not by the act itself. That conditioning manifests differently when contained within society but the actual act is no different.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by spacekc929
In your hypothetical all classmates organize a study group solely for the purpose of maintaining a good grade for the class. However, study groups are usually available for students who find a class difficult, and there are usually students who understand the class that make themselves available to students who don't. This is not a hypothetical I am presenting but reality. Study groups do exist, and there are students who do well who help students who do not. However, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Your hypothetical assumes everyone would show up and make the necessary effort to do well in order to gain a collective good grade. In reality, this will not happen, and some students just will not make the effort. Those students will bring the collective grade down.
Originally posted by JohnJasper
And this is where I add my plug for the ZeitGeist Movement. Something different!!!
HUMANS are selfish and greedy and won't help each other out, even though they have the capabilities to do so.
I thank you for that. You have proven your own point. This is not about winning or losing it is about exchanging ideas and being willing to accept evidence that is contrary to your own point of view. Your 'evidence' has been non-existent and your point of view extremely muddled. Perhaps you'd like to accuse me of killing small animals, or beating some old ladies?
In this battle for ideas, in this war of information, that you are losing this war is evident in your willingness to dismiss this site as merely a "discussion board"
I have not withdrawn from my ascertain that 'inalienable rights' do not exist per se since they subjective.
Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by JohnJasper
Thanks for that link concerning the ZeitGeist Movement. I think that it is worth reproducing their stated goal here:
Reproduced from www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...
We intend to restore the fundamental necessities and environmental awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually. The central insights of this awareness is the recognition of the Emergent and Symbiotic elements of natural law and how aligning with these understandings as the bedrock of our personal and social institutions, life on earth can and will flourish into a system which will continuously grow in a positive way, where negative social consequences, such as social stratification, war, biases, elitism and criminal activity will be constantly reduced and, idealistically, eventually become nonexistent within the spectrum of human behavior itself.
This is getting tedious now...
Imagine now that there was no 'law' that defined murder in any degree
The 9th Amendment is recognition of the fact that rights are difficult to enumerate since they are subjective. There, each case has to be taken on its own merits. If 'inalienable rights' were 'self-evident' then there would be no need for a 9th Amendment.
You entirely miss the point that unless your 'rights' are recognised by another, then they have no meaning, they have no applicability in the defence of your actions should those actions be questioned. Time and time again I have stated that I do not 'idolise' a 'collective ideology', I simply accept that society exists whether I like it or not. Look out of the window... it exists.
You take me to task over my incredulity that you require I provide proof of people that kill without considering it 'wrong'. What is 'wrong' exactly, what is the definition? You may as well ask that I provide proof that other people eat or that they drink... it is a nonsense request.
There are plenty of people who perform the actions of killing, forcing sexual intercourse and taking other people's possessions all the time without necessarily thinking that they are doing something wrong.
Law never has and never will be self-evident..
that is why it has to be enshrined as law. Otherwise, who is to say what is prohibited or permitted?
Just because you say it is self-evident?
You are simply spouting nonsense and managing to embarrass yourself with the consistent use of insults.
Of course I'll not say that people have 'inalienable rights' because unless they are enshrined in national and international laws then they mean nothing.
Marxists have a hard time comprehending rights because they want to own you and everything you do.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by JohnJasper
And this is where I add my plug for the ZeitGeist Movement. Something different!!!
Definitely gonna need to read up more on Zeitgeist.
But how do you get the average human to think NEW? I'd say about 80% of humans are sheep. That includes the ones who argue from emotion - rather then progressive intelligent logic.
Originally posted by MysterE
I have never seen a better example...
A July 2009 version altered the second and third lines of the item to:
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." Social Grade Averaging - Snopes
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Marxists have a hard time comprehending rights because they want to own you and everything you do.
In other words, they believe society runs best when guns are used against the innocent.
That at least can be backed up by recent footage from G20 summits, the Waco murders, Ruby Ridge,... OK so they didn't actually shoot anybody to my knowledge at the G20 summits but they were armed against peaceful demonstrators and they did beat many of them mercilessly and sexually assault a fair number. At least they didn't shoot any of them.
Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is getting tedious now...
You continue with personal attacks without ever addressing the real issues which in turn should be framed within the context of this thread topic. I have humoured you and shall do so again, purely because I hate to see so much nonsensical vomited spewed forth. However, I apologise to other readers in responding to these rants since it must make this thread painful to trawl through.