Remain or leave:UK referendum

[Furunculus]

Those inherent rights sure worked well for those brown people. On the other side of the channel we will keep on refraining from believing that a higher power grants us things, thanks.


it didn't always work out well in practice, tho people did fight to see that the principle was upheld:

http://www.chrisgreencommunication.com/enoch-powells-hola-massacre-speech/

[Furunculus]

The same can be said of the UK. Perhaps when that union breaks up as well, people who argued for the breakup of the European union will reflect on the arguments they've made.

i have always accepted that the scottish question and the european question are one and the same thing:

to whom do we consent to accept common governance? sure in the knowledge that even if the resulting decision does not go your way it will proceed in an predictable manner not inimical to our own interests.

the scots got a chance to make that decision (in that knowledge that an EU referendum was coming), now we do too.

i don't recognise any inherent contradiction in a Unionist backing Brexit.


Hence, rather than needing to be convinced to stay, I'd like the status quo to remain unless there is a convincing case otherwise.

Any pretence that the status quo is on offer would be a rank deceit.
The eurozone is stuck in perpetual crisis as long as it has no mechanism to tranfer cash to smooth internal imbalances, and, no mechanism to politically legitimise such transfers.
This is called federalism, and it will alter britain's relationship with the EUrozone whatever we wish.

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf

[Snowhobbit]

it didn't always work out well in practice, tho people did fight to see that the principle was upheld:

http://www.chrisgreencommunication.com/enoch-powells-hola-massacre-speech/

Which proves the point that rights are not inherent. Could women vote? Why is the value of a slave three fifths of a free man? Were poor white men allowed to vote? Is it truly inherent that black men are worth less than white men?

[Furunculus]

Which proves the point that rights are not inherent. Could women vote? Why is the value of a slave three fifths of a free man? Were poor white men allowed to vote? Is it truly inherent that black men are worth less than white men?

the point that gaius and I are making is that it is [we] that decide what is right, not the government that issues rights to us. thus the concept of lawful rebellion, which would apply equally to a black man told he was valued less than a white man.

the amusing thing is that legalists will say that lawful rebellion is no consequence, for while it was part of the treaty it was (subsequently) written out of the law that implemented the treaty provisions. that rather misses the point in that it matters not to me what the government says I cannot do, if I feel strongly enough about the matter I will happily arrive at the governments door with a burning brand and a gibbet if it ensure that I am free to do that which I feel I should be free to do.

government, in recognition of this fact, has been rather responsive to public demands over the centuries, which may go some way to explain the relative rarity of collapse and revolution.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I do, those people who wrote that all men are created equal did not believe this of white women nor black men. Check your history please.
Those who claim a belief in "Natural law" necessarily base this belief on the notion of a higher power which has granted this. Us sensible Europeans simply cut out one step of the process :)

I asked what within the statement made, not some notion of what originally lay behind it. This is how an unwritten 'constitution' benefits; for if it were written so(set in stone, as it were), then it could indeed legally be argued it only referred to men...as it is, instead, a constituent of belief then it is not subject to such clausal impediments.

Also..."those people who wrote..." ...when? Which people? Are you so sure of the monolith of such belief among them?

I'll ask again, do you not, therefore, believe that all men are created equal? And..please define what you mean by a 'higher power'. That statistical genetic correspondence is, indeed, natural.... does that not exemplify the truth of the statement? You are talking as if the origins of a statement must naturally dismiss the truth of it? What exactly are you arguing?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Which proves the point that rights are not inherent. Could women vote? Why is the value of a slave three fifths of a free man? Were poor white men allowed to vote? Is it truly inherent that black men are worth less than white men?

But they were fought for because of the belief in the inherent nature of them. You simply don't get the difference in the base conception. You believe rights are defined primarily by the laws, we believe in rights inherent in being human, that that is what defines our rights.

Or, to put that another way; you appear to believe that rights are something you are given by laws, we believe that rights are inherent and that the laws which deny them are impediments to them. You believe your rights are to be given you( and thus, equally, can be taken away), we believe our rights are (ie that they exist regardless of what the law might state) and will fight laws we consider obstruct them.

[Husar]

Now this is getting really complicated and I'm not sure what some of you are talking about or how it refers to the problem of who gives one rights.

The way I see it, we all live on a planet and it used to be that we just did that and slowly began to establish rules. People gathere d in larger and larger groups of like-minded people to be able to enforce their rules against the will of people who thought differently. At some point nation states developed and then it became illegal to cross their borders. Then the EU and Schengen came and it became legal to cross some of these borders again as much and for as long as people want to.

So if I understand it correctly, that people just live a free life and can go where ever they want, think native americans roaming the steppes or nomads living all over Africa and the Middle East, are natural rights, they are just a given but governments can take them away. The British seem to think that is only so in Britain, but effectively it works like that pretty much everywhere I'm aware of, precisely because of the previously described developments.

The rights given to anyone by the government-idea just seems silly because rights and restrictions are social constructs, you do not need a right per se for something you are able to do. The government cannot give a paraplegic the right to walk. It can however restrict a person able to walk to use a wheelchair. What rights do in a legal sense is therefore restrict the ability of the government to restrict. They are a safeguard against overwhelming government restrictions. That is why they are in a constitution because the people agree to have a government but limit its power to restrict with rights.
Show me a code of law that says "people are allowed to do xyz" and then lists all things people are allowed to do, insinuating that everything not explicitly allowed is illegal. It may exist somewhere but I'm not aware of that. There are obligations of course, but they're just inverted restrictions as they basically say doing something other than the obligation in the given context is not legal, see reporting requirements for corporations for example. The approach is usually to write down the lower number of possibilities because otherwise your laws become very, very long.

So when I say the EU gives you the right to work in another country without having to apply for lots of paperwork, it's not different from saying that the EU tore down the restrictions countries set up for you to go there and work. If you really want to discuss natural law and moral, then ask yourself what gives a nation a right to set up borders in the first place? What gives one person or group of persons the right to restrict another? When you claim a territory as yours and keep others out, you restrict their inherent freedom of movement. If it is just strength and the power to enforce it, is it then not also morally fine to overpower a nation and enforce something else?

[Furunculus]

If you really want to discuss natural law and moral, then ask yourself what gives a nation a right to set up borders in the first place? If it is just strength and the power to enforce it, is it then not also morally fine to overpower a nation and enforce something else?

You cannot separate the moral from the legal, and the british political settlement explicitly recognises this via the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

If the british parliament passes a law that it is a legal requirement that your brown-eyed first-born daughter must be cast into the Thames to drown, then there is nothing that can stop them, and no constitutional instrument that can override this law. There is no constitution to uphold, or higher court with the power of veto.

The only thing there is is the potentiality of 'me' turning up in front of Parliaments door with a burning brand and a gibbet.

[Husar]

You cannot separate the moral from the legal, and the british political settlement explicitly recognises this via the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

if the british parliament passes a law that it is a legal requirement that brown-eyed first-born daughter must be cast into the Thames to drown, then there is nothing that can stop them, and no constitutional instrument that can override this law. There is no constitution to uphold, or higher court with the power of veto.

The only thing there is is the potentiality of 'me' turning up in front of Parliaments door with a burning brand and a gibbet.

And how is that any different from any other country? It's not like in our case a piece of paper called "Constitution" shows up in front of parliament packing a shotgun. Everything that is written is only worth something if there is someone to enforce it. The pen is only mightier than the sword if/because it can convince a lot of people wielding swords, or burning brands and gibbets, whatever those are. ~;)

[Furunculus]

http://www.headoflegal.com/2016/02/23/what-is-parliamentary-sovereignty-anyway/

[Husar]

http://www.headoflegal.com/2016/02/23/what-is-parliamentary-sovereignty-anyway/


Dicey told us no one could override or set aside a law made by Parliament—not even the courts.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills


The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

:inquisitive:

You also still haven't explained how this relates to natural rights vs rights given by the government, it almost seems like you keep changing the goal posts and keep talking about other differences because you cannot explain the one you originally claimed exists. Either way, judges also only have power as long as the majority of the people goes along with it, just like your parliament. And congress and other legislative institutions can and do change constitutions.
What we also have in common is that we prefer less violent safeguards than burning down the parliament.

[Furunculus]

"it almost seems like you keep changing the goal posts and keep talking about other differences because you cannot explain the one you originally claimed exists"

funny, i was just thinking the same about you. :)
i'm entirely comfortable with my stated position as it stands currently.

[Greyblades]

And how is that any different from any other country? It's not like in our case a piece of paper called "Constitution" shows up in front of parliament packing a shotgun. Everything that is written is only worth something if there is someone to enforce it. The pen is only mightier than the sword if/because it can convince a lot of people wielding swords, or burning brands and gibbets, whatever those are.

In short:
The British parliament doesnt make any pretentions to limitations; it has absolute legal power to do whatever it wants with no obligation to past decisions (such as a constitution) and the courts are powerless to stop an act of parliament whether it be magistrate or supreme court. There is no time when an english law would be stopped through an intentional system of checks and balances, the worst that can be done is the house of lords delaying a law and that can only last a year.

The only things that keep it in check are a) disunity in the house and b) the tolerance of the people. They have a hell of a time getting consensus and if they do something to piss people off they get either voted out or lynched depending on the torch and pitchfork mob's mood.

That's how it's supposed to go anyway.

[Husar]

In short:
The British parliament doesnt make any pretentions to limitations; it has absolute legal power to do whatever it wants with no obligation to past decisions (such as a constitution) and the courts are powerless to stop an act of parliament whether it be magistrate or supreme court. There is no time when an english law would be stopped through an intentional system of checks and balances, the worst that can be done is the house of lords delaying a law and that can only last a year.

The only things that keep it in check are a) disunity in the house and b) the tolerance of the people. They have a hell of a time getting consensus and if they do something to piss people off they get either voted out or lynched depending on the torch and pitchfork mob's mood.

That's how it's supposed to go anyway.

The concept seems very theoretical while in practice there are limitations, such as the pitchfork mob. And since I assume it was while since the last lynching of a member of parliament, I assume there are simply cultural limitations that result in very similar practical limitations to most other countries. The differences are mostly theoretical and also say little about whether the rights of an individual are given by the state or whether they are natural. Indeed I would argue that a completely unrestricted legislation is more likely to and actually has the power to take away our natural rights than one that simply is not given the power to take them away in the first place. In both cases it takes some sort of action by the people or other representatives of the people to revert such an action by the legislation.

So in a hypothetical scenario where the German parliament violates my right to free speech my recourse is to sue it, while if the British parliament were to do so, my only recourse would be to gather a mob and kill MPs until the parliament revokes the law? Or wait four years with my rights revoked and hope that without free speech I could convince enough other people to vote for a different parliament that would revoke the law?

Also please note that the pitchfork approach works in every country, theoretically.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Now this is getting really complicated and I'm not sure what some of you are talking about or how it refers to the problem of who gives one rights.

The way I see it, we all live on a planet and it used to be that we just did that and slowly began to establish rules. People gathere d in larger and larger groups of like-minded people to be able to enforce their rules against the will of people who thought differently. At some point nation states developed and then it became illegal to cross their borders. Then the EU and Schengen came and it became legal to cross some of these borders again as much and for as long as people want to.

So if I understand it correctly, that people just live a free life and can go where ever they want, think native americans roaming the steppes or nomads living all over Africa and the Middle East, are natural rights, they are just a given but governments can take them away. The British seem to think that is only so in Britain, but effectively it works like that pretty much everywhere I'm aware of, precisely because of the previously described developments.

The rights given to anyone by the government-idea just seems silly because rights and restrictions are social constructs, you do not need a right per se for something you are able to do. The government cannot give a paraplegic the right to walk. It can however restrict a person able to walk to use a wheelchair. What rights do in a legal sense is therefore restrict the ability of the government to restrict. They are a safeguard against overwhelming government restrictions. That is why they are in a constitution because the people agree to have a government but limit its power to restrict with rights.
Show me a code of law that says "people are allowed to do xyz" and then lists all things people are allowed to do, insinuating that everything not explicitly allowed is illegal. It may exist somewhere but I'm not aware of that. There are obligations of course, but they're just inverted restrictions as they basically say doing something other than the obligation in the given context is not legal, see reporting requirements for corporations for example. The approach is usually to write down the lower number of possibilities because otherwise your laws become very, very long.

So when I say the EU gives you the right to work in another country without having to apply for lots of paperwork, it's not different from saying that the EU tore down the restrictions countries set up for you to go there and work. If you really want to discuss natural law and moral, then ask yourself what gives a nation a right to set up borders in the first place? What gives one person or group of persons the right to restrict another? When you claim a territory as yours and keep others out, you restrict their inherent freedom of movement. If it is just strength and the power to enforce it, is it then not also morally fine to overpower a nation and enforce something else?

As I said, I believe that you understand...the notion that rights are inherent. My argument was with a statement that "government gives us our rights".

But, as to the argument that the EU has given free movement across borders...Schengen is a supra-national agreement between member states within the EU. Those states could have made those same concessionary agreements with or without the EU. The same can be said for free movement more generally, agreements can (and are) made between states regarding one's ability to enter. The question is, are the other costs worth that concession?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

In short:
The British parliament doesnt make any pretentions to limitations; it has absolute legal power to do whatever it wants with no obligation to past decisions (such as a constitution) and the courts are powerless to stop an act of parliament whether it be magistrate or supreme court. There is no time when an english law would be stopped through an intentional system of checks and balances, the worst that can be done is the house of lords delaying a law and that can only last a year.

The only things that keep it in check are a) disunity in the house and b) the tolerance of the people. They have a hell of a time getting consensus and if they do something to piss people off they get either voted out or lynched depending on the torch and pitchfork mob's mood.

That's how it's supposed to go anyway.

It goes a little beyond that, I think, now. While Parliamentary Sovereignty is very real, it is limited...by it's oath to the Crown. Now...and this is where having an unwritten 'constituition' really helps, the Crown has been claimed as being the people, of which the Crown sovereign is merely representative.

I have nothing but contempt for our current government, and for the vast majority of Parliamentary representatives...but I don't believe that the EU has been, is, or ever will, make it easier to oppose the ills being projected from Parliament. If anything I see the (inevitable) future direction of the EU as becoming a stifling impediment on the people of Europe's ability to define and influence their futures. One need only look at how the ECB and the Commission dealt with Greece's elected government. Or how Italy's elected government was replaced at the behest of the EU... (and as for protecting workers' rights “a need to further reform the collective wage bargaining system [meaning: undermine unions] allowing firm-level agreements to tailor wages and working conditions to firms’ specific needs and increasing their relevance with respect to other layers of negotiations.” - a demand made by the ECB with regard to Italy's requirements to meet their demands...

http://www.infowars.com/italy-in-crisis-the-decline-of-the-roman-democracy-and-rise-of-the-super-mario-technocracy/

I actually, genuinely believe that the greatest threat to peace in Europe is the EU. As the left is crushed as an answer, and the EU dismantles any real vestige of national sovereignty (and particularly democracy) then the next stage is almost so bleedin' obvious it hurts. Nationalism and the far right will be the inevitable result. The EU will not end well.

[Snowhobbit]

I asked what within the statement made, not some notion of what originally lay behind it. This is how an unwritten 'constitution' benefits; for if it were written so(set in stone, as it were), then it could indeed legally be argued it only referred to men...as it is, instead, a constituent of belief then it is not subject to such clausal impediments.

Also..."those people who wrote..." ...when? Which people? Are you so sure of the monolith of such belief among them?

I'll ask again, do you not, therefore, believe that all men are created equal? And..please define what you mean by a 'higher power'. That statistical genetic correspondence is, indeed, natural.... does that not exemplify the truth of the statement? You are talking as if the origins of a statement must naturally dismiss the truth of it? What exactly are you arguing?

The statement was made by a whole bunch of slave owners who kept on happily being slave owners. Within the statement then it is clear that neither black people nor white women have the same worth as men. If you live in the belief that the men who wrote that declaration did not own slaves, well I'm sorry to see that your education system has failed you to such an extent.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? For something to be inherent there needs to be a reason why they are inherent, natural law usually presupposes a higher divine power which has granted these rights, rather than the sensible that people have together decided that these things are rights. That statement and the origins of it clearly show that there is no thing as an inherent right, or there wouldn't have been a need for a civil war.


But they were fought for because of the belief in the inherent nature of them. You simply don't get the difference in the base conception. You believe rights are defined primarily by the laws, we believe in rights inherent in being human, that that is what defines our rights.

Or, to put that another way; you appear to believe that rights are something you are given by laws, we believe that rights are inherent and that the laws which deny them are impediments to them. You believe your rights are to be given you( and thus, equally, can be taken away), we believe our rights are (ie that they exist regardless of what the law might state) and will fight laws we consider obstruct them.

Did George Washington fight for the right of slaves to be free and women to vote? The only thing inherent in being human is that you will some day die, the rest of the human experience we make for ourselves. Laws which deny access to rights are ofcourse an impediment to those rights. This is why countries have rights enshrined in this nasty thing called a Constitution, which trumps any law made in violation of it. It is cute of you to try and misrepresent my position, but putting words in my mouth is a fairly weak way of arguing a point. Do you need some more straw?

[lars573]

It goes a little beyond that, I think, now. While Parliamentary Sovereignty is very real, it is limited...by it's oath to the Crown. Now...and this is where having an unwritten 'constituition' really helps, the Crown has been claimed as being the people, of which the Crown sovereign is merely representative.
Actually even a written constitution doesn't curtail Parliamentary Sovereignty. As Canada has a written constitution and the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty inherited from Britain. We have Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms) also know as the notwithstanding clause or override power. Where anything the charter says can be over written by an act of parliament or legislature. And even the constitution itself is framed as act of parliament.

[Snowhobbit]

Actually even a written constitution doesn't curtail Parliamentary Sovereignty. As Canada has a written constitution and the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty inherited from Britain. We have Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms) also know as the notwithstanding clause or override power. Where anything the charter says can be over written by an act of parliament or legislature. And even the constitution itself is framed as act of parliament.

Constitutions usually are an act of parliament and can be altered by parliament. However to have an override clause in the constitution seems a bit weird. Kinda ruins the point.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The statement was made by a whole bunch of slave owners who kept on happily being slave owners. Within the statement then it is clear that neither black people nor white women have the same worth as men. If you live in the belief that the men who wrote that declaration did not own slaves, well I'm sorry to see that your education system has failed you to such an extent.

What import does this have upon the meaning of the phrase itself? Are you suggesting that the meaning of a phrase is determined by anyone who uttered it? You think I am unaware that the likes of Washington and Jefferson were and remained slave-holders?. But I did ask you a question. Were all of the writers of the declaration of independence happily slave-holders? Are you sure? Were John Adams and Roger Sherman slave owners? Are you sure? Who needs educating here, really?

But...you surely would not bring up this fact if you thought that I meant by the term only white men...so, what is your point? Do you have one?

The statement itself is derived (as we are discussing) from English common law, and was postulated as an aspect of English common law (and more generally as natural law) by Thomas Hobbes. As far as I know Hobbes was never a slave-holder. In fact the wording of this line of the declaration of independence is simply a slight re-writing of another Englishman's work; John Locke, from Two Treatises of Government (1690) "there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection" and "This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself...." as another passage is again pretty much lifted from this work; "Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men"

Again, as far as I am aware, Locke was not an owner of slaves.


Have you stopped beating your wife yet? For something to be inherent there needs to be a reason why they are inherent, natural law usually presupposes a higher divine power which has granted these rights, rather than the sensible that people have together decided that these things are rights. That statement and the origins of it clearly show that there is no thing as an inherent right, or there wouldn't have been a need for a civil war.

Ah...I see. So you don't believe that all mean are created equal? Am I right? Of course people have to have thought this, that is the nature of a philosophical position. Peace be to all men.... well, we can't have it because that appears in a religious tract and so, must be linked with a belief in a higher power? Again, I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be, or if you even have one.

As I have pointed out, the statistical genetic correspondence between all men is pretty convincing evidence that all men are created equal. Is that a higher power? Well...I suppose I don't have much control over my genetics so that, I suppose, if you insist it has to be, can count as a 'higher power'.




Did George Washington fight for the right of slaves to be free and women to vote? The only thing inherent in being human is that you will some day die, the rest of the human experience we make for ourselves. Laws which deny access to rights are ofcourse an impediment to those rights. This is why countries have rights enshrined in this nasty thing called a Constitution, which trumps any law made in violation of it. It is cute of you to try and misrepresent my position, but putting words in my mouth is a fairly weak way of arguing a point. Do you need some more straw?

George Washington did fight for his rights to be free of the onerous burden of British monarchy and taxation without representation. He believed in his innate right to do so. We know that because he told us so. So....he fought for rights because of his belief in those rights....rights not given to him by any government, but rights that were innately his.

And...if I quote you directly, you know that that can in no way be described as 'putting words in your mouth'. You do know what that term means, right?

[Gilrandir]

Of the six billion 5.9 billion the EU gave goes directly to the Turkish weapon-industry. Not to refugees. So the EU is doing nothing more than arming Erdogan, who hassss a few flaws


Even if we believe your statement, I repeat: the EU is paying Turkey not to see immigrants on its premises. Turkey is free to do whatever it thinks right with the money as long as the influx is stemmed.



Always wonder why English (well some) think they are different from others...

They don't have a constitution.



In fact the wording of this line of the declaration of independence is simply a slight re-writing of another Englishman's work; John Locke, from Two Treatises of Government (1690) "there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection"

So you don't believe that all mean are created equal? Am I right?

As I have pointed out, the statistical genetic correspondence between all men is pretty convincing evidence that all men are created equal.


The flaw of this premise is that men (even twins) are never born with the same advantages of nature. Each man is unique in the set of endowments he is born with which automatically makes them unequal from the outset.

[Snowhobbit]

What import does this have upon the meaning of the phrase itself? Are you suggesting that the meaning of a phrase is determined by anyone who uttered it? You think I am unaware that the likes of Washington and Jefferson were and remained slave-holders?. But I did ask you a question. Were all of the writers of the declaration of independence happily slave-holders? Are you sure? Were John Adams and Roger Sherman slave owners? Are you sure? Who needs educating here, really?

But...you surely would not bring up this fact if you thought that I meant by the term only white men...so, what is your point? Do you have one?

The statement itself is derived (as we are discussing) from English common law, and was postulated as an aspect of English common law (and more generally as natural law) by Thomas Hobbes. As far as I know Hobbes was never a slave-holder. In fact the wording of this line of the declaration of independence is simply a slight re-writing of another Englishman's work; John Locke, from Two Treatises of Government (1690) "there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection" and "This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself...." as another passage is again pretty much lifted from this work; "Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men"

Again, as far as I am aware, Locke was not an owner of slaves.



Ah...I see. So you don't believe that all mean are created equal? Am I right? Of course people have to have thought this, that is the nature of a philosophical position. Peace be to all men.... well, we can't have it because that appears in a religious tract and so, must be linked with a belief in a higher power? Again, I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be, or if you even have one.

As I have pointed out, the statistical genetic correspondence between all men is pretty convincing evidence that all men are created equal. Is that a higher power? Well...I suppose I don't have much control over my genetics so that, I suppose, if you insist it has to be, can count as a 'higher power'.





George Washington did fight for his rights to be free of the onerous burden of British monarchy and taxation without representation. He believed in his innate right to do so. We know that because he told us so. So....he fought for rights because of his belief in those rights....rights not given to him by any government, but rights that were innately his.

And...if I quote you directly, you know that that can in no way be described as 'putting words in your mouth'. You do know what that term means, right?

Kindly refer me to the post where I have said that it is in the nature of things that black people should be held in slavery to whites. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

What do you think would happen if the Tories campaigned with "work brings freedom"? The context of who made that statement inevitably has an effect on the meaning of the words. Did Putin describe the annexation of Crimea as an expansion of the Russian Lebensraum?
Was the constitution written by slave owners? Yes. Did the constitution at the time of writing free the slaves? No. How free were the black people belonging to the land of the free? Not very free at all. As for your religious based gibberish I don't give a damn about its value to you. The notion is derived from belief in the divine and I'd rather not live in a theocracy, where my head of state is my head of church. What perfect freedom did the black man enjoy? The freedom to be whipped in the field I suppose, praise the lord!

All men are born with the same worth, but you can keep telling yourself that a street urchin in India has the same freedoms and enjoyment of rights as Bill Gates kids until the cows come home, it still will not be true.

He fought for his rights, but he did not fight for the rights of every man which seems to be really tough for you to grasp. Must be lonely up in that ivory tower of yours, is that why you keep beating your wife?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Kindly refer me to the post where I have said that it is in the nature of things that black people should be held in slavery to whites. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

What do you think would happen if the Tories campaigned with "work brings freedom"? The context of who made that statement inevitably has an effect on the meaning of the words. Did Putin describe the annexation of Crimea as an expansion of the Russian Lebensraum?
Was the constitution written by slave owners? Yes. Did the constitution at the time of writing free the slaves? No. How free were the black people belonging to the land of the free? Not very free at all. As for your religious based gibberish I don't give a damn about its value to you. The notion is derived from belief in the divine and I'd rather not live in a theocracy, where my head of state is my head of church. What perfect freedom did the black man enjoy? The freedom to be whipped in the field I suppose, praise the lord!

All men are born with the same worth, but you can keep telling yourself that a street urchin in India has the same freedoms and enjoyment of rights as Bill Gates kids until the cows come home, it still will not be true.

He fought for his rights, but he did not fight for the rights of every man which seems to be really tough for you to grasp. Must be lonely up in that ivory tower of yours, is that why you keep beating your wife?

You are, sir, a blathering bore. I cease bothering to communicate with you.

John Adams and Roger Sherman (two of the compilers of the declaration of independence) were not slave-holders, which is what I questioned with regard to your (limited) knowledge. Adams, in fact, abhorred the concept of slavery.

But, further, the point was made that the origins of the term (in fact the very value of them, in terms of the ideals and conceptions of 'common law', which was the context of the discussion) were from English thinkers on common law, on political philosophy.

You talk of 'strawman' arguments and then try and pretend that by agreeing with the term "all men are created equal" I am in fact aligning myself with salve-holding. This is an 'argument' that on no ground whatsoever can be considered worthy of such consideration. This is, it appears, the absolute upper level of your intellect, so I shall waste no more of my time being bothered by it.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The flaw of this premise is that men (even twins) are never born with the same advantages of nature. Each man is unique in the set of endowments he is born with which automatically makes them unequal from the outset.

It is only a flaw if you take it outside of context. For example the following line "and the use of the same faculties"...so, you know, speech, thought etc. It is not a statement that all men are created exactly the same (which is, in fact, the objection that you make) but that all men are born equal. I'm struggling to understand what is so difficult to comprehend about this. Perhaps our continental friends are far greater in distance from our thoughts on this matter than I ever realised...

[Snowhobbit]

You are, sir, a blathering bore. I cease bothering to communicate with you.

John Adams and Roger Sherman (two of the compilers of the declaration of independence) were not slave-holders, which is what I questioned with regard to your (limited) knowledge. Adams, in fact, abhorred the concept of slavery.

But, further, the point was made that the origins of the term (in fact the very value of them, in terms of the ideals and conceptions of 'common law', which was the context of the discussion) were from English thinkers on common law, on political philosophy.

You talk of 'strawman' arguments and then try and pretend that by agreeing with the term "all men are created equal" I am in fact aligning myself with salve-holding. This is an 'argument' that on no ground whatsoever can be considered worthy of such consideration. This is, it appears, the absolute upper level of your intellect, so I shall waste no more of my time being bothered by it.

It is great that two or more of them were not slave owners. The fact still stands that more of them owned slaves than not. You can keep branding your theologians as "English thinkers" as much as you want, their thinking still reeks of religion. Exactly how are you equal to your queen? Can you appoint the government? Are you the head of your state church? All men are created equal is a fallacy of terms, and your refusal to realise that the origin of a term affects the meaning and value of that term is astounding.

I truly hope that you have stopped beating your wife.
FYI I have never tried to align you with slave owners, merely made it clear that I hold little respect for statements made by slave owners. But by all means try to get Corbyn to run with the slogan "work gives freedom" and look at the reaction.

[lars573]

Thomas Jefferson, who as a Virginian aristocrat owned slaves, wanted to denounce slavery in the declaration of independence. He was talked out of it so as to not force the southern colonies into the British side.

And her majesty is only the Queen so long as the various parliaments say she is. Yes plural, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and the rest all have a say in that.


They don't have a constitution.
Wrong. What they don't have is a document called the constitution of Great Britain. Instead there is a huge body of acts of parliament and other royal charters that go back to 1215.



The flaw of this premise is that men (even twins) are never born with the same advantages of nature. Each man is unique in the set of endowments he is born with which automatically makes them unequal from the outset.
You confusing individual ability gained from genetics and circumstance for a the idea that people are generally the same no matter what their material circumstances. And the law ought to reflect that.

[Husar]

It is great that two or more of them were not slave owners. The fact still stands that more of them owned slaves than not. You can keep branding your theologians as "English thinkers" as much as you want, their thinking still reeks of religion. Exactly how are you equal to your queen? Can you appoint the government? Are you the head of your state church? All men are created equal is a fallacy of terms, and your refusal to realise that the origin of a term affects the meaning and value of that term is astounding.

I think it was meant to mean that noone is born as a nobleman or a slave in the sense that it often was back then, i.e. social mobility was pretty much impossible. That the UK still has a royal family and noblemen and so on means they obviously haven't fully implemented the idea, but it does not mean the idea is fundamentally wrong as you seem to suggest.

[Snowhobbit]

I think it was meant to mean that noone is born as a nobleman or a slave in the sense that it often was back then, i.e. social mobility was pretty much impossible. That the UK still has a royal family and noblemen and so on means they obviously haven't fully implemented the idea, but it does not mean the idea is fundamentally wrong as you seem to suggest.

But people were born as slaves and kept being born as slaves for more than a hundred years. And women were certainly not equal to men.

[Husar]

But people were born as slaves and kept being born as slaves for more than a hundred years. And women were certainly not equal to men.

Since when does what a philosopher says immediately become a reality?
Or are you still talking about the US Constitution? Because I wasn't.

As for slavery in the US, I don't even think everybody saw blacks as "men", so in that sense they were kind of consistent... :rolleyes:

[InsaneApache]

I'm drunk! :mad:

[Snowhobbit]

Since when does what a philosopher says immediately become a reality?
Or are you still talking about the US Constitution? Because I wasn't.

As for slavery in the US, I don't even think everybody saw blacks as "men", so in that sense they were kind of consistent... :rolleyes:

Say, CDU is pro working over welfare, right? Why did they not run "arbeit macht frei" as a campaign slogan in the local elections? Given the context and massive wide-spread oppression that existed for hundreds of years after that declaration it is more likely that they are referring to the notion that there should be no regent to rule them. Mind you, are there any regents ruling or holding influence/power over any other people today? Doesn't sound like those people are born equal to their master.

[Husar]

Say, CDU is pro working over welfare, right? Why did they not run "arbeit macht frei" as a campaign slogan in the local elections? Given the context and massive wide-spread oppression that existed for hundreds of years after that declaration it is more likely that they are referring to the notion that there should be no regent to rule them. Mind you, are there any regents ruling or holding influence/power over any other people today? Doesn't sound like those people are born equal to their master.

None of that seems related to what I said. :inquisitive:

[Snowhobbit]

None of that seems related to what I said. :inquisitive:

I am primarily talking about the US constitution, as I hold theologians in low esteem with regards to non-religious matters. If context of the origin of the statement does not matter, why does no German party run with "arbeit macht frei" as a slogan?

[Husar]

I am primarily talking about the US constitution, as I hold theologians in low esteem with regards to non-religious matters. If context of the origin of the statement does not matter, why does no German party run with "arbeit macht frei" as a slogan?

But that's completely silly because the whole US-argument is a strawman given that the topic we were discussing was the difference between the UK and other European countries. You only brought up the US to deride the English naturalist philosophers and their idea that all men are born equal, which was cited as one of the bases of modern English law.
You have not explained why the use and interpretation of these philosophies in the USA of old makes the basic philosophy wrong or useless and you do not even seem to understand what the basic philosophy was about.

What you appear to be saying is: They said all men are completely equal -> Not all men are completely equal -> They were wrong.

The problem is that this is not what they were saying. What they were saying was that the feudal notion of god-given nobility, that resulted in the theoretical impossibility of social upwards movement, was completely wrong. Their point was not that rich and poor and disabled and "healthy" are all the same, it was that there is no such thing as "blue bloods" who need to/can trace their family roots back to king david or whoever to prove that god selected their family as some kind of inherently better humans to rule others.
The fact that this idea was not immediately used to end every and all monarchies and turn them into Marxist paradises of equality does not mean that the idea was bad or wrong.
Whether an American founding father had slaves or not says absolutely nothing about the validity of the roots of modern English law.

And if you look a bit further, you may see that many countries did actually implement these ideas by now, the US never had nobility, in Germany today noble titles are just words people can put in front of their names, they give them no right to rule others and this is the case in many other European countries. That the UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and some others still maintain a royal family that is involved in government as a birth right is in direct contradiction to these ideas indeed but that does not invalidate them, it merely says that quite a few countries fail to follow through entirely or didn't choose to implement these ideas as core values.

[Snowhobbit]

But that's completely silly because the whole US-argument is a strawman given that the topic we were discussing was the difference between the UK and other European countries. You only brought up the US to deride the English naturalist philosophers and their idea that all men are born equal, which was cited as one of the bases of modern English law.
You have not explained why the use and interpretation of these philosophies in the USA of old makes the basic philosophy wrong or useless and you do not even seem to understand what the basic philosophy was about.

What you appear to be saying is: They said all men are completely equal -> Not all men are completely equal -> They were wrong.

The problem is that this is not what they were saying. What they were saying was that the feudal notion of god-given nobility, that resulted in the theoretical impossibility of social upwards movement, was completely wrong. Their point was not that rich and poor and disabled and "healthy" are all the same, it was that there is no such thing as "blue bloods" who need to/can trace their family roots back to king david or whoever to prove that god selected their family as some kind of inherently better humans to rule others.
The fact that this idea was not immediately used to end every and all monarchies and turn them into Marxist paradises of equality does not mean that the idea was bad or wrong.
Whether an American founding father had slaves or not says absolutely nothing about the validity of the roots of modern English law.

And if you look a bit further, you may see that many countries did actually implement these ideas by now, the US never had nobility, in Germany today noble titles are just words people can put in front of their names, they give them no right to rule others and this is the case in many other European countries. That the UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and some others still maintain a royal family that is involved in government as a birth right is in direct contradiction to these ideas indeed but that does not invalidate them, it merely says that quite a few countries fail to follow through entirely or didn't choose to implement these ideas as core values.

But all men are not created equal. This was true when the statements were first thought of, and it remains true today. Can you appoint the Prime Minister of UK? Because I know I can't. The fact that there is an order of succession for the royalty further proves that all are not created equal, that list shows you who is more equal than whom. They were still living under a monarch and citizens of UK are to this day living under a monarch with actual powers over their country. Could you tell me what powers the Swedish Monarch has over the nation of Sweden? I know that in UK and the Netherlands some powers remain, but I'm fairly sure our Scandinavian neighbors have also taken the wiser choice of removing any power from the Head of State. Though even then we are of course not born equal, our Royal family is born being supported on the back of their servants due to the money which they receive from our taxation. Do you have millions of people working to make sure that you can afford to keep the staff that is needed to maintain your royal lifestyle? Not very equal in my mind.

[Husar]

But all men are not created equal. This was true when the statements were first thought of, and it remains true today. Can you appoint the Prime Minister of UK? Because I know I can't. The fact that there is an order of succession for the royalty further proves that all are not created equal, that list shows you who is more equal than whom. They were still living under a monarch and citizens of UK are to this day living under a monarch with actual powers over their country. Could you tell me what powers the Swedish Monarch has over the nation of Sweden? I know that in UK and the Netherlands some powers remain, but I'm fairly sure our Scandinavian neighbors have also taken the wiser choice of removing any power from the Head of State. Though even then we are of course not born equal, our Royal family is born being supported on the back of their servants due to the money which they receive from our taxation. Do you have millions of people working to make sure that you can afford to keep the staff that is needed to maintain your royal lifestyle? Not very equal in my mind.

Are you being dense on purpose? Do you not get the difference between a philosophical idea and practical implementation?

The Swedish monarch pushed a deal selling Gripens to a dictatorship through against the democratic agency that was meant to prevent it.

And how much power exactly he has is irrelevant given that he is part of the government by right of birth. Did you even read my entire post? I already said that in your country the philosophical idea IS NOT IN PRACTICAL USE because you are not all born equal in Sweden.
In Germany it is different because noone is raised to a position in government by being born into a certain family. We do not have the concept of some family being inherently better humans meant to hold power anymore.

[Pannonian]

I am primarily talking about the US constitution, as I hold theologians in low esteem with regards to non-religious matters. If context of the origin of the statement does not matter, why does no German party run with "arbeit macht frei" as a slogan?

I get this image of a fast food syndicate running with "arbeit macht fries" as a slogan.

[Snowhobbit]

Are you being dense on purpose? Do you not get the difference between a philosophical idea and practical implementation?

The Swedish monarch pushed a deal selling Gripens to a dictatorship through against the democratic agency that was meant to prevent it.

And how much power exactly he has is irrelevant given that he is part of the government by right of birth. Did you even read my entire post? I already said that in your country the philosophical idea IS NOT IN PRACTICAL USE because you are not all born equal in Sweden.
In Germany it is different because noone is raised to a position in government by being born into a certain family. We do not have the concept of some family being inherently better humans meant to hold power anymore.

The Swedish monarch is not contracted to sell Gripens, dictatorship or not. Nor is the monarch the one who will have final say or any real influence on arms deals made. Would you like to source your claim of Karl Gustav the Gripen salesman?

The philosophical idea is bogus because it is not applicable to the real world. You know that thing we live in. It presupposes a higher power to implement the idea into the world.

How much power someone has matters in the sense of whether that person is born with more power than someone else. Not a difficult concept. I would hazard a guess that in Germany you have certain people who are far and beyond wealthier than the average man, and possible even people who are much poorer than the average? The children of those people would also not be born equal.

Who pissed in your cheerios this morning?

[Snowhobbit]

I get this image of a fast food syndicate running with "arbeit macht fries" as a slogan.

That sounds hilarious :D I wonder why nobody else dares respond to that question. And I do hope Gaius has stopped beating his wife.

[Husar]

The Swedish monarch is not contracted to sell Gripens, dictatorship or not. Nor is the monarch the one who will have final say or any real influence on arms deals made. Would you like to source your claim of Karl Gustav the Gripen salesman?

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum-schweden-der-militardiktatur-in-thailand-kampfflugzeuge-lieferte


Schweden ist eine vorbildliche europäische Demokratie, in Thailand hat sich eine Militärdiktatur an die Macht geputscht. Wie kann es passieren, dass das schwedische Unternehmen Saab mit Hilfe von Regierung und Königshaus Kampfflugzeuge an die Militärjunta lieferte?

Translation:

Sweden is an exemplary european democracy, in Thailand a military dictatorship has couped itself into power. How can it happen that the Swedish corporation Saab delivered military airplanes to the military junta with the help of the government and the royalty?

It goes on explaining in detail how all of that happened but I'm not going to translate all of it now. You may be able to find a similar report or one based on it in another language.


The philosophical idea is bogus because it is not applicable to the real world.

It is currently in effect in Germany, the USA and several other countries...
So much about your "point".


It presupposes a higher power to implement the idea into the world.

No, it does not, the idea that was discarded by this idea did.


How much power someone has matters in the sense of whether that person is born with more power than someone else. Not a difficult concept. I would hazard a guess that in Germany you have certain people who are far and beyond wealthier than the average man, and possible even people who are much poorer than the average? The children of those people would also not be born equal.

You still don't understand the historical context of the idea we are talking about and what exactly it means. It was not a Marxist idea, it was an idea to end the feudal system of people being born into power and that only people born into power could ever have power. Since I could theoretically be elected chancellor of Germany or even President of Germany and am not from a noble family or any sort of "higher birth", this idea is currently very much being applied in my country.
Money and its relation to power is a separate issue, it is not what the original idea was about, that was Marx and he came later.


Who pissed in your cheerios this morning?

What leads you to that conclusion?

[Pannonian]

In thirty years, maybe we will, assuming anyone remembers any of it.

I'm trying to help you, you idiot. You must ingratiate, not antagonize! Veiled threats and insinuations of "you'll regret this one day" isn't going to change anyone's minds except against what you advocate.

Just to explain my perspective on things. I see our current position as the best of all worlds, as far as is practically attainable by the UK. We are within the common market, so we get the benefits of being within the EEC. Unlike, say, Norway, we get a say on things, rather than have to implement each and every regulation in order to qualify for these benefits. As a result, we've opted out of the worst aspects of the EU, such as the Eurozone and Schengen, which do not suit our particular conditions. We also have other opt outs, which were the result of us having a say in negotiations. The poster boy for things which we can't opt out of is TTIA, which in practice we can't do much about as an extra-EU UK, as it deals with multinational corporations, which are beyond the capacity of a small country like the UK to deal with. As with the case of larger forces which are too powerful for the individual to deal effectively with, the solution is to join a union, which will be a conglomerate of smaller parts that speak with one voice and hence a bigger voice. But this particular logic has no truck with the national sovereignty arguments. Despite, as I emphasise again, our national sovereignty having no effect anyway on these multinationals (see the risible amount of tax Google back-paid).

So I see the UK currently being in a favoured position within the EU, as a result of being part of the EU, and indeed being a powerful component of it. But if we exit, it will mean throwing away that favoured position, to pursue a philosophical argument which we won't be able to practically affect, as a country outside the EU. And after an exit, if we don't like the results, we can't change our mind and revert to the previous, as the previous opt outs were negotiated as a powerful component of the EU, which we won't be if we try to negotiate back in in any kind of form. Does anyone remember the ERM? That's one thing that we're freed of because we're not part of the Eurozone, and don't aspire to be. But it's one thing that I can see being a pre-requisite if we want back in to the EEC. Otherwise, we'll have to live with barriers to free movement of trade and capital. Which will disproportionately affect us, given the balance of the UK's economy.

[Gilrandir]

It is only a flaw if you take it outside of context. For example the following line "and the use of the same faculties"...so, you know, speech, thought etc. It is not a statement that all men are created exactly the same (which is, in fact, the objection that you make) but that all men are born equal. .

They are not. Otherwise it would be equally easy for you to run 100 meters as fast as Usain Bolt or win 255 biathlon pedestals as Bjorndalen did.



Wrong. What they don't have is a document called the constitution of Great Britain. Instead there is a huge body of acts of parliament and other royal charters that go back to 1215.


Thus they don't have a constitution. If I have a collection of cogs, screws and springs (plus a round glass and two small arrows (aka hands)), can I claim I own a watch?



You confusing individual ability gained from genetics and circumstance for a the idea that people are generally the same no matter what their material circumstances. And the law ought to reflect that.
Using your logics, all cars are the same. Why bother choosing and comparing them, just buy the first one you set your eyes on. All women are the same - marry the first one you meet.

People are not the same, nor born equal. They are supposed to enjoy the same rights which makes them equal in the eyes of the law. Otherwise they are not equal, still less the same.

[Snowhobbit]

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum-schweden-der-militardiktatur-in-thailand-kampfflugzeuge-lieferte



It goes on explaining in detail how all of that happened but I'm not going to translate all of it now. You may be able to find a similar report or one based on it in another language.



It is currently in effect in Germany, the USA and several other countries...
So much about your "point".



No, it does not, the idea that was discarded by this idea did.



You still don't understand the historical context of the idea we are talking about and what exactly it means. It was not a Marxist idea, it was an idea to end the feudal system of people being born into power and that only people born into power could ever have power. Since I could theoretically be elected chancellor of Germany or even President of Germany and am not from a noble family or any sort of "higher birth", this idea is currently very much being applied in my country.
Money and its relation to power is a separate issue, it is not what the original idea was about, that was Marx and he came later.



What leads you to that conclusion?

That article merely states that during a state visit there was a discussion and possibly agreement to a transaction regarding military hardware. At no point is there any proof provided that Karl Gustav the Fighter Salesman sold Gripen to the Thai. Do you work for the Daily Mail?

So Germany has abolished private property then? I thought the unification had happened the other way around...

For people to be born equal, when it is clear in the world today that things are not so, a higher power is needed to enforce the notion.

Of course it was not marxists, that would be centuries before its time. A poor person however will not have access to the same goods and services or even opportunities as a poor person. Could you provide some background on the very diverse nature of past German chancellors and Presidents? I'm sure they come from all manner of backgrounds and are not primarily middle or upper-class.

The fact that you are posting in a way in which, if I may channel you, would result in you being asked to behave politely if you want people to treat you politely. Resorting to insults is a fairly weak form of argument.

[Husar]

That article merely states that during a state visit there was a discussion and possibly agreement to a transaction regarding military hardware. At no point is there any proof provided that Karl Gustav the Fighter Salesman sold Gripen to the Thai. Do you work for the Daily Mail?

He was used as a salesman in dealings with the former thai prime minister, represents the Swedish state officially and simply has political influence as an inherent birth right.


So Germany has abolished private property then? I thought the unification had happened the other way around...

For people to be born equal, when it is clear in the world today that things are not so, a higher power is needed to enforce the notion.

Of course it was not marxists, that would be centuries before its time. A poor person however will not have access to the same goods and services or even opportunities as a poor person. Could you provide some background on the very diverse nature of past German chancellors and Presidents? I'm sure they come from all manner of backgrounds and are not primarily middle or upper-class.

The fact that you are posting in a way in which, if I may channel you, would result in you being asked to behave politely if you want people to treat you politely. Resorting to insults is a fairly weak form of argument.

I simply notice that you do not seem to understand what kind of equality was meant by the British philosophers. I have explained it numerous times by now and you still argue about money and other things that are not what their philosophy was about and don't prove it wrong. That someone with more money is more likely to gain political power does not make it a god-given birth right.
I don't know how else I could help you.

[Snowhobbit]

He was used as a salesman in dealings with the former thai prime minister, represents the Swedish state officially and simply has political influence as an inherent birth right.



I simply notice that you do not seem to understand what kind of equality was meant by the British philosophers. I have explained it numerous times by now and you still argue about money and other things that are not what their philosophy was about and don't prove it wrong. That someone with more money is more likely to gain political power does not make it a god-given birth right.
I don't know how else I could help you.

That article does in no way prove that the king is a fighter jet salesman. Does the Daily Mail allow you to surf the web without working during work hours?

People are in no way, shape or form born equal even in the glorious DDR.

And I'm curious how you define political influence given he has no actual political power and is not allowed to speak on parties or political issues.

[Husar]

That article does in no way prove that the king is a fighter jet salesman. Does the Daily Mail allow you to surf the web without working during work hours?

People are in no way, shape or form born equal even in the glorious DDR.

And I'm curious how you define political influence given he has no actual political power and is not allowed to speak on parties or political issues.

He negotiated part of the fighter jet deal, how do you define a salesman if not as someone who negotiates sales contracts?

That you still don't get the difference in equality based on historical context or the difference between having a feudal system and a capitalism-based society without nobility by birth is astounding but as I said, I have explained it numerous times, might help to read it again or read it at all.

Your misinterpretation seems deliberate at this point, your constant ridicule of explanations is hardly polite either.

[Snowhobbit]

He negotiated part of the fighter jet deal, how do you define a salesman if not as someone who negotiates sales contracts?

That you still don't get the difference in equality based on historical context or the difference between having a feudal system and a capitalism-based society without nobility by birth is astounding but as I said, I have explained it numerous times, might help to read it again or read it at all.

Again, you will have to show some kind of proof for the assertion that the man with no power over arms deals negotiated an arms deal. I don't understand how you are unable to process this.

That you still do not understand that people to this day are not born equal and most likely never will be is beyond me. I guess the German education system failed you, so we should really blame them?

[Husar]

Again, you will have to show some kind of proof for the assertion that the man with no power over arms deals negotiated an arms deal. I don't understand how you are unable to process this.

That you still do not understand that people to this day are not born equal and most likely never will be is beyond me. I guess the German education system failed you, so we should really blame them?

At this point it is pointless.
Thank you for participating.

[Snowhobbit]

At this point it is pointless.
Thank you for participating.

I agree. Backing up assertions is an unfair burden to put upon someone.

[Brenus]

"That you still do not understand that people to this day are not born equal and most likely never will be is beyond me. I guess the German education system failed you, so we should really blame them?" Well, the German education shows them what happens when some believe this... For the German's case, they ended with the Red flag on the top of Berlin...
And, if you read the sentence about equality, it says "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights". It is not a biological truth but a law.
It is beyond me that badly understood Darwinism can go so wrong...:laugh4:

[Pannonian]

"That you still do not understand that people to this day are not born equal and most likely never will be is beyond me. I guess the German education system failed you, so we should really blame them?" Well, the German education shows them what happens when some believe this... For the German's case, they ended with the Red flag on the top of Berlin...
And, if you read the sentence about equality, it says "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights". It is not a biological truth but a law.
It is beyond me that badly understood Darwinism can go so wrong...:laugh4:

Properly applied Darwinism can result in extremely good soil for the garden. The man's scientific theories were ahead of his time.

[Papewaio]

Properly applied Darwinism can result in extremely good soil for the garden. The man's scientific theories were ahead of his time.

In a multiverse the laws of physics such as gravity may change.

Survival of the fittest (for that universe) would still work across any universe in a multiverse able system.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Those inherent rights sure worked well for those brown people. On the other side of the channel we will keep on refraining from believing that a higher power grants us things, thanks.

Those inherent rights won them their freedom in the courts. If rights were simply handed out by society, I would think many brown people would be living in conditions barely better than the 1800s.

You don't need to have higher power bestow rights btw. You have those rights for simply being a human.

[Pannonian]

In a multiverse the laws of physics such as gravity may change.

Survival of the fittest (for that universe) would still work across any universe in a multiverse able system.

That may well be so, but in Darwin's seminal work, The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms (with Observations on their Habits), Darwin showed that earthworms consume soil and vegetation for nutrients, excreting the waste in the burrows they leave behind, resulting in the subsidence of manmade buildings above, such as Stonehenge. If we study Social Darwinism in more detail, we may achieve better composting.

[Beskar]

.You don't need to have higher power bestow rights btw. You have those rights for simply being a human.
Just need them to be enshrined and protected in law, otherwise they don't exist. Like the dodo.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just need them to be enshrined and protected in law, otherwise they don't exist. Like the dodo.

Yes, just as you need to enshrine the moon's of Saturn in astronomy textbooks, otherwise they don't exist.

[Pannonian]

Those inherent rights won them their freedom in the courts. If rights were simply handed out by society, I would think many brown people would be living in conditions barely better than the 1800s.

You don't need to have higher power bestow rights btw. You have those rights for simply being a human.

It just shows that Darwin's work on worms was revolutionary, and that earthworms should be treasured as a keystone of society and kept from harm. In contrast, a diet of worms causes one to develop a closed mind and reject the concept of human rights.

[Beskar]

Yes, just as you need to enshrine the moon's of Saturn in astronomy textbooks, otherwise they don't exist.

Even that is not enough, Titan is giant sized naked man eating baby, Hyperion is the evil Corp from borderlands, and Phoebe is the blonde haired one from friends. Don't even get started on the rest. As far as the population is concern, the names of saturns moons are amenable as pictures made with an etch a sketch.

Though I dont think you was trying to agree with me though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Even that is not enough, Titan is giant sized naked man eating baby, Hyperion is the evil Corp from borderlands, and Phoebe is the blonde haired one from friends. Don't even get started on the rest. As far as the population is concern, the names of saturns moons are amenable as pictures made with an etch a sketch.

Though I dont think you was trying to agree with me though.

If we don't recognize saturn's moons does that mean they are not real?

[Snowhobbit]

Those inherent rights won them their freedom in the courts. If rights were simply handed out by society, I would think many brown people would be living in conditions barely better than the 1800s.

You don't need to have higher power bestow rights btw. You have those rights for simply being a human.

But if higher rights are not bestowed by courts or Governments which is what I have been arguing against then the only remainder is a higher power.

I thought you had this nasty civil war business to free the slaves, but it was all just a court thing? Oh well, I'll have to go yell at my history teacher then ;)

[a completely inoffensive name]

But if higher rights are not bestowed by courts or Governments which is what I have been arguing against then the only remainder is a higher power.

I thought you had this nasty civil war business to free the slaves, but it was all just a court thing? Oh well, I'll have to go yell at my history teacher then ;)

I'm saying higher rights are there all along by the virtue of being a cognizant entity. By being conscious it follows that you have certain inalienable rights.

Your whole argument is that people sometimes violate rights, therefore rights are not an inherent thing. You have to try harder than that.

[Snowhobbit]

I'm saying higher rights are there all along by the virtue of being a cognizant entity. By being conscious it follows that you have certain inalienable rights.

Your whole argument is that people sometimes violate rights, therefore rights are not an inherent thing. You have to try harder than that.

My argument is that since I do not believe in a man in the sky the argument of inalienable rights holds no water with me.
There were a lot of cognisant entities that did not have their "inalienable" rights respected in the US, by the same men who wrote those words. It was not a sometimes thing and people were born into slavery for generations.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My argument is that since I do not believe in a man in the sky the argument of inalienable rights holds no water with me.
There were a lot of cognisant entities that did not have their "inalienable" rights respected in the US, by the same men who wrote those words. It was not a sometimes thing and people were born into slavery for generations.
Then you are not listening to what I am saying, which is why I am asking you to try harder. I explicitly stated you do not need God to have inalienable rights. Start with the cognitive capacity of humans to reason and you can build your way up to rights, no God needed. If you are trying to make points against a case I never made, then this is pointless.

My previous post sums you up entirely. You see violation and presume absence. It's as terrible of an argument as declaring morals to be fiction simply because other societies past/presence allow for child labor/abuse. In fact, it's the same argument.

[Papewaio]

If human rights were inalienable you wouldn't need law enforcement to enable them. Equal rights, voting, freedom of speech would have been there from the start of humanity if they were an inate attribute. If they were truly inalienable racism, sexism and slavery could never have existed.

Instead we have to codify social expectations in the form of law and we have had to create a form of government for the people not just for the theocracy or artistrocacy. Human rights are an abstract concept in the same way that money has value. They are constructs that require external force to manifest. Not a God or Gods but human intervention to make it happen.

[Snowhobbit]

Then you are not listening to what I am saying, which is why I am asking you to try harder. I explicitly stated you do not need God to have inalienable rights. Start with the cognitive capacity of humans to reason and you can build your way up to rights, no God needed. If you are trying to make points against a case I never made, then this is pointless.

My previous post sums you up entirely. You see violation and presume absence. It's as terrible of an argument as declaring morals to be fiction simply because other societies past/presence allow for child labor/abuse. In fact, it's the same argument.

No, your presumption is not logical. Pape did a good job of showing you why you are wrong so I won't reinvent the wheel. What makes them inalienable?

And Gaius since you are reading this, please let us know if you've stopped beating your wife. It really has to stop.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The leaps you two make. To say something is inalienable suddenly means we have this knowledge from the beginning?

If the universe was here the whole time, we would have known about it from the beginning!

[Snowhobbit]

The leaps you two make. To say something is inalienable suddenly means we have this knowledge from the beginning?

If the universe was here the whole time, we would have known about it from the beginning!

Do you need to buy a dictionary?

And who is the mysterious creator which is not God?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Being an asshole doesn't mean you win the argument.

[Snowhobbit]

Being an asshole doesn't mean you win the argument.

Not sure how asking questions means being an asshole, is it some American thing? Maybe you can borrow a dictionary from the library? And who is this creator person?

Ignoring questions and only using insults sure makes you an Olympic grade debater.

[Husar]

Not sure how asking questions means being an asshole, is it some American thing? Maybe you can borrow a dictionary from the library? And who is this creator person?

Ignoring questions and only using insults sure makes you an Olympic grade debater.

It's 03/15/2016 and Snowhobbit is still a troll.

[Snowhobbit]

It's 03/15/2016 and Snowhobbit is still a troll.

It is 03/15/2016 and the Technical Administrator has yet to answer a question.

It's been a while since I joined the backroom, when did insults replace arguments?

[Snowhobbit]

If we don't recognize saturn's moons does that mean they are not real?

Could you please direct me to the physical manifestation of the inalienable human rights?

[lars573]

If human rights were inalienable you wouldn't need law enforcement to enable them. Equal rights, voting, freedom of speech would have been there from the start of humanity if they were an inate attribute. If they were truly inalienable racism, sexism and slavery could never have existed.
Inalienable means they can't be removed/taken away not matter what you do. Even if you enslave them, still there. Even if you discriminate against them because you're from Europe and they're from Africa, still there. Even if you make them second class citizens for being female, still there. It says nothing about them being denied or surpressed, which they can be by all of the above.


Instead we have to codify social expectations in the form of law and we have had to create a form of government for the people not just for the theocracy or artistrocacy. Human rights are an abstract concept in the same way that money has value. They are constructs that require external force to manifest. Not a God or Gods but human intervention to make it happen.
Yes. And that's the point of inalienable rights. To give force to ideas of equality in law and in society without any sort of theocratic justifications. Hence the term natural law. Rights are given by virtue of being a human being capable of reason.

[Husar]

It is 03/15/2016 and the Technical Administrator has yet to answer a question.

It's been a while since I joined the backroom, when did insults replace arguments?

Since you start talking about people hitting their wives and having a terrible education or does that not count because you're special?
But let's play then:


Again, you will have to show some kind of proof for the assertion that the man with no power over arms deals negotiated an arms deal. I don't understand how you are unable to process this.

I linked to the article that showed he sat down with the king of Thailand to negotiate an arms deal, so proof was given.


That you still do not understand that people to this day are not born equal and most likely never will be is beyond me. I guess the German education system failed you, so we should really blame them?

Is that a veiled insult at the end?
Nevermind, I still don't get why you don't understand the difference between a philosophical point to disprove the medieval notions of inequality and marxism. I did not even once claim that we are all equal in terms of wealth or even bodily capacity. We are however all born equal in the sense that nobility is not actually born with blue blood and has a god-given right to rule the ones with red blood, is that so hard to understand? Is the Swedish education system really this bad? Do you seriously believe that being a nobleman is an inherent, unalienable trait of a newborn that is inherited from its forefathers?

[Beskar]

I have to laugh at what cropped up yesterday...

Jeremy Clarkson, the poster boy of the right, who many right-wing forumer goers defended when he punched a producer because he feels deserves a hot meal to be waiting for him, his overuse of racial statements and language being proof of his bravery against political correctness, and the bulwark against the (supposed) evil left-winger BBC. InsaneApache and PVC waiting in line for his autograph like fangirls.

Well, it turns out he is in favour of staying within the EU, not only that, he is a full-on federalist who believes in the creation of the "United States of Europe".

Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jeremy-clarkson-announces-he-wants-britain-to-stay-in-the-eu-to-create-a-united-states-of-europe-a6928556.html)

What makes it even more amusing is the response of his right-wing fans.

[Greyblades]

We get it, you dont like him.

[Snowhobbit]

Since you start talking about people hitting their wives and having a terrible education or does that not count because you're special?
But let's play then:



I linked to the article that showed he sat down with the king of Thailand to negotiate an arms deal, so proof was given.



Is that a veiled insult at the end?
Nevermind, I still don't get why you don't understand the difference between a philosophical point to disprove the medieval notions of inequality and marxism. I did not even once claim that we are all equal in terms of wealth or even bodily capacity. We are however all born equal in the sense that nobility is not actually born with blue blood and has a god-given right to rule the ones with red blood, is that so hard to understand? Is the Swedish education system really this bad? Do you seriously believe that being a nobleman is an inherent, unalienable trait of a newborn that is inherited from its forefathers?

Are you not familiar with common ancient Greek philosophical questions? Some time on Wikipedia might improve your education. I must sincerely apologize for all the horrible things I have done to you in the future, since you decided to start insulting me before I made comments on your obvious lack of an education. I did not know you were an oracle of future times.

You linked an article with a state visit and claimed things which were not proven by that article. I can link an article about the music industry but that does not prove that Elvis is still alive.
People are not born equal at all, not in terms of potential, opportunity or the rights that they enjoy. Children in Nepal enjoy the same rights as the ones in Germany? What about the children in China? The children in ISIS controlled territory?

I mean I get that it is hard for you that you are unable to prove your delusions, but you could try to act like an adult. Or are you Benjamin Button? You regress with age?

[Husar]

Are you not familiar with common ancient Greek philosophical questions? Some time on Wikipedia might improve your education.

Not what we are talking about.


You linked an article with a state visit and claimed things which were not proven by that article. I can link an article about the music industry but that does not prove that Elvis is still alive.


Aber der König war nicht gekommen, um mit dem thailändischen Ministerpräsidenten zu feiern. Hinter den verschwenderischen Abendessen, Hubschrauberflügen und Flaggenparaden stand eine andere Agenda. Es wurde nicht im offiziellen königlichen Protokoll verzeichnet, weil es etwas zynisch erschien - ein paar Monate, nachdem etwa 230.000 Menschen ihr Leben durch den Tsunami verloren hatten.

Auch Vertreter der schwedischen Rüstungsindustrie nutzen den Besuch seiner Majestät. Tagsüber trafen sich diese Vertreter mit Vertretern der thailändischen Militärs und Entscheidungsträgern; in den Abendstunden vergesellschafteten sie sich mit dem schwedischen Königspaar.

He may not have negotiated himself, but he made the negotiations possible in the first place or they could have sent someone else. This argument is a distraction from the real argument anyway because the fact remains that he has more political influence than you do because your government provides him a certain position as a birth right. Can you name a government position in Germany or the USA that is given to little babies as a birth right?


People are not born equal at all, not in terms of potential, opportunity or the rights that they enjoy. Children in Nepal enjoy the same rights as the ones in Germany? What about the children in China? The children in ISIS controlled territory?

Still not what what the philosophy was about. Your point completely misses the point I made. It's not that you're wrong, you're just not on topic and that's why your constant accusations of me "not getting it" are hilarious.


I mean I get that it is hard for you that you are unable to prove your delusions, but you could try to act like an adult. Or are you Benjamin Button? You regress with age?

How about you act like an adult and finally notice that you keep talking about completely different things that have nothing to dso with what you keep criticizing? Or is that too hard for you to do? Do you troll more with post count?

[Snowhobbit]

Not what we are talking about.





He may not have negotiated himself, but he made the negotiations possible in the first place or they could have sent someone else. This argument is a distraction from the real argument anyway because the fact remains that he has more political influence than you do because your government provides him a certain position as a birth right. Can you name a government position in Germany or the USA that is given to little babies as a birth right?



Still not what what the philosophy was about. Your point completely misses the point I made. It's not that you're wrong, you're just not on topic and that's why your constant accusations of me "not getting it" are hilarious.



How about you act like an adult and finally notice that you keep talking about completely different things that have nothing to dso with what you keep criticizing? Or is that too hard for you to do? Do you troll more with post count?

Go on, Google the question, it will do wonders for your education. Then have a hard think about whether Gaius kept on asking me a similarly loaded question. Take your time, no rush to apologise.

No, he did not negotiate and he has no power to do so. He has far less political influence than me as he is not allowed to publicly discuss politics, run for election, engage in a political party or organisation. Etc. Kindly refer to his powers as enumerated in the constitution, or admit that you are talking out of your ass.

No, children are still not born with the same inalienable rights. I'm sorry that reality disagrees with you, perhaps if you adapt your opinions to align with reality you will feel better?

Since you can predict the future, could you tell me the numbers for the next Euro lottery drawing? Or can you only use your powers to pre-emptively insult? I'm not sure how asking questions and disputing lies is not acting like an adult, is that a special German definition?

[Husar]

-snip-

[Snowhobbit]

Do you still have intercourse with your sterring wheel or are you done yet? Doing a google search to read up on how equal is not equal to equal would do wonders for your reading comprehension. And why is the king inferior to you? Do you think it is correct to keep the king around as an inferior or are you just a sadist and like that? You're not disputing any lies, you do not even respond to what I say, you just keep repeating the same things over and over, which have nothing to do with what I said (i.e. trolling). I already said this discussion is pointless but apparently you want to keep it going and I am happy to do so, hard to say no when children have a wish.

To show how well you read what I say:




Do you like to argue against windmills?

-snip-

He did not make the negotiations possible in the first place either. I don't understand why you refuse to back up the statements that you make, but I do understand why you have to keep moving the goalposts. Did your parents not raise you right?

[Husar]

-snip-


He did not make the negotiations possible in the first place either. I don't understand why you refuse to back up the statements that you make, but I do understand why you have to keep moving the goalposts. Did your parents not raise you right?

I did back up the statement, see the article. Sending the king to Thailand made it possible to send the businessmen onto the trip as well and get them access to the government of Thailand. That's not a lie, that's what the article says. You have not brought up a single point against that. As for moving the goalposts, this was about men being born equal, now you are only talking about the Swedish king and his power to negotiate, who is moving goalposts?


Did your parents not raise you right?

Explain how this relates to the topic, please?

[Snowhobbit]

I did back up the statement, see the article. Sending the king to Thailand made it possible to send the businessmen onto the trip as well and get them access to the government of Thailand. That's not a lie, that's what the article says. You have not brought up a single point against that. As for moving the goalposts, this was about men being born equal, now you are only talking about the Swedish king and his power to negotiate, who is moving goalposts?



Explain how this relates to the topic, please?

-snip-

No, your quote does not prove your assertion. Do German businessmen only travel abroad when their King goes with them? Then how do you export anything at all? Do you have a secret king hidden in a closet?

[Husar]

As for the English philosophical view, which I was talking about:

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/6/john-locke-and-the-second-treatise-on-government


Locke believed, contrary to claims that God had “made all people naturally subject to a monarch”, that people are “by nature free.”(Tuckness). This belief was the foundation of his philosophy on Government. To Locke, a Government existed, among other things, to promote public good, and to protect the life, liberty, and property of its people. For this reason, those who govern must be elected by the society, and the society must hold the power to instate a new Government when necessary.

Which is pretty much what I described earlier. The medieval belief was that god selected someone as king, who was inherently better and meant to rule the others. The underlying idea of "all men are created equal" was that, as Locke said, a king and a peasant are equal by nature and noone is inherently destined by a higher power to rule others as a birthright.

To claim that the philosophy is useless because some are born richer or poorer misses the fundamental point and the historic context. It's not wrong, it's just a different topic. It should also become clear that having a monarch as part of the government who is not elected by the people means that this idea was not fully realized in said country. Whether that is a good or a bad thing may also be up for debate.

[Furunculus]

I have to laugh at what cropped up yesterday...

Jeremy Clarkson, the poster boy of the right, who many right-wing forumer goers defended when he punched a producer because he feels deserves a hot meal to be waiting for him, his overuse of racial statements and language being proof of his bravery against political correctness, and the bulwark against the (supposed) evil left-winger BBC. InsaneApache and PVC waiting in line for his autograph like fangirls.

Well, it turns out he is in favour of staying within the EU, not only that, he is a full-on federalist who believes in the creation of the "United States of Europe".

Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jeremy-clarkson-announces-he-wants-britain-to-stay-in-the-eu-to-create-a-united-states-of-europe-a6928556.html)

What makes it even more amusing is the response of his right-wing fans.

i like him because i believe it is a self-evident good that bbc employees are exposed to him in the the otherwise rarefied atmosphere they breath on a daily basis, but i'm quite happy to accept that he is a fallible human being and capable of being plain wrong. just like the rest of us.

[Husar]

i like him because i believe it is a self-evident good that bbc employees are exposed to him in the the otherwise rarefied atmosphere they breath on a daily basis, but i'm quite happy to accept that he is a fallible human being and capable of being plain wrong. just like the rest of us.

Jeresy!

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Completely unacceptable language for the Backroom

[Snowhobbit]

Completely unacceptable language for the Backroom

[Snowhobbit]

As for the English philosophical view, which I was talking about:

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/6/john-locke-and-the-second-treatise-on-government



Which is pretty much what I described earlier. The medieval belief was that god selected someone as king, who was inherently better and meant to rule the others. The underlying idea of "all men are created equal" was that, as Locke said, a king and a peasant are equal by nature and noone is inherently destined by a higher power to rule others as a birthright.

To claim that the philosophy is useless because some are born richer or poorer misses the fundamental point and the historic context. It's not wrong, it's just a different topic. It should also become clear that having a monarch as part of the government who is not elected by the people means that this idea was not fully realized in said country. Whether that is a good or a bad thing may also be up for debate.

A philosophy is useless when it cannot be applied or used in a way to better understand reality or potential reality.
People in China are inherently less free than people in the Western world today. People in Turkey do not enjoy the same right to free-speech etc. Heck I'm pretty sure people in the US have a higher right to free speech than in Germany (because Nazies), meanwhile respect of privacy is probably larger in Germany than in the US. People are not born with the same freedoms, and the notion of inalienable rights is ludicrous. Rights need to be protected and safeguarded, either by a benevolent government or a determined people.

[Hooahguy]

Ok everyone, unless people can start acting in a civil manner I will have to shut this thread down for a bit to let people cool off. So please refrain from personal attacks like calling people trolls or wife-beaters and other things that have no place here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to laugh at what cropped up yesterday...

Jeremy Clarkson, the poster boy of the right, who many right-wing forumer goers defended when he punched a producer because he feels deserves a hot meal to be waiting for him, his overuse of racial statements and language being proof of his bravery against political correctness, and the bulwark against the (supposed) evil left-winger BBC. InsaneApache and PVC waiting in line for his autograph like fangirls.

Well, it turns out he is in favour of staying within the EU, not only that, he is a full-on federalist who believes in the creation of the "United States of Europe".

Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jeremy-clarkson-announces-he-wants-britain-to-stay-in-the-eu-to-create-a-united-states-of-europe-a6928556.html)

What makes it even more amusing is the response of his right-wing fans.

You forgot the bit where he reported himself whilst the producer he punched tried to cover it up, also his cancer scare.

[Beskar]

You forgot the bit where he reported himself whilst the producer he punched tried to cover it up, also his cancer scare.

I wasn't aware of the first part. I thought the producer didn't press charges, and Jeremy only reported himself after word about it was already in the media to save face. If you are correct, I will give him credit for his accountability.

[Gilrandir]

It's been a while since I joined the backroom, when did insults replace arguments?


Since you start talking about people hitting their wives and having a terrible education or does that not count because you're special?


No, it was since someone decided to judge the soundness of opinions on the basis of people's origin/nationality/citizenship. Thus, a couple of weeks before the wife beating babble.

[Snowhobbit]

No, it was since someone decided to judge the soundness of opinions on the basis of people's origin/nationality/citizenship. Thus, a couple of weeks before the wife beating babble.

Oh, not before some people decide to be rape-apologists then? Cool.

[Gilrandir]

Oh, not before some people decide to be rape-apologists then? Cool.

As your manner of debate shows, it is just enough to disagree with you to cause vitriol spouting.

[Snowhobbit]

As your manner of debate shows, it is just enough to disagree with you to cause vitriol spouting.

Yep, responding tit for tat to people who are apologists for rape is horrible. How ever do you manage to return to the forum?

[Hooahguy]

Since we cannot seem to act like adults here, I am locking this until further notice. Next time this happens I will start handing out infraction points to all offending parties.