A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people

[Katzndogz]

This is what happens when the values of the people are diametrically opposed. When there is no point on which the people can agree then freedom for one is oppression for another. We do not have a homogenous people. Stop pretending we do and there can be some kind of unity. It will get lots worse.

How can a homogeneous people assist in establishing multiple values?
I don't think anyone here even knows what homogeneous people means to be pretending about it.

Try it from another direction. We are so diverse that we no longer share any traditions or values that knit a people together into a functioning society. Diversity is not a strength. It is a weakness. Diversity is a fracture line.

If we are to go to another direction, where should we first meet to therefrom part?

I know where you are coming from, but do you really know where I am coming from?

Your statements seem contradicting to me, and although they do "diverge" without the "weakening detrimental diversity" you so suggest the essence of diversity to be, the divergence proposed as a unifying strategy is not explicitly evident, nor prospectively proposed.

Take the simple example of our alphabet, our grammar, our syntax.
Don't you find those aspects of our shared communication traditional and valuable, enabling at least some sense of social functionality between us?

In how many ways, for example, can a single word be used through the English language that we are capable of using and recognizing? Is that not representative of a strongly established diversity to you?

We shouldn't meet anywhere. Let it crumble.

 

[westwall]

Nobody has more "Rights" than others. What you are describing is a political class that has exempted itself from the laws that govern WE the People. That is an affront to the Founders of this nation, and to the People as a whole.

Actually, yes, some have more "Rights" than others. But I am not describing any exemption from law as you so suggest.

Let's take the example of a person with a gun. The person can choose either to murder or to safely enclose and securely lock the weapon.

If the person decides to murder, their "Right" to have a gun is taken from them as they require law enforcement to overlook their actions, either by a minimum or by a maximum penalty, which may or may not have the final intention to rehabilitate.

What ability then, you may ask, is going to be the focus of law enforcement in that case, if the person is already so able to murder?

How is any institution, agency or law to rehabilitate a murderer?

Although there may be large segments of the world population who believe the rehabilitation of a murderer is a null paradox, therefore that there is no rehabilitation (that Rights are inherent and irrevocable), except for the executive measure of another "more {{temporarily}} reliable" murderer, as either a state agent, or a painless but fatal prick, causing vicious and never ending growing cycles of partisan vengeance, relative vindication, and innocent bewildered victim involvement, the truth is that once the law is disregarded and crime committed to as the only possible dignifying endeavor, the law takes effect to have the citizen in question recognize their lawful and law abiding dutiful Rights again which by their very own mistaken option had been previously forsaken.

Again, Rights aren't needs or necessities. Rights are duties. If a person is not educated or is not provided adequately in regards to their natural talents and joyous propensities to cooperate, create or cater according to nationally agreed standards, then their Rights require reconstitution for having been absent or dormant under the disabling circumstances, which is why rehabilitation comes to be the appropriate policy for those who have either impended upon the rights of neighbors or have actually infringed upon them.

All are born equal in ability and dutifulness, but throughout their life circumstances may bring isolating questions for the enhancement of their collaborative skills. When Rights are of a political nature, isolated citizens do not have the same Rights as socially inclusive citizens, which must be restored accordingly to their given working abilities to provide for the socially inclusive and political community from which they have at some point deviated and to which at some point they righteously represent.

Was your question answered?

What? You go from "Murder" to locking your gun up. What the hell are you talking about. Neither one of those option has the slightest thing to do with Rights.

Take your meds.

One murder prevented for the sake of one life continued.

I'll take it, tell me what Rights are really about then.

Rights are things that the government may not take away from you.

 

[Holos]

Nobody has more "Rights" than others. What you are describing is a political class that has exempted itself from the laws that govern WE the People. That is an affront to the Founders of this nation, and to the People as a whole.

Actually, yes, some have more "Rights" than others. But I am not describing any exemption from law as you so suggest.

Let's take the example of a person with a gun. The person can choose either to murder or to safely enclose and securely lock the weapon.

If the person decides to murder, their "Right" to have a gun is taken from them as they require law enforcement to overlook their actions, either by a minimum or by a maximum penalty, which may or may not have the final intention to rehabilitate.

What ability then, you may ask, is going to be the focus of law enforcement in that case, if the person is already so able to murder?

How is any institution, agency or law to rehabilitate a murderer?

Although there may be large segments of the world population who believe the rehabilitation of a murderer is a null paradox, therefore that there is no rehabilitation (that Rights are inherent and irrevocable), except for the executive measure of another "more {{temporarily}} reliable" murderer, as either a state agent, or a painless but fatal prick, causing vicious and never ending growing cycles of partisan vengeance, relative vindication, and innocent bewildered victim involvement, the truth is that once the law is disregarded and crime committed to as the only possible dignifying endeavor, the law takes effect to have the citizen in question recognize their lawful and law abiding dutiful Rights again which by their very own mistaken option had been previously forsaken.

Again, Rights aren't needs or necessities. Rights are duties. If a person is not educated or is not provided adequately in regards to their natural talents and joyous propensities to cooperate, create or cater according to nationally agreed standards, then their Rights require reconstitution for having been absent or dormant under the disabling circumstances, which is why rehabilitation comes to be the appropriate policy for those who have either impended upon the rights of neighbors or have actually infringed upon them.

All are born equal in ability and dutifulness, but throughout their life circumstances may bring isolating questions for the enhancement of their collaborative skills. When Rights are of a political nature, isolated citizens do not have the same Rights as socially inclusive citizens, which must be restored accordingly to their given working abilities to provide for the socially inclusive and political community from which they have at some point deviated and to which at some point they righteously represent.

Was your question answered?

What? You go from "Murder" to locking your gun up. What the hell are you talking about. Neither one of those option has the slightest thing to do with Rights.

Take your meds.

One murder prevented for the sake of one life continued.

I'll take it, tell me what Rights are really about then.

Rights are things that the government may not take away from you.

Am I sufficiently informed for your educating politeness now?

Is there anything you dislike about my posts of which you would like to continue disregarding as neither Rights nor governing faculty?

Anything else you would particularly appreciate in ignoring or aborting, or would this, my personal account in this public forum, be the whole of it?

You are welcome.

 

[Holos]

This is what happens when the values of the people are diametrically opposed. When there is no point on which the people can agree then freedom for one is oppression for another. We do not have a homogenous people. Stop pretending we do and there can be some kind of unity. It will get lots worse.

How can a homogeneous people assist in establishing multiple values?
I don't think anyone here even knows what homogeneous people means to be pretending about it.

Try it from another direction. We are so diverse that we no longer share any traditions or values that knit a people together into a functioning society. Diversity is not a strength. It is a weakness. Diversity is a fracture line.

If we are to go to another direction, where should we first meet to therefrom part?

I know where you are coming from, but do you really know where I am coming from?

Your statements seem contradicting to me, and although they do "diverge" without the "weakening detrimental diversity" you so suggest the essence of diversity to be, the divergence proposed as a unifying strategy is not explicitly evident, nor prospectively proposed.

Take the simple example of our alphabet, our grammar, our syntax.
Don't you find those aspects of our shared communication traditional and valuable, enabling at least some sense of social functionality between us?

In how many ways, for example, can a single word be used through the English language that we are capable of using and recognizing? Is that not representative of a strongly established diversity to you?

We shouldn't meet anywhere. Let it crumble.

We are already here.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

Making people subsidize booger-eaters in the name of booger-eating is not a right.

You don't have a right to kill, beat or attack them either!

I do have a right to ignore them, however I have two lesbians and two gay men for neighbors and we get along just fine.

And I have a drummer friend who eats his boogers but he's very discreet about it and we get along fine, too.

 

[Igrok_]

 

[TooTall]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

Making people subsidize booger-eaters in the name of booger-eating is not a right.

You don't have a right to kill, beat or attack them either!

I do have a right to ignore them, however I have two lesbians and two gay men for neighbors and we get along just fine.

And I have a drummer friend who eats his boogers but he's very discreet about it and we get along fine, too.

That is probably because he shares, huh

 

[NCC1701]

Rights are things that the government may not take away from you.

huh? US rights were granted in the bill of rights, which can be suspended in emergency and have been reinterpreted many times

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

A civilized nation must respect the rights of all its people to live without fear for their lives, property and to be treated fairly in our justice system. It shouldn't matter who you're, what you believe or how you dress. Americans have the right of life, liberty and the parsuite of happiness...Some of the shit I hear coming from certain African nations and south Asian nations makes me sad as they can't accept that some people want to marry a partner of the same sex or allow their people to choose the other "gender" to spend their own goddamn life as. As far as I am concern that is a dictatorship as the individual doesn't have a choice in who they wish to be in life!

For religious people,,,I am not saying that you should be forced to do anything, but you also have to accept if you're a civilized human being that you have to live with these people and treat them with a element of respect. You don't have a right to harm them or demand the government to do so. You can live your life but you can't violate other peoples rights!

LGBT people deserve to feel safe and without harm in this nation that's suppose to be civilized and free. If you're a MAN and want to be a WOMEN. WHY NOT? Isn't it not the individuals choice to take the path they choose within a truly free society. And we as a society better defend this individuals right to make it.

Making people subsidize booger-eaters in the name of booger-eating is not a right.

You don't have a right to kill, beat or attack them either!

I do have a right to ignore them, however I have two lesbians and two gay men for neighbors and we get along just fine.

And I have a drummer friend who eats his boogers but he's very discreet about it and we get along fine, too.

That is probably because he shares, huh

You tell me.

 

[TooTall]

Making people subsidize booger-eaters in the name of booger-eating is not a right.

You don't have a right to kill, beat or attack them either!

I do have a right to ignore them, however I have two lesbians and two gay men for neighbors and we get along just fine.

And I have a drummer friend who eats his boogers but he's very discreet about it and we get along fine, too.

That is probably because he shares, huh

You tell me.

None of my friends eat their boogers so you will have to tell me.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You don't have a right to kill, beat or attack them either!

I do have a right to ignore them, however I have two lesbians and two gay men for neighbors and we get along just fine.

And I have a drummer friend who eats his boogers but he's very discreet about it and we get along fine, too.

That is probably because he shares, huh

You tell me.

None of my friends eat their boogers so you will have to tell me.

That's because, unlike fudgepackers like you, booger eaters apparently respect the sensitivities of others. But the homo agenda may have inspired a booger-eaters pride parade.
Way to go.

 

[TooTall]

I do have a right to ignore them, however I have two lesbians and two gay men for neighbors and we get along just fine.

And I have a drummer friend who eats his boogers but he's very discreet about it and we get along fine, too.

That is probably because he shares, huh

You tell me.

None of my friends eat their boogers so you will have to tell me.

That's because, unlike fudgepackers like you, booger eaters apparently respect the sensitivities of others. But the homo agenda may have inspired a booger-eaters pride parade.
Way to go.

Do you homos all eat boogers?