Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[Slyhunter]

I reject obvious myths, yes.

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.

No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.

You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

The question makes no sense in the context of your conception of inalienable rights.

And it continues to be unanswered.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yeah. We've beat around that bush before. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you really understood the concept, you'd realize that the debate over whether inalienable rights "exist" or not simply makes no sense. It isn't even a coherent question. It's like asking whether our thoughts and ideas are real, or just 'made up'.

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.

No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.

You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.

No, it does not depend. Either it is absolute or it is not. I am asking you which it is.

 

[Slyhunter]

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.

No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.

You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.

No, it does not depend. Either it is absolute or it is not. I am asking you which it is.

dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.

 

[dblack]

If you have the right to life then you have the right to force other people to provide you with medicine, food, and protection. Therefore you do not have the right to live. Is that what you mean by inalienable right?

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

The question makes no sense in the context of your conception of inalienable rights.

And it continues to be unanswered.

It continues to make no sense.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Inalienable" means it cannot be taken from you or given away. If you had the inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would be illegal and police could not use deadly force.

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.

No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.

You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.

No, it does not depend. Either it is absolute or it is not. I am asking you which it is.

dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.

Ok. I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity. That falls under the free exercise of religion. Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus? Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?

 

[Slyhunter]

Then there can be no such thing as inalienable rights. Even your thoughts can be stolen or altered. So you just proved they don't exist.

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.

No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.

You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.

No, it does not depend. Either it is absolute or it is not. I am asking you which it is.

dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.

Ok. I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity. That falls under the free exercise of religion. Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus? Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?

Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?

 

[dblack]

I'm not interested in tedious debates about definitions or "constitutional jurisprudence". I'm merely claiming that stripping people of the right to say no thanks to an offer they aren't comfortable with - for any reason - is fucked up, and smells to high heaven of fascism.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

However it is all right to ban drag queens....

Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people - Home News - UK - The Independent

...from participating in a Free Pride rally because it might offend the trans genders without it being considered discrimination.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Bfgrn]

Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed to respect the rights of individual business owners of association and property.

Our founding fathers vehemently disagree...

 

[PratchettFan]

And we are back to my question, which still has not been answered. Are these rights you claim absolute or are they balanced by the ability of society to protect itself? Is the right to free exercise of religion absolute?

It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.

No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.

You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.

No, it does not depend. Either it is absolute or it is not. I am asking you which it is.

dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.

Ok. I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity. That falls under the free exercise of religion. Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus? Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?

Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?

I specifically stated it was a public street. In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing. But out come the provisos. Violates other people's rights. Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.

So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public. That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it. Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm not interested in tedious debates about definitions or "constitutional jurisprudence". I'm merely claiming that stripping people of the right to say no thanks to an offer they aren't comfortable with - for any reason - is fucked up, and smells to high heaven of fascism.

Ok. You are utterly wrong, but you have the right to be utterly wrong. I consider it fucked up to take advantage of all the benefits a society provides and yet consider yourself put upon because you have to accept some responsibility for the welfare of that society. Freedom is not an entitlement - it is a responsibility.

 

[Slyhunter]

It depends. If you value the Individual than individual rights are supreme even if it means the destruction of the group identity. If your a communist or a Socialist and believe the Government is more important than fuck you.

No seriously, take a look at the world stage. If you believe society as a whole is more important than individuals then we need to take from Americans and give to Africans and Asians until the dirt divers can afford to kill each other more efficiently and we become dirt delvers ourselves.

You can't fix a groups problem by eradicating individual rights.

No, it does not depend. Either it is absolute or it is not. I am asking you which it is.

dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.

Ok. I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity. That falls under the free exercise of religion. Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus? Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?

Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?

I specifically stated it was a public street. In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing. But out come the provisos. Violates other people's rights. Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.

So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public. That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it. Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.

buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it does not depend. Either it is absolute or it is not. I am asking you which it is.

dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.

Ok. I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity. That falls under the free exercise of religion. Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus? Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?

Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?

I specifically stated it was a public street. In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing. But out come the provisos. Violates other people's rights. Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.

So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public. That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it. Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.

buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.

Yes, it is. Absolutely inalienable. It trumps everything. And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use.... because I say so. I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law. All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true. It's amazingly convenient.

 

[dblack]

dude I was being funny. Any dolt would realize I think Individual rights should trump group rights.

Ok. I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity. That falls under the free exercise of religion. Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus? Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?

Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?

I specifically stated it was a public street. In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing. But out come the provisos. Violates other people's rights. Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.

So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public. That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it. Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.

buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.

Yes, it is. Absolutely inalienable. It trumps everything. And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use.... because I say so. I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law. All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true. It's amazingly convenient.

You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't want to understand it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. I think it is a given that I have the right under the first amendment to hand out pamphlets on a public street announcing the good news of Christianity. That falls under the free exercise of religion. Does that mean I can sacrifice a bull on that same street in tribute to Zeus? Can I conduct a small orgy across the street from an elementary school to honor Eros?

Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?

I specifically stated it was a public street. In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing. But out come the provisos. Violates other people's rights. Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.

So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public. That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it. Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.

buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.

Yes, it is. Absolutely inalienable. It trumps everything. And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use.... because I say so. I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law. All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true. It's amazingly convenient.

You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't want to understand it.

I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it. As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.

 

[Roadrunner]

The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.

The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.

But that just ain't how this country rolls.

Not since 2008.

I can't deprive you of your human rights, but, I don't have to like you.

That is how I roll.

 

[dblack]

Not if it violates other peoples rights. When your rights violates anothers then it cancels. So if it's on your property feel free to sacrifice that bull, but out in public it could be considered a health hazard. Small Orgy across the street from an Elementary school, do you own the property?

I specifically stated it was a public street. In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing. But out come the provisos. Violates other people's rights. Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.

So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public. That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it. Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.

buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.

Yes, it is. Absolutely inalienable. It trumps everything. And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use.... because I say so. I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law. All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true. It's amazingly convenient.

You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't want to understand it.

I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it. As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.

I understand what I mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what I mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?

 

[PratchettFan]

I specifically stated it was a public street. In neither of those examples did I indicates anyone's rights were being violated other than that they might see what I was doing. But out come the provisos. Violates other people's rights. Which, of course, is just another way of saying the rights of the group trumps the rights of the individual.

So, using your own argument, your right to discriminate is canceled out when it violates the right of someone wanting to buy a loaf of bread in a store open to the public. That is the basis of PA laws and the courts have upheld it. Buying a loaf of bread is, btw, a fundamental human right and inalienable.

buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.

Yes, it is. Absolutely inalienable. It trumps everything. And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use.... because I say so. I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law. All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true. It's amazingly convenient.

You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't want to understand it.

I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it. As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.

I understand what I mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what I mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?

I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean. You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across. I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient. And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is. So yes, we will keep going around in circles. From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry. So agreement is not going to happen. Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.

 

[dblack]

buying a loaf of bread is not a right.
When individual right clashes with another individual rights then it cancels out. Group rights never trump individual rights.

Yes, it is. Absolutely inalienable. It trumps everything. And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use.... because I say so. I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law. All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true. It's amazingly convenient.

You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't want to understand it.

I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it. As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.

I understand what I mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what I mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?

I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean. You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across. I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient. And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is. So yes, we will keep going around in circles. From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry. So agreement is not going to happen. Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.

We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.

The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.

You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things were philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.

I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.