What "rights" does nature give us?

[bripat9643]

That would indeed be other words, not to mention a meaning that's exactly fucking opposite of what you quoted.

I'm not sure I follow. Just answer this question:

Is any injustice done if society decides not to allow homosexuals to marry?

Then allow me to remove all doubt. You're not following.

You obviously don't want to answer the question.

Why is that?

 

[Koios]

Not all societies do. The Sioux are a classic example.

Sitting Bull did more than hand out fatherly advice. No shit. Read a fucking book, or maybe more than the first coupla words of the wiki.

Sitting Bull had no power to force any member of his tribe to do anything. His advice wasn't "fatherly." It was the advice of a general.

He led about 100 or so Hunkpapa Sioux, who had no doubt of his authority over the group, who followed HIS LEAD in killing as many white settlers as they could get their arrows into, not to mention a rather unfortunate blond haired general of the US Army, which CHIEF Sitting Bull was none too keen on, either.

Does that spark any curiosity? Maybe you'll want to read something?

I gotta have hope.

 

[Sallow]

Could be. Or it could be that these types really are one dimensional in thought.

You talk about "one dimensional thought" and only ascribe the ability to govern or have governing bodies to one species on the planet.

How can anyone take you folks seriously?

of course there are animal groups that follow pack rules....do you think we should let them into the UN...?

What does one thing have to do with the other?

And "pack" rules?

What about the complex social structures you find among primates?

Or insects?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure I follow. Just answer this question:

Is any injustice done if society decides not to allow homosexuals to marry?

Then allow me to remove all doubt. You're not following.

This is the basic tenet of conservatives.

Kitchen sink rules.

Or deflect and insult.

Anything else is much too hard.

Koios is doing all the deflecting and insulting.

Here, I'll give you a chance to answer the question:

Is any injustice done if society decides not to allow homosexuals to marry?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You talk about "one dimensional thought" and only ascribe the ability to govern or have governing bodies to one species on the planet.

How can anyone take you folks seriously?

of course there are animal groups that follow pack rules....do you think we should let them into the UN...?

What does one thing have to do with the other?

And "pack" rules?

What about the complex social structures you find among primates?

Or insects?

as a relativist i'm sure you wouldn't object to them joining too...........

 

[bripat9643]

Sitting Bull did more than hand out fatherly advice. No shit. Read a fucking book, or maybe more than the first coupla words of the wiki.

Sitting Bull had no power to force any member of his tribe to do anything. His advice wasn't "fatherly." It was the advice of a general.

He led about 100 or so Hunkpapa Sioux, who had no doubt of his authority over the group, who followed HIS LEAD in killing as many white settlers as they could get their arrows into, not to mention a rather unfortunate blond haired general of the US Army, which CHIEF Sitting Bull was none too keen on, either.

Does that spark any curiosity? Maybe you'll want to read something?

I gotta have hope.

They followed his lead voluntarily. He didn't rule them. Anyone of them could have refused to go along with him anytime he wanted. His "authority" consisted entirely of the respect others held for him. There was no compulsion involved.

 

[Sallow]

Then allow me to remove all doubt. You're not following.

This is the basic tenet of conservatives.

Kitchen sink rules.

Or deflect and insult.

Anything else is much too hard.

Koios is doing all the deflecting and insulting.

Here, I'll give you a chance to answer the question:

Is any injustice done if society decides not to allow homosexuals to marry?

That basically depends on the society..which decides what the rules are..

Which dashes the "natural rights" argument, doesn't it?

Because they don't exist.

 

[Koios]

I'm not sure I follow. Just answer this question:

Is any injustice done if society decides not to allow homosexuals to marry?

Then allow me to remove all doubt. You're not following.

You obviously don't want to answer the question.

Why is that?

Because it's a retarded fucking question. Of course denying marriage rights to same-sex consenting adults is UNJUST and law in many of our states. Denying women voting rights was unjust too. Denying blacks full membership was patently unjust.

Can you dress yourself without help? How fucking retarded are you? Do you know that?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

his moral relativism is showing...

Could be. Or it could be that these types really are one dimensional in thought.

You talk about "one dimensional thought" and only ascribe the ability to govern or have governing bodies to one species on the planet.

How can anyone take you folks seriously?

Yeah, I heard there was a big conference where the lion laid down new rules, which in turn, upset the whole pride.

You're a serious dumbfuck, guy.

 

[Koios]

Sitting Bull had no power to force any member of his tribe to do anything. His advice wasn't "fatherly." It was the advice of a general.

He led about 100 or so Hunkpapa Sioux, who had no doubt of his authority over the group, who followed HIS LEAD in killing as many white settlers as they could get their arrows into, not to mention a rather unfortunate blond haired general of the US Army, which CHIEF Sitting Bull was none too keen on, either.

Does that spark any curiosity? Maybe you'll want to read something?

I gotta have hope.

They followed his lead. He didn't rule them. Anyone of them could have refused to go along with him anytime he wanted.

Leader and ruler are synonymous in societies. Obama leads the "free world." Alfred ruled the Anglo-Saxons, in the land of Wessex, which was the precursor of the British Crown.

 

[Misty]

The right to be born.

 

[JohnA]

Rights come from the ruler, not nature. You have only the rights that the strong permit. Dictators dole out rights as favors so you better start ponying up to obama.

correct you only have what they ( the rulers /dictators ) say you can have ,
see obama

i was a only reading today about one socialist country that dictates to you what you can name your kids

nonboma supporters beware he is not far from mandating that .


DEBATE: ‘Girl With No Name’ Sues Iceland’s Government for Right to Be Called by Her Birth Name | Fox News Insider

 

[Koios]

The right to be born.

Merely your parents choice, hopefully. Or perhaps an accident. But hardly YOUR right.

 

[bripat9643]

This is the basic tenet of conservatives.

Kitchen sink rules.

Or deflect and insult.

Anything else is much too hard.

Koios is doing all the deflecting and insulting.

Here, I'll give you a chance to answer the question:

Is any injustice done if society decides not to allow homosexuals to marry?

That basically depends on the society..which decides what the rules are..

Which dashes the "natural rights" argument, doesn't it?

Because they don't exist.

You mean if some societies decided homosexuals didn't have the right to marry, it would be an injustice, but if other societies decided the same thing, it wouldn't be an injustice? How does one make a determination in the case of any particular society - say ours?

 

[bripat9643]

He led about 100 or so Hunkpapa Sioux, who had no doubt of his authority over the group, who followed HIS LEAD in killing as many white settlers as they could get their arrows into, not to mention a rather unfortunate blond haired general of the US Army, which CHIEF Sitting Bull was none too keen on, either.

Does that spark any curiosity? Maybe you'll want to read something?

I gotta have hope.

They followed his lead. He didn't rule them. Anyone of them could have refused to go along with him anytime he wanted.

Leader and ruler are synonymous in societies.

No they aren't, moron. Sitting Bull is a perfect example. He was a leader, not a ruler. That's one of the main reasons that Indian leaders are so much more appealing than the politicians they were up against. Rulers are invariably scumbags. Leaders only retain their position if they have the respect of their followers. Who respects a politician?

 

[Sallow]

Could be. Or it could be that these types really are one dimensional in thought.

You talk about "one dimensional thought" and only ascribe the ability to govern or have governing bodies to one species on the planet.

How can anyone take you folks seriously?

Yeah, I heard there was a big conference where the lion laid down new rules, which in turn, upset the whole pride.

You're a serious dumbfuck, guy.

Yeah..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiv390s9-M8]1 Male Lion versus 2 Nomadic Lions, Big fight for the territory and pride - YouTube[/ame]

You should stop watching porn and maybe watch nature shows once in a while.

 

[DiamondDave]

Then allow me to remove all doubt. You're not following.

You obviously don't want to answer the question.

Why is that?

Because it's a retarded fucking question. Of course denying marriage rights to same-sex consenting adults is UNJUST and law in many of our states. Denying women voting rights was unjust too. Denying blacks full membership was patently unjust.

Can you dress yourself without help? How fucking retarded are you? Do you know that?

So.. mob rule is great when it suits you.. then you get to scream when it does not about 'social' justice because it makes you feel bad... that is nothing different than a spoiled child wanting their way no matter what

Where when you have a right that is above government, and put above government in its construct as a natural or god created or creator created right... you have a 'justice' standard above the whim of government and the masses

 

[there4eyeM]

'Nature' being a word and a concept that springs from the human mind, 'Nature' gives us all the 'rights' that we want to dream up.

 

[Sallow]

Koios is doing all the deflecting and insulting.

Here, I'll give you a chance to answer the question:

Is any injustice done if society decides not to allow homosexuals to marry?

That basically depends on the society..which decides what the rules are..

Which dashes the "natural rights" argument, doesn't it?

Because they don't exist.

You mean if some societies decided homosexuals didn't have the right to marry, it would be an injustice, but if other societies decided the same thing, it wouldn't be an injustice? How does one make a determination in the case of any particular society - say ours?

Society dictates it's own rules.

Men can't marry in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Koios]

They followed his lead. He didn't rule them. Anyone of them could have refused to go along with him anytime he wanted.

Leader and ruler are synonymous in societies.

No they aren't, moron. Sitting Bull is a perfect example. He was a leader, not a ruler. That's one of the main reasons that Indian leaders are so much more appealing than the politicians they were up against. Rulers are invariably scumbags. Leaders only retain their position if they have the respect of their followers. Who respects a politician?

Yeah; they are. If they weren't, you wouldn't have quoted me out of context.

Get a fuclking clue; perhaps it'll lead to you being able to dress yourself, albeit, you'll probably still fall down a lot. Unrestrained hope is folly.