What "rights" does nature give us?

[Uncensored2008]

Yes; that's the mechanics. Now to the physics: What happend on the quantum level to cause it?

Go find out and get back to me. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

Nice try; now answer my question.

 

[Koios]

Yes; that's the mechanics. Now to the physics: What happend on the quantum level to cause it?

Go find out and get back to me. I'm on fucking pins and needles.

Nice try; now answer my question.

No. You need to answer a question sometime. Then maybe I'll feel the need for a bit reciprocity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. You need to answer a question sometime. Then maybe I'll feel the need for a bit reciprocity.

And your fraud is fully exposed.

That was simple.

 

[Koios]

Meanwhile back to slaves: think what you will about what rights they oughta have. Go hog fucking wild imagining what they are. But in the end, until society grants them, they ain't got shit. Fact.

Now to freedom from religion: I'm an atheist. In the US, freedom of religion also embodies my right to not pratice any religion. I'm not bound to believe any of the foolishness. Ergo, freedom of and FROM religion.

 

[Koios]

No. You need to answer a question sometime. Then maybe I'll feel the need for a bit reciprocity.

And your fraud is fully exposed.

That was simple.

Yeah; I'm sure your right. You're a moron, and get nothing right. But this time you're spot fucking on.

Good thinking, dipshit. Keep it up.

 

[percysunshine]

The same is true in Somalia.

Here, an individual without sanction from the rulers will be punished if they break into your house. In Somalia, an individual who would break into a house without the sanction of the ruling Imam will be punished by death.

Here, if the KGB desires your house or your goods, BATF or some other DHS agency will break down your door, men with machine guns will come in, magically find a marijuana seed, and will take you house under "asset forfeiture."

Our state steals from whoever they please, whenever they want. There is no restraint and no recourse. In Somalia and the USA, the rulers take what they want and others are punished for the same behavior.

If we re-elected Bill Clinton to the presidency, the marijuana seed problem would go away.

He was president for 8 years, and marijuana remained a Class 1 banned substance.

Under Obamacare, 'sense of humor brain implant chips' are fully covered.... with a small $5 co-pay.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah; I'm sure your right. You're a moron, and get nothing right. But this time you're spot fucking on.

Good thinking, dipshit. Keep it up.

Are you going to throw yourself on the ground, and pound your fists?

That has long served you with Mumsy and daddy - fraud...

 

[Koios]

Yeah; I'm sure your right. You're a moron, and get nothing right. But this time you're spot fucking on.

Good thinking, dipshit. Keep it up.

Are you going to throw yourself on the ground, and pound your fists?

That has long served you with Mumsy and daddy - fraud...

No. One retard in the world, more or less, is of little consequence, IMO. I was over it before it began; and the amount of fuck I give is less than zero.

That help, dumbfuck?

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. One retard in the world, more or less, is of little consequence, IMO. I was over it before it began; and the amount of fuck I give is less than zero.

That help, dumbfuck?

Of course fraud, you've got me convinced...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll ask again: does what I described, limit your rights? You said government only limits rights, and I argue many are protected by government, without which the rights would non existent.

Yes.

How so?

You can't figure it out without a diagram? Lets make it simple, any system that requires me to divulge information I consider private to anyone against my will violates my right to privacy. The fact that the system then institutes safeguards against further erosion of my right to privacy is just a band-aid, it doesn't change the underlying fact that it is already gone.

Government cannot exist without violating people's rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Back to rights. What rights do you have in Somalia that we lack? Got anything?

My rights exist whether you, or the government, like it or not. That makes the real question what natural rights do we have in the US that do not exist in Somalia?

No they don't. Take away our laws, and pray you do not have something I want, which I can take from you, killing you if I have to, with impunity. (Note that last word. Punative measures and mechanisms supporting them are the only thing protecting your rights.)

My rights exist in the absence of laws.

I have a challenge for you, find a single legal document anywhere that says that either natural or human rights exist only because there are governments to enforce them. It should be pretty easy, if you are right.

 

[Koios]

Yes.

How so?

You can't figure it out without a diagram? Lets make it simple, any system that requires me to divulge information I consider private to anyone against my will violates my right to privacy. The fact that the system then institutes safeguards against further erosion of my right to privacy is just a band-aid, it doesn't change the underlying fact that it is already gone.

Government cannot exist without violating people's rights.

Astonishing. Not how it works. You can seek monetary damages from me, and make my further divulging of it contempt of court, only because WE PROTECT PRIVACY RIGHTS. (not your privacy; but rights to it) Without it I could say whatever I wish about you, true or not, to as many as I wish, and you have no protections nor recourse if I do. That PROTECTS and does not limit your rights.

Now to right of free speech. How does that limit your rights?

Or right to your papers, property and person against unreasonable search a seizure. That protects you, and does not limit your rights.

Need I go on?

And as an aside, what in the fuck are they doing wrong at U of A?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How so?

You can't figure it out without a diagram? Lets make it simple, any system that requires me to divulge information I consider private to anyone against my will violates my right to privacy. The fact that the system then institutes safeguards against further erosion of my right to privacy is just a band-aid, it doesn't change the underlying fact that it is already gone.

Government cannot exist without violating people's rights.

Astonishing. Not how it works. You can seek monetary damages from me, and make my further divulging of it contempt of court, only because WE PROTECT PRIVACY RIGHTS. (not your privacy; but rights to it) Without it I could say whatever I wish about you, true or not, to as many as I wish, and you have no protections nor recourse if I do. That PROTECTS and does not limit your rights.

Now to right of free speech. How does that limit your rights?

Or right to your papers, property and person against unreasonable search a seizure. That protects you, and does not limit your rights.

Need I go on?

And as an aside, what in the fuck are they doing wrong at U of A?

Why on Earth would you have access to my private information? The only possible reason is that the government required me to give it to you, or to someone else who gave it to you. Either way, my right to privacy was violated as a result of the government demanding I hand the information over, not because I gave it to you voluntarily, because I don't give anyone stuff like that voluntarily. That limited my right, the protection you are so fond of is simply an acknowledgement of the existing violation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As an aside, how would I know what they are doing at the University of Assholes, you are the one that graduated Mole Fetere.

 

[konradv]

My rights exist whether you, or the government, like it or not. That makes the real question what natural rights do we have in the US that do not exist in Somalia?

No they don't. Take away our laws, and pray you do not have something I want, which I can take from you, killing you if I have to, with impunity. (Note that last word. Punative measures and mechanisms supporting them are the only thing protecting your rights.)

My rights exist in the absence of laws.

I have a challenge for you, find a single legal document anywhere that says that either natural or human rights exist only because there are governments to enforce them. It should be pretty easy, if you are right.

LOL! You're asking for a legal(government) document to prove your point? By merely asking for such proof, you're proving the opposite!

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL! You're asking for a legal(government) document to prove your point? By merely asking for such proof, you're proving the opposite!

Rulers and laws can respect rights, or infringe rights. Rulers and laws cannot grant or revoke rights. Rights exist regardless of rulers and laws, and regardless of whether they are respected or infringed. A woman has a right not to be raped, even during the act of rape. The infringement of the right does not negate the actuality of the right.

 

[Koios]

You can't figure it out without a diagram? Lets make it simple, any system that requires me to divulge information I consider private to anyone against my will violates my right to privacy. The fact that the system then institutes safeguards against further erosion of my right to privacy is just a band-aid, it doesn't change the underlying fact that it is already gone.

Government cannot exist without violating people's rights.

Astonishing. Not how it works. You can seek monetary damages from me, and make my further divulging of it contempt of court, only because WE PROTECT PRIVACY RIGHTS. (not your privacy; but rights to it) Without it I could say whatever I wish about you, true or not, to as many as I wish, and you have no protections nor recourse if I do. That PROTECTS and does not limit your rights.

Now to right of free speech. How does that limit your rights?

Or right to your papers, property and person against unreasonable search a seizure. That protects you, and does not limit your rights.

Need I go on?

And as an aside, what in the fuck are they doing wrong at U of A?

Why on Earth would you have access to my private information? The only possible reason is that the government required me to give it to you, or to someone else who gave it to you. Either way, my right to privacy was violated as a result of the government demanding I hand the information over, not because I gave it to you voluntarily, because I don't give anyone stuff like that voluntarily. That limited my right, the protection you are so fond of is simply an acknowledgement of the existing violation.

None I can think of. It was a hypothetical. (ftlg; get a clue)

Back to the questions you're dodging as best you can, albeit poorly, so allow me:

1. Pirvacy rights, which are protected under law
2. Free speech rights, which are protected under law
3. Right to person, papers and place against unreasonable search, which are protected under law.

None of those limit, in any way, your rights, and IN FUCKING FACT DEFINE AND PROTECT THEM!!!!

To suggest that government only limits rights speaks to the depth of your ignorance and does discredit to any institution of higher "learning" you attended.

 

[konradv]

LOL! You're asking for a legal(government) document to prove your point? By merely asking for such proof, you're proving the opposite!

Rulers and laws can respect rights, or infringe rights. Rulers and laws cannot grant or revoke rights. Rights exist regardless of rulers and laws, and regardless of whether they are respected or infringed. A woman has a right not to be raped, even during the act of rape. The infringement of the right does not negate the actuality of the right.

It's a cute "kumbaya" point, but meaningless without some entity to protect her from or punish the perpetrator of the rape.

 

[percysunshine]

As an aside, how would I know what they are doing at the University of Assholes, you are the one that graduated Mole Fetere.

The 'University of Assholes' probably has a web site by now....they might not yet be twittering ....

 

[LibertyLemming]

LOL! You're asking for a legal(government) document to prove your point? By merely asking for such proof, you're proving the opposite!

Rulers and laws can respect rights, or infringe rights. Rulers and laws cannot grant or revoke rights. Rights exist regardless of rulers and laws, and regardless of whether they are respected or infringed. A woman has a right not to be raped, even during the act of rape. The infringement of the right does not negate the actuality of the right.

It's a cute "kumbaya" point, but meaningless without some entity to protect her from or punish the perpetrator of the rape.

This guy seems to think protecting yourself isn't an option.