RE: Freedom in the 50 States (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:24:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

It doesnt. Nor does your definition of "freedom" trump my own.



which one is yours?

absolute "free will" or "franchise to"


Neither and both. [;)]


well when we start getting to the bottom of the substantial definition of what is a right its crucial to have a foundation for the discussion.



vincentML -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:25:02 AM)

quote:

We do not have ecclesiastic law in the states so the living person inside the woman "technically" does not count. Hence abortions are not illegal.

Certainly do! It is called the Republican Party.



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:27:51 AM)

"We do not have ecclesiastic law in the states "
its why we do not have religious freedom in this country.






Kirata -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:28:34 AM)


So you're criticizing them for not taking a stand on abortion and the death penalty? Heh. Now that's funny!

I guess the only way they can get off the hook is by agreeing with you, eh?

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:30:03 AM)

Nope.. just offering up their own situations that they admit they could not include.. which leads to wondering what others they did not include, as they admit those are only examples. [;)]



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:30:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well when we start getting to the bottom of the substantial definition of what is a right its crucial to have a foundation for the discussion.

There is no such thing as "what is right".

What is right for you isn't "right" for everyone else.
It's all a matter of personal opinion.

So you aren't ever going to reach the definitive definition of "what is right" [:D]




Yachtie -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:38:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well when we start getting to the bottom of the substantial definition of what is a right its crucial to have a foundation for the discussion.

There is no such thing as "what is right".

What is right for you isn't "right" for everyone else.
It's all a matter of personal opinion.

So you aren't ever going to reach the definitive definition of "what is right" [:D]





In my best Homer Simpson -

Doh!



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 11:48:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well when we start getting to the bottom of the substantial definition of what is a right its crucial to have a foundation for the discussion.

There is no such thing as "what is right".

What is right for you isn't "right" for everyone else.
It's all a matter of personal opinion.

So you aren't ever going to reach the definitive definition of "what is right" [:D]





In my best Homer Simpson -

Doh!




he failed to make the distinction between what is right and what is a right.

Completely different things.


"a right" is easily determined for the most part.

what "is right" is another story.

In other words you could have the right to kill someone, but that does not make it right.

freedomdwarf1 do you see?







freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:06:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
he failed to make the distinction between what is right and what is a right.

Completely different things.


"a right" is easily determined for the most part.

what "is right" is another story.

In other words you could have the right to kill someone, but that does not make it right.

freedomdwarf1 do you see?

So a slip of the keyboard.... but the same argument. DOH!!

What YOU consider is a right is not necessarilly the same as everyone else's definition.

It's all too subjective and individualistic.... you still won't ever get to the bottom of it.
And thus, your 'foundation for the basis of discussion' will never be found. [:D]




Yachtie -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:15:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

What YOU consider is a right is not necessarilly the same as everyone else's definition.




[sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif]



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:17:15 PM)

no not exactly.

what I claim as a "choose" of right for myself may or may not be the same as someone elses personal choice.

so then how do we determine what rights are acceptable and what rights are not.

There is a basis in law for this.

K, I will jump out after this little detour, just posted this so everyone can understand the correct foundation(s) of rights.





freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:25:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
K, I will jump out after this little detour, just posted this so everyone can understand the correct foundation(s) of rights.


I understand perfectly well what you consider is the 'correct' foundation(s) of rights.

I just happen not to agree with your views [:D]

That, in itself, doesn't make you any more "right" than me.



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:29:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
K, I will jump out after this little detour, just posted this so everyone can understand the correct foundation(s) of rights.


I understand perfectly well what you consider is the 'correct' foundation(s) of rights.

I just happen not to agree with your views [:D]

That, in itself, doesn't make you any more "right" than me.




actually what I consider the most right is coincidentally the same way "honest" courts "would" operate if they could.

in its most fundamental form you have the right to do ANYTHING that does not injure another.

Go ahead and see if you can find reasonable fault with that.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:35:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
in its most fundamental form you have the right to do ANYTHING that does not injure another.

Go ahead and see if you can find reasonable fault with that.


Ok.....

If I am attacked, I have the RIGHT to defend myself and detain the aggressor and if that means they get hurt or injured in the process then I am still within my rights.
[sm=alien.gif]



Yachtie -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:41:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
in its most fundamental form you have the right to do ANYTHING that does not injure another.

Go ahead and see if you can find reasonable fault with that.


Ok.....

If I am attacked, I have the RIGHT to defend myself and detain the aggressor and if that means they get hurt or injured in the process then I am still within my rights.
[sm=alien.gif]



WOOSH![8D]



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:44:09 PM)

I am not talking about how the state destroyed your rights, I am talking about the foundation of your rights.

you just took it specific to policy, aka the police state. That is not within the context of the point I was making hence your point is not reasonable with that regard.

If you are making fun of the atrocities of state I agree. You should also know the difference between policy and law



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:50:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I am not talking about how the state destroyed your rights, I am talking about the foundation of your rights.

you just took it specific to policy, aka the police state. That is not within the context of the point I was making hence your point is not reasonable with that regard.

If you are making fun of the atrocities of state I agree. You should also know the difference between policy and law

You might also appreciate that although I lived in the US for almost a year I am not a US native and I do not reside there now.

I am picking holes in your assumption that what you define as a right is not always going to tally with the definitions rest of the world's population.

And just to illustrate your earlier proposition, ask about the definition of a right when you tear up the Qoran in front of a devout Muslim.
He will tell you that it's his 'right' to condemn you to death and to kill you.


Your premise is too subjective and too narrow.
That's my point. [:)]




Real0ne -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 12:54:59 PM)

well if its still open for discussion later I will get back to this later, its party tyme, I was not aware so little was understood about law around here and you made several in appropriate conclusions



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 1:07:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

well if its still open for discussion later I will get back to this later, its party tyme, I was not aware so little was understood about law around here and you made several in appropriate conclusions

This is Kirata's thread about "Freedom in the 50 States" and a particular (if somewhat biased IMO) map.

It is not about law per se.
And as such, myself and a few others have pointed out some glaring holes in the original premis and how the map was coloured.

Given that the whole argument and it's initial presentation is subjective at best, any difference of opinion is open to interpretation.

Whilst we may not agree, that hardly makes it 'inappropriate' for either side of the discussion.



Owner59 -> RE: Freedom in the 50 States (3/30/2013 1:12:22 PM)

FR:


There are a lot of "freedom lovers".......... who want be free to pollute my air........


That,is not freedom.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125