California approves same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto

foundit66 · Sep 27, 2007

Re: Demotivators

Monk-Eye said:
You love to play ignorant.

Calling me ignorant is not an argument.
You cannot provide the burden of proof to show that your philosophy is even relevant.
That isn't my ignorance... :roll:

Or maybe I should just use your responses against you...
ME: I knew you could not swing a source.

Monk-Eye said:
Romanticism - Love sick with a dick clit.

Non-sequitur.

Monk-Eye said:
I knew you could not swing a source.

Again, I'll use your own words against you...
Monk-Eye: You love to play ignorant

Monk-Eye said:
As much as you are infatuated with flatulence from the rim, it does not impress me.

Non-sequitur.

Monk-Eye said:
There is good reason if you want it. But you want positive rights - a very fine use of terms that eats your lunch.

Again, you employ a philosophy that is not used in our U.S. legal system.
When the rest of the country is playing by one set of rules, and you insist on pretending that we are using another, it gets you nowhere.

foundit66 said:
Prove your claim.
WHERE did they say "right based on a male female relationship"?
You're adding words to it that are not there in the ruling.

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
388 U.S. 1 June 12, 1967, Decided MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws.

"The Lovings were convicted of violating § 20-58 of the Virginia Code: Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."

Monk-Eye said:
Perhaps you might investigate nude pictures of males and females and coitus, just in case you believe we are all confused about the term wife.

No confusion, except on your part.
I explicitly asked: "WHERE did they say "right based on a male female relationship"?"
In reply, all you show was that they WERE male/female.
That's not the same thing.

The important part of that question is your claim that the right is BASED on a male/female relationship.
Nowhere in the ruling did they say the right was BASED ON a male/female relationship.

Monk-Eye said:
As stated, it is was formal registration of a civil contract for legal purposes that eventually became entwined with government benefits; the validity of which is easily understood with an appropriate application of negative and positive rights.

You keep trying to worm "positive / negative rights" into the discussion because you want the other boys and girls to play by the rules you employ.
And you refuse to acknowledge that the country DOES NOT employ your rules in the legal arena.

It doesn't matter if it started as a "formal registration" or not.

To state it succinctly again, Marriage IS a right.
Stated so by numerous court rulings.
Court rulings which make no mention of "positive" or "negative" rights.

The courts have PREVIOUSLY recognized that since marriage IS a RIGHT, it must satisfy equal protection.
A requirement for equal protection is that a legitimate state interest must be shown.
There is NO such legitimate state interest for preventing gay marriage.

It's all quite simple.
Trying to repeatedly interject "positive / negative rights" discussion into the middle of it is not relevant because our government does not care about classifications of "positive" or "negative" rights.

Monk-Eye said:
Your efforts to hold the upper hand remind of this picture.

Say what you will, you're rapidly getting boring.
I am seeing why the other posters are not responding to you. Your replies are rather banal and repetitive, incapable of having any type of real debate because you insist on discussing it in terms that are not really applied in the real world.

I recommend that you see that YOUR efforts to discuss these things are having a repeated effect, where people get bored of discussing it with you because you insist on discussing it in a way that is not relevant.
If a person were to insist on applying biblical law to the debate, that would be equally irrelevant.

If you have any new arguments to make, or if you can reply to the ones I have made which you previously could not reply to, then do so.
Otherwise, there is no real point in holding a conversation with a robot.

Monk-Eye · Sep 27, 2007

Repressive

"Repressive"

foundit66 said:
Calling me ignorant is not an argument.
You cannot provide the burden of proof to show that your philosophy is even relevant. That isn't my ignorance... :roll:
Or maybe I should just use your responses against you...
ME: I knew you could not swing a source.

The link to a distinction for negative and positive rights (link) was provided more than once in this thread.
You seem to have a problem with reason and a significantly short memory since you have already commented on the philosophy.
However, reason is not what you are seeking. It is sort of like romanticizing the negative rights of a civil contract to expect the positive rights by agression against other people.

foundit66 said:
Again, you employ a philosophy that is not used in our U.S. legal system. When the rest of the country is playing by one set of rules, and you insist on pretending that we are using another, it gets you nowhere.

The school system and politics are full of ignoramuses. Congratulations on perpetuating the trend.

foundit66 said:
No confusion, except on your part.
I explicitly asked: "WHERE did they say "right based on a male female relationship"?"
In reply, all you show was that they WERE male/female.
That's not the same thing.

The important part of that question is your claim that the right is BASED on a male/female relationship.
Nowhere in the ruling did they say the right was BASED ON a male/female relationship.

Stare decisis will use the contexts of the case between a man and a woman. You appear too legally mundane and intellectually repressive to continue.

foundit66 · Sep 27, 2007

Re: Repressive

Monk-Eye said:
The link to a distinction for negative and positive rights (link) was provided more than once in this thread.

As I have already stated, I have reviewed the link and seen that it lacks relevance.
Nowhere does it show where "negative and positive rights" are ever considered by the U.S. legal system.

14th amendment? Equal protection?
Those are binding concepts which influence our U.S. legal system.
"negative and positive rights"?
No.

Monk-Eye said:
You seem to have a problem with reason and a significantly short memory since you have already commented on the philosophy.

No problem with "reason" or "memory".
And my comment on the philosophy is that it is irrelevant.
You have yet to counter that beyond just repeating the philosophy ad nausieum.

Monk-Eye said:
The school system and politics are full of ignoramuses. Congratulations on perpetuating the trend.

Again, another insult as you ignore the simple request to show relevance.

Monk-Eye said:
Stare decisis will use the contexts of the case between a man and a woman.

Stare Decisis will go much beyond the specific context of the case between a man and a woman.
The court explicitly stated MARRIAGE was a right.
They did not specify "marriage only between a man and a woman is a right".

By your limited mentality, we could observe that a court case which ruled that sexual harassment was wrong ruled on a woman who was 25-years old.
Ergo, if the woman was 35-years old, or maybe the case involves a man and not a woman, it cannot be sexual harassment.

Moreover, your reasoning is simply disproven by an already given example.
I pointed out that Loving v Virginia involved a case of interracial marriage.
But it quoted NUMEROUS OTHER court cases to solidify the fact that marriage was a right.
NONE of those other court cases involved interracial marriage.

This has already been explained to you.
If anybody needs to be derided for "short memory" and "a problem with reason", it is you...

Monk-Eye said:
You appear too legally mundane and intellectually repressive to continue.

I have a simple request which you refuse to even admit that you cannot satisfy.
Show WHERE the philosophy of "negative rights / positive rights" are recognized by our U.S. legal system.

It should be obvious to anybody that if you come into a legal argument attempting to apply a standard, you should show the significance of that standard.
Calling me "ignorant" or an "ignoramus" does not mitigate what you cannot show.

Monk-Eye · Sep 27, 2007

Anal Conception

"Anal Conception"

foundit66 said:
As I have already stated, I have reviewed the link and seen that it lacks relevance.
Nowhere does it show where "negative and positive rights" are ever considered by the U.S. legal system.
14th amendment? Equal protection?
Those are binding concepts which influence our U.S. legal system.
"negative and positive rights"?
No.

A romantic civil contract figuratively termed "marriage" between consenting persons has been acknowledged as a negative right - equal protection.
You continue to ignore that I, the individual and nonconsenting party, do not owe you jack sh!t in the way of positive rights - unequal endowment.

foundit66 said:
No problem with "reason" or "memory".
And my comment on the philosophy is that it is irrelevant.
You have yet to counter that beyond just repeating the philosophy ad nausieum.

It has been countered above again.

foundit66 said:
Stare Decisis will go much beyond the specific context of the case between a man and a woman.
The court explicitly stated MARRIAGE was a right.
They did not specify "marriage only between a man and a woman is a right".

One will not be able to extract such an intransigent assumption for homosexual marriage from that judicial ruling. But that will not keep you from blubbering ad-nauseum.

foundit66 said:
I have a simple request which you refuse to even admit that you cannot satisfy.
Show WHERE the philosophy of "negative rights / positive rights" are recognized by our U.S. legal system.

Intelligent people learn and draw from experience.
Meritorious ideas are destined to introduction.
This time you eat crow rather than c0ck.

Cheryl Deutsch WSTU 199 Prof. Deitch 15 December 2005 Reassessing Precedent: Reproductive Rights, the Supreme Court, and the Rhetoric of Privacy and Choice

The limitations of choice Dorothy Roberts’ Killing the Black Body addresses the problems associated with framing reproductive liberty as a negative rather than a positive right. Allowing reproductive liberty to be framed as a negative right (i.e. the government does not have the right to interfere in a woman's reproductive decisions) does nothing to address the context in which Black women live and make reproductive decisions.
...
In reducing reproductive liberty to a negative right, a matter of privacy, the government is in fact excused from assisting those who otherwise lack access to all of the information and services necessary to make informed and healthy reproductive decisions.
....
Except for his possible limitation of such choice to married couples, his argument seems to address the positive right advocated by Roberts:
....
It is important that Stewart makes a claim for a positive right to comprehensive reproductive healthcare outside of the realm of the right of privacy; it is also significant that this claim is made as an aside rather than as an argument in the case at hand.
....
The opinion of the Court, in qualifying its decision, and Rehnquist’s dissent pave the way for the regulation of abortion by state legislatures and later Court decisions that deny abortion as a positive right; one that states may not simply abridge, but must endow.
....
The District Court, hearing this case, asserted a positive right to Medicaid-funded abortions: it held that “the Social Security Act not only allowed state funding of nontherapeutic abortions but also required it” (432 U.S. 464).
....
Abortion is not a positive right for which provisions must be made but a negative right that simply cannot be breached.

Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review
Helen Hershkoff Harvard Law Review, Vol. 112, No. 6 (Apr., 1999), pp. 131-1196 doi:10.2307/1342383 This article consists of 66 page(s).

Abstract
Many state courts rely on federal standards of review in their state constitutional decisionmaking without considering whether the institutional concerns that justify the federal approach play out differently in the state context. In this Article, Professor Hershkoff questions the premises of federal rationality review as applied to the adjudication of claims to welfare assistance under state constitution poverty clauses. Federal rationality review, she argues, rests on doubts concerning democratic legitimacy, federalism, and separation of powers that are not completely apposite to state common law courts interpreting state constitutional positive rights. When a state constitution mandates the government provision of social services such as welfare, the relevant judicial question should be whether the challenged law achieves, or is at least likely to achieve, the constitutionally prescribed end, and not, as federal rationality review would have it, whether the law is within the bounds of state legislative power. Answering concerns that enforcement of positive rights is beyond the institutional competence of state common law courts, Professor Hershkoff proposes an alternative standard to federal rationality review for state court interpretation of state constitutional welfare rights that is consequential in focus and consistent with the provisional nature of state court decisionmaking.

foundit66 · Sep 27, 2007

Monk-Eye said:
A romantic civil contract figuratively termed "marriage" between consenting persons has been acknowledged as a negative right - equal protection.
You continue to ignore that I, the individual and nonconsenting party, do not owe you jack sh!t in the way of positive rights - unequal endowment.

Classifications of "positive" and "negative" rights are irrelevant in a court of law.
Your classifications are irrelevant.

And furthermore, it isn't "you" who "owes" me anything.
It is the federal government which is required by the constitution to recognize equal rights under the 14th amendment.
What "you" care to "recognize" is also irrelevant.

foundit66 said:
You have yet to counter that beyond just repeating the philosophy ad nausieum.

Monk-Eye said:
It has been countered above again.

Like I said...
"You have yet to counter that beyond just repeating the philosophy ad nausieum."

Monk-Eye said:
One will not be able to extract such an intransigent assumption for homosexual marriage from that judicial ruling. But that will not keep you from blubbering ad-nauseum.

I extract TWO very simple observations from Loving v Virginia.
Observations which legal opponents of gay marriage do not even really try to deny...

1) Marriage IS a RIGHT.
(And again, they state it is a RIGHT, with no qualifiers of "positive" or "negative" or "bipolar"...)

2) Marriage recognition is required to satisfy 14th amendment equal protection mandates.

That's it.
And furthermore, these are not "assumptions", but rather EXPLICIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOUND in Loving v Virginia.

Monk-Eye said:
Intelligent people learn and draw from experience.

And all you do is repeat yourself ad nausieum...

Monk-Eye said:
This time you eat crow rather than ****.

I see you are another who has a fixation on what you imagine regarding gay sexual activities.

But regarding the follow-on quoted articles, NONE of them are LEGAL PRECEDENT.
It doesn't matter how many people TALK about court rulings discussing "positive" or "negative" rights.
What DOES matter is whether the COURT RULINGS USE the philosophy of "positive" or "negative" rights.
And until that happens, your comments are still meaningless.

It's kind of like Mike and George talking about how the "in-field fly rule" should be changed, and how different ball-games would have turned out differently if it had been modified per their ideals.
When it comes ACTUAL GAME-TIME, the REAL umpires work off of the EXISTING rulebook and not what Mike and George fantasize about.

foundit66 · Sep 27, 2007

And again...

One thing you can't seem to wrap your head (or respond to) is the fact that if we DO apply your "positive" and "negative" rights as you want to...

YOU REVOKE LOVING V VIRGINIA...

You try to make ADDITIONAL distinctions to ignore that, but clearly your philosophy of "positive" and "negative" rights would neuter any requirement for equal protection.
And it WAS the argument for equal protection which formed the BACKBONE of the requirement that miscegenation laws needed to be revoked.
So if "equal protection" is N/A, the courts cannot prevent miscegenation laws.

One thing I find hilarious is how the anti-gay propaganda machines put out some absolutely absurd comparisons for gay marriage and bestiality or incest or ...
But the reality of the situation is that if you follow some of THEIR logic, there are some pretty significant court rulings which would have to be revoked.

Monk-Eye · Sep 27, 2007

Quash

"Quash"

foundit66 said:
Classifications of "positive" and "negative" rights are irrelevant in a court of law. Your classifications are irrelevant.
But regarding the follow-on quoted articles, NONE of them are LEGAL PRECEDENT.
It doesn't matter how many people TALK about court rulings discussing "positive" or "negative" rights.
What DOES matter is whether the COURT RULINGS USE the philosophy of "positive" or "negative" rights.
And until that happens, your comments are still meaningless.

They are the tools of the trade.
To continue to deny that indicates stupidity.
That is civil righs law 101, your neophyte opinion does not matter, it is irrelevant.

foundit66 said:
And furthermore, it isn't "you" who "owes" me anything. It is the federal government which is required by the constitution to recognize equal rights under the 14th amendment. What "you" care to "recognize" is also irrelevant.

The constitution owes you equal protection of negative rights.
You are not equally endowed with positive rights.
If you are willing to accept that then let us know.

foundit66 said:
I extract TWO very simple observations from Loving v Virginia.
Observations which legal opponents of gay marriage do not even really try to deny...
1) Marriage IS a RIGHT.
(And again, they state it is a RIGHT, with no qualifiers of "positive" or "negative" or "bipolar"...)
2) Marriage recognition is required to satisfy 14th amendment equal protection mandates.

Oooooh a RIGHT.
Wow such a BIG word for a first grader.
Do you know any other BIG words.

foundit66 said:
That's it.
And furthermore, these are not "assumptions", but rather EXPLICIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOUND in Loving v Virginia.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

foundit66 said:
I see you are another who has a fixation on what you imagine regarding gay sexual activities.

Not really.
When they are thrown agressively in my face, expect ridicule.

foundit66 said:
It's kind of like Mike and George talking about how the "in-field fly rule" should be changed, and how different ball-games would have turned out differently if it had been modified per their ideals.
When it comes ACTUAL GAME-TIME, the REAL umpires work off of the EXISTING rulebook and not what Mike and George fantasize about.

Dumb analogy.

foundit66 · Sep 27, 2007

Re: Quash

Monk-Eye said:
They are the tools of the trade.
To continue to deny that indicates stupidity.
That is civil righs law 101, your neophyte opinion does not matter, it is irrelevant.

It's interesting to note how your posts are getting less and less on pretend arguments, insisting that you are right with little to no substantiation...
... and more and more about banal insults.
That usually indicates you know you're running out of arguments, and you're trying to insult your way into a win...

No. They are NOT the tools of the trade.
The constitution establishes protection of RIGHTS.
It does not mention anything about "positive" or "negative" rights.
You cannot show me ANY COURT RULING which establishes "positive" or "negative" right differentiation.

Monk-Eye said:
The constitution owes you equal protection of negative rights.
You are not equally endowed with positive rights.

NOWHERE in the constitution does it specify "negative rights".
NOWHERE in the constitution does it specify "positive rights".

Monk-Eye said:
If you are willing to accept that then let us know.

Who is this "us"?
I only see you harping on "positive" or "negative" rights.
Not even the ACTUAL anti-gay legal arguments posed by the anti-gay activists include fixation on "positive" vs "negative" rights.

Monk-Eye said:
Oooooh a RIGHT.
Wow such a BIG word for a first grader.
Do you know any other BIG words.

And again, another non-sequitur.
You can't win by arguments, so instead you resort to insults.
You aren't even trying to address my argument, cause you know you can't.

Monk-Eye said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And furthermore, these are not "assumptions", but rather EXPLICIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOUND in Loving v Virginia.
You don't even try to refute this fact.

1) Marriage IS a RIGHT.
(And again, they state it is a RIGHT, with no qualifiers of "positive" or "negative" or "bipolar"...)
2) Marriage recognition is required to satisfy 14th amendment equal protection mandates.

Monk-Eye said:
Not really.
When they are thrown agressively in my face, expect ridicule.

How the heck is it "thrown aggressively in your face"?
Nobody is even talking about it but you.

Monk-Eye said:
Dumb analogy.

In debate, it's more intelligent and persuasive to try to SHOW WHY an analogy is wrong or flawed.
Simply calling it "dumb" proves nothing.

jallman · Sep 28, 2007

Re: Anal Conception

Monk-Eye said:
"Anal Conception"
A romantic civil contract figuratively termed "marriage" between consenting persons has been acknowledged as a negative right - equal protection.
You continue to ignore that I, the individual and nonconsenting party, do not owe you jack sh!t in the way of positive rights - unequal endowment.
It has been countered above again.
One will not be able to extract such an intransigent assumption for homosexual marriage from that judicial ruling. But that will not keep you from blubbering ad-nauseum.
Intelligent people learn and draw from experience.
Meritorious ideas are destined to introduction.
This time you eat crow rather than c0ck.

I suggest you calm it down a bit and cut out the ignorant ad homs while you have a chance.

dixon76710 · Sep 28, 2007

"California approves same-sex marriage bill"

?????? So who approved the ban on same sex marriage in California, if not California?

tristanrobin · Sep 28, 2007

It makes no difference who approved the ban if it's unconstitutional.

The "majority" of voters in California could approve a ban to refuse women, blacks, Jews, and Asians the right to vote ... it doesn't mean it wouldn't be struck down by the courts or done away with by the legislature.

This is a democratic republic, not a straight democracy. We don't have to live in fear of the whims of the majority in America.

Supposedly.

Monk-Eye · Sep 28, 2007

Libertarian Rules

"Libertarian Rules"

tristanrobin said:
It makes no difference who approved the ban if it's unconstitutional.
The "majority" of voters in California could approve a ban to refuse women, blacks, Jews, and Asians the right to vote ... it doesn't mean it wouldn't be struck down by the courts or done away with by the legislature.
This is a democratic republic, not a straight democracy. We don't have to live in fear of the whims of the majority in America.
Supposedly.

It is not unconstitutional.

Negative rights allow persons to form civil contracts.

A person may form a civil contract with several wives which may be colloqually termed "marriages".

In some contexts, persons form communes which they colloqually term "marriages".

These are all consensual contracts with declarations of private property.

And these private arrangements do not mandate expectations on the public or outside private sectors.

The award of benefits by current governed society, as positive rights, only allows one arrangement of marriage between a man and a woman.

Multiple declarations of marriage impose additional private responsibilities onto the citizens through public trust.
The breech of contract introduces conflicts of interest and the deception is illegal.

When the private sector limits the honor of the "marriage" term to a man and woman, that is its option.
It cannot be coerced or forced into a contractual responsibility such as providing insurance.
Some corporations offer no health insurance packages period.

Similarly, the electorate may draft laws issuing positive rights based on the agenda of male and female.

Miscegenation is beyond rational as natural procreation is possible whereby no distinction can be made between any male human and female human potentiate.

dixon76710 · Sep 28, 2007

Makes this whole silly referendum process in California and other states nothing more than a sham, if true.

tristanrobin said:
It makes no difference who approved the ban if it's unconstitutional.

The "majority" of voters in California could approve a ban to refuse women, blacks, Jews, and Asians the right to vote ... it doesn't mean it wouldn't be struck down by the courts or done away with by the legislature.

This is a democratic republic, not a straight democracy. We don't have to live in fear of the whims of the majority in America.

Supposedly.

tristanrobin · Sep 28, 2007

well, it's not a sham if it's a referendum that doesn't stymie the freedom of other law-abiding citizens.

i.e., there's certainly nothing wrong with a referendum dealing with tax issues, or bond issues, or prison building, etc. etc. etc.

(maybe prison isn't a good example to use about not hampering the freedom of others :mrgreen: )

the problem with so many of these referendums (not all of them) is that they are written by people who are hell-bent on denying rights to other citizens. That's when they get struck down.

foundit66 · Sep 29, 2007

Re: Libertarian Rules

Monk-Eye said:
It is not unconstitutional.
Negative rights allow persons to form civil contracts.
A person may form a civil contract with several wives which may be colloqually termed "marriages".
In some contexts, persons form communes which they colloqually term "marriages".
These are all consensual contracts with declarations of private property.

This line of arguing is like telling a black person to ignore the fact that he cannot ride at the front of the bus by telling him that he can ride a train.
He can ride a plain.
He can drive a car.
....

You cannot justify the EXISTING discrimination by pointing to other areas that are not discriminated against.

Monk-Eye said:
The award of benefits by current governed society, as positive rights, only allows one arrangement of marriage between a man and a woman.
Multiple declarations of marriage impose additional private responsibilities onto the citizens through public trust.
The breech of contract introduces conflicts of interest and the deception is illegal.

What absurdly ridiculous claims.
1) The U.S. legal system does not differentiate between "positive" or "negative" rights.
If it did as Monk-Eye claimed, miscegenation laws would never have been outlawed by the logic Monk-Eye puts forth.

2) Multiple declarations of marriage don't do squat to other citizens.
HOW is there ANY "private responsibility" to you if I get married to my partner???
Is there ANY additional "private responsibility" for MY marriage, as opposed to any other straight couple's marriage?

3) Your third sentence is just pure hogwash with no justification.
You have shown no breech of contract.
You have shown no conflict of interest.
You have shown no deception.

Monk-Eye said:
When the private sector limits the honor of the "marriage" term to a man and woman, that is its option.

No. That is NOT "its option".
The constitution makes clear and stringent requirements of equality upon the government.

And furthermore, it's amazing how you keep trying to deceitfully mislabel things.
If this WERE the "private sector" like a religious group proclaiming that the only Episcopal definition of "marriage" would be "one man and one woman", that would be one thing.

But we're talking about the GOVERNMENT's actions, which is NOT the "private sector".
I repeat: The GOVERNMENT is NOT the "private sector".

Miscegenation is beyond rational as natural procreation is possible whereby no distinction can be made between any male human and female human potentiate.

You keep trying to add a NEW standard to Loving v Virginia which was NEVER THERE in the original ruling.
They never had any standard for "procreation".
Furthermore, your "positive / negative rights" arguments introduces NO BOUNDARIES by which the arbitrary excuses in favor of miscegenation laws aren't just as valid as your current excuses preventing gay marriage.

Monk-Eye · Sep 29, 2007

Sphincter

"Sphincter"

foundit66 said:
Whatever Monk-Eye said, deny it as a matter of political :spin:
Blather nonsense examples.
Blather in pointless direction pretending that ignorance makes sense.
Blather for the last word, vie for the final position.
Blather as if ridiculous redundancies will be addressed.

You are full of crap up to your ears.

Positive and negative rights are the basis of libertarian governments, they are the rules in that book for understanding.

foundit66 · Sep 30, 2007

Re: Sphincter

Monk-Eye said:
"Sphincter"
You are full of crap up to your ears.

At this stage, you lack even the courage to quote what I am actually saying to refute your points.
We both know (or at least you should know like I do) that you STILL haven't shown how "positive rights / negative rights" are in any way considered by our EXISTING U.S. legal system.

Monk-Eye said:
Positive and negative rights are the basis of libertarian governments, they are the rules in that book for understanding.

1) So you say...
Can you point to any country that actually uses it?

2) One unmistakable fact is that you CANNOT show how our U.S. legal system has EVER used the "positive rights / negative rights" philosophy in any court ruling.
I think that's the real reason you are so :3oops: and :moody about all this.

3) And once again, you completely fail to show how my arguments don't work or don't apply.
Instead, all you can do is cry and whine that you think they don't.
If you want to debate this, try showing WHY my statements are wrong instead of this lame junk you're pulling.

Monk-Eye · Sep 30, 2007

Addle Mind

"Addle Mind"

foundit66 said:
At this stage, you lack even the courage to quote what I am actually saying to refute your points.

It is not a lack of courage.
I have no regard for what you are saying or how you ignorantly pretend to say it.

Positive and negative rights relate the basic distinctions of libertarian government.
You, not unlike a majority of collectivist nausea, sweep it away hoping to avoid indictment, disgusting individualism, and wishing it were not so clear.

foundit66 · Sep 30, 2007

Re: Addle Mind

Monk-Eye said:
It is not a lack of courage.
I have no regard for what you are saying or how you ignorantly pretend to say it.

You prove that claim wrong each time you respond to me.
Furthermore, you prove yourself incapable of proving your claims each time you respond to me and avoid the fact that I point out you cannot prove your claims.

Monk-Eye said:
Positive and negative rights relate the basic distinctions of libertarian government.

So you say, with a sense of deja vu...
And like I asked last time, can you point to ANY SINGLE GOVERNMENT which employs this "positive / negative rights" philosophy in their legal system.

Geez.
I thought I was throwing you a bone by asking you if ANY government employed this practice, but your lack of response demonstrates either:
a) You don't have a clue..., or
b) there aren't any governments which employ this philosophy.

Monk-Eye said:
You, not unlike a majority of collectivist nausea, sweep it away hoping to avoid indictment, disgusting individualism, and wishing it were not so clear.

Here is what is clear:
1) You have not shown ANY SINGLE COURT case (either in the U.S. or with any nation's government) which employs the philosophy of "positive / negative rights".
2) The Constitution makes NO MENTION of "positive" or "negative" rights.
3) You have turned this discussion into a personal matter.

These are the things that are clear.
There is no "indictment" here except in your repeated attempts to ridicule me.
"Individualism" is a rather false claim. I just don't employ your brand of philosophy.
Your explanations may be "clear", but they are entirely irrelevant as we keep coming back to the point you cannot broach.
Your philosophy IS NOT PRACTICED in the U.S. legal system.

Monk-Eye · Oct 1, 2007

Mandamus

"Mandamus"

foundit66 said:
You prove that claim wrong each time you respond to me.
Furthermore, you prove yourself incapable of proving your claims each time you respond to me and avoid the fact that I point out you cannot prove your claims.
So you say, with a sense of deja vu...
And like I asked last time, can you point to ANY SINGLE GOVERNMENT which employs this "positive / negative rights" philosophy in their legal system.
Your philosophy IS NOT PRACTICED in the U.S. legal system.

Legally speaking, the terms used are affirmative obligations and negative obligations; the naming is consistent with state action.
The precepts of positive and negative rights are practiced extensively.

FYI -

The most prominent field of application of positive obligations (link) is Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (link).

Furthermore, Article 8 sometimes comprises positive obligations: whereas classical human rights are formulated as prohibiting a State from interfering with rights, and thus not to do something

Article 12 - right to marry
Article 12 provides a right for men and women of marriageable age to marry and establish a family.
Despite a number of invitations, the Court has so far refused to apply the protections of this article to same-sex marriage. The Court has defended this on the grounds that the article was intended to apply only to traditional marriage, and that a wide margin of appreciation must be granted to parties in this area.

California approves same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto

foundit66

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker

foundit66

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker

foundit66

foundit66

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker

foundit66

jallman

dixon76710

tristanrobin

Member

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker

dixon76710

tristanrobin

Member

foundit66

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker

foundit66

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker

foundit66

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker