Charlize Theron Is An Idiot

[jaeger19]

WHo says? You are providing all examples that prove me right: if those people have natural rights...why are they ignored by those cultures? .

Because people can violate other peoples rights. Tell me.. because some state legislatures have tried to curtail women's access to abortion or downright eliminate it... does that mean women don't have the right to abortion and so the law doesn;t violate her rights?

Never said that either. What I said was: rights are a man-made concept.

Well.. we don't really know that for sure. but okay.. its a "human made".. concept. that pretty much means that its generated by humans.. naturally and not by government.

Are you saying that rights dont exist if there are no laws upholding them

Absolutely not. But that's what YOU are saying if you are contending that rights don't exist naturally.

 

[jaeger19]

How are they remotely even relevant if there's no legal system? What use are they? For the 'glorification of man?'

Lots of cultures have mores and laws and behaviors that are widely accepted. They have those things in common because they enabled humans to live together in social units without killing each other.

And nobody ever 'allowed' humans...or other animals...to protect themselves (self-defense). That's an instinct and people just defended themselves...and if it didnt work, they got eaten or their mate stolen.

How can they be protected by laws.. if humans don't believe in them naturally?

You said it..

Lots of cultures have mores and laws and behaviors that are widely accepted. They have those things in common because they enabled humans to live together in social units without killing each other

And nobody ever 'allowed' humans...or other animals...to protect themselves (self-defense). That's an instinct and people just defended themselves...and if it didnt work, they got eaten or their mate stolen.

Right. and the community or family group or whatever they lived in.. saw a difference between being violent because you were protecting yourself.. and being violent because you were a bully or aggressor. and thus your treatment by society was different. If you killed a person as an aggressor.. you would be labeled a murderer..

If you killed in self defense? not.

 

[vegas giants]

Of course.. Jews had rights that "we conceived" because we believe in natural rights despite the law. Whether you are willing to verbally acknowledge some natural endowment or not is irrelevant.

Your list of natural rights would be completely different from someone else's. That is why there is no accepted list of natural rights anywhere

 

[cabse5]

You're all more prone to seek out the psychopath, when you're ovulating, that's the point. That's why you want to get knocked up by the lad with the gun, 'cause he has the capacity to slaughter the other boys. And often does. Aparently, that is so sexy. Why do you think some girls leave Fortress Europe to go shag ISIS boys?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...erman-schoolgirl-escapes-death-penalty-jailed
(This one should've hanged. Now the next load of army mattresses will follow her...)



Uuunless they do. Why do you think every girl show on tele always has two boys, the lead character can't possibly choose between? The safe bet her parents will accept, and the baaad boy? 'Cause the bad boy is the one her reptilian brain wants to be impregnated by, while the safe and sweet boy she needs to raise the child with. There's a huge difference betwen what type of man a woman wants, depending on where she is in her menstrual cycle. Look around you, how many dads do you know with sons, that just doesn't look like him?



Yeah, but they never do. "He apologiiized..."

A lot of them will claim they didn't have a choice. When they went to that ****ed up biker bar all on their own accord. That very Thursday she was in heat.

And that's why the boys need them guns. 'Cause death makes girls on the pull horny. Why do you think the boys headbutt each other around a frickin' dance club?

Yeah, I'm in favor of waiting periods for...acid hits. IMO, this person hasn't waited long enough between hits. Maybe this is normal EU thinking? I hope not.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

We dont trust anymore, in part because the work has been so bad, in part because too many lies have been told, and in part because we have been encouraged to not trust by people who usually have their priorities messed up.

Too many lies have been told and we've been encouraged to not trust, eh?
Hmmmm...

“Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.”

---Roger Ailes - 1970 memo to Richard Nixon "A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News"

"If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, "I have a solution to the Middle East problem," and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

---Roger Ailes - "Orchestra Pit theory"

In 1986 Rupert Murdoch purchased the six television stations owned by Metromedia that would form the nucleus of the Fox Broadcasting Company.
In 1996 Murdoch turned the switch at 1211 Avenue of the Americas in New York and the Fox News Channel was on the air nationwide. He named Roger Ailes the CEO of the network.

"We report, you decide"...unless of course you subscribe to the "the thinking is done for you" theory above. You can't have it both ways, either "we report, you decide" or "the thinking is done for you"....funny how one "NEWS" network attempts to say the former to the public while confiding the latter to heads of state, isn't it?

If you want to know why we're in the pickle we're in, start by not focusing on the orchestra pit.
But at least you now know why so much of America is staring at the orchestra pit, and you know why so much of America has given up on that process known as thinking.

Oh and, one more thing...
Guess how your HERO spends most of his morning:
Watching Fox News Channel.

 

[jaeger19]

Your list of natural rights would be completely different from someone else's. That is why there is no accepted list of natural rights anywhere

Actually whats more likely is that the list is pretty much the same.. the difference might be who they apply to.

By the way.. there is an innumerable amount of rights.

.

 

[vegas giants]

Actually whats more likely is that the list is pretty much the same.. the difference might be who they apply to.

By the way.. there is an innumerable amount of rights.

.

But you can't all agree on what they are. Natural rights only exist as a belief system. Which is fine bit that makes it no more real than any other religion

 

[jaeger19]

But you can't all agree on what they are. Natural rights only exist as a belief system. Which is fine bit that makes it no more real than any other religion

Hmmm.. can't agree?

So? Natural rights exist as a belief system. that makes it real.. just like religions are real.

Or do you contend that there is no such thing as the catholic church? Or Mormons? Or Buddhists?

 

[vegas giants]

Hmmm.. can't agree?

So? Natural rights exist as a belief system. that makes it real.. just like religions are real.

Or do you contend that there is no such thing as the catholic church? Or Mormons? Or Buddhists?

No. Your beliefs are very real to you. To me they are fantasy. `But unless they are spelled out specifically in law they have no bearing on what you can and can not legally do

 

[Hawkeye10]

Too many lies have been told and we've been encouraged to not trust, eh?
Hmmmm...



---Roger Ailes - 1970 memo to Richard Nixon "A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News"



---Roger Ailes - "Orchestra Pit theory"

In 1986 Rupert Murdoch purchased the six television stations owned by Metromedia that would form the nucleus of the Fox Broadcasting Company.
In 1996 Murdoch turned the switch at 1211 Avenue of the Americas in New York and the Fox News Channel was on the air nationwide. He named Roger Ailes the CEO of the network.

"We report, you decide"...unless of course you subscribe to the "the thinking is done for you" theory above. You can't have it both ways, either "we report, you decide" or "the thinking is done for you"....funny how one "NEWS" network attempts to say the former to the public while confiding the latter to heads of state, isn't it?

If you want to know why we're in the pickle we're in, start by not focusing on the orchestra pit.
But at least you now know why so much of America is staring at the orchestra pit, and you know why so much of America has given up on that process known as thinking.

Oh and, one more thing...
Guess how your HERO spends most of his morning:
Watching Fox News Channel.

I point out all the time that people are way too stupid, though Trump is not, though he is most certainly an anti-intellectual. See Trump decided that he would not listen to the geniuses, the ones who are advertised and usually also advertise themselves as the smartest, that he would figure out what is going on for himself, and that if he did this well then he would puncture the stuffed shirts, it would be good for them and for America.

And it worked.

By becoming absorbed in the societal messaging center that is cable news, with particular attention to what is not said, Trump figured out where America is and where the powers that were were weak, and took that self taught learned knowledge and he launched himself upon America with stunning success.

This is not hero Worship.

This is Truth.

 

[Hawkeye10]

yep, on one hand you have some liberals saying they don't want to ban guns but they also spew hate towards the NRA. you have other lefties demanding gun bans. You have most of them lying about guns and then they complain when we gun owners lump them together. When I see more of the "anti ban" lefties really ripping into the banners and correcting their lies (yes sports fans, an AR 15 is neither a weapon of war nor a "weapon of mass destruction") then maybe I will make a better effort to draw lines between left wing gun restrictionists vs left wing gun banners. But when most of them spew the same anti NRA anti gun owner attitude it really isn't worth our time trying to give some the benefit of the doubt.

The thing that is so sad is that even with as much as America has broken down because the trust is gone, which happened in large part to all of the self serving lies that have been told with special mention to all the lies that have been sold to sell fear so that our self professed betters can come and save us, these jokers just cant figure out that they seriously need to stop lying.

Like IMMEDIATELY!

The stupidity of the American people goes all the way to the top of the food chain, which accounts for the stunning speed at which America is crashing.

 

[Lursa]

Of course.. Jews had rights that "we conceived" because we believe in natural rights despite the law. Whether you are willing to verbally acknowledge some natural endowment or not is irrelevant.

It's not natural, that's the point.

I dont object to rights...I just point out that they are not naturally inherent in any being. They are a concept...a good one IMO...conceived by man.

 

[Lursa]

Because people can violate other peoples rights. Tell me.. because some state legislatures have tried to curtail women's access to abortion or downright eliminate it... does that mean women don't have the right to abortion and so the law doesn;t violate her rights?

Well.. we don't really know that for sure. but okay.. its a "human made".. concept. that pretty much means that its generated by humans.. naturally and not by government.

Absolutely not. But that's what YOU are saying if you are contending that rights don't exist naturally.

?? All rights can be violated. Every single one.

We initiate laws to try and protect people's rights but we also have due process in which we determine if and when we can violate someone's rights...like in taking away a 2A right from a convicted felon.

Rights dont exist naturally...there is nothing to recognize a right except mankind. And if a group of humans didnt recognize one of your supposed 'natural rights,' then how is that natural? It doesnt exist for that group of humans.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I point out all the time that people are way too stupid, though Trump is not, though he is most certainly an anti-intellectual. See Trump decided that he would not listen to the geniuses, the ones who are advertised and usually also advertise themselves as the smartest, that he would figure out what is going on for himself, and that if he did this well then he would puncture the stuffed shirts, it would be good for them and for America.

Donald Trump gets 99% of his input from watching Fox News Channel all morning long.
Hawkeye, that's as good as saying Rupert Murdoch is the de facto acting president, because whatever Murdoch puts on his "news" channel, 15 minutes later Donald Trump is tweeting about it.
Get it? Trump's an empty oil tanker with a lone ball bearing rattling around inside it and there's a pair of loudspeakers at one end with Murdoch's flunkies yammering away, and you're at the other end, thinking you're hearing Trump's voice.

You're not. Fox News Channel is running the country's policy apparatus via their tool, who works for Vladimir Putin.

And it worked.

WHAT WORKED???

By becoming absorbed in the societal messaging center that is cable news, with particular attention to what is not said, Trump figured out where America is and where the powers that were were weak, and took that self taught learned knowledge and he launched himself upon America with stunning success.

You just described "looking into a mirror and masturbating to your reflection".

 

[Hawkeye10]

It's not natural, that's the point.

I dont object to rights...I just point out that they are not naturally inherent in any being. They are a concept...a good one IMO...conceived by man.

And those who managed to get themselves educated know that anything taken too far becomes toxic.

Regardless of how good it sounds.

 

[Lursa]

How can they be protected by laws.. if humans don't believe in them naturally?

You said it..

Right. and the community or family group or whatever they lived in.. saw a difference between being violent because you were protecting yourself.. and being violent because you were a bully or aggressor. and thus your treatment by society was different. If you killed a person as an aggressor.. you would be labeled a murderer..

If you killed in self defense? not.

How do we protect the right to vote? I'm not saying that's what you consider a 'natural' right but how is it different from conceiving of voting as a right and conceiving of self-defense as a right? We can make laws controlling, even violating, both (with due process...another man-conceived right. Is due process a natural right? How could it be?)

And I dont understand the point of your example of the tribal humans. Not disagreeing with it, it seems redundant with something I wrote earlier.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Donald Trump gets 99% of his input from watching Fox News Channel all morning long.
Hawkeye, that's as good as saying Rupert Murdoch is the de facto acting president, because whatever Murdoch puts on his "news" channel, 15 minutes later Donald Trump is tweeting about it.
Get it? Trump's an empty oil tanker with a lone ball bearing rattling around inside it and there's a pair of loudspeakers at one end with Murdoch's flunkies yammering away, and you're at the other end, thinking you're hearing Trump's voice.

You're not. Fox News Channel is running the country's policy apparatus via their tool, who works for Vladimir Putin.



WHAT WORKED???



You just described "looking into a mirror and masturbating to your reflection".

The problem with your story is that he is President, he beat everyone, he beat all of the pro's....the so called better people.

Thus the need to negate reality with the "Russia Did IT!" fantasy.

 

[Lursa]

Hmmm.. can't agree?

So? Natural rights exist as a belief system. that makes it real.. just like religions are real.

Or do you contend that there is no such thing as the catholic church? Or Mormons? Or Buddhists?

Bingo. Yes...natural rights are a belief system. And they are an end-run around trying to get around religion and a god or other authority telling us how to behave and what we're entitled to.

And religions are real but they are not founded on anything real (well the people may be real but the higher authority is not provable). They are founded on faith.

I have no idea why it makes a difference if something is a 'natural' right or not...we can treat them the same under the law.

Calling them 'natural' is an attempt to make them inviolate for individuals. To make them unquestionable and therefore harder to take away from people. And yet...'natural' or not...govts create laws and manipulate those rights as they choose in the best interests (supposedly) of society.

People can deny it all they want but 'natural' rights is an appeal to a higher authority. Just like we supposedly cannot deny what we are composed of genetically...that is the implication behind 'natural' rights...that they are something inherent and cannot be removed, like our skin color.

 

[jaeger19]

No. Your beliefs are very real to you. To me they are fantasy. `But unless they are spelled out specifically in law they have no bearing on what you can and can not legally do

Interesting.. so you don't believe in a right to self defense?
or a right to self determination

But unless they are spelled out specifically in law they have no bearing on what you can and can not legally do

Hmmm please point out where the right to own pornography is specifically spelled out, or the right to an abortion is specifically spelled out in a law.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Charlize Theron has said that more guns is not the solution and that the idea of arming teachers is outrageous. She is saying this because she "lost her father to gun violence," although under the circumstances I wouldn't say that's the best way to put it. Her dad was a drunk and this one time when he was drunkedly attacking her mom, her mom shot him in self defense. If anything I would say its a good thing her mom was armed in that situation. Charlize lost her dad not because of guns but because her dad was a drunken loser. Her dad did this to himself and she should blame him not guns.

That is the great disconnect in this whole issue of gun control.

Time and again you see somebody taking the politically incorrect position on almost anything, and invariably the snowflakes/leftists/statists/progressives/modern day liberals/et al will never address the argument the person makes, but will attack the person making it. Sometimes they do so with violence or they organized efforts to get a person banned, fired, or threaten his/her customers, suppliers, advertisers et al. Or they summon their gang to pile on somebody on a message board.

But when it is somebody, most especially from a protected class--i.e. black people, Muslims, gays, et al--commits a gun crime, the same people never want to look to blame the person. They invariably blame the guns.

I wonder if it is something in the water that creates that kind of group think? It's positively nuts.

 

[jaeger19]

How do we protect the right to vote? I'm not saying that's what you consider a 'natural' right but how is it different from conceiving of voting as a right and conceiving of self-defense as a right? We can make laws controlling, even violating, both (with due process...another man-conceived right. Is due process a natural right? How could it be?)

And I dont understand the point of your example of the tribal humans. Not disagreeing with it, it seems redundant with something I wrote earlier.

In other words.. without a law.. the tribe understands that the difference between killing a person in self defense.. and killing a person because you want their blanket. Even though its the same action.. I,e, killing someone.

No law tells them that.. no government. Simply they know it. That's an example of a natural right.

How do we protect the right to vote? I'm not saying that's what you consider a 'natural' right but how is it different from conceiving of voting as a right and conceiving of self-defense as a right?

Well we naturally conceive the right to vote, and self defense as natural rights. and THATS why we protect them.

And due process is a natural right as well. We have the right to it naturally. We know that we should not just take stuff away from another member of society willy nilly. Pretty much that's ubiquitous among societies.. honestly.. that right is the BASIS for our judicial systems. the idea that one must be judged.

 

[Lursa]

In other words.. without a law.. the tribe understands that the difference between killing a person in self defense.. and killing a person because you want their blanket. Even though its the same action.. I,e, killing someone.

No law tells them that.. no government. Simply they know it. That's an example of a natural right.

Well we naturally conceive the right to vote, and self defense as natural rights. and THATS why we protect them.

And due process is a natural right as well. We have the right to it naturally. We know that we should not just take stuff away from another member of society willy nilly. Pretty much that's ubiquitous among societies.. honestly.. that right is the BASIS for our judicial systems. the idea that one must be judged.

No not without a law.

And dont move the goal posts...about 'naturally conceiving' of anything. We are a sentient species, we conceive of many things.

The point is that rights are not 'natural,' not an inherent part of being a Homo sapiens, anymore than they are an inherent part of being a Ursus horribilus.

Every society conceives of its own rights. There are many in common because there are many common behaviors that tribal societies needed to promote in order to live together peacefully.

The rest of what you wrote is this: "blah blah is natural because we thought of it and have a right to it naturally." It's circular.

 

[jaeger19]

Bingo. Yes...natural rights are a belief system. And they are an end-run around trying to get around religion and a god or other authority telling us how to behave and what we're entitled to.

.

Actually not.. in fact,,, many religions consider things like self defense.. "god given rights". These rights exist naturally because we believe they do. Its a belief system that you hold as well. Otherwise you would argue that the holocaust was not a violation of rights, that countries that lawfully enforce female circumcision are not violating rights of women etc.

I have no idea why it makes a difference if something is a 'natural' right or not...we can treat them the same under the law.

Not really. A natural right means that you have one DESPITE the law. Which means that you are justified lets say in protesting and fighting against laws against abortion. Because regardless of the law.. woman have the right to make decisions with their own body.

IF rights are only based in law.. then once a law is made against say abortion.. then the right to abortion is lost, and then you are not justified in fighting against it, there is no standing at all.. and it should be accepted. The law is not violating a woman's rights. How can it if the law is what gives those rights or takes it away?

Calling them 'natural' is an attempt to make them inviolate for individuals. To make them unquestionable and therefore harder to take away from people.

Exactly.. and that's a good thing. Otherwise.. we would have to accept that say forced female circumcision does not violate a womans rights if its legal by law.

Yep.. governments do create laws in attempts to limit those rights. That's why we need to understand that we have them.. and they can be violated.. whether the government protects them.. or acts against them.

 

[AlbqOwl]

How do we protect the right to vote? I'm not saying that's what you consider a 'natural' right but how is it different from conceiving of voting as a right and conceiving of self-defense as a right? We can make laws controlling, even violating, both (with due process...another man-conceived right. Is due process a natural right? How could it be?)

And I dont understand the point of your example of the tribal humans. Not disagreeing with it, it seems redundant with something I wrote earlier.

It is reasonable to have rules for who and who cannot vote in any given situation that might or might not involve:
--only members in good standing can vote
--only persons of a certain age can vote
--only taxpayers can vote
--only property owners can vote
--only a head of household can vote
--only those who register can vote
etc.

I can think of no reasonable or worthy rule that would specify when it is okay and when it is not okay for a person to defend himself/herself.

 

[jaeger19]

No not without a law.

.

Yes.. without a law.

And dont move the goal posts...about 'naturally conceiving' of anything. We are a sentient species, we conceive of many things.[/QUOTE
I am not moving the goal posts. We do natural conceive of our rights.

The point is that rights are not 'natural,' not an inherent part of being a Homo sapiens, anymore than they are an inherent part of being a Ursus horribilus.

Actually the proof is that they ARE an inherent part of being homo sapien. Probably an inherent part of Homo neanderthalensis., and the rest of the Homo genus. Not to mention probably an inherent part of the Australopithecus genus. Its why such species have/had such complex social systems.

And why the North American brown bear.. never developed complex cooperative social systems.

Every society conceives of its own rights. There are many in common because there are many common behaviors that tribal societies needed to promote in order to live together peacefully

Bingo. in other words.. naturally.. not due to government.

The rest of what you wrote is this: "blah blah is natural because we thought of it and have a right to it naturally." It's circular.

Nope.. not circular.. its a linear argument. We humans have to conceive its a right.. before we can protect it by law. Its simply the only way it works. Which means that we have to come by it naturally.. How else can we arrive at that?