^^Rhetoric and style are absolutely different.

But the 'opponents latching onto things from decades ago' while 'the proponents dismissing it as nothing' is exactly the same.

I mean Obama had ties with a dude who had set bombs at US government buildings and had other business dealings with violent felons. Old bitter white folks thought he was the end of the world! Now Trump being a sexist businessman by running a beauty pageant or shadily impersonating a PR guy means he's batshit crazy and is some doomsday scenario to this country, too!

Oh how free I feel to be content to simply adapt to new regimes and policies and situations, rather than to fear monger the possibility that my idealistic outcome doesn't come to fruition

Also, no jury duty, so that's nice

5/15/2016 12:29:22 AM

i'd argue that there's a significant difference between "your friend is/was doing crazy shit" and "you are/were doing crazy shit"

5/15/2016 1:22:52 AM

Quote :

"^ So you support making it faster and easier for more of Juan's people who are going to come here, come here legally?"

Nope! We need to build a wall to keep the illegals out, or at least reduce the number. I have no problem with the ones who come here legally though.

5/15/2016 11:31:56 AM

Quote :

"But the 'opponents latching onto things from decades ago' while 'the proponents dismissing it as nothing' is exactly the same."

but also, some of the stuff that people latch onto to justify the "trump is a bigot" argument isn't decades old. it's from this election cycle. yes, people are dredging up old, largely irrelevant things about trump. but he's also continuing to provide plenty of current fodder for his detractors. that seems like a big difference, too.

5/15/2016 12:55:21 PM

I love that b4c still seriously a) thinks we need a wall b) that it would do anything and c) it could actually be built even with a Trump presidency

5/15/2016 2:46:21 PM

All the illegal immigrants I worked with flew to this country on airliners with fake paperwork

5/15/2016 2:55:31 PM

Quote :

"Nope! We need to build a wall to keep the illegals out, or at least reduce the number"

Until the underlying issues are resolved, no wall will do what you want it to do.

5/15/2016 5:11:02 PM

Plus it would take a pretty big wall to stop the planes coming from China and Europe.

5/15/2016 8:56:06 PM

He's so damn good! Very talented leader!

5/16/2016 10:53:57 AM

Maybe the next Mao Zedong?!?

5/16/2016 11:05:51 AM

Building a wall has literally never worked a single time in history. Not once.

5/16/2016 11:08:26 AM

Not true. I built a retaining wall once and it is working perfectly.

5/16/2016 11:29:56 AM

^^^ Yeah, he's just like an American version of Chairman Mao-- super smart, charismatic, speaks for grassroots and challenges the dominating force, ambitious for power, willing to build a wall, wants to make China America great again, addicts to all kinds of competition, a gladiator, etc.

Overall, he's a new red emperor

On the other side, the communist China and Mao is gonna fade away from the world stage permanently because US and Trump is taking the role from now on.

[Edited on May 16, 2016 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ;]

5/16/2016 11:35:45 AM

more orange than red

5/16/2016 11:51:19 AM

Conservative republican is red.

5/16/2016 12:04:03 PM

Are you able to vote here, shoot?

5/16/2016 12:13:35 PM

Not yet. But I can donate.

5/16/2016 12:17:24 PM

Yeah

5/16/2016 12:26:24 PM

In general, where you spend your money is way more important than your vote anyways

[Edited on May 16, 2016 at 12:47 PM. Reason : amirite]

5/16/2016 12:46:50 PM

Yeah, money speaks.

5/16/2016 12:57:00 PM

Quote :

"Trump or Hillary? Fuck sake...i'm staying at home"

I am far from fond of Hillary Clinton. But I strongly argue that voting for her is the rational, smart decision in this election. I would prefer not to, but not voting is not the right thing to do here. And I am far more comfortable continuing the policies of the last <insert number here> presidents than switching to Trump.

5/16/2016 1:04:00 PM

But this is gonna happen anyway. Trump is gonna be the CEO or chairman of US, turning this country into a SUPER and FULLY capitalized empire, which is of course very different than his predecessors, who usually have politician background. Running foreign policies will be like doing business and making deals, which's the so-called The Art of Deals.

[Edited on May 16, 2016 at 1:11 PM. Reason : ;]

5/16/2016 1:07:57 PM

sure thing shoot

5/16/2016 1:21:54 PM

Quote :

"negative rights like life (the right to not be killed by someone else), freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a fair trial, etc. humans do no have rights to positive rights, rights that would require someone else to act to fulfill that right. healthcare, education, housing, etc. [Edited on May 8, 2016 at 9:14 PM. Reason : ^^fuck the UN] [Edited on May 8, 2016 at 9:15 PM. Reason : i know it'd hard to wrap your head around, but think about it] [Edited on May 8, 2016 at 9:16 PM. Reason : the right to healthcare essentially conscripts physicians. wtf mate?]"

every "negative" right you listed requires you to take it or someone to give it to you. right to life conscripts military (have been conscripted), policemen, firemen and EMT's (oh wait they should check your insurance before they treat you i guess). right to fair trial conscripts judges, lawyers and jurors (the last of who ARE conscripted). freedom of movement requires public lands.

Also, FDR proposed medical care as a right, not just the UN.

5/16/2016 8:47:47 PM

Quote :

"every "negative" right you listed requires you to take it or someone to give it to you. right to life conscripts military (have been conscripted), policemen, firemen and EMT's (oh wait they should check your insurance before they treat you i guess). right to fair trial conscripts judges, lawyers and jurors (the last of who ARE conscripted). freedom of movement requires public lands. Also, FDR proposed medical care as a right, not just the UN."

The things you describe are exactly the opposite of negative rights. My rights end as soon as I infringe upon someone else's right.

The negative right to life does not mean you have the right to be protected by others. It means you have the right to not be killed by someone else, up to the point that someone else is required to act to grant that right.

From wikipedia:

Quote :

"A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian."

The accused's right to a fair trial does not conscript anyone. If a trial is held and no one shows up, no judge, no lawyers, no nobody, then the accused gets to walk. Burden of proof is on the accuser. It's the accuser's responsibility to present sufficient evidence because he is claiming a legal right to deprive the accused of his own rights. I agree with you that juror conscription is a horrible practice. The thought of being judged by a group of folks who don't want to be there scares me. I say we pay jurors a wage (decided by the free market). The quality of jurors will go up and no one will be conscripted. They will serve on the jury of their own free will.

Freedom of movement does not give an individual a right to land on which to move. It does not mean we have the right to go wherever we please. It simply means that we have a right to not be caged or confined to the extent that we don't infringe on others' rights (mainly the right to property). The negative right to property does not grant me the right to actually own anything, it simply means that I have the right to not have my stuff taken away or interfered with.

You and I are not the first to debate this. It has been covered by philosophers for thousands of years. I challenge you to research the topic and expand your knowledge of it, even if you do not agree.

With regards to liberty, FDR was one of the worst presidents in history. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.



[Edited on May 16, 2016 at 9:42 PM. Reason : adsf]

5/16/2016 9:40:28 PM

Quote :

"The things you describe are exactly the opposite of negative rights. My rights end as soon as I infringe upon someone else's right."

I named the exact same rights as you did.

my point is in your context its just well meaning philosophy and morals. If you and I are standing in a wilderness and i want to kill you, you can scream all you want about your right to life but you are still going to die unless you, i, or someone else does something to stop it. therefore we force our citizens to pay for people to protect this right to life.

if i buy up everything around your property and say you arent allowed on my property, sure you still have a theoretical freedom of movement, but you cant actually go anywhere. therefore we provide public lanes of travel and provide any property with a point of egress.

when we talk about "rights" we will just mean moral obligations to society but governments essentially exist to provide the infrastructure to enforce those rights.


i probably should read thousands of years of literature on the subject, but i probably wont, so feel free to summarize any points you think i would have gleaned. Or also feel free to dismiss me as lazy and entitled and not worth the time, either way.

5/16/2016 10:20:46 PM

Quote :

"I named the exact same rights as you did."

The problem is not what you name them, but how you define them. I define them as negative rights. You defined them as positive rights. I do not think positive rights are natural human rights.

You could read some Ayn Rand or John Locke, but this article would be a good start: https://fee.org/articles/the-perils-of-positive-rights/

5/16/2016 10:36:26 PM

Quote :

"Others argue that all rights are in fact positive insofar as they are all meaningless unless they are actively protected; and the right to the protection of one’s right to freedom is a positive right, not a negative one."

Quote :

"As for those who believe that protection of negative rights requires positive rights, they fail to show that any such right to protection can exist unless there already exist the more fundamental—and “negative”—right to liberty. To gain protection for something presupposes that one has the right to act for that purpose, including the right to voluntarily combine with others to delegate authority, form the government, and gain the protection. The services of government are something people must choose to obtain by their consent to be governed. They do not have a natural right to them prior to having freely established that institution. Indeed, for that reason taxation, which fit well those regimes that treat people as subjects, is anathema to the free society in which even the funding of the legal order must be secured voluntarily."

That seems to be the key portion that would argue against my POV, but it still seems to be saying the rights need to be protected, only difference is that they add the requirement that the people choose to be protected. The first quote summarized my opinion but i dont think the second quote sufficiently rejects that opinion.

I suppose the key difference may be that you are arguing about natural human rights, which i'm not sure i agree exist. Thats an extreme statement that i havent really thought out, but I think the only human rights that exist are one we agree to give each other. i was initially referring to societal human rights, rights I feel we have a moral obligation to give each other and protect.

You believe the only natural human rights are ones which do not require anyone else to act, which, fine. I believe we have moral obligation to provide additional societal and positive rights. I dont think i want to live in a society that only attempts to provide those "natural human rights" and, alternatively, i respect that you may not want to live in my socialist utopia where everyone is always happy and holds hand and sings songs.

5/16/2016 11:07:02 PM

also SOAP IN MY CHIT CHAT

5/16/2016 11:07:24 PM

I really like the second quote you selected, especially the last two sentences. It pretty much says that these rights (the negative rights that are natural human rights) are so basic that the people will voluntarily pay to protect them. So a group is formed with the consent of the governed to further protect that right. As soon as that group oversteps their bounds, the people withdraw the funding.

This concept is actually nestled neatly in the US Constitution. POTUS simply suggests a budget, it must pass the House (The people. Well, at least it used to be).

5/16/2016 11:36:13 PM

Quote :

"I dont think i want to live in a society that only attempts to provide those "natural human rights" and, alternatively, i respect that you may not want to live in my socialist utopia where everyone is always happy and holds hand and sings songs."

It's important to note that these two societies are not mutually exclusive. In my ideal society, you and all your friends are free to form your socialist utopia. You may enter into whatever private contracts you so desire. You can pool your money and buy yourself whatever positive rights you want. You can pay to provide those positive rights to as many people as you want.

5/16/2016 11:49:52 PM

Lol, so the majority of trump supporters are completely stupid people:



Almost half of the republicans aren't looking to good either....

[Edited on May 17, 2016 at 2:12 AM. Reason : ]

5/17/2016 2:11:26 AM

I read just a few days ago that some 2X% of Americans currently think that Obama is Muslim, and it was in the mid to high 20s. Un-fucking-believable for the country that has Harvard, MIT, and Caltech.

5/17/2016 4:15:44 AM

Quote :

"You could read some Ayn Rand or John Locke, but this article would be a good start"

lol

i bet you are also a free inhabitant

5/17/2016 5:41:01 AM

Lol the Rand and Locke suggestion was a joke, dude.

[Edited on May 17, 2016 at 7:12 AM. Reason : The Road to Serfdom would be a good read, though.]

[Edited on May 17, 2016 at 7:18 AM. Reason : Hell, just reading the Constitution would be a good start for most folks.]

5/17/2016 7:00:49 AM

Reading the constitution would lead me to believe blacks, women and poor white men shouldn't have the same rights as the ruling class.

[Edited on May 17, 2016 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2016 12:58:10 PM

^ You forgot Native Americans.

5/17/2016 1:00:40 PM

You would also find that it has been amended to correct these issues

5/17/2016 1:24:43 PM

I think the idea that taking a document that originally completely removed all rights of a class of human beings as a way to begin to understand a conversation about positive and negative rights is what he was scoffing at.

5/17/2016 1:28:14 PM

Your rights are listed in the amendments. It's important to know what is included and what is not. Healthcare is not a right. Food is not a right. Housing is not a right. Protection by the police is not a right. If we want to make these things right, then let's just add them to the list. I'm cool with that.

5/17/2016 1:37:17 PM

I think the 9th Amendment makes it pretty clear that people have more rights than just laid out in the Constitution.

5/17/2016 1:43:04 PM

There's no steady-state of laws/government where we stop having political issues/fights/protests, and there's no 1 set of principles or rules that define the best social and public policies in perpetuity.

The Constitution is a better read when you remove it from its original context and put it in our own context, but this isn't what was "intended", it's just one of the many choices you can make to have a concept fit your own personal, contrived ideals.

There will always be tension between people who don't want to see much change and just want to live their hermit lives without interference, people who yearn for the past and want to take us back, and people who have no sympathy for cultural heritage and just want to push society forward.

5/17/2016 1:46:17 PM

We could discuss the 9th for days, but I agree with the interpretation that the 9th doesn't grant power to the federal govt, but rather limits the power of the federal govt. In other words, it is also a negative right. It tells the federal government what they can't do.

5/17/2016 2:00:08 PM

Quote :

"The things you describe are exactly the opposite of negative rights. My rights end as soon as I infringe upon someone else's right. The negative right to life does not mean you have the right to be protected by others. It means you have the right to not be killed by someone else, up to the point that someone else is required to act to grant that right."

Never mind that not a single one of rwoody's counterpoint examples makes any sense at all.

We don't conscript policemen, firemen, military, etc. Every one of those does their job voluntarily.

5/17/2016 7:07:04 PM

https://www.facebook.com/numbersusa/videos/1121026491287378/

5/17/2016 7:23:32 PM

^^NO SHIT. we don't conscript emergency room doctor's or EMTs either.

[Edited on May 17, 2016 at 7:26 PM. Reason : Aaaaaaaa]

5/17/2016 7:25:48 PM

And you don't have a right to their services.

5/17/2016 7:30:00 PM

^ we do if the law says we do, which it does (in certain situations).

5/17/2016 9:01:10 PM

I just don't see how someone can claim a natural right to someone else's service.

5/17/2016 9:32:23 PM

Except the government can choose to ensure the availability of said services as a natural right.

[Edited on May 18, 2016 at 12:08 AM. Reason : It's not about person to person here ]

5/18/2016 12:07:21 AM