The fact that some of DL's opinions are abhorrent to me does not mean that ALL of his opinions are abhorrent to me.

 

Jeez baller, you're like a little yappy dog I have to kick in the chops to get it to stop humping my leg. I replied to you the first couple times out of courtesy because you spoke directly to me. However, no one's fucking talking to you. Why don't you go back to ragging on the Irish or whatever the fuck you were doing before you decided to interject your unique breed of wisdom into this discussion?

I tried to soften it with a little humor, but you cannot deny that the ways people perceive race and the ways people perceive rights are inexorably intertwined.

As per objectivism, it's a natural off-shoot of existing political philosophy coming out of the 20s and shaped in reaction to her Russian experience, that like nearly all liberal American political philosophy is rooted in natural rights theory. But an indictment of objectivism isn't necessarily also an indictment of natural rights theory. While I believe it is a reactionary philosophy, I don't reject it completely on face, and if I was forced to choose - I'd rather be Howard Roark than Peter Keating.

I posit that natural rights theory is at the core of the American social contract, displayed not only descriptively in the Declaration of Independence, but also in the 9th amendment of the Constitution.

As such, I feel the burden is on you to justify such a radical divergence in political thinking.

Your rights theory describes privileges that must be earned through struggle and aren't inherent to personal dignity. Your theory where the majority collectively chooses to give privileges is the same "rights" theory that those who oppress women and minorities around the world espouse, as a justification for their oppression.

 

Lol yappy dog? You're out of your fucking depth, douche. Keep talkin' that shit, you pathetic fuck. You're 29 and you try to act/talk like a teenager in the same falsely arrogant way that most douchey teenagers(like you most likely were) do. You're fucking nobody, and you never will be. You're not intelligent; you're a fucking fake ass, douchey ass little sheep who piggybacks onto shit instead of actually standing for anything. You're fucking pathetic, and you're so full of shit it's not even funny. You get your "knowledge", "intelligence", and "wisdom" from other people's opinions and from whatever entry level college classes you took, as if that makes you an expert on anything.

You're not clever; you're not funny; you're not anything you try(and fail) so hard to come across as. KingNothing is the most accurate user-name you could ever use, so congrats on that. You're the kid people who actually are intelligent or actually are anything you try so hard to come off as, laugh their asses off at. You're a joke.

Get one thing straight: I am the fucking pitbull that puts your chiuaua ass in your place when you try to bark too big.

 

Feel better?

 

Sounds like your daughter is as selfish and self-absorbed as every other teenager out there.

Don't worry, she should grow out of it.

 

Won't feel better until every douche like you doesn't have any kind of a voice, like it should be.

People like you make Freedom of Speech seem like a bad idea.

 

If there is hope for any country it will not come from anyone who thinks like your amazing daughter. Your daughter will one day use her "right" to equal survival to provide herself with food, shelter and basic necessities.... and who knows..... maybe that might include the "right" to food stamps as well (which by the way, everyone has the "liberty" to refuse.... if of course, she ever feels generous.)

 

AGREED! Jeez, is this really the place? C'mon!

 

Let's just hope she does not discover Ayn Rand.

 

That may be one of the most offensive posts ever to come out your bile filled mind.

You disagree with someone so you would deny them the right to an opinion. I did not realise that you were against human rights.


Truly disgusting baller, even by your uneducated, one dimensional standards.

 

hmmm to think about

 

I think we can agree that some rights ARE inherent to personal dignity. All I'm saying is that asserting them is not enough. They have to be fought for, or they might not be granted. And it is human beings, acting collectively, that grant them or don't grant them. We may TAKE them for granted in the United States, but people in Saudi Arabia, say, are not quite so glib about them.

I would point out that the Declaration of Independence included some pretty words, but slavery in this country was not abolished until almost 90 years later, after a titanic struggle to maintain it was overcome by force.

 

When Thomas Jefferson put this complaint about King George III in the Declaration of Independence, "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us," he was complaining that the British were issuing emancipation proclamations to the slaves.

 

More ramblings from the mind of the mentally ill finishing with his trade mark E threat.

Baller you are an anonymity, the only time people realise you are there is when you raise your voice.
You have done nothing for society nor your family except become the embarrassment you so obviously are.
KingNothing's user name might be accurate but yours surely isn't. You are nothing but a self promoting, self aggrandizing little boy.

 

What rights? Who decides? When was the last time you organized your girlfriends for a suffragette march? Is it healthy for a society to continually rehash the same settled argument; outside of the giggles one receives from anti-choice rants? I'll bet through most of Jim Crow, the southern majority would have been quite happy to return to the "good ol' days." What about the poor black sharecropper who lived and died in the Mississippi delta and never believed change was possible? They never sat at a lunch counter or boycotted a bus. Aren't they as entitled to civil rights and aren't their children entitled to go to white schools?

I don't meet a lot of intelligent, committed Hobbesians in this century. Certainly, I've never met one that believed in liberal government; particularly Liberal liberal government. If you draw your argument out to its logical conclusion, the system of government that best protects the rights of the minority or the individual is an enlightened dictatorship. But, no matter how benevolent such a tyranny may be, such a system of government still prefers order over liberty.

We're not talking practice here; we're talking theory. The inherent dignity of the slave in 1799 merited the same consideration as the inherent dignity of the freeman in 1866.

Even then, the practice of natural rights' theory kept the slaveowner backpedaling for 90 years. The slaveowner didn't want change, but we came out of the Constitutional Convention with a firm date for the end of the slave trade (20 years hence) because the abolitionists had the moral legitimacy of inalienable liberty to force a compromise. This moral legitimacy forced the slaveowner to defend their wicked practice in the language of natural rights, "We had this liberty before we joined the Union, you can't take it away." As white enfranchisement expanded (quite often peacefully, and with little struggle - because they were armed with the legitimacy of inalienable liberty), the slaveowner was continually forced to revise their false arguments ultimately culminating into their last stand: Dred Scott, "blacks aren't people." The slaveowner had nowhere left to go, intellectually. And nothing raised the consciousness and galvanized "Mr-Average-I-Don't-Give-A-Damn-From-Ohio" for a forthcoming struggle where compromise was impossible more than being told that Alabama gets to decide the status of people in Ohio.

Ultimately, I think you looked at the Declaration of Independence and saw the rationalism of the Enlightenment couched in the rhetoric of anti-rationalism to appeal to hoi polloi and rejected it unfairly; crafting for yourself a reactionary "rights" theory which doesn't do justice to your intellect, your beliefs, or your principles.

 

In all fairness to TJ, the grievances were largely drafted by committee. He even wrote a specific grievance protesting the British imposition of slavery onto the freedom loving people of America (giggle):

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

TJ got veto'd out of final draft.

 

Seriously, quit calling him TJ. You are not his equal, and you don't know him like that.

 

Only if you promise to learn how to spell Fitzgerald.

 

I think you misunderstand me. I'm perfectly willing to argue that people should be entitled to basic human rights. I'm just saying that, as a practical matter, all of that fine philosophy matters very little as far as guaranteeing those rights.

Sure, slaves and their advocates were able to argue that slavery was inherently immoral and a violation of human rights...but that isn't what turned the tide. It took action.

 

What the fuck are you even talking about?