can you name one god given right
lepperochan said:If carlsberg done god given rights they'd supersede everything. the right to life would mean :
the right to clean natural air
the right to clean natural water
the right to grow what you can
the right to hunt for food
I think the right to choose is one of those rights which goes without saying .and needed no permission in the first place, and is grossly misrepresented in terms of its significance in any constitution. Its like telling a grape it has the right to grow on a vine
More like telling a grape it has the right to be a grape.
If Carlsberg did ethics the most difficult question for humanity would be to have another round now or save it for later.
the right to clean natural air
the right to clean natural water
the right to grow what you can
the right to hunt for food
I think the right to choose is one of those rights which goes without saying .and needed no permission in the first place, and is grossly misrepresented in terms of its significance in any constitution. Its like telling a grape it has the right to grow on a vine
More like telling a grape it has the right to be a grape.
If Carlsberg did ethics the most difficult question for humanity would be to have another round now or save it for later.
Viddax said:1. I kinda figured that, though it seems I like to lecture.
2. My response was somewhat trying to achieve a non-personal perspective to display the facts and truth (whether it is agreeable or not).
3. The U.S Constitution may also be bound by laws formed by the U.N; anti-slavery and the what-not. Plus I doubt any legislation can truly stand alone; sometimes based off of past ones, sometimes superseded by more modern ones. Plus a dash of common sense pays Midas dividends. You may well have to elaborate further, you somewhat lost me, not quite sure who or what SCOTUS is (Bond villain organisation?).
The U.S. has to agree with whatever dictates the U.N. puts out. If we do not, the U.N. dictates are meaningless, according to our Constitution. SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States. Their sole purpose (according to the Constitution) is to interpret the Constitution from a solely legal perspective, thereby establishing "precedent" of law. For example: If a slavery case did come up in our courts, our abolishment of slavery was long established before the U.N. Therefore it would be our anti-slavery laws that would take "precedent" not the U.N. Truthfully, our laws are going to take precedent no matter what (particularly in the case of a dispute) That has to do with the "sovereignty clause" in the Constitution, which would clearly define the U.N. as a foreign power. No foreign power supersedes our Constitution and laws. Hopefully, that gives you a better idea on how this crap works here. lol
2. My response was somewhat trying to achieve a non-personal perspective to display the facts and truth (whether it is agreeable or not).
3. The U.S Constitution may also be bound by laws formed by the U.N; anti-slavery and the what-not. Plus I doubt any legislation can truly stand alone; sometimes based off of past ones, sometimes superseded by more modern ones. Plus a dash of common sense pays Midas dividends. You may well have to elaborate further, you somewhat lost me, not quite sure who or what SCOTUS is (Bond villain organisation?).
The U.S. has to agree with whatever dictates the U.N. puts out. If we do not, the U.N. dictates are meaningless, according to our Constitution. SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States. Their sole purpose (according to the Constitution) is to interpret the Constitution from a solely legal perspective, thereby establishing "precedent" of law. For example: If a slavery case did come up in our courts, our abolishment of slavery was long established before the U.N. Therefore it would be our anti-slavery laws that would take "precedent" not the U.N. Truthfully, our laws are going to take precedent no matter what (particularly in the case of a dispute) That has to do with the "sovereignty clause" in the Constitution, which would clearly define the U.N. as a foreign power. No foreign power supersedes our Constitution and laws. Hopefully, that gives you a better idea on how this crap works here. lol
lepperochan said:If carlsberg done god given rights they'd supersede everything. the right to life would mean :
the right to clean natural air
the right to clean natural water
the right to grow what you can
the right to hunt for food
I think the right to choose is one of those rights which goes without saying .and needed no permission in the first place, and is grossly misrepresented in terms of its significance in any constitution. Its like telling a grape it has the right to grow on a vine
Uhm... yes and no. The right to choose had to be said, primarily because it was ONE of the major contentions of the American Revolution. Think about it Hun, "taxation without representation" is literally NOT having a choice.
As far as the "clean and natural" points you are making? Let's talk realistically here. Millions of people are "alive" without these things and keep living. So... from a legal perspective, those can become actually debatable. (Sad but true)
I cannot speak for other countries. So, I will deal exclusively with mine okay? According to our Constitution "clean and natural" fall under two dictates -
1.) Choice - Do we want the government to administer and maintain "clean and natural" or do we want the private sector to do such? There are actually pros and cons coming from both sides of that fence.
2.) Public Safety or "Common Good" - This is were it gets tricky. How much government intervention does "we the people" want? Example - Fluoride in the water became a government regulation a long time ago. It was suppose to protect our teeth as well as the water. Well... Now, studies in the AMA have shown clear correlation between fluoride and Alzheimers (1 in every 4 people in the U.S. over the age of 68 have been diagnosed with it) Exactly how much do you want the government to maintain your right to "clean and natural" ?
the right to clean natural air
the right to clean natural water
the right to grow what you can
the right to hunt for food
I think the right to choose is one of those rights which goes without saying .and needed no permission in the first place, and is grossly misrepresented in terms of its significance in any constitution. Its like telling a grape it has the right to grow on a vine
Uhm... yes and no. The right to choose had to be said, primarily because it was ONE of the major contentions of the American Revolution. Think about it Hun, "taxation without representation" is literally NOT having a choice.
As far as the "clean and natural" points you are making? Let's talk realistically here. Millions of people are "alive" without these things and keep living. So... from a legal perspective, those can become actually debatable. (Sad but true)
I cannot speak for other countries. So, I will deal exclusively with mine okay? According to our Constitution "clean and natural" fall under two dictates -
1.) Choice - Do we want the government to administer and maintain "clean and natural" or do we want the private sector to do such? There are actually pros and cons coming from both sides of that fence.
2.) Public Safety or "Common Good" - This is were it gets tricky. How much government intervention does "we the people" want? Example - Fluoride in the water became a government regulation a long time ago. It was suppose to protect our teeth as well as the water. Well... Now, studies in the AMA have shown clear correlation between fluoride and Alzheimers (1 in every 4 people in the U.S. over the age of 68 have been diagnosed with it) Exactly how much do you want the government to maintain your right to "clean and natural" ?
Simple, as far as the water is concerned, there's plenty of it and for now we own it , that will change in a couple of years.
The water system in any country is valuable. It needs protecting against a government or corporation owning it or adding to it .the water system is the easiest way to distribute all kinds of chemicals straight to the gut.
rights are a funny thing, we shouldn't need them, and we covet the ones we have , enshrine them even. I don't think they're anything thing to be proud of, that's all I'm saying. ..if anything they're restrictive ...the thinking is all wrong. ...and a much more apt name should be titled them
The book of Here's what you're allowed do no question unless you have a generic disposition. ...in which case please go to the back of the book and select ethnicity
The water system in any country is valuable. It needs protecting against a government or corporation owning it or adding to it .the water system is the easiest way to distribute all kinds of chemicals straight to the gut.
rights are a funny thing, we shouldn't need them, and we covet the ones we have , enshrine them even. I don't think they're anything thing to be proud of, that's all I'm saying. ..if anything they're restrictive ...the thinking is all wrong. ...and a much more apt name should be titled them
The book of Here's what you're allowed do no question unless you have a generic disposition. ...in which case please go to the back of the book and select ethnicity
missjem56 said:but what rights is one entitled to if they don't believe that any god exists?
'Natural' Laws or Laws of Nature: rights that would be logical and beneficial in even the most basic society or civilisation. Note that this does not necessarily mean a case of dog-eat-dog or truly natural existence such as fending for and by yourself without any help.
Rights in the name of Humanity, rather than in a God's name.
'Natural' Laws or Laws of Nature: rights that would be logical and beneficial in even the most basic society or civilisation. Note that this does not necessarily mean a case of dog-eat-dog or truly natural existence such as fending for and by yourself without any help.
Rights in the name of Humanity, rather than in a God's name.
"but what rights is one entitled to if they don't believe that any god exists?"
I think the sentence says a lot more about us as a society and about our willingness to adopt a system where rights are given as per entitlement rather than a universal gift. strikes me as more of a trade off than anything else. why else would a set of people qualify for rights when another set doesn't
what are rights anyway ? ...and who is this god person you speak of ?
I think the sentence says a lot more about us as a society and about our willingness to adopt a system where rights are given as per entitlement rather than a universal gift. strikes me as more of a trade off than anything else. why else would a set of people qualify for rights when another set doesn't
what are rights anyway ? ...and who is this god person you speak of ?
If God or Devil exists in some extra-dimensional plane I don't know. Since, I don't know, I would neither accept or refute his/her existence. However, in both cases we can never prove their influence on us in choices we make. We were imparted with free will the very day we began questioning (in biblical context, when Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit under the influence of the snake). So, if we have free will are we not the sole owners of the choices that we make and responsible for its consequences? So how come we can indicate God or Devil as the source or cause of any consequence or choice we make? Talking of government, it is just an arrangrment to which we all agree (willingly or unwillingly).The only condition government can assert its control if it thunks the political-social-economic fabric will get ripped apart by any actions (deviant to law) by the citizens. A method to curb anarchy (granting of too much and uncontrolled freedom) So, in context of gay marriagewith neither God nor Government can impose legislation to ban or control it. God has given us free will and so we are responsible for our own actions while a gay marriage in my view may be radical but surely will not damage a country so government needn't worry.
Biblically only God given rights we have are to nurture (food water nurushment) and love (need for a partner) not to be confused with Making love. In walks original sin. To sustain ourselves. Our only God given rights, the rest we have degrees of sin, that definition would take centuries.
