What if Jesus actually meant what he said? There would be far fewer Christians in the USA, and presumably elsewhere.
Paradox for Conservatives
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
What if Jesus actually meant what he said? There would be far fewer Christians in the USA, and presumably elsewhere.
Another thread abandoned by JarredHead. Anyone else notice he starts this moronic nonsense then runs away?
That was my point. She did not favor same sex marriage in 2012. My post said anything about hatred or anything negative toward Hillary.
Some actions are moral. Some are not. You’ll just never get agreement on what those are. Nothing universal about it.
The following formerly posted by TD #182
Oh yes TD #182.
Indisputably so!
The standard of living under the governance of ISIL is clearly superior to hell-hole we're subjected to under the governance of our Republican lead federal government.
Thank you again for your inspiring reminder. ALLAH BE PRAISED !!
Oh yes TD #182.
Indisputably so!
The standard of living under the governance of ISIL is clearly superior to hell-hole we're subjected to under the governance of our Republican lead federal government.
Thank you again for your inspiring reminder. ALLAH BE PRAISED !!
No one said everyone would agree with all moral principles. That's not what it means to be universal.
To say the rights (it's not a complete moral code judging every action) are universal means that the rights exist everywhere. It's not conditional on place.
Do you agree when Donald rejects natural rights and the notion that some things are universally wrong by saying, "I believe it's a rough situation over there. It's rough in a lot of places, by the way, not just there." A person who believes in natural rights or that some things are universally wrong does not hesitate to condemn this nonsense, but based on your unwillingness to accept such claims you must concede he has a point.
Last edited:
I just want to highlight the stupidity of this post and alert everyone to how the left actually thinks. This is the danger we all face and the moronic ignorance we confront with the Democratic Party of the Jackass and leftist FAKE media in this country.
Any questions?
Question #one:Quote Originally Posted by sear
"The standard of living under the governance of ISIL is clearly superior to hell-hole we're subjected to under the governance of our Republican lead federal government.
Thank you again for your inspiring reminder. ALLAH BE PRAISED !!" sear
"I just want to highlight the stupidity of this post and alert everyone to how the left actually thinks. This is the danger we all face and the moronic ignorance we confront with the Democratic Party of the Jackass and leftist FAKE media in this country.
Any questions?" TD #187
Do you suppose you'll ever become intelligent enough, and well educated enough to fathom the insightful utility of satire?
Question #two:
Will you ever become s a v v y enough to understand that not everyone that does not toe the Republican line is either ignorant, or Democrat? I'm more conservative than you. You're just not smart enough to understand that.
So I'll spell it out for you.
The principles I defend are those enshrined in an 18th Century Founding document: TJ/DOI. Equality under law may be a cause championed by liberals and Democrats. We conservatives welcome them to our cause. But your fondness for authoritarianism is conspicuous, and hypocritical.
You DO want authoritarian government to prevent women from exercising their medical reproductive rights. BUT !!
You do NOT want government to impose even modest restrictions on firearms.
Hypocrite !
Trump is an amoral piece of human feces. He has no moral compass.
So, universal means they EXIST everywhere, but just aren't IN EXISTENCE everywhere. That makes zero sense.
Also making zero sense is your notion "that some things are universally wrong". Just in this country alone, in the context of universal truths, universal right versus wrong, try addressing these two concepts:
Abortion
Gay marriage
Universally right or universally wrong?
But they do exist everywhere. Do you believe it is a just act or a violation of natural/human rights to kill a human, without some just cause, in North Korea? Does Donny Boy's bs point that it's rough in a lot of places make it ok?
Who suggested it gives easy answers to all questions.
Abortion is a bit tough but since I believe our natural rights are a product of our rational capacities and empathy, imo, a first trimester (my understanding of fetal development suggests up to 20 weeks) abortion is not a violation of natural rights.
Marriage is a bundle of rights that can only be defined by law and is only relevant within the context of a society. No one can be said to have a natural right to marry, gay or straight. One can make a strong argument for a natural right to equality before the law and certainly one has a natural right to love and share their life with whomever (implies the other party has the same right to choose).
I have tried to answer all your questions, but you are not returning the favor. How about answering your own questions?
Do women have a moral right to control their own reproduction?
Do people have a moral right to share their lives with someone of the same sex.
Or do you say that whatever the state says is fine?
Like I said, those on the left who reject the notion of natural or human rights face a similar paradox. What is your objection to Trump's actions? It does not appear to be in violation of the law, so you must not have one.
You continue to prove my point with your response “I believe...” Nothing universal about that, is there?
Who said marriage is not a natural right? Are you now defining what a natural right is or isn’t? Another validation of my point. One is unable to even define what is or isn’t a natural right.
Since my questions were posed to you in the context of natural rights, I have no need to answer them. Natural rights do not apply.
I’ll repeat the same thing I’ve been trying to get through to you. One does not need to accept the concept of some non-existent universal law to have a moral compass. My objection to Trump is that he is a patholgical liar and an amoral sociopath.That families can be retained intact rather than split up should be self-explanatory. But, you’ll see many on this forum are in favor of that. Where is your universality?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Very interesting discussion.
Maybe not the right, but they have the power. Throughout history.
No, it does not prove your point. I don't think you know what universal means or understand the context in which it is used. Again, it simply means that these rights are not conditional on place. It does not meant that they are universally held. But most do seem to acknowledge them, at least in the West.
What do you mean who said it was not a natural right? I made an argument that it cannot be and I gave reasons as to why it does not fit the definition, imo. So it can be defined and has been, mutliple times now.
Are you looking for some sort of ultimate authority? There is none.
Yes, there is a need for you to answer the questions. It is simply the polite thing to do since I have tried to answer yours. It's also what thos foum is for, i.e. debate.
Why should families be kept intact? Afaik, Trump is not violating any law, so it should be okay by you.
Again, you are using universal in the wrong way to create your straw man. No one has ever suggested that all agree with these rights and i have stated that several times now.
Except you can’t define what an “inalienable God-given right” is.
You keep coming back to “I believe...” or “at least in the West.” Tell me the universality of that statement.
There is no universal truth. No universal law. No universal right. And where did I ever make the claim that all laws are good and proper?
I create no straw man. I merely am trying to point you in the direction of reality rather than your vague and undefined PERSONAL notion of what a natural right is. You have yet to identify a single one.
That’s OK. I have yet to see anyone able to define a single universal right.
Again, you are dropping context. No one ever suggested it is a view that is universally held. The rights are universal in that they are not limited by place. I have repeated this several times now.
I have not argued that natural rights exist in a concrete form. You are only pointing towards unreality. You have done nothing but flail at straw man arguments. Meanwhile, you fail to support your claim " liberty and freedom are fine without the existence of natural rights" by citing even a single example of where or how liberty and freedom are secure without a strong and widespread belief in the concept of natural or human rights.
I don't see much point in continuing as you are not engaging in debate. Rather you are just skipping in the same place over and over.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Timshel and domer76,
Great discussion. Bravo! Good debate.
You are both making such good points that I am fascinated to read the discussion.
These 'rights' being discussed - they are a creation of humankind. They only exist as long as we have governments to ensure them, only as genuine as the governments which declare them.
Doesn't it boil down to morality?
Isn't it an attempt to institutionalize morality through government?
We all know we can't truly legislate morality, but we continue to try. That's why we have to keep creating new laws, right?
And what good is creating laws unless there is an effective means of enforcement?
Great discussion. Bravo! Good debate.
You are both making such good points that I am fascinated to read the discussion.
These 'rights' being discussed - they are a creation of humankind. They only exist as long as we have governments to ensure them, only as genuine as the governments which declare them.
Doesn't it boil down to morality?
Isn't it an attempt to institutionalize morality through government?
We all know we can't truly legislate morality, but we continue to try. That's why we have to keep creating new laws, right?
And what good is creating laws unless there is an effective means of enforcement?