Slavery is a construct of man, not a consequence of birth and puhlease don't play stupid and try to pretend that word play about being born into slavery is a meaningful point.
My point was that the DOI is a flawed document, written by people who flagrantly trampled the rights that they said were self-evident.
The Creator is mere fact of existence.
Like unicorns and pixies? I see, please go on.
Inalienable does not mean it can't be violated by the interference of other people.
The very people who are claiming that the right to life is unalienable are also the ones taking said life away from people.
TL;DR doubt it is no more apropos to the point of what exists with and without the interference of other men than any of the rest of your obtuseness.
I'm pointing out that you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either you believe that the right to life is unalienable, or you think that capital punishment is acceptable. The two are mutually exclusive, and the US in on record as backing capital punishment - ergo, the statement within the DOI "... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..." is total BS.
Do you have any other documents you'd like to cite as 'proof' of natural rights?
Good grief I could run WikiLeaks on less than $500 a month.
Seriously? That'll buy you an hour of lawyer face time, assuming you speak to only one lawyer and he doesn't work for you other than that one meeting. Now, about your servers and bandwidth charges this month...
Hobbes thought that our natural rights are to do anything we like, including take the life of other beings, such as humans. In his view, life, liberty etc are not natural rights, as the only natural right was to "be ourselves". Locke's position has not stood the test of time well. While he was well thought of by the American revolutionary fathers, his views are no longer seen as valid. Paine's "Rights Of Man" was similar to Hobbes's stance - our own desire to do whatever we want is our only natural right, even if this includes taking away the life of someone else.
Do you have a list of all these natural rights? Do you know what they all are? If not, you cannot know what is or is not a natural and therefore absolute right.
If you manage to cobble together a list of rights, how can you be sure that in 100 years they will not be different? Or in 1000 years? If they can change, then they are not absolute rights - they change with society, and therefore we as a society decide what is a right and what is not.
What if Harper Lee (the best one-hit wonder I know of, sure there are others) had died a week after delivering To Kill A Mockingbird, but before its publication? Should her family have gotten nothing?
Because the creator, when alive, is motivated by the knowledge that her dependents will be provided for when she is dead.
That's a circular argument. The "knowledge that her dependents will be provided for when she is dead" is based upon the existence of the copyright laws.
WIPO defines the purpose of copyright as "To encourage a dynamic culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public". (emphasis mine)
It says nothing about their family's economic existence. Whether a creator despises or loves their family, whether they want to pass on their worldly goods or not is totally up to them - that's what Wills are for, and the implication of the WIPO definition is that the creators economic existence is not something that can be Willed or passed on after death.
Let's say you write a book. The book goes to a publisher and is accepted. You die. The author and the family should receive nothing?
Well, seeing as "you" are the author and "you" are dead, then yes I agree the author should get nothing. You're advocating paying a corpse?
There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about allowing a family to benefit from another family member's labors. Lord of the Rings is a great example.
While the other family members are alive, I agree, but why after that? Should my employer continue to pay my wages into my family's bank account for 70 years after I die?
I have no idea - certainly not me. But thanks for the ad hom.
Unless proven otherwise Julian just slept with two women who happened to get pissed off at him for what they believed was cheating on them.
It very easily explains the on again off again prosecution.
Oh wait it is innocent until proven guilty unless your the USA then your guilty of doing every bad thing in the world because no one else has the balls to stand up to bad guys.
And which part of that rant backs up your assertion of JA being a "jackass who uses people for personal gain"?
Yeah, I will just make all those nasty comments you have made about your family, friends, co-workers, boss(es), and companies publicly available and email everyone you know , have ever worked for or with, work for or with now, or may work for in the future links to said comments.
You have no problem with that, right?
None whatsoever. But then again, I don't have a nuclear arsenal, I'm not beholden to 300+million people, and I don't have an annual budget of over $3.5 trillion.
However even if it doesn't it shows that Julian is a jackass who uses people for personal gain.
Even if he was married and cheating on his wife, he' still done no worse than many US politicians of the past decade. As a single guy, not in a relationship, I couldn't give a flying fuck who he sleeps with, and I scoff at any US politico who would make something of it.
Not using a word like "murderous"? Blair called him a murderous autocrat, the Kenyan PM said Mugabe had a murderous reign, and it was only a couple of years ago that Mandela called him a murderous dictator. Back to the newspapers with you.
From "feckless, vain and ineffective" you went with vain? You'll be seeing unicorns and ponies everywhere if you think that's the part that's important. Oh wait, too late.
Para4. (S/NF) Saleh praised the December 17 and 24 strikes against AQAP but said that "mistakes were made" in the killing of civilians in Abyan. The General responded that the only civilians killed were the wife and two children of an AQAP operative at the site, prompting Saleh to plunge into a lengthy and confusing aside with Deputy Prime Minister Alimi and Minister of Defense Ali regarding the number of terrorists versus civilians killed in the strike.
How do you stop someone who decides to "go rogue"?
Not WikiLeaks's problem. Their problem was what to do if you are given evidence of a mass-government coverup that is killing innocent civilians. They chose to go public, YMMV.
The US government is town sheriff, and also the rapist, the Afghan civilians are the victim, and WikiLeaks is the local newspaper. The rapist was dumb enough to video the rape on their cellphone, and one drunken evening emailed the video to a friend. That friend showed the video to WikiLeaks who thought "do we publish this and damage the reputation of the sheriff, and while the sheriff is being impeached/demoted/whatever, some criminals may get away with some crimes". If you want to see the sheriff as the victim here for losing control of their emails, go right ahead - but the real victim still needs justice, and no-one is above the law, not even sheriffs.
No comparison. Pretty much every leader of the Western World is on record calling Mugabe out as a scumbag - you should read the papers a bit more closely.
This particular fuss is about the two-facedness of it all. On camera saying Berlusconi is a great leader but behind his back saying he's feckless, vain and ineffective. That's a great way to treat your allies (/sarcasm)
Slashdot Mirror
Slavery is a construct of man, not a consequence of birth and puhlease don't play stupid and try to pretend that word play about being born into slavery is a meaningful point.
My point was that the DOI is a flawed document, written by people who flagrantly trampled the rights that they said were self-evident.
The Creator is mere fact of existence.
Like unicorns and pixies? I see, please go on.
Inalienable does not mean it can't be violated by the interference of other people.
The very people who are claiming that the right to life is unalienable are also the ones taking said life away from people.
TL;DR doubt it is no more apropos to the point of what exists with and without the interference of other men than any of the rest of your obtuseness.
I'm pointing out that you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either you believe that the right to life is unalienable, or you think that capital punishment is acceptable. The two are mutually exclusive, and the US in on record as backing capital punishment - ergo, the statement within the DOI "... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ..." is total BS.
Do you have any other documents you'd like to cite as 'proof' of natural rights?
Good grief I could run WikiLeaks on less than $500 a month.
Seriously? That'll buy you an hour of lawyer face time, assuming you speak to only one lawyer and he doesn't work for you other than that one meeting. Now, about your servers and bandwidth charges this month ...
"Natural rights theories".
Hobbes thought that our natural rights are to do anything we like, including take the life of other beings, such as humans. In his view, life, liberty etc are not natural rights, as the only natural right was to "be ourselves".
Locke's position has not stood the test of time well. While he was well thought of by the American revolutionary fathers, his views are no longer seen as valid.
Paine's "Rights Of Man" was similar to Hobbes's stance - our own desire to do whatever we want is our only natural right, even if this includes taking away the life of someone else.
Do you have a list of all these natural rights? Do you know what they all are? If not, you cannot know what is or is not a natural and therefore absolute right.
If you manage to cobble together a list of rights, how can you be sure that in 100 years they will not be different? Or in 1000 years? If they can change, then they are not absolute rights - they change with society, and therefore we as a society decide what is a right and what is not.
All men are not created equal. Especially so when that quote was written by people who owned slaves.
I do not recognise the term "Creator", please clarify.
If life is an unalienable right, then it cannot be taken away by the state. Please explain how this meshes nicely with Gregg v. Georgia.
Feel free to send him your mailing address, but after he's dead he'll have considerable difficulty signing the cheques.
I fail to see the connection between your rights terminating when you do, and your motivation for working to better your children. Please explain.
What if Harper Lee (the best one-hit wonder I know of, sure there are others) had died a week after delivering To Kill A Mockingbird, but before its publication? Should her family have gotten nothing?
Yes. Next question.
That sounds a lot like insurance - unless you have specific citations.
Because the creator, when alive, is motivated by the knowledge that her dependents will be provided for when she is dead.
That's a circular argument. The "knowledge that her dependents will be provided for when she is dead" is based upon the existence of the copyright laws.
WIPO defines the purpose of copyright as "To encourage a dynamic culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public". (emphasis mine)
It says nothing about their family's economic existence. Whether a creator despises or loves their family, whether they want to pass on their worldly goods or not is totally up to them - that's what Wills are for, and the implication of the WIPO definition is that the creators economic existence is not something that can be Willed or passed on after death.
Let's say you write a book. The book goes to a publisher and is accepted. You die. The author and the family should receive nothing?
Well, seeing as "you" are the author and "you" are dead, then yes I agree the author should get nothing. You're advocating paying a corpse?
There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about allowing a family to benefit from another family member's labors. Lord of the Rings is a great example.
While the other family members are alive, I agree, but why after that? Should my employer continue to pay my wages into my family's bank account for 70 years after I die?
Who says that the USA is behind it dumbass.
I have no idea - certainly not me. But thanks for the ad hom.
Unless proven otherwise Julian just slept with two women who happened to get pissed off at him for what they believed was cheating on them.
It very easily explains the on again off again prosecution.
Oh wait it is innocent until proven guilty unless your the USA then your guilty of doing every bad thing in the world because no one else has the balls to stand up to bad guys.
And which part of that rant backs up your assertion of JA being a "jackass who uses people for personal gain"?
Wait! That's just what they'll be expecting ...
That's økay. A møøse ønce bit my sister.
Yeah, I will just make all those nasty comments you have made about your family, friends, co-workers, boss(es), and companies publicly available and email everyone you know , have ever worked for or with, work for or with now, or may work for in the future links to said comments.
You have no problem with that, right?
None whatsoever. But then again, I don't have a nuclear arsenal, I'm not beholden to 300+million people, and I don't have an annual budget of over $3.5 trillion.
However even if it doesn't it shows that Julian is a jackass who uses people for personal gain.
Even if he was married and cheating on his wife, he' still done no worse than many US politicians of the past decade. As a single guy, not in a relationship, I couldn't give a flying fuck who he sleeps with, and I scoff at any US politico who would make something of it.
Now I know you are delirious when you think that me quoting the cables is the same as me using big words.
Not using a word like "murderous"? Blair called him a murderous autocrat, the Kenyan PM said Mugabe had a murderous reign, and it was only a couple of years ago that Mandela called him a murderous dictator. Back to the newspapers with you.
From "feckless, vain and ineffective" you went with vain? You'll be seeing unicorns and ponies everywhere if you think that's the part that's important. Oh wait, too late.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10SANAA4.html
AQAP STRIKES: CONCERN FOR CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
Para4. (S/NF) Saleh praised the December 17 and 24 strikes against AQAP but said that "mistakes were made" in the killing of civilians in Abyan. The General responded that the only civilians killed were the wife and two children of an AQAP operative at the site, prompting Saleh to plunge into a lengthy and confusing aside with Deputy Prime Minister Alimi and Minister of Defense Ali regarding the number of terrorists versus civilians killed in the strike.
How do you stop someone who decides to "go rogue"?
Not WikiLeaks's problem. Their problem was what to do if you are given evidence of a mass-government coverup that is killing innocent civilians. They chose to go public, YMMV.
To continue your rapist analogy:
The US government is town sheriff, and also the rapist, the Afghan civilians are the victim, and WikiLeaks is the local newspaper. The rapist was dumb enough to video the rape on their cellphone, and one drunken evening emailed the video to a friend. That friend showed the video to WikiLeaks who thought "do we publish this and damage the reputation of the sheriff, and while the sheriff is being impeached/demoted/whatever, some criminals may get away with some crimes". If you want to see the sheriff as the victim here for losing control of their emails, go right ahead - but the real victim still needs justice, and no-one is above the law, not even sheriffs.
No comparison. Pretty much every leader of the Western World is on record calling Mugabe out as a scumbag - you should read the papers a bit more closely.
This particular fuss is about the two-facedness of it all. On camera saying Berlusconi is a great leader but behind his back saying he's feckless, vain and ineffective. That's a great way to treat your allies (/sarcasm)
the US has just brought in laws stopping their citizens for coming here to persue libel actions against US citizens.
Oh the irony.
Where's my car analogy?!
Ah, so it's the WILL, not what you're actually carrying. So why the physical screening? Theatre, I tell you, pure theatre.