jakee

I'd prefer it if you gave a genuine answer on the topic we're discussing, but it's your call.

Y'know, when you're so intent on avoiding the point it's kind of a giant flashing neon sign that you know you're on shaky ground with your argument. We're talking about the justice system. When you were experiencing all this fairness from the people in your life, how many of them were you involved in a civil or criminal dispute with? Right, you're not free of crime. That's what I said. Burping is something you can simply do, right? That's why you used it as an example, right? When someone does something bad to you, or you're accused of doing something bad to another, how do you simply "do" justice? But you've defined a right as literally anything you can do that isn't currently illegal. So... say it's currently legal to smoke in your car with your child inside (Is it? I don't know. Lets say it is). So, that's a right. Is it more important to be allowed to smoke with a child inside your car than be able to have legal representation at a trial?

But the actuality of it doesn't exist. You can desire fairness, but you can't have it unless the government provides it. You can desire to be free from crime against you but you can't... well, you can't ever be free from crime against you, but you can prosecute crimes against you by people bigger, stronger or richer than you if the government provides a way of doing it. Otherwise you're SOL. To use your style, you can't burp an attorney or fart a courtroom. They don't exist unless they are provided. Yeah, the minus of options 1 and 3 (as you well know) is that they won't provide justice. Seems like a biggy. Are privileges as important as rights?

Then what is justice? If the government does not additively give you a justice system, what do you have? Where does your justice exist? (To be clear, do you think it is accurate to say that your specific Miranda rights are not rights, but privileges?)

Ok, so if we go back to my initial question it's as simple as Croc not actually meaning what he said. That's fine. My final point there would be that if there are inalienable rights in practice - rights that the government cannot legislate away - it is because the government has defined what those are. Ok, but you have both. It's not one system or another, it's a mix of both. And on both sides of the divide there are concepts that I would regard as fundamental to the operation of a free society. Then, you'll notice that while you're characterising both types as rights (which I also would), others are characterising only subtractive rights as rights, and additive rights as privileges. Which leaves them, in my opinion, stuck with the conclusion that something as simple as access to a fair judicial system is a privilege and not a right. Basically what I'm saying is there's some lazy philosophy going on.

And the problem with that is? Evangelicals are supposed to be disgusted by sexual impropriety. Roy Moore was very, very credibly accused of vile and disgusting sexual impropriety and no-one with a remotely functional moral compass should have voted for him. Never mind the Dem's going after him for it, his own party should have disavowed him. Now, the other thing that was contained within your story, that they tried to falsely imply he was being supported by Russian bots - that's wrong. However, as stated in your source "There's no evidence of a relationship with Senator Jones or, really, with any Democrats in Alabama that would be found." And to be honest, was anyone actually aware of these misleading Russian accusations during Roy Moore's campaign? All I remember is that he lost (as he should) because he's a violent pedophile. Now, would you like to condemn the misinformation from Republican groups during that campaign? Would you like to condemn the attempts by Project Veritas to undermine the legitimate and accurate reporting of Roy Moore's misdeeds by trying to plant fake stories that they could then expose, in order to damage the credibility of the real victims? Please, tell us how you feel about that tactic?

Giuliani said the most amazing thing in that video. Paraphrasing slightly: "They were talking about the version of events that Michael Cohen gave that they believed was true, I believed was true. I still believe it may be true, because unlike the people that want to believe him, I believe michael Cohen is a serial liar." Wow, um, what? Unlike people that want to believe Michael Cohen, Giuliani believes Michael Cohen. Giuliani believes Michael Cohen told the truth, because Giuliani knows that Michael Cohen lies all the time. Pick the bones out of that one

How is it possible that they've all always existed? The entirety of the criminal justice process is something that is designed and implemented by government. Without the government instituting it, trial by jury doesn't exist - let alone your right to have a lawyer appointed to you for that trial. Under the definitions given above, the 'rights' to have a jury trial, and a lawyer, and all that jazz are not rights at all, they are mere government issued privileges.

Very good. Ironically one of the moves of the current Conservative Chumocracy (excellent word) has been to rewrite the History curriculum to emphasise the success and glory of the British Empire

I'm not looking for a legal definition of inalienable rights. I'm not trying to find out which rights are inalienable. What I'm asking is, when it comes to inalienable rights and what makes them inalienable, whether they are inherent or are given by the government... what's the difference?

Worst stripper name ever.

Great, so that works when your only definition of a right is "something not currently illegal". But I've been really, really clear, several times over, about the fact that I'm replying to the phrase "inalienable rights," ones that cannot be made illegal, and you're not addressing that. (By the way, does the definition you guys are using mean that the majority of the Miranda rights are actually Miranda privileges?)

Your analogy is broken. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are not laws that say you can burp. They are decisions by the government that say they cannot make laws that prevent you from burping. You do see the difference, yes?

How do you know what is an inalienable right? Maybe we're talking about different things. Is your definition of a right strictly limited to "something that is not currently illegal"? If so, is there a difference between it and an inalienable right? If so, the definition above is not what I'm asking about, I'm only asking about inalienable rights.

So again, what's the difference? If it wasn't enumerated by the government it would not be a protected right and the government could restrict it. Then surely at that point they weren't, in practice, rights?

Ok, you understand that suddenly this is a very, very different statement to the one I first replied to, yes? For clarity, I take it that you are now saying there are two seperate types of rights, inherent rights and granted rights? Are any of the specfic rights enumerated in the Constitution inherent, or are they all granted?

Related, but not directly relevant to the statement I'm questioning. When talking about inalienable rights we are discussing ones that are not permitted to be restricted by law, right? Otherwise what's the point of the word? So when talking about whether inalienable rights exist on their own (as Platonic ideals or whatever concept you might use) or are granted by government... what's the actual difference?

In real terms, what's the difference?

I had no idea that Robert Mueller was your favourite child.

Haha, it just keeps happening. I honestly think all new politicians and spokespeople should be made to sit down and watch the Paxman "Did you threaten to overrule him?" interview on a loop for at least an hour. For some reason they all think they're special, that they're smart enough to do this dance of denying without committing to a denial and no-one will notice they haven't actually said anything concrete. In reality of course it's always glaringly obvious, and they always come out of it looking like just another slimy operator.

Well, it's a fear that has a small amount of legitimacy, then overinflated with xenophobia, racism and lies. For instance in a positively Trumpian move, here's Boris Johnson being caught flat out lying about things he didn't just say but actually wrote down in black and white during the referendum. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46926119 (If Rush genuinely dislikes the 'political elite' he should be all over this. An overprivileged Eton toff who was a leading light of austerity politics convincing ordinary people that it's actually the Turk's fault they don't have as much money as they used to. Underneath the affable, buffoonish act old BoJo really is a despicable man, IMO.)

Did Giuliani just redefine "never" as "less than 100 times a year"? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Right, and yet the rhetoric from the PM, any time her process is criticised, is that everyone should support her in doing what the 'British People" have demanded. For reasons I can't fathom, even the opposition leader (of a traditionally Europhile party) has until now ruled out asking for a second referendum. Why? When they voted did "the British People" know that the best possible deal that would result would be so bad it would bring a parliamentary defeat of historic proportions? That's a huge bit of new information that wasn't available when the 1st referendum happened. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And then the question is, what do they want with it when they have it? Bannon and Miller are extreme, but you know what their agenda is. The established GOP, again you know what they want. Ivanka and Jared... apart from leveraging influence to prop up the Kushner real estate clusterfuck what is their actual deal? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Aside from Kushner's unethical motivations, it brings up even more questions about the White House structure, doesn't it? At this point Bannon was White House Chief Strategist and Senior Councelor to the President. At the time (IIRC) supposedly 2nd to the Chief of Staff in the hierarchy. And kushner, a member of the First Family, is giving him orders? Honestly, who the fuck knows which way is up in that building for the past two years? Do you want to have an ideagasm?