DanG
-
Content
6,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by DanG
-
Of course the Constitution was written by men. It would be hard for God to write it, since he doesn't exist. The rights that people have they derive from being people. Not because some benevolent government grants them rights. You can make the semantic argument about rights all you want. If you believe that the only rights people have are those granted them by their government, then you'd be correct. But since you are wrong on that very basic point, your whole argument is flawed. - Dan G
-
The USA certainly isn't perfect, but our Preamble is pretty good. I don't think we're ahead of the game in practice, but I think we have the potential to be if we truly embraced some of the ideas expressed in our founding documents (with corrections). - Dan G
-
You're refusing to make the distiction between "the rights a person can currently exercise" and "the rights a person inherently has." Yes, you are absolutely correct. In practice, it doesn't really matter. I cede that point. The point I won't cede is that inherent rights are granted by the group of people currently in charge. If we take that view, then we have no basis for challenging ISIS. They can say non-Muslims don't have the right to live, and we have to agree with them. I'm arguing that peple don't lose their inherent rights just because a government limits those rights. But again, in practice to the man on the street, it usually doesn't matter. In the broader context of human societies, it matters quite a bit. - Dan G
-
My original statement was to gowlerk. The jibe about the Queen was just a jibe. It was intended to be funny. My thoughts on the derivation of rights is, however, serious and important. I realize there is a disconnect between the rights I have, and the rights that may be currently recognized by the government. The UN has a Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Just because many governments don't recognize those rights, it doesn't mean that people don't have them by dint of being human. And, to turtle and rush: no, human rights are not the same as animal rights. It can directly limit people's rights, and has been used to do so in the past. You are correct. That doesn't change the fact that any rights not expressly limited by the Constitution still belong to the people. - Dan G
-
It can be a factor among others. As people have repeatedly said, animals do not have the same rights as people. By pointing out that animals have different rights, you aren't contradicting anything anyone else has said. Why is this piece of the argument so difficult for you to understand? - Dan G
-
I know it doesn't work like that. I was commenting on gowlerk's idea that rights are granted to people by other people. That's not true. Rights are recognized by other people, but not granted. If I'm captured by terrorists, I still have all the same rights as I did the moment before I was captured. They may not recognize those rights, but I still have them. It really depends on what they change. If they passed a constitutionl amendment that said left handed people no longer had the right to free speech, I guess the courts would side with the new Constitution. Such an Amendment would be different from the rest of the document. Our Constitution does not limit people's rights, it enumerates certain rights that are expressly protected. The only Amendment I can think of that limited people's rights was Phohibition, which was eventually removed. - Dan G
-
Well, yes and no. If the philoshy underlying a country is that the Queen decides who has what rights, you really don't have any legal recourse if she decides left handed people no longer have any rights. You could go to court over it, but the courts would have to side with the Queen. In the US system, you can go to court and convince the judges that left handed people have the same rights as everyone else, and they should side with you. Of course, there have been many instances in the US where people's rights were denied in practice, but eventually courts tend to recognize rights, regardless of who is in charge at the moment. - Dan G
-
Criminal laws are an enumeration of the consequences for violating someone else's rights. Rights exists whether there are laws protecting them or not. At least that is the basic judicial philosophy laid out in the Constitution. - Dan G
-
Maybe in Canada you believe your rights were given to you by the Queen. In America we believe that our rights were given to us by our Creator, and are inalienable. The Constitution does not grant us rights, it limits the rights that we have ceded to the government. Unforrtunately, many supposedly patriotic Americans don't understand that. - Dan G
-
So, you think if one member of a Kingdom (animal, plant, etc.) get a certain right, then all animals must have that same right? Does that apply to peoplee, too? If one human being has a certain right, then all human beings must have that right, too? Well, yes, you did. If you'd like to change your answer now, it would not be unexpected. So, should animals be protected from torture? - Dan G
-
So, you've admitted that animals have, and should have, legal protections. Must they all have the same protections? Aren't you a hypocrite for thinking horses have different protections than mice? - Dan G
-
We did that in the Army all the time, but you needed a blank adapter in the end of your muzzle. If a live round were chamberd, the results would not be pretty, but it was unlikely the shapnel would travel too far. Also, the range safeties were hella anal about live ammo. If you got caught with a single live round, your career was fucked. - Dan G
-
I'll ask you the same question I asked turtle (not that I expect either of you to answer it). Why do you believe all animal protections have to be the same for every species? Do you understand that there are millions of different animal species on the planet? They do not all need to same protections. Also, you know that human beings are animals, right? If we have a different set of protections for our species, why can't we have different protections for other species, too? - Dan G
-
You are hung on on the semantics. Fine. If you don't want to call them rights, I don't really give a shit. Call them animal cumquats for all I care. As long as you recognize that animals are, and should be, protected from cruelty and inhumane treatment, then call that protection whatever you want. - Dan G
-
Why do all animals have to be classified the same? Humans are animals. Are you arguing that human have no rights because mice have no rights? - Dan G
-
Animals eating other animals is part of nature. I don't understand why people keep snakes as pets, but it shouldn't be illegal. As I 've said before, animals don't have the same rights as people. They both have the right to be treated humanely. - Dan G
-
It's 3pm where rush is. If he started drinking early, good for him. It's Friday. - Dan G
-
The sky is green. - Dan G
-
Finally. I'm very glad that the rest of the country ddisagrees with you. Unfortunately, in many places cops, judges, and prosecutors think like you do, and won't bother charging an animal abuser. Um, yeah. Society takes care of these things by passing laws against it. That's what laws are for. That's sick. Revenge is not justice. Yeah, it kind of does. Nope. No one has said that animals have the same rights as people. They have the right to be treated humanely. Euthanasia can be the most humane thing. In fact, some states are starting to recognize that people have the right to be relieved from pain just like animals do. - Dan G
-
I don't think he's trolling. I think believes that animals should have no legal protections, and people should be legally allowed to do anything they want to them. I suspect he'll never come out and say that because he realizes how bad it sounds. I also suspect he's worried about the slippery slope, where if he admits that kitten torture should be illegal, Obama's going to make everyone be vegans. - Dan G
-
Typical. I'm not asking if you want to torture kittens or fight dogs. I'm asking if you think it should be legal. It is a simple yes or no question. - Dan G
-
How about you answer my questions first? You always bitch that kallend won't answer a direct question. How about it? - Dan G
-
Here. I don't lie, it would be unethical. - Dan G
-
So, legally you think people should be allowed to buy a kitten at a pet store and torture it to death? How about dog fighting? Should that be illegal? - Dan G
-
Yeah, I did know that. Due to massive overpopulation because of dumb asses who don't fix their pets there isn't a way to care for milllions of dogs and cats in the US. Putting them to sleep is a more ethical action than confining them to a cage for the rest of their lives. BTW, the People Eating Tasty Animals is about the stupidest, and most often repeated, dumb joke out there. - Dan G