Have these Christian and Conservative apologists who base their arguments on Nineteen-Eighty-Four even read the damn book?! Somehow I seriously doubt it. half the time they're ten times as Orwellian as the people they call Orwellian, smugly smirking like they know what it means...
__________________ "I would still reply, that the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence, than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature."
-David Hume
Rights come with personal and social responsibilites.
Not inherently. As Polycarp pointed out, a baby has rights but no responsibilities.
If I commit a terrible evil should the government commit a terrible evil against me? Does my right not to be tortured, for example, depend on my not torturing others? Cruel and unusual punishment...
Rights are rights, and they are inalienable, regardless of whether someone lives up to their responsibilities.
__________________
WE ARE THE 99%. SOLIDARITY!
"They don't want to see us unite, all they want us to do is keep on fussing and fighting."--Bob Marley, Top Rankin'
"The root of socialism is democracy, and only a society that is truly democratic could also become truly socialist."--Tony Benn
Just makes me think of Billy Bragg's song Greetings to the New Brunette, specifically the line "How can you lie back and think of England when you don't even know who's in the team."
Ah, nostalgia...
__________________ David Brider
"...God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
Trying to follow Christ daily.
With heads uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall;
Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn.
So raise the scarlet standard high.
Beneath its folds we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
Someone told me gay marriage is one of the ways the government is bending societal norms by messing with basic language. Sort of like how the military is said to 'pacify' and area by killing everyone in it. Calling marriage between men the same as between a man and a woman changes the meaning of marriage.
Well, firstly, it's not "gay marriage", it's "same-gender marriage" - two people in a same-gender marriage aren't necessarily gay (one or both of them could be bisexual, same as one or both people in an opposite-gender marriage could be bisexual).
Secondly, it's not just marriage between men - don't forget marriages between women.
Thirdly, it only changes the meaning of marriage if you see the gender of the two people involved as being vital to the meaning of marriage. Personally, I just see marriage as two adults who are in love with each other choosing to make a commitment to spend the rest of their natural lives together, and choosing to formalise that commitment in a ceremony (possibly religious, possibly not) in front of their families, friends, and any God(s) in whom they may happen to believe. There's nothing about that to rule out marriage taking place between two people of the same gender.
David.
__________________ David Brider
"...God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
Trying to follow Christ daily.
With heads uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall;
Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn.
So raise the scarlet standard high.
Beneath its folds we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
Quite right (though of course this begs the question of civil law -- a human judge can hardly hale God into court to address the child's needs). And I'm pleased to see we agree on the innocence of infancy, none of this "total depravity" nonsense.
But my point was that that baby has rights -- the right to life, the right to care from an adult, etc., And those rights are in no way contingent on the baby's responsibilities toward anyone else.
In the fullness of time, yes, the baby has the responsibility to be an obedient child, to take on responsibilities as it grows, to fulfill its responsibilities as a decent adult. But as a baby, no responsibilities -- but as a person it does have rights.
But the judge can certainly open the Bible he makes people swear by. I believe a baby is born morally deficient and is unable to know the difference between right and wrong. All it knows concerns it's own needs (bottle, changing, sleep, attention). Since it cannot reject CHRIST, it cannot be held accountable. Once a person comes to making choices, then that is when that person comes to be held responsible.
The parents are responsible for the child's welfare. And good parents will teach the child responsibility by their own actions far better than by their mere words...
Not inherently. As Polycarp pointed out, a baby has rights but no responsibilities.
If I commit a terrible evil should the government commit a terrible evil against me? Does my right not to be tortured, for example, depend on my not torturing others? Cruel and unusual punishment...
Rights are rights, and they are inalienable, regardless of whether someone lives up to their responsibilities.
There comes a point when a person has harmed others that he needs to suffer so as to understand how his victim's felt. If a child bites others again and again. He has been put in "time-out" chairs. He has gone to bed without supper, etc., etc., etc., and in perhaps one case he continues to bite.
But then the day comes when the another child bites back. Then and only then does that child knows exactly how it feels and afterwards thinks twice before he bites another --- the pain inflicted no longer goes in only one direction...
Inalienable rights only exist if there is a GOD who established them, or they are only what society selects and as society chooses them to exist.
Inalienable rights only exist if there is a GOD who established them, or they are only what society selects and as society chooses them to exist.
It's a philosophical idea that they are inalienable rights that cannot be taken away as they were established by a creator, yet history tells us that society is what establishes the rights and protects them.
Have these Christian and Conservative apologists who base their arguments on Nineteen-Eighty-Four even read the damn book?! Somehow I seriously doubt it. half the time they're ten times as Orwellian as the people they call Orwellian, smugly smirking like they know what it means...
I'm Conservative, Polycarp1 is Christian. I know I've read 1984. If Poly comments on 1984 in a way that looks like he read it, I'd bet he has.
Of course neither of us has said anythign about 1984 that is backwards.
Someone told me gay marriage is one of the ways the government is bending societal norms by messing with basic language. Sort of like how the military is said to 'pacify' and area by killing everyone in it. Calling marriage between men the same as between a man and a woman changes the meaning of marriage.
OP made me lol.
__________________
Tormented by visions of flight and falling
More wondrous and terrible each than last
Master Leonardo imagines an engine to carry a man up into the sun
As he dreams the heavens call him
Softly whispering their siren song "Leonardo, volare!"
Leonardo steels himself...
Takes one last breath...
and... LEAPS!
Linear Mode
