Iowa FTW

[RageBeoulve]

This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.

LOL^  You'd make a good American president.

[odeon]

Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.

Another logical fallacy.

No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.

It's funny how you are constantly contradicting yourself. "Rights" and "universal rights" are two different things. "No rights" is a third, btw, and immediately crashes your little binary theory.

This is just semantics. We can call it just "rights". They either exist or they don't, just like a house, a planet, an apple or anything.

I realise the semantics tend to get in the way of your little argument, but these are important distinctions. Again, I know structuralism will favour a binary POV but I'd love to see you prove that a) rights exist and b) they are always universal.

[TheoK]

I don't believe in universal rights. I don't believe that universal rights are the same as rights, sans the universal part. I don't believe that the universe magically grants us *any* rights.

There can't be any rights but universal rights. You can't create them. A right that isn't a universal right is no right, because a right is either immanent or doesn't exist.

If you acknowledge that rights and legislations are two different things, why do you post things like

OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.

You can't create rights by legislation, that is correct. That is what I'm telling you.

[odeon]

This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.

I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?

And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).

Actually I'm winning the argument by arguing. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth.

Hint: it isn't working.

[odeon]

This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.

LOL^  You'd make a good American president.

Careful. You are letting your obsessions take over.

[TheoK]

Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.

Another logical fallacy.

No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.

It's funny how you are constantly contradicting yourself. "Rights" and "universal rights" are two different things. "No rights" is a third, btw, and immediately crashes your little binary theory.

This is just semantics. We can call it just "rights". They either exist or they don't, just like a house, a planet, an apple or anything.

I realise the semantics tend to get in the way of your little argument, but these are important distinctions. Again, I know structuralism will favour a binary POV but I'd love to see you prove that a) rights exist and b) they are always universal.

I can't prove it but I don't have to either. It must simply be postulated.

The really absurd thing is that you are denying the existence of universal rights and at the same demanding (some of) them (although you don't understand that they must be universal but think that they can be created somehow, which they can't).

[RageBeoulve]

This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.

I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?

And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).

Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)

Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.

Fixed.

[odeon]

There can't be any rights but universal rights. You can't create them. A right that isn't a universal right is no right, because a right is either immanent or doesn't exist.

This is simply postulating something I disagree with. I can see that it is useful to you because without it, everything you say simply falls apart, but I have yet to see you attempt to prove it.

Good luck with that, btw. I won't hold my breath.

[odeon]

The really absurd thing is that you are denying the existence of universal rights and at the same demanding (some of) them (although you don't understand that they must be universal but think that they can be created somehow, which they can't).

Huh? wanna rephrase that?

[RageBeoulve]

This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.

LOL^  You'd make a good American president.

Careful. You are letting your obsessions take over.

Yeah, when someone brings up something that fits but makes me uncomfortable, I also call them obsessed. All the time.

[odeon]

This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.

I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?

And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).

Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)

Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.

Fixed.

It bothers you that you can't find an actual argument to combat mine with, doesn't it?

[odeon]

I can't prove it but I don't have to either. It must simply be postulated.

Almost forgot this little gem. It's fucking hilarious.

[RageBeoulve]

This is fun but also a bit boring because it doesn't actually go anywhere. It's a bit like stealing candy from a baby because it's so bloody easy but nevertheless leaves you feeling a bit guilty.

I don't see the fun at all. How can it be a triumph that you are unable to defend yourself from both "ordinary" criminals as well as the state?

And you are not winning any debate either. You do as you always do when it comes to something that you are obsessed with: claiming that you are right and your opponents are wrong (for some reason you can never prove this but must always belittle your opponents by twisting words, inserting smilies etc).

Actually I'm winning the argument by stating things that occur to me as fact. Your method seems to be to put words in my mouth. (by which I mean disagreeing with me.)

Hint: I'm getting cranky. I'm on my period.

Fixed.

It bothers you that you can't find an actual argument to combat mine with, doesn't it?

I just did. you want to take the catty approach? I know how to do that, too. 

[odeon]

Yeah, when someone brings up something that fits but makes me uncomfortable, I also call them obsessed. All the time.

I already know you are uncomfortable. It shows.

[TheoK]

There can't be any rights but universal rights. You can't create them. A right that isn't a universal right is no right, because a right is either immanent or doesn't exist.

This is simply postulating something I disagree with. I can see that it is useful to you because without it, everything you say simply falls apart, but I have yet to see you attempt to prove it.

Good luck with that, btw. I won't hold my breath.

It's amazing that you with your brilliant brain must always resort to belittling and insulting.

Tell me how you create a right. By legislating and making the cops and courts implement the law in question? But that isn't creating a right.