Debate Android Raptor about abortion again

  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
AgendaPoster said:
Nope. It's a convenient construction and full human invention that's 100% clearly not working at all and needs rethinking.
There is no organization (would need to be international) to protect humans, nor enforce respecting human rights.
Humans have no rights whatsoever.
What humans should have is a contract they enter with, together with a guaranteeing entity, i.e. a state, where the state grants them some security and protection IF and ONLY IF they are responsible enough and respect their part of the contract.
Just look at Gaza. Zero rights. Look at Africa. Look at dissidents in Russia or China.
Who has power, can enforce it over others and crush their opposition, nearly always with complete disregard to "rights".
We need pragmatic power relationships that are convenient and realistic for both sides, not liberal lies and illusions.
Click to expand...
So you wouldn't say it's a right to not be tortured (in the absence of some greater good, such as torturing a terrorist to obtain necessary info)?
 
SSj_Ness said:
So you wouldn't say it's a right to not be tortured (in the absence of some greater good, such as torturing a terrorist to obtain necessary info)?
Click to expand...
Obviously not, cause there's nobody to protect you from torture.
It's nice to live in a civilized country that does not do that.
And I don't agree with torturing terrorists either, but nobody cares about that, and they'll torture them either way.
Again, look at how the UN/West was able to "protect" the inhabitants of Srebrenica from genocide. They literally couldn't do shit while the massacres carried on.
Same goes for Gaza. No amount of dindu cries and protests are able to oppose nuclear weapons armed, F35 flying Israel bloodthirst.
Power is all that matters in the end, rest is stories that power tells us so we don't get too depressed.
 
AgendaPoster said:
Obviously not, cause there's nobody to protect you from torture.
Click to expand...
A right exists regardless of its violation or respect, whether it is defended or not is irrelevant to the concept. Our Constitution lays these out, but some are God-given rights independent of a state document. Self-defense is a natural human right, for example, is it not?
 
SSj_Ness said:
A right exists regardless of its violation or respect, whether it is defended or not is irrelevant to the concept. Our Constitution lays these out, but some are God-given rights independent of a state document. Self-defense is a natural human right, for example, is it not?
Click to expand...
The Constitution is a man-written document with as much value as Dune.
And I'm not religious.
Self-defense is a natural instinct, that of survival.
Any animal that is to thrive and reproduce must try its best to survive.
 
AgendaPoster said:
The Constitution is a man-written document with as much value as Dune.
And I'm not religious.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the document means something in a functioning society. Not to say it can't be ignored or defied, but that's why the Second Amendment exists, to reinforce it.

You may not be religious but God exists anyway, but you can consider it practically synonymous with a natural right.
 
AgendaPoster said:
The Constitution is a man-written document with as much value as Dune.
And I'm not religious.
Self-defense is a natural instinct, that of survival.
Any animal that is to thrive and reproduce must try its best to survive.
Click to expand...
You can look at it as “god” being listed like “nature” to reference an authority said to issue certain rights.

The actual point of it isn’t to get caught up in a theological debate, but to understand that what is being said that that the authority behind these certain rights is unassailable. No human parliamentary proceeding ought to be able to suspend them. So the workaround by radicals has been to assault the definitions of the rights
 
SpergioLeonne said:
You can look at it as “god” being listed like “nature” to reference an authority said to issue certain rights.

The actual point of it isn’t to get caught up in a theological debate, but to understand that what is being said that that the authority behind these certain rights is unassailable. No human parliamentary proceeding ought to be able to suspend them. So the workaround by radicals has been to assault the definitions of the rights
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I don't agree with that. A state can suspend these rights in cases of emergency. There is no such thing as "unassailable". If you get invaded, your "rights" are forfeit. If a proper pandemic hits, there would be chaos without the state restricting freedoms and rights. Don't forget, I'm a medic. Let's just say that what I saw circa November 2021, I never seen before in a decade of work, and that was a pisspoor pandemic.
God has rules. Nature does not. Nature is about struggle and survival. Religion is about social rules and worship of the divine.
Authority is always derived from power.
BTW, where we can agree (I hope) is that societies need rules and order. Our reasons might be different (mine are increase societal safety, productivity, and technological progress among others). But just as you want human beings to not be too restricted and oppressed, or SSJ doesn't want torture, I'm also on that boat, but just for other reasons. A society that's filled with cruelty and chaos where most humans are oppressed is very unpleasant to live in and highly unstable.
I just want a proper social contract, based on objective reality and large scale negotiations between the two sides, the state and the individual.
Each side must abide by some rules and regulations, and if you are, there should be some privileges. Not divine, but granted to you by the state, to which you would be loyal to. But the state would also have responsibilities, lots of them.
Interesting subject to debate, but not for an abortion thread.
 
Last edited:
AgendaPoster said:
Yeah, but I don't agree with that. A state can suspend these rights in cases of emergency. There is no such thing as "unassailable". If you get invaded, your "rights" are forfeit. If a proper pandemic hits, there would be chaos without the state restricting freedoms and rights. Don't forget, I'm a medic. Let's just say that what I saw circa November 2021, I never seen before in a decade of work, and that was a pisspoor pandemic.
God has rules. Nature does not. Nature is about struggle and survival. Religion is about social rules and worship of the divine.
Authority is always derived from power.
Click to expand...
In the 1780s, the wishes of the founding fathers were that the rights would be unassailable
 
SSj_Ness said:
Second. Amendment.
Click to expand...
It's largely worthless.
The US is enabling a Jewish genocide. Nobody will take arms against the government to stop it.
The US is the main exporter of degeneracy and liberalism.
Not ONE shot has been fired to stop that.
Sorry, SSJ.
 
AgendaPoster said:
It's largely worthless.
The US is enabling a Jewish genocide. Nobody will take arms against the government to stop it.
The US is the main exporter of degeneracy and liberalism.
Not ONE shot has been fired to stop that.
Sorry, SSJ.
Click to expand...
Well it’s not like we have an armed revolt every time we’re pissed off, but it will be more problematic if our government ever goes full Khmer Rouge
 
AgendaPoster said:
The US is enabling a Jewish genocide. Nobody will take arms against the government to stop it.
Click to expand...
Because roughly half of the US supports it:
1708541756518.png
 
SpergioLeonne said:
Well it’s not like we have an armed revolt every time we’re pissed off, but it will be more problematic if our government ever goes full Khmer Rouge
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to go full authoritarian. The population can be easily manipulated without such extreme measures, we live in the age of data and statistics, and those with power knowing which illnesses you suffer from and what food you can afford.
N Space said:
Because roughly half of the US supports it:
Click to expand...
Yeah we know most of the US has been brainwashed by Zionist Christian judeo-christian lunacy.
A genocide it remains, enabled by US weapons and money, and most of the planet sees it.
I wonder what the fuck will quench your bloodthirst?
Screenshot 2024-02-21 210112.png Screenshot 2024-02-21 210120.png
 
AgendaPoster said:
It doesn't need to go full authoritarian. The population can be easily manipulated without such extreme measures, we live in the age of data and statistics, and those with power knowing which illnesses you suffer from and what food you can afford.
Click to expand...
Chalk it up next to divine authority. I’m afraid you may be right and we never WILL actually see the second amendment function as it was intended.

It probably DID slow things down, though, so it was a functional obstacle
 
AgendaPoster said:
It's largely worthless.
The US is enabling a Jewish genocide. Nobody will take arms against the government to stop it.
The US is the main exporter of degeneracy and liberalism.
Not ONE shot has been fired to stop that.
Sorry, SSJ.
Click to expand...
Americans only have themselves to blame, what with having been given the tools and told to use them. Choosing tyranny over freedom through inaction is a right too.
 
SSj_Ness said:
Choosing tyranny over freedom through inaction is a right too.
Click to expand...
My dude, it's this freedom focus that landed us feminism and everything progressive.
Exalting individual freedom is not a right wing value, it was always leftism.
The right should always be about maintaining order, creating said order out of the inherent chaos of our lives, and creating hierarchies that are as meritocratic as possible. But you will end up in a hierarchy, likely below the top, and with "tyrants" over you.
When they get too shitty, you overthrow them and murder them in the public square to make an example.
And the cycle starts anew, you know, blood of patriots, tree of liberty etc.
 
AgendaPoster said:
My dude, it's this freedom focus that landed us feminism and everything progressive.
Click to expand...
Oh, trust me, I agree. Just because certain rights exist doesn't mean they should all be respected. I'm of the mind that a sort of benevolent dictator is best, a philosopher-king in a Christian theocracy would be ideal. We are sheep and we need a good shepherd, lest we choose to walk off a cliff, as we're apt to do.

AnOminous said:
All women should be allowed and encouraged to drag out any weird thing in their uterus and just chuck it in the garbage.
Click to expand...
I agree, anything weird shouldn't be there, only what's natural and they chose to put there, nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom