Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

They are independent of government.

Where do yours come from? Your government?

Our rights are guaranteed by our constitution, our laws and the international conventions Denmark has signed.

 

[KingMerv00]

The audience here does not solely consist of English-speaking people.

When you present a grievance, you are obliged to present it in a truthful manner. No?

Everyone who posts here has at least a simple understanding of English. It is the language of the website. Why wouldn't you post it in English?

What is the lemon test?

Capital "L". Named for a person.

Lemon Test

 

[KingMerv00]

(cough)

Am I wrong? If I am then I am sorry for my ignorance.

 

[CFLarsen]

Everyone who posts here has at least a simple understanding of English. It is the language of the website. Why wouldn't you post it in English?

It wasn't in English. I didn't see anyone interested in reading it in English. You did, so you got it.

When you present a grievance, you are obliged to present it in a truthful manner. No?

Capital "L". Named for a person.

Lemon Test

Thank you. This is entirely irrelevant to Denmark.

 

[Jocko]

When you present a grievance, you are obliged to present it in a truthful manner. No?

How about presenting it in a language that both parties understand? I would include that under your rather farcical use of the term "truthful."

 

[Freakshow]

Everyone who posts here has at least a simple understanding of English. It is the language of the website. Why wouldn't you post it in English?



Capital "L". Named for a person.

Lemon Test

You gotta be s**ting me... Has he actually been reduced to posting things in languages other than English, then declaring "VICTORY!"?


I knew there was some reason I put him on ignore, and decided to never take him off of it.

So...how 'bout them airmarshalls? Anyone ever find out what the "real" story was? Anybody care anymore?

 

[Jocko]

You gotta be s**ting me... Has he actually been reduced to posting things in languages other than English, then declaring "VICTORY!"?

Yes he did. Then he tried to assert intellectual superiority on the grounds that he knows several scandinavian languages, as if anyone outside of those ice-encased, fish-stinking hellholes could give a rat's ass.

So...how 'bout them airmarshalls? Anyone ever find out what the "real" story was? Anybody care anymore?

Apparently the man on the jetway was killed not by a bullet, but by a capital letter "C" in a nonbinding document drafted 250 years ago, presumably with the expressed intention of confusing uppity Dane b!tches.

 

[Freakshow]

Apparently the man on the jetway was killed not by a bullet, but by a capital letter "C" in a nonbinding document drafted 250 years ago, presumably with the expressed intention of confusing uppity Dane b!tches.

And I have a sealed envelope held in escrow by an attorney, inside which is enclosed my prediction of just that. Wanna see it?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ah, well....

 

[Grammatron]

Our rights are guaranteed by our constitution, our laws and the international conventions Denmark has signed.

So you're saying with out your government you are right-less?

 

[KingMerv00]

It wasn't in English. I didn't see anyone interested in reading it in English. You did, so you got it.

You didn't think that grammatron wanted a translation?

When you present a grievance, you are obliged to present it in a truthful manner. No?

Certainly. Did I fail to do so? Where?

Thank you. This is entirely irrelevant to Denmark.

I know. My point was that the laws of Denmark are more theocratic than America's.

 

[Kerberos]

But that's not the point; for all we know it might be true that there is no (metaphysical) thing such as human rights at all.

The point of the appeal to the "creator" or the the fact that men are "born" with certain rights is not so much to establish a metaphysical claim, but to put the government on notice that, whatever the source of human rights is (if any), it is not the government. They could have appealed, as the originator of human rights, instead of the creator, to human nature, or mother earth, or Yog-Shoggoth, for all the difference it makes in that respect.

I cannot prove to you that, metaphysically speaking, anybody really has a right to anything, even to life itself. But that hardly means that anyobdy--including the government--has the right to claim that, since it is impossible for you to prove you have a metaphysical right to life, then such a right is really given (as opposed to protected, or cared for) by the government, any more than I can claim that in reality, since you cannot prove you have a right to life, you really only live because I, Skeptic, allow you to. That is simply a non-sequitor.

You might ask, "Well, what difference does it make if the government gives you the right to life or not, when it is the one which protects it in practice?". But ask yourself if you are willing to have the bank formally own the money in your savings account, as long as it promises to let you use it, and you'll see the difference between "giving" and "protecting".

First, I would say that even if the banks were 100% honest and really did let you use the money they now "own" in exactly the same way you do now, when you own it, there are important metaphysical and psychological differences between thinking yourself the owner of your money and thinking yourself the charge of the banks, given money from them as a child would get pocket money; similarly there is a deep difference between being, metaphysically, the government's masters, when it protects rights we have, or the government's children, to be taken care after by being given certain rights. Metaphysics matters: the former position is worthy of men, the latter only of children.

But even without this, the difference in practice is that, among other things, it limits the power of the government. If the government is the giver of the rights, it has the power to take them away as well. There is no basis then for opposing a tyrannical government, at least as long as it treats you comfortably: for since you don't actually have any rights to begin with, you cannot claim you were wronged.

If freedom of speech, right to propety, etc. are given by the government, then they are at mot priviledges, not rights; one might be disappointed at losing them, as one might be disappointed of having one's welfare payments stopped, but one had no real grounds for a grievance. If, on the other hand, the rights our yours to begin with, only given to the govenrment to protect--which is precisely what the declaration of independence says--then if the government stops protecting them, then you have the right to fight against it. It may not do as it pleases with them.

Sorry for not answering before, but I forgot about it. All your argument seems centered on it being usefull to pretend that rights exist, not that they actually do. It's like arguing that god exists because otherwise we have no basis for moral behaviour - even if it is true it doesn't prove that god/rights exists.

 

[KingMerv00]

CF,

This has been a long thread so maybe I missed something. Weren't you arguing that Denmark is not a theocracy?

1) The government employs religious leaders for religious purposes.

2) Those religious leaders can act as government officals.

3) Baptism plays a part in taxation.

4) Official government documents allow for tax money to go directly to a specific religion.

 

[Kerberos]

So you're saying with out your government you are right-less?

I supose rights can exist in a community without a governement too, but I do not see how "rights" can exist in any meaningfull way without a community and preferably a governement of some sort as well.

 

[Kerberos]

CF,

This has been a long thread so maybe I missed something. Weren't you arguing that Denmark is not a theocracy?

1) The government employs religious leaders for religious purposes.

2) Those religious leaders can act as government officals.

3) Baptism plays a part in taxation.

4) Official government documents allow for tax money to go directly to a specific religion.

So what? A thocracy is "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority." not "A religion ruled by or subject to governement authority.". I support seperation of church and state, but anybody who thinks Denmark is a thecracy needs a reality check.

 

[Freakshow]

I supose rights can exist in a community without a governement too, but I do not see how "rights" can exist in any meaningfull way without a community and preferably a governement of some sort as well.

Governments don't grant rights. They recognize rights. Sort of like how a mathematician doesn't make 2+2=4. He just recognizes and documents that 2+2=4. 2+2=4 regardless of whether or not some official body comes along and recognizes that fact.

 

[Grammatron]

I supose rights can exist in a community without a governement too, but I do not see how "rights" can exist in any meaningfull way without a community and preferably a governement of some sort as well.

While I understand what you are saying, the implication here is that you don't have a right to say anything until the government grants it to you; you don't have a right to practice your religion until the government grants it to you, etc.

My view on this is you have all those right until the government takes it away for you. This is how I understand the system in USA to work. And despite all of CFL's attempts I don't see how one can come to conclusion that these rights are granted by God, god, supernatural being, or Sponge Bob.

 

[KingMerv00]

So what? A thocracy is "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority." not "A religion ruled by or subject to governement authority.". I support seperation of church and state, but anybody who thinks Denmark is a thecracy needs a reality check.

You are right, it is a stretch but CF has been claiming that the US is theocratic because of the DOI, Constitution, and some of Bush's policies. I was just comparing the US to Denmark. Perhaps I should have said that the Danes are more subject to religious laws than America.

 

[Kerberos]

Governments don't grant rights. They recognize rights. Sort of like how a mathematician doesn't make 2+2=4. He just recognizes and documents that 2+2=4. 2+2=4 regardless of whether or not some official body comes along and recognizes that fact.

that's not an argument that's just a claim. Could you define what you mean by a "right" BTW. I think that is really essential for a discussion of where they come from. By any defintion I can think rights are a funktion of either socierty or governement.

 

[Freakshow]

that's not an argument that's just a claim. Could you define what you mean by a "right" BTW. I think that is really essential for a discussion of where they come from. By any defintion I can think rights are a funktion of either socierty or governement.

Search this thread for posts by me. I have an explanation in there somewhere of why I think we are deserving of certain rights. This thread is too long and derailed for me to bother goign through and finding it.