Passenger killed by air marshall

KingMerv00 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's necessarilly true either, though it depends on what we mean by religious laws. We have explicitely religious laws in Denmark though not many, because our constitution allows it. When religious laws are introduced in the US on the other hand they have to at least pretend that they're ceremonial, moral or whatever. . Still whatever excuses are made the pledge of allegiance, "in God we trust" and such are religious laws. I don't think the fact that Denmark has an official state religion whereas US does not, neccessarilly proves that the US actually has less religious laws.
 
Freakshow said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm just a s lazy as you are.
 
CFLarsen said:
Read what I said: I said "guaranteed".

You would make a heck of a lot more impact, if you didn't have to invent strawmen. Apparently, you do.
Click to expand...

It's not at all a stawman CFL. Let's look back at the context

Ed: Where do yours[rights] come from? Your government?
CFL: Our rights are guaranteed by our constitution, our laws and the international conventions Denmark has signed.

Now either A) you did not answer Ed's question(s) or B) You acknowledged his assertion.
 
CFLarsen said:
Read what I said: I said "guaranteed".

You would make a heck of a lot more impact, if you didn't have to invent strawmen. Apparently, you do.
Click to expand...


They don't invent them Claus, they have them erected for them -- it flows directly from your method of argument.

Ed asked "Where do your rights come from? Your government?"

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

IOW, if your word -- "guaranteed" -- is not meant to show where the rights came from, then you failed to answer the question by changing the terms.

Now that you've drawn a bright line between between "guaranteed" rights and "given" ones, you're showing that you apparently understood all too well the change in terms. So you introduced the shift in your answer and are now spouting accusations against gram - who apparently thought you were actually trying to answer Ed's question, as opposed to setting a verbal trap for anyone who doesn't parse your text closely enough. You piled up all the hay for the strawman and handed it out so you could then jump up and complain about it in the event no one paid attention to your original failure to answer the question.

So before gram goes off on the latest rabbit trail, how about the original question: Where do the rights of Denmark's citizen's come from? And don't bother telling us who guarantees them, because you're just highlighted that guaranteed has nothing to do with where the rights come from.
 
Kerberos said:
Nah, I'm just a s lazy as you are.
Click to expand...
:D

When I posted that, I was running out the door to a meeting. I've got time now to say "Hi!", but not time at the moment to search for it through the murky swamp that is this bloated and derailed thread. But I'll find it for you later when I have more time.
 
Freakshow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Claus is saying that that is not true in Denmark.
 
CFLarsen said:
It means something as a founding document of the United States.
Click to expand...

1. It's not a founding document of the USA. It is a declaration of indepence for the colonies. It had nothing to do with forming government.

2. What do you actually think it means?
 
corplinx said:
You realize this was a slick repackaging of a Clinton era program called Charitable Choice right? Bush polished it up and renamed it to appease the religious voters who supported him.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, it was Bush who passed it. If Clinton made it happen, it would be equally as wrong. I like to keep church and government seperate, no matter who the idiot is trying to merge them.
 
Freakshow said:
I have a creator. Its called science. Billions of years of non-supernatural events have wound up with humans being the way they are. And as I said earlier, it was would up with our having a level of intelligence, sentience, reasoning, and self-awareness not seen in any other animals. And animals with those abilities should be granted certain rights, merely because of our existence. So, the rights and endowed by a creator, in a sense. Nobody "gave" them to me. People can take them away by force. But that doesn't mean they were "given" in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's very convincing. "we have rights because we're intelligent"? I really don't see how that follows.
 
Kerberos said:
I don't think that's very convincing. "we have rights because we're intelligent"? I really don't see how that follows.
Click to expand...
I'm finishing up getting ready to fly out in the morning. I'll be absent from the forum for at least a day or two. Maybe we can take it up again later. But might be too busy for quite a while. We'll just have to see how the holiday visit goes, and see how much time I can get to do any forum stuff. :)
 
NoZed Avenger said:
So before gram goes off on the latest rabbit trail, how about the original question: Where do the rights of Denmark's citizen's come from? And don't bother telling us who guarantees them, because you're just highlighted that guaranteed has nothing to do with where the rights come from.
Click to expand...

Rights are a social construct. We make our rights. We, the people. We elect politicians who make the laws we want.

E.g.: Women didn't have the right to vote. Now, they have the right to vote. We decided that it should be their right.

Another example: Convention on the Rights of the Child
 
Last edited:
Kerberos said:
I don't think that's very convincing. "we have rights because we're intelligent"? I really don't see how that follows.
Click to expand...

I don't, either.

Just how intelligent does something have to be, before it has rights?
 
CFLarsen said:
Rights are a social construct. We make our rights. We, the people. We elect politicians who make the laws we want.

E.g.: Women didn't have the right to vote. Now, they have the right to vote. We decided that it should be their right.

Another example: Convention on the Rights of the Child
Click to expand...

If that is true then "you" want to live in a country with a state-regulated church to which all the citizens belong to and monarchy that runs it.

Interesting.
 
Grammatron said:
If that is true then "you" want to live in a country with a state-regulated church to which all the citizens belong to and monarchy that runs it.
Click to expand...
Not all Danes are members of the church, I'm for exampel not, and the monarchy doesn't run anything at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom