Five minutes of hate news

SoliFortissimi said:
That's just a leftist propaganda point. Rights are only derived from the will of the sovereign, which in a democracy means the people. In other words, if the people vote for taxes? Then you will pay taxes.

There's no such thing as a natural right.
Click to expand...
Dude...what you just said...that's a completely totalitarian Left thing. It ain't Right at all...in both senses of the word.
 
The Whispering Monk said:
Dude...what you just said...that's a completely totalitarian Left thing. It ain't Right at all...in both senses of the word.
Click to expand...
The left wing thing is to deny reality.

If rights were part of nature, we could scientifically measure them.
Where is your "right to bear arms gene"?

If rights were part of nature, we wouldn't have so much arguments on what is or isn't a right... (wait, crazy people today are arguing on what is and isn't a woman so maybe that is a bad example.)

Anyways. While I agree that rights are not a fundamental aspect of reality.
They are also not arbitrary.
They arise from human nature.
They interact with human nature.
Each supposed right can be analyzes for its historical effects on society.
 
mrttao said:
The left wing thing is to deny reality.

If rights were part of nature, we could scientifically measure them.
Where is your "right to bear arms gene"?

If rights were part of nature, we wouldn't have so much arguments on what is or isn't a right... (wait, crazy people today are arguing on what is and isn't a woman so maybe that is a bad example.)

Anyways. While I agree that rights are not a fundamental aspect of reality.
They are also not arbitrary.
They arise from human nature.
They interact with human nature.
Each supposed right can be analyzes for its historical effects on society.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue the religious nature or rights here. That's why I understand them as Natural Rights.
Government is a social contract that overrides base natural setup.
That contract is 'signed' by every member of the group.
Gun Rights are the individual citizens power of execution if those individual rights are usurped.
This function is exactly the same as if there was no government.
The individual must protect itself from those that would take from it that which it has: life, liberty and property.
 
The Right to Bear Arms is worded that way due to the times. But what it is, is the right to defend onesself.

Almost every living thing does that. So, that arises from reality. It measurable and scientific. It gets 'grander' and more complex to match the society we've built. But that's most natural rights.

Right to assembly, social animals do that too. Arises from reality.

Right to not self incriminate is the right to self censure, to not make noise when you don't want to.

Right to a speedy trial is the right to not be contained against your will, paired with living in a complex society.

Right to not have soldiers quartered in your home. We see this all the time in nature, animals have territory that they exclude certain groups from.

Somethings are absolutely derived from society. Freedom of religion. But even that has it's core in the animal, base, natural right of being able to believe what you want to believe.

Laws restrict us, more than anything else. Provide frameworks to work within.

In essence we give up certain freedoms and natural rights, like the ability to freely murder and rape each other, in exchange for security, usually from the things we are restricted from doing. *insert pithy quote from Ben Franklin here* Law simply codifies on paper the social agreement.

And even working from 'Laws give us rights' the hard part is knowing when there's too much law, or too little law.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Uhhh, who exactly voted for taxes though?
Click to expand...
Everyone who ever voted for some government scheme.

Abhorsen said:
literally gave a justification for why it's theft
Click to expand...
And I disregarded it because your explanation was 18th century wishful thinking that directly led to the modern Leftist brainrot about how everything is a human right. The idea that we are all bestowed with natural rights has no real religious backing, and especially not for the idea that we shouldn't pay taxes.

The opposite, if anything. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

The Whispering Monk said:
Dude...what you just said...that's a completely totalitarian Left thing. It ain't Right at all...in both senses of the word.
Click to expand...
It's not ideology, it's simple statement of fact. We have no natural rights, only the rights the sovereign affords us. In this case, that sovereign is The People.
 
SoliFortissimi said:
And I disregarded it because your explanation was 18th century wishful thinking that directly led to the modern Leftist brainrot about how everything is a human right. The idea that we are all bestowed with natural rights has no real religious backing, and especially not for the idea that we shouldn't pay taxes.

The opposite, if anything. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Click to expand...
You again, don't seem to understand basic moral logic. Equating morality with legality also justifies the holocaust, the cultural revolution, etc. because those were also legal. If you honestly believe legality is morality, you have no morality. This is very much not what Jesus said. But I don't think you actually believe this, you aren't that stupid (I hope). You just made a stupid statement, and are now going to 'defend' (read: ignore every statement that points out how moronic this is) that statement regardless of it's logical implications.

There are many arguments you could have used here about me saying taxation is theft. @The Whispering Monk used a good one with his argument about a social contract, and we could actually argue about that. But you chose perhaps the stupidest one, then refused to oppose my point because you knew how idiotic it would make you look.
 
SoliFortissimi said:
Everyone who ever voted for some government scheme.


And I disregarded it because your explanation was 18th century wishful thinking that directly led to the modern Leftist brainrot about how everything is a human right. The idea that we are all bestowed with natural rights has no real religious backing, and especially not for the idea that we shouldn't pay taxes.

The opposite, if anything. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.


It's not ideology, it's simple statement of fact. We have no natural rights, only the rights the sovereign affords us. In this case, that sovereign is The People.
Click to expand...

So, you reject the Constitution, the principles of the American founders, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers.

Of curiosity, where are you from?
 
SoliFortissimi said:
No, they're taxes. It isn't theft because the government is legally free to take as much of your money as the public allows it to.

And this is the same government that gives you property rights in the first place, without which you're prey to whatever thug can pull together a gang and rob your house at will. So don't even imagine that you can do without them.
Click to expand...
So you don’t believe in natural rights? I don’t either but it’s surprising to see you say it. Forgive me but I thought you were a neoliberal.

SoliFortissimi said:
Calling it theft doesn't make it theft, mate. Words don't change reality.


That's just a leftist propaganda point. Rights are only derived from the will of the sovereign, which in a democracy means the people. In other words, if the people vote for taxes? Then you will pay taxes.

There's no such thing as a natural right.
Click to expand...
I notice you did not respond to his Nazi comparison. Did the Nazis murder people while they were the legal government?
 
Transgender Your Businesses, Nonprofits, And Schools, Or No Federal Grants For You

1ft.io

Trans Businesses, Nonprofits, And Schools, Or No Federal Grants

The Biden administration is poised to force every recipient of federal grants into transgender policies like cross-dressing at work.
1ft.io 1ft.io
The Biden administration is poised to force every recipient of federal grants into transgender policies.

On the heels of linking parent support for children's innate sex with child abuse, the Biden administration is poised to force every recipient of federal grants into transgender policies. The proposed rules would expand all federal laws that ban Americans from respecting the differences between men and women to include homosexual and transsexual privileges, or "sexual orientation and gender identity" preferences. More than 100 such laws exist.

The proposed rules would also delete existing language requiring all federal grants to adhere to the Constitution in "protecting free speech, religious liberty, public welfare, the environment, and prohibiting discrimination," according to the Center for Political Justice (CPJ). If such rules pass, they would license government discrimination against religious Americans, which is unconstitutional.

Federal contracts and grants employ more people than the federal government does directly. In 2022, federal grants were worth $700 billion, nearly what American taxpayers spend on the U.S. military.

This "sweeping overhaul" of Office of Management and Budget rules would "apply across federal agencies that describe how grants and cooperative agreements should be administered and audited," CPJ says. In other words, these rules apply to every one of the hundreds of federal agencies.

This rules change is one of dozens the Biden administration has been making to apply the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court decision to every aspect of federal power. That 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom queer activists targeted as the likely swing vote, inserted "sexual orientation and gender identity" privileges into the word "sex" in a law banning "sex discrimination" in employment.

In that decision, the court overrode 60 years of precedents in 30 of 30 courts where such cases were tried to fatuously pretend that Congress in the 1960s meant to include queer entitlements in laws that resulted in female entitlements — years before the word "transgender" was coined and in a time when homosexuals could not get security clearances and were still being separated from the military due to their sexual attraction to fellow soldiers.


Even LGBT activists spent decades between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 2020's Bostock demanding a queer carve-out in federal "antidiscrimination law." That means not even queer activists believed the Civil Rights Act protected homosexual, transsexual, or any other queer identity — until it was expedient to lie about that because the Supreme Court would sanction it.

"The entire Federal Judiciary will be mired for years in disputes about the reach of the Court's reasoning," Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote in their Bostock dissent. They were right.

This federal grants regulation that would void Americans' First Amendment rights will be one of the dozens immediately sued in federal court as a direct result of the Biden administration's Bostock-citing queerings of federal law. Courts could instead be hearing other cases that actually uphold Americans' rights had the Supreme Court not violated the Constitution by legislating from the bench in Bostock.

CPJ notes that public comment on this regulation is open until Dec. 4, "and can be submitted easily via www.regulations.gov (type OMB-2023-0017-0001 into the search box to find this NPRM)."

LGBT extremists' goal is to use every lever of federal power to force Americans to do and say what LGBT activists want. That is un-American and totalitarian: It assumes the right to tell people that they may not act as if they believe anything other than what government officials tell them.

That's why there should be no "antidiscrimination" laws: It's none of any government's d-mned business whom Americans choose to hire or fire or admit into clubs, or any other exercise of free association. That's what freedom means.

People who want to be free have to accept that sometimes it results in speech and actions we don't like but are perfectly within every human's natural rights. Either everyone gets these freedoms, or we edge toward a totalitarian system in which government asserts the right to tell you what you must say, who you have to let into places women and children undress, and who you must be friends and neighbors with.

Americans aren't racists anymore. It's been 60 years since the Civil Rights Act. We should get our freedom of association back now before its erasure destroys the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution — our remaining bulwarks for preserving a free people.
Click to expand...
 
DarthOne said:
Transgender Your Businesses, Nonprofits, And Schools, Or No Federal Grants For You
Click to expand...
Well, that's a bad summary of Bostock in bad legal take after bad legal take, including whining about how old precedent was (a classic sign the person doesn't have a good argument). Bostock, whether you like the results or not, was the legally correct decision.

Effectively, what Bostock found was that banning discrimination based on sex entails banning discrimination based on sexuality/gender expression (though interestingly, not against bi or non-binary people).

Basically, say you don't hire a man because he's gay. A person called Alex applies for a job. Alex is married to a man named Burt. Now if Alex is short for Alexander, you won't hire Alex, but if Alex is short for Alexandra, you would. That's thus discrimination based on sex, which is banned. So discrimination on sexuality is discrimination based on sex, which is already banned.

This, IIRC, was literally an argument Gorsuch used in the majority opinion, though he phrased it better. And a somewhat similar argument applied for discriminating based on transitioning.

Also, as Gorsuch points out, we can't rely on authorial intent here to save us, as rather famously, sex was added onto the Civil RIghts law as a poison pill to get the whole thing trashed. If we did rely on that, we'd discard that chunk of law entirely. So we need to rely on the meanings of the words at the time of the bill's enactment and consideration.

Now you can disagree with Antidiscrimination laws (I do, I think they are wrong and violate freedom of contract and freedom of assembly), but this was the legally correct result.
 
Captain X said:
Click to expand...

Is someone wearing black/brown paint on their face Yes (Move to next step) No (Not racist)
Is it to meant to be racist towards black people, or is it part of a minstrel show? Yes (racist) No (Not racist)

People need to stop being oversized children, lest they be treated like one.
 
He's not wearing blackface though. He's wearing team colors. Half black, half red. It is from only this angle that it even remotely looks like he's wearing blackface.

Which is already sus because blackface+native american headdress. No African wore a headdress like that. So going 'blackface!!!!1!!!' is already off kilter. Add in the red half...

Kid's a fucking mascot. Took the internet like 15 seconds to start calling out this BS.

The raking this journo got was pretty intense but usual lefty 'block everyone and double down.'
 
Skitzyfrenic said:
He's not wearing blackface though. He's wearing team colors. Half black, half red. It is from only this angle that it even remotely looks like he's wearing blackface.

Which is already sus because blackface+native american headdress. No African wore a headdress like that. So going 'blackface!!!!1!!!' is already off kilter. Add in the red half...

Kid's a fucking mascot. Took the internet like 15 seconds to start calling out this BS.

The raking this journo got was pretty intense but usual lefty 'block everyone and double down.'
Click to expand...
I'm saying that even worst case scenario, it's still only racist if it's being done for racist reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poe
Skitzyfrenic said:
He's not wearing blackface though. He's wearing team colors. Half black, half red. It is from only this angle that it even remotely looks like he's wearing blackface.

Which is already sus because blackface+native american headdress. No African wore a headdress like that. So going 'blackface!!!!1!!!' is already off kilter. Add in the red half...

Kid's a fucking mascot. Took the internet like 15 seconds to start calling out this BS.

The raking this journo got was pretty intense but usual lefty 'block everyone and double down.'
Click to expand...
When that was pointed out to the author he doubled down and said it's twice as bad because not only is he doing black face, but the red is against native Americans too, so he's being racist to both groups at once with his face paint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top