DMC Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Virtually every right that exists is subject to public referendum, including whether or not you have that right. This is called living in a society with laws. Yep. I can fill an entire lecture with the all the limits to the first amendment, but apparently we're not supposed to touch the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I know he won't see it, but for the rest of you - this is false on its face. If your rights to private property are never subject to referendum then that's a certain kind of right, but that doesn't make rights you have for property null and void if they are, indeed, subject to those. Just like you have rights to privacy - but those rights are superceded by other needs. You have a right to free speech, but cannot cause harm with said speech. You have a right to assembly, but not at any time and place that you choose (you cannot, for instance, assemble in Trump's bedroom). Virtually every right that exists is subject to public referendum, including whether or not you have that right. This is called living in a society with laws. Well yeah, but then this guy considers a right that only exists because a bunch of people voted on it 200 years ago "inalienable". We've pretty well established that his definition of words is at odds with most people's. See what an "automatic" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, TrueMetis said: Well yeah, but then this guy considers a right that only exists because a bunch of people voted on it 200 years ago "inalienable". The right doesn't "exist" only because it was voted on. The right is protected because it was voted on. The founding fathers were adherents of natural rights and the enlightenment. Rights (should) precede law, friend. 1 hour ago, TrueMetis said: We've pretty well established that his definition of words is at odds with most people's. See what an "automatic" is. Did we? Your statement was semantically irrelevant not semantically incorrect. (I stated as much.) But I guess you can sulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 33 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: Did we? Your statement was semantically irrelevant not semantically incorrect. (I stated as much.) But I guess you can sulk. I think this is a bad representation of your stated view. At the same time, I feel you shouldn't dismiss such arguments that gave rise to this as "semantically irrelevant." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.