Goodkind XXXI: We read it so you don't have to

[The Pita]

IT WASN'T ME IT WASN'T ME IT WASN'T ME!

...

Don't look at me like that.

The part of it about Chrichton was the best, if you ask me.

Now I have to buy "Next".

I just spent the last 2 days playing D&D like some commie pinko death chooser.

Oh my god that post from mystar was amusing.

Anyway, I haven't checked TG.net in a bit less than a week.

I hope I got a delicious load of flame.

[Larry.]

My God, are those fuckwits still trying to "prove" that the American Constitution is the only document (which it doesn't - it's the American Declaration of Independence, but what's the details to the likes of them? ) that declares basic human rights are "inalienable"? You'd think they'd be pointed to by now.

Oh wait. They and Tairy might be running away from the sight of those damn black helicopters by now

[JCSeer]

It's threads like this that make me glad I stopped at book 2, and have nearly forgotten everything!

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I have to say, these threads have really enhanced my enjoyment of other books, too.

I can't stop laughing at David Farland's country Mystarria, for example. (And no, not just for the way DF has written.)

[Jaxom 1974]

My God, are those fuckwits still trying to "prove" that the American Constitution is the only document (which it doesn't - it's the American Declaration of Independence, but what's the details to the likes of them? ) that declares basic human rights are "inalienable"? You'd think they'd be pointed to by now.

Oh wait. They and Tairy might be running away from the sight of those damn black helicopters by now

Wait. What?

[Larry.]

The Canada bit. It's as if the Almighty Tairy can't be wrong. Sheesh.

[Fanatic-Templar]

"only a strong focused show of force will put enough of a bad taste in the mouth of her enemies that they will back off, and hopefully for good."

Yeah. That'll work. First time for everything, isn't there?

[Foreverlad]

The Canada bit. It's as if the Almighty Tairy can't be wrong. Sheesh.

It comes down to absolutes, but only when it's in their favor, just like Tairy's writing.

The entire discussion is silly to begin with. Tairy's argument is that the Founders declared that man has inalienable rights. Every other 'free' country grants rights.

Now, what I want to know is how any one man (or body of men) can declare all men have X rights. The government cannot take away inalienable rights, but inalienable rights are defined by man, for man. My rights and the limits of those rights are defined regularly by other men in party with their own reason. In essence, even by acknowledging my rights, or claiming my rights are natural and undeniable, you're enforcing a rule upon me and my freedom.

A law is only a boundary created by man or nature. Laws defining rights, intrinsic or not, are as limited as laws against rights.

Reminds me of an Eastern Philosophy teacher I had back in junior college. He told us the best way to describe the Tao was to say nothing at all; the more you try to define it, the more you take away from it.

Basically, I don't see much difference between being granted rights and 'naturally' having rights, so long as a government is the one telling me it. You're still placing government over man.

[Shevchyk]

Beg your pardon? Farland is now taking the piss out of TG?

[Shevchyk]

Hot Staggering Fuck! They're still going on about governments granting rights and that bloody letter? That was two years ago!

[Foreverlad]

While reading through that thread, I came across a comment or two mocking the U.N. I never quite understood why (usually right-leaning) individuals held the U.N. in such contempt.

Went over to Wikipedia and came across something I found amusing under the 'Criticism' section:

There has been controversy and criticism of the UN organization and its activities since nearly its inception. In the United States, an early opponent of the UN was the John Birch Society, an anti-Communist organization that in 1959 began a "get US out of the UN" campaign, charging that the UN's aim was a "One World Government". In later decades, criticism of the UN entered the political mainstream to a greater extent.

I was SOOOOO wrong about the right wing! They've been trying to save heathens like me from the commie influence of the Imperial Order! Shucks, I feel like such a fool now.

I R Enlitend

P.s- Shev, "Hot Staggering Fuck" is my new favorite phrase. Thank You.

[Deluge]

While reading through that thread, I came across a comment or two mocking the U.N. I never quite understood why (usually right-leaning) individuals held the U.N. in such contempt.

Went over to Wikipedia and came across something I found amusing under the 'Criticism' section:

There has been controversy and criticism of the UN organization and its activities since nearly its inception. In the United States, an early opponent of the UN was the John Birch Society, an anti-Communist organization that in 1959 began a "get US out of the UN" campaign, charging that the UN's aim was a "One World Government". In later decades, criticism of the UN entered the political mainstream to a greater extent.

I was SOOOOO wrong about the right wing! They've been trying to save heathens like me from the commie influence of the Imperial Order! Shucks, I feel like such a fool now.

I R Enlitend

P.s- Shev, "Hot Staggering Fuck" is my new favorite phrase. Thank You.

I mean, there are a lot of reasons, but yeah, the whole Communism thing is a big part of it. Since its inception, the UN has made some significant mistakes, and occasionally has done some things that the Right has seen as contrary to American interests. Another part of it is no doubt that the GA gives each country an equal voice, which can lead to *gasp* a great deal of criticism towards the US. I mean, god forbid that countries talk about how much the first world is screwing them over. In recent years, the description of the UN has gone from "mouthpiece of communism" to "mouthpiece of terrorism," further lending credibility to all the suspicion that the American government is using terrorism in the same way as it used communism during the Cold War.

[Guest]

As an un-yearded observer of Lemmings, I must take credit for bringing this post back to the front page with my inquiry about the origins of the term "death-chooser." Someday at Oxford, their will be professors of the Church of Latter Day Lemmings. As there are with Tolkien now.

You guys can't let this thread wallow into the depths of the 2nd page heaven forbid.

[Shevchyk]

What a pleasant little double-standard: They can criticise whomever they like, but do not allow themselves to in fact, be criticised. Reminds me all too much of the TG Ghetto Gang: We know we're hot, but don't you tell us otherwise, for then we shall unleash a mighty whinge!

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Now, what I want to know is how any one man (or body of men) can declare all men have X rights. The government cannot take away inalienable rights, but inalienable rights are defined by man, for man. My rights and the limits of those rights are defined regularly by other men in party with their own reason. In essence, even by acknowledging my rights, or claiming my rights are natural and undeniable, you're enforcing a rule upon me and my freedom.

This is where Romney's 'freedom requires religion' horseshit comes in.

[The Pita]

This thread should be merged with goodkind XXXI, as it has become a replica of it in all sense but Official Myshkin Backing.

EDIT-I MEANT MYSHKIN NOT MYSTAR!

FORGIVE ME LORD!

[Shevchyk]

Beg your pardon? Freedom requires religion?

[Myshkin]

This is getting way too deep for a TG thread.

[Myshkin]

I like this thread, but I can't officially sanction it unless it has the word "GOODKIND" followed by several roman numerals.

[Jaxom 1974]

I like this thread, but I can't officially sanction it unless it has the word "GOODKIND" followed by several roman numerals.

Elitist.