Forum

by **Phatscotty** on Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:18 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
natty dread wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
natty dread wrote:Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

What are those basic human rights?

Oh, you know, the usual.

Have fun complaining about something you can't explain!

the usual!

by **Phatscotty** on Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:18 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
natty dread wrote:I love how the right-wing people instantly jump on to "stop regulating teh businesses" as if the freedom of businesses to make a profit is more important than the freedom of actual people as individuals...

just sayin'.

Everyone knows that the whole of US political field is totally operated according to corporate interests anyway...

What right-wing people?

Patches made a solid point. That is how Natty responds to solid points.

by **Phatscotty** on Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:20 pm

Army of GOD wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
natty dread wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

What are those basic human rights?

I'M interested in this too, but looks like natty is just avoiding the question.

They are the basic human rights that Natty imposes on everyone everywhere, regardless of what the people democratically say.

That help?

by **Phatscotty** on Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:21 pm

natty dread wrote:What exactly is unclear? Human rights are human rights. They're clearly defined in the human rights declaration.

It's like we're in an argument over whether the sky is blue or not, and I'm claiming it is, and you guys refuse to address my arguments unless I explain to you what "blue" is. You're being disingenuous and obstinate. (Look, I know long words)

Who declared the human rights? To whom were they declared? Do the people whom they were declared to have any say? Or is the declaration anti-democratic, fascist, and dictatorial?

by **natty dread** on Tue May 01, 2012 12:44 am

Oh noes, a phattroll invaded the thread! Everybody, abandon ship!

SPLOOSH

(that was the sound of the life boats being lowered)

by **Phatscotty** on Tue May 01, 2012 12:45 am

natty dread wrote:Oh noes, a phattroll invaded the thread! Everybody, abandon ship!

SPLOOSH

(that was the sound of the life boats being lowered)

Hmm... these sounded like basic, honest questions.

Who declared the human rights? To whom were they declared? Do the people whom they were declared to have any say? Or is the declaration anti-democratic, fascist, and dictatorial?

by **Army of GOD** on Tue May 01, 2012 1:00 am

My point is the same as Scotty's. So a group of humans decide objectively what the rights for every human is?

That sounds a bit ridiculous.

by **whitestazn88** on Tue May 01, 2012 1:33 am

I declare it every human's right to poop in the street and not wipe afterwards!

Huzzah for human rights!

by **whitestazn88** on Tue May 01, 2012 1:33 am

I need 14 votes of aye to the above post, upon which time it will become a universal human right. At this point, it's just a neighborhood human right.

Votes:
whitestazn88

by **Army of GOD** on Tue May 01, 2012 1:35 am

nay

by **whitestazn88** on Tue May 01, 2012 1:42 am

Army of GOD wrote:nay

FASCIST!

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue May 01, 2012 8:23 am

Phatscotty wrote:
natty dread wrote:Oh noes, a phattroll invaded the thread! Everybody, abandon ship!

SPLOOSH

(that was the sound of the life boats being lowered)

Hmm... these sounded like basic, honest questions.

Who declared the human rights? To whom were they declared? Do the people whom they were declared to have any say? Or is the declaration anti-democratic, fascist, and dictatorial?

Army of GOD wrote:My point is the same as Scotty's. So a group of humans decide objectively what the rights for every human is?

That sounds a bit ridiculous.

Sorry, guys, but your consent isn't required. Social contract theory FTW. The central planners know what's best for you and each society as a whole because shut up.

white saint azn's got my back.

by **thegreekdog** on Tue May 01, 2012 9:23 am

No, seriously. I'm wondering what right wingers is Natty talking about. And it's important to understand his definition. If he's referring to the traditional US definition of right winger, he's obviously incorrect as to his characterization of right wingers being pro police-state.

Consider, for example, that the Justice Department has more power now, under a supposedly left wing president (Obama), than it did under a right wing president (Bush).

Consider, as another example, that right wingers who support Ron Paul are the only political group that is adamantly opposed to any expansion of Justice Department and police state powers.

Consider, as a further example, the humiliation that US passengers are subject to when flying (and under what president those measures were imposed).

I suspect there are some left wingers who are also opposed, but they are, on the whole, more interested in getting their guy re-elected.

So, in sum, it's important to understand what right wingers Natty is talking about.