Teenagers Kill Baby

[arora]

Anyone can see the link but few can actually click the link?

serious dude.

 

[Bye Ya]

I'm just responding to the discussion that was already occurring in this thread.

 

[arora]

Fine, have you ever read this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed

Interesting enough, my atheist non American counter parts that disagree with me on many many things more or less agree with me on this point. Now that should be enough and you should take your 'no right to life' crap to the other thread.

And just to be clear no I do not think it is man made, not one bit. I deal in absolutes.

 

[Bye Ya]

Why don't you post that over there and I'll respond to you?

And I am also dealing in absolutes.

 

[arora]

I'm trying to evade you but I'm weak and keep coming in here, I don't need to debate you about human rights, just go over there and I'm most confident you will find your fill of folks just like me.

I will always believe in the right to life and you will never change that, stubborn old goat that I am lol.

I love life and respect everyone else's right to it as well.

 

[Bye Ya]

Fair enough. I won't debate you anymore on this, but I would like to ask one question. Do you think that famous quote about human rights that you posted was inspired by God? Because oddly enough, those same men that forged that document also enslaved Africans, raped their women, and committed genocide against millions of native Americans, not to mention leaving out rights for women in the document. So what I'm asking is, where did the motivation for those words come from if the men that wrote them did not immediately adhere to its principles themselves?

 

[arora]

that topic has been hashed and re hashed already.

No I don't think they where god inspired at all, I think they were smart men who built a great country you are trying to ruin.

If you want to know my opinion on the double standard with slaves and such, read up on Jefferson 👍

 

[Bye Ya]

a great country you are trying to ruin.

Not sure I follow.

 

[arora]

You don't give up do you? I surrender already.

The United States is founded on a right to life, something you disagree with, not that hard to follow.

I'm sorry I keep going with this, how many pages of a one on one convo can we have before someone gets sick of it?

I got lightning in my magic typing fingers, they go so fast I don't even need to think before they fly.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

@ arora - You don't agree that 'rights' are simply a human construction? They're a societal agreement, are they not? My point going back to what Marina was saying is that suggesting that someone is crazy or whatnot for not adhering to their view of rights is simply ignoring this truth, that rights are not universal.

Since Marina has also posted, this can be my response to you as well.

If you want to talk human rights in general, there is a thread for it.

 

[Bye Ya]

The United States is founded on a right to life, something you disagree with, not that hard to follow.

I am fine with the laws, I just understand what they are and where they come from, why they are what they are.

But stating things that are matters of opinion as self-evident truths about the universe is another matter. Basing your validity on the number of people that agree with you is also then putting your position on the same level as many, many other things that society has previously agreed upon, but which we now agree are not what we would like to have our lives be about.

"Even atheists agree with this", is not really a qualifier. It just means they agree, and shows very clearly that we are regarding a matter of opinion, and not a law of the universe. Just like Marina's example of witches being burned, same thing, people used to agree that they would handle that particular situation in that way. It wasn't just a few people acting that out, it was the masses. If you disagreed, you were 'crazy', or possibly a witch.

Anyway, cheers. I just look at things from an objective perspective.

If you want to talk human rights in general, there is a thread for it.

I am responding to your position in this thread. If you would like to continue in the other thread, please do. Really what you want to do is state your opinion on human rights in this thread, then tell me to get lost to the other thread.

 

[arora]

No, I was simply pointing out that people with a very different view then I agree on one point, I don't need backing for my thoughts.

And the founding fathers speak both of god given as well as natural, check it out.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I am responding to your position in this thread. If you would like to continue in the other thread, please do.

I've already explained my position in relation to the topic of this thread.

If you want to talk human rights in general, there is a thread for it. As it is you who is asking the questions, it is you who must continue this in the appropriate place. Other than that, i'm done with this conversation.

Nice edit, bro. When the murder is no longer being discussed and the focus is solely on human rights, the discussion moves over the the appropriate place. I won't be participating in that discussion, however, as I find you rather irritating.

 

[Bye Ya]

No, I was simply pointing out that people with a very different view then I agree on one point, I don't need backing for my thoughts.

And people also agree on my points, and I also don't need backing. Level playing field, though perhaps not in regard to popularity.

And the founding fathers speak both of god given as well as natural, check it out.

I've done so. 👍


Goodnight. Not really interested in the discussion on drunk driving, etc. in the other thread, so I'll welcome your participation there in the future if you'd like to discuss this subject further.

it is you who must continue this in the appropriate place. Other than that, i'm done with this conversation.

It's all me, gotcha. I'd have nothing to say on the subject if you weren't trying to throw your human rights discussion around in this thread and run off, or more specifically, tell me to get lost.

 

[arora]

I will take the blame for the derailment, sorry guys.

Oh wait, you think I am popular here? That's a good one.

 

[Bye Ya]

I will take the blame for the derailment, sorry guys.

Oh wait, you think I am popular here? That's a good one.

I know you're not. I think you know what I was saying that about.

 

[Tornado]

It's all me, gotcha. I'd have nothing to say on the subject if you weren't trying to throw your human rights discussion around in this thread and run off, or more specifically, tell me to get lost.

They're not telling you to get lost. They're telling you that if you want to debate the concept of inalienable rights, there is a thread already established to do so and this isn't it.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

It's all me, gotcha. I'd have nothing to say on the subject if you weren't trying to throw your human rights discussion around in this thread and run off, or more specifically, tell me to get lost.

You are the one asking questions solely about human rights. Also, please quote where I told you to get lost... oh right, you can't because I didn't. So it does indeed look like it's all you, baby.

 

[Bye Ya]

Yes, Toronado my good friend. I know what they are saying, what they are actually doing in the process however is equatable to a hit and run that I responded to, and which they are refusing to show up to court for.

Here are some examples, for fun:


The initial opinion on human rights that I responded to:

Does any legal system have the right to gamble on killing the right person? The answer is, clearly, no.

And others...

So who appoints people with the power to gamble with the lives of others? I'm pretty sure that everybody on this earth has an equal right to life, murderer or not.

Proving something beyond reasonable doubt isn't enough when you're killing in the name of 'justice'.

you did say that it was ok for the court system to take a gamble and kill someone that could be innocent. That is not acceptable.

What's the point I'm making here with these quotes? It's that I'm engaged in your (their) discussion. Instead of making statements in this thread that are clearly in regard to your opinions on human rights and then telling me to (metaphorically) get lost to the other thread, why not have the courtesy to do the same?

 

[Tornado]

These posts were on topic, since it was actually a response to why you don't believe arguments against the death penalty are valid:

I'm cautious about statements in the vein of "every person has a right to life".

I personally don't think I have a right to life.

These posts are not, since at this point it became you just arguing with people about whether inalienable human rights exist rather than anything to do with the actual topic other than the tangent you used to talk about it:

Why is that so strange? Do the operations of the universe necessitate human feelings? Is that how I came to be alive? Rights are things we've created as a society, but ultimately an asteroid doesn't care whether I think I should die of old age or not, etc.

I'm not talking hippy stuff here, I'm looking at the broader picture. Humans value life, so they make laws as such. I get that. But to claim rights as some sort of universe-al truth doesn't hold up against the way the rest of existence runs itself. Gravity doesn't interact based on rights, nor cancer, nor asteroids, nor any other animals. Rights are purely a construct of the human conscience and a function of society. I'm simply saying that I don't think humans are special compared to the rest of the known universe. When an asteroid ultimately comes knocking at Earth's door the truth will be demonstrated that we are all simply subject to the laws governing the universe. Although that extreme example doesn't have to occur for this to be shown because it's already been demonstrated many, many times.

If morality was so universal, clear, and clean cut, then we wouldn't have such debates over it, but as it is, it's simply an opinion and matter of preference.

@ arora - You don't agree that 'rights' are simply a human construction? They're a societal agreement, are they not? My point going back to what Marina was saying is that suggesting that someone is crazy or whatnot for not adhering to their view of rights is simply ignoring this truth, that rights are not universal.

Since Marina has also posted, this can be my response to you as well.


Mormons think they have a right to many wives, some people think gays don't have the right to marry, some people think they have the right to enslave their people, etc.

What way do you have of proving that your opinion on what a person's rights are is definitive?

Fair enough. I won't debate you anymore on this, but I would like to ask one question. Do you think that famous quote about human rights that you posted was inspired by God? Because oddly enough, those same men that forged that document also enslaved Africans, raped their women, and committed genocide against millions of native Americans, not to mention leaving out rights for women in the document. So what I'm asking is, where did the motivation for those words come from if the men that wrote them did not immediately adhere to its principles themselves?

I am fine with the laws, I just understand what they are and where they come from, why they are what they are.

But stating things that are matters of opinion as self-evident truths about the universe is another matter. Basing your validity on the number of people that agree with you is also then putting your position on the same level as many, many other things that society has previously agreed upon, but which we now agree are not what we would like to have our lives be about.

"Even atheists agree with this", is not really a qualifier. It just means they agree, and shows very clearly that we are regarding a matter of opinion, and not a law of the universe. Just like Marina's example of witches being burned, same thing, people used to agree that they would handle that particular situation in that way. It wasn't just a few people acting that out, it was the masses. If you disagreed, you were 'crazy', or possibly a witch.

Anyway, cheers. I just look at things from an objective perspective.




I am responding to your position in this thread. If you would like to continue in the other thread, please do. Really what you want to do is state your opinion on human rights in this thread, then tell me to get lost to the other thread.

Which is why you were asked multiple times to talk about it there if you want to so badly; since there are plenty of people who frequent that thread daily who will debate it with you.


You're also one of the last people on this entire forum who can complain about people making "hit and run" arguments.

 

[arora]

I hope you are not saying I tried to run from something?

 

[Bye Ya]

These posts are not, since at this point it became you just arguing with people about whether inalienable human rights exist rather than anything to do with the actual topic other than the tangent you used to talk about it.

I went the direction of the discussion I found in this thread. I responded to posts that were already off topic. They have a right to be off topic in this thread, and I don't also have that right, to respond to their initial comments, and their followups?

why you don't believe arguments against the death penalty are valid

No, I think arguments for or against the death penalty are opinions, not universal truths.

I hope you are not saying I tried to run from something?

No, but you were just as off topic, mainly following me following Marina, that's my point.

 

[Tornado]

I went the direction of the discussion I found in this thread. I responded to posts that were already off topic. They have a right to be off topic in this thread, and I don't also have that right, to respond to their initial comments, and their followups?

"I believe the death penalty is wrong because it violates someone's right to life" is on topic. "I don't agree with that assertion because I don't believe in the concept of the right to life" is on topic.


Essay dump posts that have nothing to do with the death penalty but everything to do with human rights are not on topic.

 

[Bye Ya]

They weren't off topic. "I believe the death penalty is wrong because it violates someone's right to life" is on topic. "I don't agree with that assertion because I don't believe in the concept of the right to life" is on topic.

On the topic of human rights, yes. This topic involves human rights, yes, I agree that it does.

Essay dump posts that have nothing to do with the death penalty but everything to do with human rights are not on topic.

True, but these posts did have to do with the death penalty, which has to do with human rights, which has to do with how these young lads will be sentenced for what they've done, which is what this thread is discussing: their actions, and possible consequences, based on the perceptions of the human rights they have infringed upon.

 

[Tornado]

Your posts ceased to actually be related to the topic at hand the second you stopped talking about the right to life specifically and instead started talking about human rights as a concept. It's really as simple as that.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I went the direction of the discussion I found in this thread. I responded to posts that were already off topic. They have a right to be off topic in this thread, and I don't also have that right, to respond to their initial comments, and their followups

Notice that in the parts that you quoted, both me and arora are talking about murder, the law and the death sentence, not human rights in general.

 

[Bye Ya]

Your posts ceased to actually be related to the topic at hand the second you stopped talking about the right to life specifically and instead started talking about human rights as a concept. It's really as simple as that.

That is the concept of this thread. It is the topic we are discussing.

If anything, this thread can be called a subtopic, but the concept of which this thread is a topic, is inescapable. That is why, being a responsible poster, and being aware of that fact, I asked these gentlemen to join me in the thread designated for this broader topic, since they were making statements that were of that nature, opposed to them making statements of that nature here in this thread, and then pointing a finger at me for responding in that fashion.

Notice that in the parts that you quoted, both me and arora are talking about murder, the law and the death sentence, not human rights in general.

Yes, you were talking about examples of incidents involving human rights, and offering your opinions on human rights. I do agree with you.

 

[Tornado]

The concept of this thread is actually pretty straightforward: Is capital punishment acceptable in modern society in case of crimes like this. And that's not at all intrinsically related to human rights as a broad talking point. I believe in human rights being inalienable, and I still fully support the death penalty, and in fact hadn't even argued that point when I was explaining why.

It honestly just seems at this point that you wanted to talk about human rights, but needed some excuse to bring it up in this thread so you don't have to debate with the people who frequent the proper thread.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Yes, you were talking about examples of incidents involving human rights, and offering your opinions on human rights. I do agree with you.

When you're being that general, you can stretch almost anything to fit under the title of human rights. The entire Opinions forum, for one.

 

[arora]

I'll try to go in the steer in the right direction.

One thing I do want to ask, he'll probably see and understand why... What say you Danoff about the victim in this case? Most curious.

O.K., that is out of the way, touching again on the accused for a moment, kids. I remember lots saying 'try them as adults and fry them etc' I'll say it again, kids.

Anyway, such a bad deal all around, I will pause and reflect. I'll also keep a little bit of perspective and realize that things like this are not common(thank god) but also state while I believe in some ways we are becoming less barbaric in others ways we are becoming more so.

The reasons are important to me, I'm not one to say who cares why, I do care why.