Closing a Thread: Warning! Graphic picture

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

It's more incidental that the state has monopoly on violence. It didn't used to be that way and doesn't have to be. Take the Three Kingdoms period in China for example. Back then legitimacy depended more upon the well being of the populace rather than the ability of the ruler to keep his claim through violence monopoly. Which is why everything went to shit when Dong Zhuo usurped power. The people didn't care how strong he was. They felt he wasn't right so they violently rebelled.

Yeah, that's why ideology comes into play. It was a physically violent disagreement over legitimacy. What legitimacy consists of is a matter of ideology. It makes might makes right right, but couched in different ways.

 

[j654dgj7]

[MENTION=5601]ezra[/MENTION]
Folk art?
Folk music?
Folk

folks : people in general
—used to talk to a group of people in a friendly and informal way

So I used "you folk." Forgive me if it bothered anyone or was taken wrong. Most people here should know I hate nobody. My battle is against principalities and powers..............

I didn't take anything the wrong way, you put me in a category of people that you thought were always evoking the word "hate". Giving me the dictionary definition might be a funny way to be condescending and superior, but it doesn't answer my question. Which group of "folks" am I a part of? Gay people?

 

[j654dgj7]

Yeah, that's why ideology comes into play. It was a physically violent disagreement over legitimacy. What legitimacy consists of is a matter of ideology.

Wildly off-topic. Make a new topic, for fucks sake.

 

[sprinkles]

Yeah, that's why ideology comes into play. It was a physically violent disagreement over legitimacy. What legitimacy consists of is a matter of ideology. It makes might makes right right, but couched in different ways.

Ideology is fine but it also isn't idealism.

 

[Matt3737]

Why call him out any more on his ignorance?

For the benefit of those who can't argue their case themselves. I'm great at argument and I enjoy using that skill to keep verbal bullies in check. Is that so wrong?

 

[Matt3737]

Ideology is fine but it also isn't idealism.

True. I was agreeing with you. Just adding in that ideals have their own roles in the matter.

 

[sprinkles]

True. I was agreeing with you. Just adding in that ideals have their own roles in the matter.

Ideals are fine as long as "what should be" lines up with "what can be".

 

[Matt3737]

Wildly off-topic. Make a new topic, for fucks sake.

Explain to me how legitimacy is "wildly off-topic" from human rights?

Exactly my thoughts. We're talking about human rights, are all of those up for debate now?

 

[j654dgj7]

For the benefit of those who can't argue their case themselves. I'm great at argument and I enjoy using that skill to keep verbal bullies in check. Is that so wrong?

You're not great at argument, you're rehashing things that have been said a thousand times before, and making this into a philosophical discussion about the theoretical application of human rights. You're being a dick to those who Amad (or whatever his ID was) set out to discriminate and hurt: homosexuals. You can't accept that this is an open/shut case of discrimination, but insist on using your "great argumentative skills" to make this about your stance on human rights. So yeah, it's so wrong.

Explain to me how legitimacy is "wildly off-topic" from human rights?

Because equality is a human right. Being judged by ones actions and not ones ethnicity/sexual orientation. It's article two of the UN Charter, here it is:

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

You're debating, among other things, the monopoly of violence by the state. I was pointing out that gay bashing is a matter of human rights, and if those are up for debate, then why aren't they all?

tl;dr - you were wildly off-topic.

 

[Matt3737]

You're not great at argument, you're rehashing things that have been said a thousand times before, and making this into a philosophical discussion about the theoretical application of human rights. You're being a dick to those who Amad (or whatever his ID was) set out to discriminate and hurt: homosexuals. You can't accept that this is an open/shut case of discrimination, but insist on using your "great argumentative skills" to make this about your stance on human rights. So yeah, it's so wrong.

Because equality is a human right. Being judged by ones actions and not ones ethnicity/sexual orientation. It's article two of the UN Charter, here it is:

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

You're debating, among other things, the monopoly of violence by the state. I was pointing out that gay bashing is a matter of human rights, and if those are up for debate, then why aren't they all?

tl;dr - you were wildly off-topic.

I'm a dick now am I? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a dick also? Since you seem to know so much about rights why can I not disagree with you? Did I agree with anything amad said? I'm a dick now apparently, so I guess I am not entitled to equality as a human being?

I never agreed with anything amad said, but now I'm a dick and I shouldn't have the right to speak. Is that the gist of what you're saying?

 

[just me]

I didn't take anything the wrong way, you put me in a category of people that you thought were always evoking the word "hate". Giving me the dictionary definition might be a funny way to be condescending and superior, but it doesn't answer my question. Which group of "folks" am I a part of? Gay people?

Why twist my words?

 

[j654dgj7]

I'm a dick now am I? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a dick also? Since you seem to know so much about rights why can I not disagree with you? Did I agree with anything amad said? I'm a dick now apparently, so I guess I am not entitled to equality as a human being?

I never agreed with anything amad said, but now I'm a dick and I shouldn't have the right to speak. Is that the gist of what you're saying?

You were being a dick, don't worry, you're not a literal dick.

Go ahead, keep speaking your mind. Just pointing out that you're wildly off-topic.

 

[j654dgj7]

Why twist my words?

Because you were flippantly putting me into a group of "folks" that always retreat to calling you hateful, and thereby justifying your hate. If you're going to do so, please let me know which group that I'm a part of in your grouped up world, or apologize.

 

[Matt3737]

You were being a dick, don't worry, you're not a literal dick.

Go ahead, keep speaking your mind. Just pointing out that you're wildly off-topic.

I'll take your comments into consideration.

 

[54tjsioU]

you were flippantly putting me into a group of "folks" that always retreat to calling you hateful, and thereby justifying your hate

I've been seeing a lot of great quotes lately. Halfway makes me wanna put them all in my little user signature, though, I don't believe I should be the one putting them in their user signature.

 

[just me]

Because you were flippantly putting me into a group of "folks" that always retreat to calling you hateful, and thereby justifying your hate. If you're going to do so, please let me know which group that I'm a part of in your grouped up world, or apologize.

I was responding to this, written by you.
"It was never a debate. It's not a debate if I claim to know your birthday better than you, or your home address. It was hate-speech versus reality. Besides, like @sprinkles said, the thread hasn't been deleted. Opinions were shared, hate was spewed. Should we have kept going around in circles?

My best friend is gay, and he's always known. If you claim that he's living a wrongful existence, or that he's confused, I will not go silent. Keep your hate out of his life, or we're going to have a problem."

Some folk always bring up "hate". Some folk always bring up "racist". Some folk always post pictures of kittens. Some folk seem to always be positive. Some folk sit back and just watch without posting much. A lot of folk seem to misunderstand me a lot.

 

[CogentPursuit]

That's some mighty fine devil's advocate work, there!

In case you're serious -- you are aware that free speech is a human rights too, right? If you're cool with getting away with some of them, or just making a point of it, why should you have to worry about free speech? Aren't you holding free speech to be a moral absolute? Moreover, are you implying that the other human rights are worth less than freedom of speech?

I did not mention free speech because I believe free speech is an human right but instead pointed it out because I sensed you are in a moral dilemma, assuming you believe in free speech while at the same time believe that human rights should never be debated. I seems you would go as far as to even silence the discussion.

 

[CogentPursuit]

[MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION]

Are you familiar with Jesus Mosterin? Your sentiments resemble his: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesús_Mosterín

"As a moral philosopher, Mosterín does not believe in the existence of intrinsic or natural rights (neither for animals in general nor for humans in particular), but he thinks that any political society can create rights through legislative action. Following Hume and Darwin, and taking into account Giacomo Rizzolatti’s results on mirror neurons, Mosterín suggests that our inborn capacity for compassion, fed by knowledge and empathy, is a more solid basis for the moral consideration of non-human animals than abstract and uncheckable speculations about intrinsic rights.[22] This fits his emphasis on the relevance of moral emotions (like compassion) to ethics, somehow comparable with the role played by perception in empirical science.[23]"

I was not. I am excited to get to read about this. Thanks.

 

[just me]

Might does make right at its very core, it simply takes idealism into account and couches itself in new ways. It was Max Weber who defined the state as the entity which holds a monopoly on violence:





It's because a group is not a living entity, but composed of individuals who may or may not voluntarily associate with the group based on shared ideals that force has to be legitimated. Enough people have to coordinate to force compliance mainly through ideology, but by force if necessary.

So we are all engaged through our ideologies who has what rights and who lives, suffers, and/or dies.
@just me

You're right. We all have that natural instinct to survive, yet we also know death is natural too. Conflict ultimately stems from life's struggle to survive. Animals kill to survive as do plants. Some plants have poisonous defenses and some struggle with each other to reach above their canopy for sunlight.

This is our dilemma and the spiritual dilemma of religion. Religious beliefs are to prepare us for our passage from this life into the next. In that regard, we are often encouraged to give up our ego, our rights, and even our deepest held convictions.

Would you kill for Jesus or would you die for Jesus? This is my ultimate question for you.

Firstly, I cannot agree conflict ultimately stems from life's struggle to survive.

Would I kill for Jesus? Really? My answer is simple to you: If for some reason I cannot fathom Jesus asked me to kill someone, do you not think I would offer myself to Him rather than kill someone?
Would I die for Jesus? There is a spiritual life and death, and there is a physical life and death. If you truthfully need an answer to this, you might get scriptures quoted. I don't really think you need hear me answer that.

People used to walk days just to hear Jesus speak. Might I ask you a question? How many people would even listen to Him today? How many would rather argue with Him? Question Him? Mock Him? Make fun of His Word? How many would even recognize Him?

 

[54tjsioU]

Mock Him

Top Ten Reasons That Beer Is Better Than Jesus:
1. No one will kill you for not drinking beer.
2. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
3. They don't force beer on minors who cannot think for themselves.
4. Beer has never caused a major war.
5. When you have a beer you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
6. Nobody has ever been burned at the stake, hanged or tortured over a beer.
7. You don't have to wait 2000 years for a second beer.
8. There are laws saying beer labels cannot lie to you.
9. You can prove you have a beer.
10. If you are devoted to beer then there are groups who can help you stop.

This should totally be a Jesus joke thread. I want to make this a Jesus joke thread *mischievous smile* hehehe