Hooray For Pedophilia!

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
So what did you actually mean.
I mean what I say. Rights are not absolute. Limits on rights are established by legal precedent. Precedent dictates that government infringement on Primary rights be barred using strict scrutiny on the basis of a substantial reason and only if a lower level of restriction would not accomplish the purpose. Lesser rights allow the government to have any merely rational basis to curtail the rights.

Laws can restrict economic freedoms but not right to free speech. But, of course free speech has also been interpreted to mean directing money. This is just one example. It is a muddle.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I mean what I say. Rights are not absolute.
Yes they are. Rights against being murdered, being raped, being kidnapped, rights against being perjured against, rights against cruel and unusual punishment, these and many others are absolute.
Limits on rights are established by legal precedent. Precedent dictates that government infringement on Primary rights be barred using strict scrutiny on the basis of a substantial reason and only if a lower level of restriction would not accomplish the purpose. Lesser rights allow the government to have any merely rational basis to curtail the rights.

Laws can restrict economic freedoms but not right to free speech.
Laws do this all the time, immoral laws.
But, of course free speech has also been interpreted to mean directing money. This is just one example. It is a muddle.
And this means throw out the baby with the bathwater, to you? This means our absolute moral rights are a garbage idea and should be abandoned for utilitarianism, which is repugnant to human rights?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Their conviction is that universal human rights exist.
Good for them.
And yet they believe in human rights.
Good for them.
They are our allies, not our enemies. Our enemies would be all those who don't believe in human rights.

Like China.
They, many of them, believe that babies in the womb have no human rights.

I don't consider them allies at all.

To simply say "I believe in human rights" is vague and ambiguous.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Yes they are.
Nope.

Rights against being murdered,
Mitigation by self-defense and mistaken self-defense happen all the time.

, being kidnapped,
Police can detain you with a reasonable suspicion that you were involved in a crime even when they are dead wrong. They can remove you in protective custody.

rights against being perjured against,
People accused of a crime have a right to defend themselves. They can confront witnesses against them, and question credibility. They can lie about you, though there is some safeguard in that they can be charged with perjury but this rarely occurs.
these and many others are absolute.

Not by a long shot. In practice even those you listed have limits.
Laws do this all the time, immoral laws.
Nope. Government or public interest sometimes trumps individual rights, and it is the most moral way to proceed.

And this means throw out the baby with the bathwater, to you? This means our absolute moral rights are a garbage idea and should be abandoned for utilitarianism, which is repugnant to human rights?
It means stop pretending some ideals cut the mustard in the real world.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
When one defines what constitutes an illness solely based on how his tummy feels when he thinks about something, he is being narcissistic.


Homosexuality, prior to 1973, was classified as a mental disorder.

When one ignores several independent lines of research that have meaningfully described what constitutes a mental illness and what does not, he is being idiotic.

Mirror, look in it.

When one tries to impinge on the rights of other solely based on how his tummy feels, he is being sociopathic.

Yes, homosexuality makes me physically ill.

But that's not why it's wrong.

It's wrong because God said that a man should leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife. Meaning, one man and one woman, in marriage, and no sex outside of marriage.

Wreaking havoc in the meantime?

Again, all you need to do is convince one man that what he's doing will A) be held to his account for the rest of history, and that his ego would be harmed by it, B) harm the nation he's ruling, which will result in less income for himself, and C) most importantly, that he will be held accountable for his actions on Judgment Day.

And guess what, the people of his nation have the right to protest through civil disobedience if he violates the constitution which he is under. So if he starts doing things that violate the constitution, the people will protest.

And who will replace him? A candidate vetted from different angles by the public? Nope. An even stupider relative of the first guy or a new guy who has advanced tactics in bullying.

Says who?

Not the system I hold to, proposed on https://kgov.com/constitution.

The one to replace him would be either his oldest son, or if none, someone picked through lottery.

Trump is an example of the inherent weakness in the system.

To say nothing about Biden? or Clinton? Or Bush (either of them)? Or any other president in the last 40 years?

However, a republic rather than enact the whims of the populace directly, installs leaders to make the decisions for them.

It's a close relative to democracy, just one more step in the process.

Democracy is mob rule, slightly slowed.
A republic is democracy, slightly slowed.

The qualities of each leader are associated with particular consequences and the public can vet future leaders on that basis.

Elections waste fortunes: from lost productivity, campaign expenses, and legal bribery. How much does it cost to pick from a lottery? A few seconds worth of time?

Also, power is balanced by branches of the government.

The larger the committee the more unreliable its performance, thus democracy leads poorly.

Fail safe mechanisms exist to remove problem children.

Last century, democracy empowered the NAZIs and democratic socialists slaughtered tens of millions. Yes, Hitler was elected by the people.

Trump would have been impeached by republicans if he had not taken steps to leave office.

Children do not vote to give their parents authority over them. Neither should citizens their leaders.

That's a nutty consideration.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

For immediate matters, you only have to convince a handful of people in a Republic.

A handful?

A handful???

535 in Congress, 9 in the Judiciary, and 1 President, totaling 545 people?

That's a handful?

And when have you ever seen all 545 people working in unison towards a decent goal? I'll tell you when: NEVER, because 1) The majority is wicked and 2) One bet against the gaming house might win; likewise, one leader may be benevolent, but not millions.

Men under an evil king need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change hundreds, let alone millions. And again, at the very least, a wicked king can die, even if his mind is never changed.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Keep going:

"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,..."
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
If they're not absolute, then they're not rights.
To all-or-none thinkers, this is true. I advocate Essential Ethical Principles that explicitly acknowledge practical limits instead. A balancing mechanism must exist in any system of ethics. Otherwise, some element of might-makes-right is built in explicitly or implicitly.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
To all-or-none thinkers, this is true. I advocate Essential Ethical Principles that explicitly acknowledge practical limits instead. A balancing mechanism must exist in any system of ethics. Otherwise, some element of might-makes-right is built in explicitly or implicitly.
"a balancing mechanism must exist in any system of ethics"?
The only thing that "balances out" ethics, is unethics.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Nope.


Mitigation by self-defense and mistaken self-defense happen all the time.


Police can detain you with a reasonable suspicion that you were involved in a crime even when they are dead wrong. They can remove you in protective custody.
You don't have a right against ever getting arrested, just a right against ever getting arrested without justification.
People accused of a crime have a right to defend themselves. They can confront witnesses against them, and question credibility. They can lie about you, though there is some safeguard in that they can be charged with perjury but this rarely occurs.


Not by a long shot. In practice even those you listed have limits.
I listed rape. Which "limit" is there on the absolute universal human right against being raped?
Nope. Government or public interest sometimes trumps individual rights, and it is the most moral way to proceed.


It means stop pretending some ideals cut the mustard in the real world.
 

marke

Well-known member
Police can detain you with a reasonable suspicion that you were involved in a crime even when they are dead wrong. They can remove you in protective custody.
Unless your name is Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.
People accused of a crime have a right to defend themselves. They can confront witnesses against them, and question credibility. They can lie about you, though there is some safeguard in that they can be charged with perjury but this rarely occurs.

Unless your name is Donald Trump.
Nope. Government or public interest sometimes trumps individual rights, and it is the most moral way to proceed.

Democrat mandates will always trump individual constitutional rights in a Marxist fascist democrat society.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Homosexuality, prior to 1973, was classified as a mental disorder.
Last time I checked it was 2022. Why do you think what went on half a century ago should somehow be controlling? or relevant?
Yes, homosexuality makes me physically ill.
Don't do it then.
It's wrong because God said that a man should leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife. Meaning, one man and one woman, in marriage, and no sex outside of marriage.
Why should your religion be binding on the conduct of people outside your religion?
Again, all you need to do is convince one man that what he's doing will A) be held to his account for the rest of history, and that his ego would be harmed by it, B) harm the nation he's ruling, which will result in less income for himself, and C) most importantly, that he will be held accountable for his actions on Judgment Day.
One person making a decision with no immediate safeguards will speed up decisions. That's true. But, any benefit that it affords is outweighed by the increased risk of oppression and harm. And, the corrective measure is harsh. The only way to stop a wayward autocrat is violent upheaval. Give that much power to one person increases hubris, egotism, and bloodlust

I find it fascinating that your are advocating this position while Putin is murdering civilians for no good reason.
And guess what, the people of his nation have the right to protest through civil disobedience if he violates the constitution which he is under. So if he starts doing things that violate the constitution, the people will protest.
Nice, instead of voting to express my concerns, I need to set myself on fire or get run over by a tank.
The one to replace him would be either his oldest son, or if none, someone picked through lottery.S
So, you think blind chance is the best way to select a leader? Seems like a recipe for disaster. You will get someone with low IQ are severe personality disorder and the whole society will suffer for it.

To say nothing about Biden? or Clinton? Or Bush (either of them)? Or any other president in the last 40 years?

All flawed individuals checked by the other branches of government.
It's a close relative to democracy, just one more step in the process.

Democracy is mob rule, slightly slowed.
A republic is democracy, slightly slowed.

There was a mob on January 6th. But, the NAACP is not a mob, the ACLU is not a mob. Think tanks across the nation are not mobs.
Elections waste fortunes: from lost productivity, campaign expenses, and legal bribery. How much does it cost to pick from a lottery? A few seconds worth of time?

Flaws in the system are far more tolerable than the havoc that would eventually ensue by relying on chance. Evolution's reliance on chance for variability caused the painful death of millions of creatures, so many species just becoming extinct. Culture, reason, and science has allowed us to make progress with much less a toll. Why do you hate evolution but like lottery selection ?
The larger the committee the more unreliable its performance, thus democracy leads poorly.
Some decisions are best made with great deliberation and with input from many viewpoints.
Last century, democracy empowered the NAZIs and democratic socialists slaughtered tens of millions. Yes, Hitler was elected by the people.

Democracies can crumble. That does not mean Democracies are no good.
Children do not vote to give their parents authority over them. Neither should citizens their leaders.

A leader selected by chance is no smarter than any citizens and that fact that he is imbued with absolute power does not make him competent.
A handful?

A handful???

535 in Congress, 9 in the Judiciary, and 1 President, totaling 545 people?

That's a handful?

The executive branch has power to make immediate decisions when the situation warrants. Decisions about foreign affairs and national security can be made swiftly. Other decisons of domestic policy and spending is controlled by congress. Slow an deliberate. This is a preferable scenario. Otherwise, we would get leaders passing laws based on their own limited opinions -- possibly treating matters of style like they are matters of substance.
And when have you ever seen all 545 people working in unison towards a decent goal? I'll tell you when: NEVER, because 1) The majority is wicked and 2) One bet against the gaming house might win; likewise, one leader may be benevolent, but not millions.

Men under an evil king need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change hundreds, let alone millions. And again, at the very least, a wicked king can die, even if his mind is never changed.
Even a super-majority vote in the senate involves agreement of only 60% of the senators. Unanimity is not a requirement in ANY government decision in a Democratic Republic.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You don't have a right against ever getting arrested, just a right against ever getting arrested without justification.

I listed rape. Which "limit" is there on the absolute universal human right against being raped?
Bump @Skeeter understood if you have no answer. It's because your utilitarianism morality is wrong.
 
Top