Name something good religion has caused

You, warping meaning to call enumerated rights a form of despotism.

Like I said, you're not comprehending.

I stated that the notion that enumerated rights, in the sense of rights that Damocles is describing (right meaning use of will within capability) exists in despotic regimes where rights don't exist, where the dictator creates a list of the acts of will he/she will accept and then takes vengence on those that transgress.

I stated that only when a viable social contract exists, when individuals hold there own sovereignty and complete a contract that allows for rights and duties, is the notion of viable enumerated rights possible.

But thankyou for contributing without calling anyone a cunt, it is most refreshing.

To help you out, the main argument between me and Damo is the manner in which the notion of rights and duties exist.

I am arguing for a contractual notion, where, upon entering a social contract and individual agrees to suspend part of his freedom (freedom being use of will within capacity) and this being a duty, in exchange for the allowance of other freedoms (rights). What rights and duties are is created on a consensual basis. Under this context, enumerated rights are not tyrannical.

For example, under a social contract, you submit your will not to steal (duty) in exchange for not being stolen from (right).
 
AnyOldIron said:
You, warping meaning to call enumerated rights a form of despotism.

Like I said, you're not comprehending.

I stated that the notion that enumerated rights, in the sense of rights that Damocles is describing (right meaning use of will within capability) exists in despotic regimes where rights don't exist, where the dictator creates a list of the acts of will he/she will accept and then takes vengence on those that transgress.

I stated that only when a viable social contract exists, when individuals hold there own sovereignty and complete a contract that allows for rights and duties, is the notion of viable enumerated rights possible.

But thankyou for contributing without calling anyone a cunt, it is most refreshing.

To help you out, the main argument between me and Damo is the manner in which the notion of rights and duties exist.

I am arguing for a contractual notion, where, upon entering a social contract and individual agrees to suspend part of his freedom (freedom being use of will within capacity) and this being a duty, in exchange for the allowance of other freedoms (rights). What rights and duties are is created on a consensual basis. Under this context, enumerated rights are not tyrannical.

For example, under a social contract, you submit your will not to steal (duty) in exchange for not being stolen from (right).
Click to expand...

I don't accept your characterization of damo's position. Shut up, cunt.
 
AnyOldIron said:
You, warping meaning to call enumerated rights a form of despotism.

Like I said, you're not comprehending.

I stated that the notion that enumerated rights, in the sense of rights that Damocles is describing (right meaning use of will within capability) exists in despotic regimes where rights don't exist, where the dictator creates a list of the acts of will he/she will accept and then takes vengence on those that transgress.

I stated that only when a viable social contract exists, when individuals hold there own sovereignty and complete a contract that allows for rights and duties, is the notion of viable enumerated rights possible.

But thankyou for contributing without calling anyone a cunt, it is most refreshing.

To help you out, the main argument between me and Damo is the manner in which the notion of rights and duties exist.

I am arguing for a contractual notion, where, upon entering a social contract and individual agrees to suspend part of his freedom (freedom being use of will within capacity) and this being a duty, in exchange for the allowance of other freedoms (rights). What rights and duties are is created on a consensual basis. Under this context, enumerated rights are not tyrannical.

For example, under a social contract, you submit your will not to steal (duty) in exchange for not being stolen from (right).
Click to expand...

I don't accept your characterization of damo's position. Shut up, cunt.:)
 
AnyOldIron said:
Explain why then, rather than just stating it...

Or do you not have the ability to explain why?
Click to expand...

I have the ability, just not the inclination. I've read enough times in this thread you putting words into damo's mouth. And I know from my personal experience your inability or unwillingness to approach discussions honestly. You have no credibility.
 
Acting within one's capability is not what he means by rights.

Damo stated that a right is the freedom to act. He stated that the notions of freedom and rights are interchangeable with each other. I expanded on what freedom means, which is to act according to will within capability.

I also disagreed that with the notion that a right is the freedom to act.

Look, if you can't keep up with a debate, or don't understand, ask. We'll explain it in simple terms...
 
Anyold. Are the enumerated rights in the american constitution "despotic" because we have not all "completed" contracts individually?

You're really desperate to score points aren't you.

Read the thread again. I haven't stated that the social contract is a paper contract that every member of society individually signs. It is a matter of where sovereignty lies.

This is a complex concept to understand, and I don't have time to paraphrase Rousseau for you, so do a little independent research and read JJ Rouseau's The Social Contract.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Anyold. Are the enumerated rights in the american constitution "despotic" because we have not all "completed" contracts individually?

You're really desperate to score points aren't you.

Read the thread again. I haven't stated that the social contract is a paper contract that every member of society individually signs. It is a matter of where sovereignty lies.

This is a complex concept to understand, and I don't have time to paraphrase Rousseau for you, so do a little independent research and read JJ Rouseau's The Social Contract.
Click to expand...

No. You have the inability to be concise because you're completely full of crap.
 
douche said:
I stated that only when a viable social contract exists, when individuals hold there own sovereignty and complete a contract that allows for rights and duties, is the notion of viable enumerated rights possible.
Click to expand...

What does 'complete' mean in the above context?
 
LOL! You've got nothing but vitriol have you. You should be careful being so angry all the time. You'll give yourself a heart attack... [/B]
 
I asked you to explain what complete means where you used it. I guess when it comes down to it, you're the one who can't debate.

Complete... to fill in missing gaps, ie to sign?

Now answer my question and stop squirming round the point like a worm... [
 
AnyOldIron said:
I asked you to explain what complete means where you used it. I guess when it comes down to it, you're the one who can't debate.

Complete... to fill in missing gaps, ie to sign?

Now answer my question and stop squirming round the point like a worm... [
Click to expand...


So you were saying that enumerated rights are only valid if each individual signs a contract. You denied that earlier. Consider yourself outted as a complete liar. Good day to you.
 
So you were saying that enumerated rights are only valid if each individual signs a contract.

And you accuse me of strawman arguments and misunderstanding.

Read what I posted...

Read the thread again. I haven't stated that the social contract is a paper contract that every member of society individually signs. It is a matter of where sovereignty lies.

This is a complex concept to understand, and I don't have time to paraphrase Rousseau for you, so do a little independent research and read JJ Rouseau's The Social Contract.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top