Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    11835
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by Huckleberry

  1. This is actually correct. You stumbled upon why you're wrong about natural rights existing.
  2. So your entire argument is circular as others have pointed out. You are saying that natural rights don't exist only legal rights because to be a right it has to be a legal right so natural rights don't exist. This is the reason you can't convince anyone of anything. You are only saying this is the way it is because it is this way.
  3. I understand the theory, but when your theory of rights means that in a society where child rape is legal and common nobody is doing anything wrong and nobody's rights are being violated then your theory is questionable at best. And natural law predates Christ and the originators didn't believe in the Abrahamic God so attempting to reduce it to Sky Man logic is facile.
  4. Others covered it just fine but that's not antagonistic. You're just being sensitive. If one believes that Jesus Christ's claim to be the Son of God (or for some people his very existence) is fraudulent then by description is straightforward. The vast majority of the world believes Christianity is fraudulent. Speaking of existence, this thread's and then the above exchange should be big clues to you that your real issue is getting your feelings hurt so quickly if someone seems to be questioning your beliefs. I believe this is what people who share a lot of your beliefs, and perhaps even you, call being a snowflake.
  5. Putting aside the breathtaking closed mindedness that you displayed by assuming the only alternative to being Christian is being an atheist, I'll play along. Natural rights (natural human rights since that's obviously what we're talking about): Right to bodily security and autonomy (this includes the right to life because killing someone obviously violates it) Right to privacy Right to liberty Those are the main ones off the top of my head and of course they're all interrelated. Comes down to you don't get to fuck with other people. These rights can be forfeited of course. If I kill someone then I have forfeited some or all of those rights, which ones and to what extent is another discussion.
  6. Of course natural rights are not dependent on the government, that's what the term natural rights means. My view on any particular religion or even religion overall is irrelevant to that question.
  7. You should try again after actually thinking about what you write. For example, I believe in natural rights that do not require governmental authority, but I think the Christian religion is a fraud. So no, believing in natural rights doesn't make you a Christian nationalist because it doesn't even make you a Christian.
  8. Except that one is at least debatable as a question. The Sun and Earth both revolve around their shared center of mass (barycenter). Obviously due to the size disparity that point is within the space occupied by the Sun and nearly at its center but the point remains. E.g., the barycenter for the Sun and Jupiter is outside the Sun. Bottom line is that as is the case with all orbiting objects, the Sun and Earth orbit each other.
  9. I'm the same pedant I've always been. If you want to have a playoff then have a playoff. And the end game in that is to split them off, not for me to watch Coastal Carolina and New Mexico in the CFP playoff.
  10. I'll play my broken record, it should be 16 with all conference champs getting an auto bid. If it's possible to go undefeated and not win the competition's championship then it's not a real playoff. The possibility is now much smaller as it would usually take multiple undefeated small conference teams but it still exists. If the power conferences don't like that then man up and split off from the rest of FBS. Last point is that as top programs continue to consolidate into fewer conferences the season records we instinctively associate with good teams will have to change. When we finally and fully get into a power 2 situation and they increase conference games and get rid of crappy non-conference matchups a 9-3 record will typically mean that's a very good team.
  11. Beclowning oneself is the gold standard of doing something to show you shouldn't be taken seriously.
  12. Thanks, that certainly supports what my instinct was.
  13. That seems logical in some ways but I'm not sure that's how it plays out. A bye can't possibly be worse odds than a scrub. And there is zero injury risk. And your second round opponent isn't necessarily better than the #4 seed. You're playing the 8/9 winner. I think in the long run it will be about the same either way but if you win your conference then you're a conference champion. And contrary to what Mack Brown apparently convinced some people around here of, that does matter.
  14. A top team from those conferences that loses their title game will play the first round at home.
  15. Nothing wrong with byes and it was the best (only) way to make winning the conference championship game important. The conferences still make a lot of money on those so they don't want them to become irrelevant.
  16. The article isn't clear but the quote accurately states what the study found. That many schools had a significant percentage of respondents who called Texas "a rival" not necessarily their main rival. And that agrees with what we've all seen.
  17. Confused and senile or predictable? Your inability to choose one proves that you're either trolling, dumb, or both.
  18. Is this hypothetical I just came up with true? If it is then I'm so upset! Do you also get angry when you imagine that your husband is thinking of other women?
  19. The father issues in FoD aren't "heterosexual." Gay sons face the same issues (if they have a decent father so their sexuality isn't the dominant issue).
  20. Taylor Swift should publicly offer a $400 million loan.
  21. That logic means that it's pointless to discuss anything here. Which while quite possibly true may not be the marketing angle immamac is looking for.
  22. But poor judgment would be his best shot, so he definitely wouldn't fix that.
  23. That actually is exactly what it says. A similarly tortured reading as your Second Amendment interpretation if applied to the First Amendment would mean that the right to peaceably assemble is only protected if the group is petitioning the government.
  24. Insert it in my modem language translation and that has zero effect on the meaning. The controlling clause is the part where no law can be made. The preceding is simply a justification. It's the same as the below: Reproduction of the species being necessary to the continuation of society, the right to have sex shall not be infringed. That says no laws can be made infringing on our right to have sex. It does not say the sex has to be for the purpose of reproduction. The above amendment would also be a bad one needing to be repealed, by the way.
  25. But it's not the right thing to do. The language of the 2nd Amendment in no way limits protected firearm use to militias. It basically says in modern message board English "Because access to firearms is required to organize a militia and being able to organize a militia is so fucking important, you can't make any laws limiting access to firearms." Yes it's antiquated as hell and should be repealed, but that's what it says.
×
×
  • Create New...