This specifically says things you believe to be fact:

1) You feel you are being affected by a group of individuals rights to use the system as it was set up and get a proposition on the ballot, open to a majority democratic vote.

2) You are pissed off by it. I can buy that but I can't buy your failure to recognize that others have a legal right to enact state law within the framework of their state constitution.

3) You think that these people are stupid, implying you are in some way smarter, which you are quite obviously not.

4) You have the right to determine that these people, legal US citizens, do not deserve to live in the US.

5) You are the only person who may determine an understanding of what rights are or what freedom means in this country. And you have been proven many times over to have nothing more than an opinion not based on anything other than your own understandings, misunderstandings, and prejudices. Many scholars disagree with you but you fail to recognize that others may have valid arguments which contradict your extreme views. And unfortunately for you, the scholars have credentials, you have none.

Now someone bring me some popcorn. :corn:

Wrong as usual.

1. The group does NOT have a right to use the system to violate the rights of another. I'm affected because they are misusing the system. Democracy doesn't mean one group of people gets to vote on the rights of another. Not everything can be voted on.

2. The legitimate powers of government are derived from the rights of individuals. Since no person has the right to force another not to marry, they may not give this power to government. No framework allows this because it all comes down to this fact.

3. You're not in a position to judge my intelligence since I'm obviously far more intelligent and well-educated than you and I'm smarter than anyone who denies the existence of rights or who thinks they have the authority to vote on the rights of others.

4. Neither you, nor I have any right to determine whether or not others may come into America. The federal government has no authority in the matter, and we have no authority to grant government such a power since we, as individuals, do not have this power.

5. I have more than an "opinion" about it. I've proven each and every single thing I've ever said about the Constitution, the limitations on the powers of the federal government, my vast and accurate understanding of civics, the Constitution, the founders, and the meaning of freedom. I've backed up everything I've ever said with facts, reason, logic, and historical documentation. My views are not extreme in the slightest, but if they were, I'd remind you of Barry Goldwater's line...

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

:corn:

Radar's Rantings and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npd

I believe I've been very clear on this matter, but I'll say it again.

We have the right to do ANYTHING we was as long as our actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other.

Governments are here to defend us from being harmed by others, but not to protect us from harming ourselves.

If your actions initiate force or the threat of force (coercion) to make other people act a certain way, you are stepping beyond your rights.

If you make a law that says people must stop at red lights, you are defending safety. Since we have a right to defend ourselves, we may grant this power to government. If you make a law that says people must wear helmets when riding a motorcycle, you are using coercion (the threat that men with guns will show up and take away your freedom) to force someone else to do something against their will even though if they weren't doing it, it would not harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

If you make a law against rape, you are defending non-consenting people against the aggression of others. If you make a law that says someone may not offer sexual services for money, you are saying that you have a more of a claim to their body than they have for themselves and that you get to make decisions over their body against their will. You are trying to defend them against their own decisions.

This is a very clear and easy way to determine what is or is not a right.

I like to use the "If I were on an island" test.

If I were on an island with other people and no laws or government, would I have a right to do this?

For instance, if I were on an island that has people on it but no laws or government, would I have the right to prevent a woman from getting an abortion? Of course not. It is her own body and I have no say over her body or its contents. I therefore could not grant this power to government, and neither could a million of me, or a billion of me. Zero times a billion is still zero.


If I were on an island that has people on it but no laws or government, and someone tried to steal the vegetables I was growing, would I have the right to use force to stop them? Yes, I would because I'd be using defensive force, not aggressive force. If my neighbors and I agree to band together to defend against a gang of thugs, are we within our rights? Yes, because we are defending. We aren't trying to use force against other people to make them do something against their will.



These people prepared well-reasoned arguments about why rights exist. I have heard nothing equally intelligent to the contrary.

In the end it comes down to this.

You either believe we are born with rights and we own ourselves, or you think we have no rights, and we are the property of someone else or a group of someone else.

Stating that I'm more intelligent, well-educated, and well-reasoned than you is neither narcissistic, nor a disorder. It's just an accurate description of the facts.

Besides, you've got your own disorder to worry about...

http://bastardlogic.files.wordpress....ead_up_ass.jpg

Hear Hear!

You fail again. It is all explained here:

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=504834&postcount=125

:corn:

Is linking to your own post, which I've already refuted supposed to prove something other than the fact that you got owned?

:corn:

You have refuted nothing, only whined about your personality disorder.

:corn:

I'm with Juniper - and unfortunately for you Radar - my opinion, just like everyone else's counts just as much as yours. The people have spoken and you lost - stop whining.

:lol2: I gave up trying to have a logical discussion with that idiot a long time ago. You either agree with him or he has a tantrum. I could just see him slamming his fist on his keyboard and screaming at the computer because someone dared have a different opinion. It has become pretty entertaining if you ask me. :D

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/ma...computer-g.jpg

:corn:

:corn:

Got any salt?

lol...sure.

I'm having mine with maltezers and a coke. :)

Thanks, I'll give it right back.
http://www.senseicorp.com/senseiForW...ock-754055.jpg

That's better...

:corn:

By all means, point out where I've had a "tantrum". I have set you straight, and corrected you when you've either said something stupid, or tried to lie. You're welcome to have any opinion you want as long as you don't take action on that opinion and try to legislate it onto others. I could give less than a shit about your opinion, or that of other douche nozzles like classicman. Your mean nothing to me.

It's only when you take actions that violate the rights of others that I get involved. When your fellow citizens the free exercise of their right to marry any consenting other they choose regardless of things like religion, sexual preference, gender, race, etc. you are committing a crime against them.

I do find it amusing that you have this whole scenario in your thoughtless little mind where I am frustrated or angry and shout at my screen or slam my keyboard. I guess when your mind isn't busy absorbing information, it must wander and daydream. You're just not important enough to me to ever make me upset. The most I'll do is correct you when you're wrong and rub your nose in it like a dog.

For the record, you gave up trying to have rational discussions with anyone before you ever started having conversations, and you aren't in a position to call anyone an idiot, especially your intellectual, social, and moral superiors like me.

Oh geez...I'm outta popcorn.

Anyone got some gum?

Yep, right here.

http://pigeonmeister.com/images/WantSomeGum1.jpg

You're looking young these days Merc. You been moisturising? ;)

Right or wrong, saying things like "I'm smarter/superior/better educated" is pretty lame. Those who have truly achieved those superlative heights, whether it be knowledge, wealth, or spiritual virtue, have no need to TELL others how good they are. It either shows, or it doesn't.

But I guess you do indeed have the right to be an ass.

:lol2:

I think you're catching on now Juni. :D

Yeppers! Youth pills. Ya think I might have over done it? :D

Maybe just a little bit. ;)

It's nice to see I've convinced you that we have rights. As far as tooting my own horn goes, it has more to do with his inferiority than my superiority. The average 40 year old guy working at a fast food place has a lot more on the ball than Merc.

:corn: Ali, I still have some left, you want me to send you some?

Oh yeah...for Xmas. lol Yummy.

That was sarcasm. :rolleyes:

This thread has become as entertaining as the 'liberal thugocracy' thread. :)

NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER


Diagnostic Features:

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, extreme self-involvement, and lack of empathy for others. Individuals with this disorder are usually arrogantly self-assured and confident. They expect to be noticed as superior. Many highly successful individuals might be considered narcissistic. However, this disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling or distressing.

Complications:

Vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with this disorder very sensitive to criticism or defeat. Although they may not show it outwardly, criticism may haunt these individuals these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty. They may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack. Their social life is often impaired due to problems derived from entitlement, the need for admiration, and the relative disregard for the sensitivities of others. Though their excessive ambition and confidence may lead to high achievement; performance may be disrupted due to intolerance of criticism or defeat. Sometimes vocational functioning can be very low, reflecting an unwillingness to take a risk in competitive or other situations in which defeat is possible. Individuals with this disorder have special difficulties adjusting to growing old and losing their former ?superiority?.

Comorbidity:

In this disorder, sustained feelings of shame or humiliation and the attendant self-criticism may be associated with social withdrawal, depressed mood, and Dysthymic or Major Depressive Disorder. In contrast, sustained periods of grandiosity may be associated with a hypomanic mood. Anorexia Nervosa, Substance-Related Disorders (especially related to cocaine), and other Personality Disorders (especially Histrionic, Borderline, Antisocial, and Paranoid) frequently co-occur with this disorder.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

Believing that you're better than others
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Exaggerating your achievements or talents
Expecting constant praise and admiration
Believing that you're special
Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others
Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Setting unrealistic goals
Being easily hurt and rejected
Having a fragile self-esteem
Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nar...CTION=symptoms

This is exactly right. Put aside your opinion of Radar's personality and think about it for a minute.

Natural rights. It's self explanatory.

It's true if you believe in the theory of yourself as the most important entity before all others.

I am still unconvinced that rights exist as anything other than a human construct. Those rights which we have constructed and agreed upon (as a society) I deem worthy of defending and I see them as an integral part of 'civilisation' ... but they are something we, as humans have come up with and applied to ourselves.

So what you're saying is that the first humans had no rights until they became civilized enough construct them? That makes no sense to me. How is it that they were able to live and be free if they didn't have the right to?
Oppression of rights is a human construct. Privileges are a human construct.

They lived and were free (presumably) because they lived and were free. Rights have nothing to do with it. Lions live and are free. Mammoths lived and were free. Humans lived and were free. It has nothing to do with rights. We're just biological systems.

[eta] Humans had the capacity to live and be free, rather than the right.

It's exactly the same thing.

Until someone (society/government etc) comes along and violates your rights... you have the right to live and be free and do whatever you want that doesn't violate someone elses rights.

Construct any notion of rights you like. Society treats you according to its definition, not yours. You can say "help, my rights are being infringed upon!" And you may well be right, by some knowable, provable philosophy. But your cries are meaningless to society, because society simply does not give a shit.

Having the rights is the really easy part -- if they're natural, you're born with them, mission accomplished. You can say that was the important part, but if you're, say, killed, the very notion that you would have any rights died along with your brain tissue. Defending the rights, now that's the tough part.

Why just today a guy was ruining my right to travel down the road at any speed I like, by driving in front of me at a slower speed.

So I shot him. Why take chances?

I lean towards Dana's thinking on this. We never knew what we had (rights) until we began to have societal constructs such as government to restrict our freedoms. Only then were we even able to define "rights" in the sense we discuss here. The "rights" described in the Constitution are another thing which man uses to describe where government can and cannot intervene.

Why do we (european settlers) make restitution to the native peoples of our lands? Is it because we realize we violated their natural rights?
They certainly didn't have any rights constructed within our society.... so fuck em right?

The US constitution defines some of the rights that government may not infringe upon, and others that it may protect. It does not grant any rights.

We have not made any restitution to anyone as far as I know.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Didn't you take driver ed? ;)

Dana -- that's precisely it, very well stated.

Jinx -- if we did make restitution, it would probably be because the powers that be decided that this restitution was good for society in general. Oppressed people do not make good consumers for the retail industry.

What restitution? we put them on reservations and gave them shit. Now some are getting payback in the form of tax free gambling houses. But I still don't see that we gave them any form of restitution.

They don't get any perks Merc?

Few if any of substance.

One group invades another and takes what they want, including rights. The right to live in peace. The right to a heritage. The right to culture.

Did they have those rights in the first place? Were they natural, or did those things evolve as time went on into something that the people took for granted till they were no longer possible?

It's the group with the power that has the rights. Natural or otherwise, it matters not. If you have no power, you have no rights.

Well well well. At least I have enough class to dislike you while still maintaining the opinion that your opinion still matters and I recognize you have been given the right to that opinion. Lucky for you, you live in America so that you can spout your drivel. Unfortunate for the rest of us.

Bwahahhahahha - funny part is that you actually believe it. You truly are a legend in your own mind.


He doesn't usually catch that.

Many people reach enlightenment in disputation with Radar, just not the way Radar intends. :)

Congratulations Juniper.

Remember that when you're dealing with Radar you are dealing with a man as incapable of respect as he is of compassion. At best, he finds a refuge in his tortured understanding of legalism. At worst, a clever opponent cuts him off from that refuge and exposes his crankery for all to see, which is why Radar doesn't get respect. He's too flawed as a human being, and he writes to demonstrate his flaws, whether that was his intent or not.

Hawaii civil unions bill stalled

If religious people wish to restrict the rights of other people based on their religion (no matter how they dress it up, "definitions of marriage", etc), then perhaps we should take another look at their tax-exempt status.

TGRR,
Has made a point of being rotten to Mormons since they got involved in Prop 8.

I don't agree with Prop 8 but they used the system to pass the ban and now if they otherside wants to fight it they will have to do the same. The other side of the coin in people who support majority rule.

I had to bite my tongue in front of my parents just the other day re gay adoption. They used to have a green box in their kitchen in which they put all their loose change for St Francis Children's Homes. It's been there since I remember (a different box every year I hasten to add!) But the Church can't distribute or collect the full boxes any more, because the said charity has refused to comply to UK anti-discrimination laws. It will not allow Catholic children to be adopted by gay couples.

I'm pretty sure I've written about this before here. My parents believe it is the Govt sticking its nose into matters of faith. I believe it is the Church cutting its nose off to spite its face and is certainly NOT in the spirit of Jesus' teaching. He who broke so many taboos at the time. Not to mention of course the fact I don't believe in him and am tired of the, "this doesn't apply to me becos my God says..." reasoning.

My Dad is homophobic. Growing up poor, practically uneducated (due to poor schooling post War and dyslexia) in the post Blitz East End and with a harsh father and two older brothers, it's not all that surprising. Converting to Catholicism when he met and engaged Mum only gave him another reason for his prejudice. Funnily enough, Mum, who worked in the nursing, Ambulance and Police met more gay people than a dog has fleas. She accepts them as one of the anomalies God will sort out when she gets to Heaven.

And it has not affected me in any way growing up. I have had openly gay friends. And secretly gay friends. Somehow, like people with hidden or past eating disorders, people seem to realise they can confide in me.

The majority decision is not always right. Democracy was never meant to suggest that. Women would not have had the vote in this country when they did if democracy meant mob rule.

Yes, but is it really fair for people to actively campaign and influence the outcome on a state ballot when they don't live in that state? I don't think so.

Once this passes, and I'm sure it will soon, that will mark the beginning of the "slippery slope." It will begin to pass in more and more states. Whether you agree with it or not isn't the issue. Those who are fighting it in CA are doing so preemptively to their own state.

On the other hand, Lobbyists do the same thing every day. So do groups like ACORN and a whole host of others... whats the difference with this, other than you disagree with them?

Politics is not about "fair", it is about legal.

I believe we should get rid of lobbyists. They have completely polluted the political system.

Sadly.