You can be anti abortion without being religious

It’s not hard

I’d wager most of the founding fathers would be pro-life

Like I said. Natural Law is capitalized. It had a Very specific meaning.

I'm going on a hike. Back much later

Also the vast majority of Americans are fine with our system of government. It is a small, but very violent and loud minority rioting and violating other people’s rights. The DOI is not in favor of rights violations.

Aight

Later. Please go look up natural rights. And re read the doi

Not necessary

Ok. Then apply it?

Or for real

Out*

Okay well you’ll have this to respond to when you return.

The DOI certainly gives the people the right to revolt. It does not give people the right to violate the rights of other. The current riots basically just do that, burning property and attacking people are rights violations. The DOI is opposed to the actual actions being taken rn

My gf is taking a bit.
Yes. The violation of property rights is not cool.
But the right to revolt is protected, ideologically. The problem is that the doi is not a legal document

It's all very muddy

1A: "Peaceably to assemble"

Is that the first amendment?

That's why this whole DOI thing is such a non starter😂 😂

We aren’t exercising law and order on the violent bunch. And we are on those exercising their freedoms. Let’s not call this small

> Sin is a nonsense word.
@Malachi

As a general excuse for felony civil rights crimes, by nutcases who read bibles to claim Jeezus sez "get out of your closets and prey", it's far worse than that. But, for some, it's part of personal rituals to spend some time thinking about life choices, goals, or ethics, and so it can have positive meaning.

When it's used as an excuse for passive-aggressive predation on society and others in it, it's a bit like a drunk driver terrorizing all around him, and often an artifact of mental masturbation tricks that self-induce natural drugs, just like an addict. The dry drunk style of religion also carries the denial and dishonesty traits of addictions, abusive to oneself and others.

Why does anyone think the Declaration of Independence has any legal bearing on society, any time since the Articles of Confederation predating the US Constitution, other than as a historic artifact? DOI was an inducement to start a bloody and very costly revolution, by pushing buttons that in many cases, weren't even the political or economic interests of actual primary concern to all Founding Fathers.

Modern civil or human rights impress me as high level social contracts, with competing philosophical notions as to natural existence or human creation or recognition. If they were as clear and specific as some people pretend, the US Constitution wouldn't have had political deals to exclude the original 12 from its body and only adopt 10 of those, nor to limit their scope to Federal government only until 14th Amendment "Incorporation", a process also codified in Am's 13, 15, and 19. Neither would we have an Amendment process, nor the abuses of Prohibition 1 w/ an on/off flip-flop, Prohibition 2 aka "War on Drugs" sans amendment enabler, nor tolerate Philander Knox's certification fraud for what became the IRS, after SCOTUS rejected a far smaller scale but legally equivalent tax scam used to pay Civil War debt in 1895.

Because it helps put the constitution in context

Actually, redact my response. I read your vomit above, we are no longer having conversation you and I.

> 1A: "Peaceably to assemble"
@drenath
And when soap, ballot and jury boxes fail,
2A, cartridge box, against whatever "all enemies, foreign and domestic", may mean.
Note 1A has 5-7 elements, depending on how they're categorized, including that soap box, a press power tool version of it, and religious neutrality and free exercise, which at times includes freedom from abuse based on dogmatic drivel from others, essential especially for equal protections of those who avoid public spectacle religions themselves.

> Actually, redact my response. I read your vomit above, we are no longer having conversation you and I.
@JPMcGlone

Cancel whomever you may want. You are the one stopping the conversation.

So we have a functional issue here. The rhetoric seems to be. Resist tyranny, resist oppression, but use your guns, peaceably, then vote, unless shit gets too liberal, then get angry and get guns again.

What a shit show.

It’s my right. Nobody is cancelled.

> So we have a functional issue here. The rhetoric seems to be. Resist tyranny, resist oppression, but use your guns, peaceably, then vote, unless shit gets too liberal, then get angry and get guns again.
>
> What a shit show.
@Malachi

Our society does lots of things that offer good reason to be outraged, not just angry, but anger is usually not a good place from which to judge when violent responses may be justified, or even then, if they're wise or even capable of desired results. I was watching Noam Chomsky earlier from 4 years ago with Larry Krouch, and is he ever skilled in presenting why and how Cuba had good cause to send missiles into the US for some of our war crimes and genocides conspiracies, including with Israel or several African conflicts. But, talking about 2nd Amendment justifications is tricky, as for some it's advocacy of criminal violence, and in other cases discussion of benchmarks for when our government has gone out of bounds into some rather deep shit, even if RTKBA may be dysfunctional as a legally designated remedy.

This morning a well drafted 6 page open letter showed up in my Medscape professionals feed, from their Editor in Chief, to the head of the FDA. It clearly took many man-hours of production and revisions, as well as clear and easy formatting, but between content and length, was something most voters would never try reading. The obvious subtext was that the world would be a healthier place if scammers like you, and Trump who appointed you, tried Die In A Fire.

Of course it said nothing like that, overtly. It suggested the guy had a personal and professional obligation to apologize for some dangerous lies, proactively inform the public he'd perpetrated those frauds, and after laying out the legal charge for the FDA's existence and duties, that if he couldn't or wouldn't obey that, resign. That had little difference from ad hominem, other than use of professional standards, and a lot of man-hours.

No. The idea is that government is instituted to@protect rights. If a government becomes destructive to that end, then revolt is appropriate. The things BLM and Antifa are rioting over are not rights violations, most of them just want to be given things

Prove that please.

There were a few claims in there

Specify?

They’re rioting over “systemic racism” which has never been proven to exist. And they can’t point to a specifically racist law either. Rioting for social change they want to see, not due to any actual rights violations

Is "police reform" not ringing clear enough for you?
I agree that they have some real messaging issues. But you'd have to be actively ignoring them to dismiss the nuggets they do have

Why have governments at all, if their only purpose is to protect rights, but rights are generally restrictions on abuses of governments? That seems circular, and nonsensical.

That's the weird part. This is al predicated on Consent! Which comes from voting. Which means you consent to following g the laws of your government.

I can't explain this thoroughly enough to some folks 😆 😆

Police reform is fine. There are bills being pushed for that right now

That does not legitimize violating the rights of others

The Fellowship for Intentional Communities (www.IC.org) has interesting workshops on governance options in smaller voluntary communities, generally from 30-1500 people. Those usually need infrastructure to ensure food, housing, etc, and as size grows just in that range, procedures as interpersonal communication is less practical, and needs for specialization for scale and economy grows. Unlike larger societies people are born into and so get stuck with existing rules (not consent based), few besides a few kids become part of those communities who don't actively seek to do so.

In larger society, voting is often an artifical process to give a feeling of investment, but what does it accomplish if the only choices are onerous crooks, while issues are decided that are too complex or pervasive for most people to engage intelligently?

I didn't say it does.