This isn't the easiest way of me to admit the failings of many. Especially, when , the parliamentary actions are usurped by crazy government's. We are playing a vicious cycle: one that resonates through , and unfortunately, those countries have shown - they can have people - look like citizens; but, mask themselves; proceed attacks because of dumb decisions. We are weak.

When you see a radical behaving in a certain way, it's not quashed. There have been reports that these people are on refugee camps. They threaten normal civilians. They do things to them and they pretend they aren't who they say they are - : because you can do that if you ditch, your identity.

This, influx of people, came from regions whom were not even facing war. Then, they threaten the lives of other people. So, the risk factors of refugees, increases as well as, 'we' civilians. But, yet - the Blairites love war.

I would prefer it, if the Iraqi government took ownership to the people it has. I don't know , if there's enough respect left for a country to do it's service on the world. To be honest with you.

Gone are the days when a country cares about its own portrayal. The hate continues and they attack civilians and civilization itself. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/why-can-prime-minister-still-take-britain-war-without-parliamentary-vote%3famp#ampshare=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/why-can-prime-minister-still-take-britain-war-without-parliamentary-vote

@Laucivol wait for it! This is no longer about oil and people can get off this page. Every country around the world signed the climate change agreement. So, this is about ideologies.

Not *every* country stayed in, and it's been about ideology for a very long time. The oil was a fringe benefit despite what some might think conspiratorially.

As for those fleeing Iraq due to the Iraqis wanting their blood - as it seems a catch-22. Allowing martyrdom is not good, but you're right it is Iraq's problem.

@TEABAG!!! america can go to war without a vote too

Yeah, well - it show's that the people themselves , didn't want to be apart of the game. They don't have to either, with the climate change agreements - these people are just a dying breed.

You have to question people's motives because now , we are chartering into territory that we don't need oil. So , if they all bring their dispair and their hopelessness to countries that are wanting to upgrade and be technologically advanced, then , whose to say if the communists - won't counter clash? You know that it's going to happen. As they have been infiltrated already by these radicals in Antifa

I kinda want to test godwin's law in here, anyone up for the challenge?

If anyone wants to discuss something interesting, I have come to a conclusion that there is no such thing as a right to life.

@Holo

First of all, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your conclusion.

Second, there is such a thing, because we made it so. We recognise people have this right, and we punish those who violate others' right to live. Of course, there's nuance around abortion laws, self defence, the death penalty, ... and we definitely do not guarantee quality.

@Goddess Tyche When i say you don't have a right to life, i don't mean that life is worthless or that you don't have a right to survive, only that you don't have a fundamental right to live regardless of anything else

For example, in order to live, you require food and water yes? Okay, so nowadays it's impossible to acquire such things without first going to the proper people for permission, if you don't you're punished. In order to get permission, you're usually required to pay some sort of compensation, in order to get the required payment you must perform some kind of action for someone else.

If food and water are a fundamental human right, then who gives up their life in order to provide you with food and water in order for you to live?

The farmer makes the food, the companies filter and produce drinkable water, in those companies, workers tend to the machinery and oversee other workers

Maybe way back, when most of the land was uncultivated, you could argue we had a right to life, since you determined everything yourself, you answered to nobody, but nowadays it is nigh on impossible to survive without some sort of human interaction. In order to acquire that human interaction you must either demand their subservance without cost, or sacrifice your life in order to pay that cost yourself.

So my argument is not that you don't have a right to 'live' but that you don't have a right to 'life'. The difference being i use the first as a verb and the second as a noun.

That being said, like i stated, life isn't worthless. I think fundamentally hindering someone's ability to achieve life is fundamentally wrong. However we've actually legalized indirect murder, whether you like it or not.

On a grand scale it is impossible to live without paying into the system one way or another. In that sense of the word, in order to live you must sacrifice your life.

If life is a fundamental right, then food and water, that which spurs life, is also a fundamental right, but people deprive others of this 'right' in exchange for goods and services and in the basest sense, that is murder

I would define a 'right' as something that someone inherently has and cannot be denied for any reason whatsoever.

If life is a right, then you should be able to drink water without cost from any source, you should be able to hunt without a license, you should be able to grow food for yourself without getting permission from anyone else. This, in my opinion, is not the case

All of this misses the point

oh and btw, food drives don't count, you're demanding the sacrifice of others in order to provide you with your rights. This, in my opinion, goes against the entire point of a 'right'

The distincion of noun/verb is meaningless.

let's not get into semantics unless it is a fundamental point in your counter argument

also i have to take a test in 5 minutes so i won't be able to respond for an hour and a half

In both cases, in its most basic form, it is the right to not have life taken away, that is people who kill you get punished.

Then my opinion is correct, you have the right to strive to live, but not the right to life itself

Well, semantics it is then.

```When i say you don't have a right to life, i don't mean that life is worthless or that you don't have a right to survive, only that you don't have a fundamental right to live regardless of anything else```

literally the first sentence

"regardless of anything else" ... if you remove context, rights are meaningless.

I do not follow your logic, i consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right

I consider rights to be principles of law.

gtg now sorry

I need to weigh in on that, and the semantics is important- a *right* is based on that hypothetical if you were in that uncultivated environ.

If freedom of speech were independent of laws, all countries would have freedom of speech. And we wouldn't have to wage the culture war.

Rights can be carved away by social mores (as enshrined in law) but they're inherent to the individual.

What does "Rights are inherent to the individual." even mean?

Natural.

And i don't think there is such thing as natural or inherent rights.

So it means what I think it means

In this case, I argue that even if they are, they are meaningless without enforcement, which is usually done via law.

Every declaration of right, IMO, means that they are confirming the rights they thought they already had. Never a document create rights on their own, the Bill of Rights doesn't just create rights to free speech out of nowhere, and the US constitution doesn't just create the right to have a US house of representatives. Meaning the rights they thought they had were being violated, and it was up to them to enforce those rights by laws, and in some cases by force.

@Goddess Tyche i apologize for getting your hopes up, i didn't expect an 80 question test, i'm exhausted