How do you deal with the fact that society is willing to give up their rights of freedom in order to live in safe zones?
I stop browsing reddit for one.
You should too.
I used to care, but now I don't. I want to see Trump win in 2015 and watch the happening as it all goes down. Idiots can say and do whatever they want in the little liberal hellholes of college campuses, it won't change the way the world works.
>>24337147
I'm really confused by this line of thinking. We have a right to free speech. We don't have a right to self-respect, sanity, or even happiness, just the pursuit of it. So there is really no legal basis for this idea.
>>24337147
Too late for me, I already live in a country where you can't say anything.
Basically the whole gig is danced like this:
> Freedom is worth dying for it, so it's worth having your jimmies rustled for time to time.
> Free speech hurts feeling, it's worse than Hitler so we'll use the rare occasion where racists people say retarded things and say people have a right to be protected.
Hello reddit & Get out normie
>>24337230
it will as soon more and more of them start getting into positions of power
>>24337147
lol suk my dik u cunt.
>the retards who keep parroting "muh rights" "free speech " while simultaneously ignoring the "as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others " part
Uneducated swine
>>24337147
>safe zones
Like the ones people keep shooting and bombing?
>>24337273
Shame on me, I forgot the third case:
> My preferred opinion has a right to be protected so we'll defend it by outlawing the other side's opinion.
Example would be muslim countries where you can't say shit about religion, which includes the corruption of religious institutions, the country rulers and of course leaving Islam. Because people have a right to be "protected".
It would be funny if they didn't try from time to time to get that idea accepted at the ONU and added to their chart.
>>24337297
please tell me how calling you a fag infringes any rights of yours other than ''muh feeels''
>>24337147
Which rights have been given up? List them.
>society is willing to give up their rights of freedom in order to live in safe zones?
This is literally the definition of society m8. You give up freedom to feel safer, and hope everyone else does the same, and maybe form consequences for people who threaten that safety.
>>24337272
Where is it written in the quark of an atom that humans have a right to free speech? We only decide whether or not that's true within our social context. You can do whatever the fuck you want m8. Maybe someone will fuck you up for it but "rights" are an abstract construction.
>>24337273
You aren't allowed to talk about hitler you anti-semite I'm reporting you
>>24337380
The Constitution recognises the rights that are guaranteed to every person. Are you British or something? Foreigners often times don't understand it. I didn't really until I immigrated to the states.
>>24337463
Guaranteed is a weird word for what I wanted to say. The rights are inherent. The Constitution recognises inherent rights; it doesn't give them.
>>24337297
hurting your feelings is not infringing your rights faggot kill yourself nigger
>>24337494
That's just something they made up, rights don't actually exist
>>24337567
I'm trying to tell you that that is not what the US is founded on. You can keep saying that rights are made up; but, in the US they are regarded as being inherent to every person. So, while in Europe or Canada what you're saying may be true. Legally, in the US, everyone inherently has a right to free speech and any other right recognised by the constitution.
>>24337380
>You aren't allowed to talk about hitler you anti-semite I'm reporting you
In my country, joking that pic related looks like a monkey can send you in jail for 9 months.
>>24337494
>The rights are inherent.
Where is it written in the fabric of the cosmos that humans have inherent rights? What does a piece of paper have to do with the observational existence of an attribute of reality?
The fact that I could decide to walk over to your house, tie you to the floor and poop on your face at any time pretty much proves that human rights are made up and not inherent. I mean wtf. Do you seriously believe that it is a feature of reality that humans are not allowed to be fucked with?
>>24337515
>>24337362
>what is defamation
Uneducated swine. Stick to piss jugs you aren't fit for law
>>24337668
>edgy reddit atheist liberal thinks he knows shit about the fabric of the cosmos
you need to begin consuming pyschedelics, smoke more and chill out
>>24337668
I think you might be actually retarded or an edgy teenager. Right aren't scientifically inherent, of course. The Constitution recognises them as such, so in a court of law they are regarded as such. Being able to infringe on someone's right in no way means they don't have rights, so your pooping example is completely moot. The USA also has a certain right that lets you safeguard your rights, the right to bear arms. If you did try to tie me up and poop on me, I have the right to fill you up with buckshot.
>people are actually such fucking pussies and so fucking dumb that they don't understand free speech
>literally the only way this could have happened is if women not only got the vote, but turned most men into honorary women as well
>tfw cunts are turning us into a Feelingsocracy because they are crybaby children who don't understand the concept of adapting to hardship and actually trying in life
>>24337694
omg u just defamed me!!!
im suing you!!! omg you violated my rights omg!!!!! stop defaming me you bully!!!!!!!!111111
>>24337694
"Defamation" is not the same as an insult, Mr. Lawyer
>>24337567
I think it's interesting that James Madison never wanted the bill of rights because he believed that enumerating rights in effect limited the rights of the people because it would essentially take away all of the unwritten rights that exist but aren't specifically mentioned in the BoR.
Their position was that these rights existed with or without the BoR. They naturally belong to all humans by virtue of being people and the BoR was simply acknowledging they were there. That's the legal foundation of natural rights.
>>24337712
high brow m8
>>24337732
>Right aren't scientifically inherent, of course.
soooo
>Being able to infringe on someone's right in no way means they don't have rights
But you just said that rights are made up. So they can't be "had". And then you also said, they aren't made up? wtf m8. Get your shit straight.
I can poop on your face and you can shoot me. The universe doesn't exist within the context of what people who wrote a piece of paper enforce. Thinking that you have inherent rights because someone wrote down on a piece of paper that you do is literally religious.
>>24337770
>defining natural rights in the context of a structured society
There's just something disingenuous about that
>>24337736
don't worry friend, this sort of thing has happened since the dawn of time
>society is made by the strong
>society protects and cuddles the people
>the people become weak
>the weak people, being unable to stand against the strong savages over the boarder, die off
>the strong savages make their own strong society
>it too decays and gets conquered
the inherent flaws of forming a society will keep this process going forever. or til one society wises up, realizes morals are worthless, and does away with everyone who is not a peaceful and productive member of it's society.
genocide/a mass culling is the only way humanity will ever get anywhere
This wouldn't have happened if women never got the vote. Unfortunately, they do and now have post-modern feelings primary discourse as the norm at supposedly 'intellectual' universities. Enjoy the decline.
We'll all be dead in roughly 60 years anyway, don't make yourself a martyr fighting this stupid culture war shit. Enjoy your life and don't give more to society than you need to.
>>24337515
holy shit i want a gf with a body like that
>>24337819
>Thinking that you have inherent rights because someone wrote down on a piece of paper that you do is literally religious.
That's not what anyone is saying.
They are saying you have inherent rights because they are inherent, because you do, just because. There is nothing more too it. You have the right to free speech because you do. They are self evident.
Those who try to infringe on these rights can be dealt with legally, instead of just killing them/beating them up.
No one, but retards like you, actually think the only reason we have rights is because some old faggots wrote them down on some paper.
>>24337147
I'm happy I'm not a generation or two from now. Those niggers will really have to deal with some bad shit if things really start becoming dystopian.
>>24337819
A society agrees together on what safety they want in place by giving up certain rights and what rights they wants protected.
If you have a problem with that, move to a different society or make yours a better one.
Otherwise don't complain when you get fucked over and arrested.
Safe zones are run by private institutions retard. Thru can do whatever thr hell they want. The government cant lock you up because you hurt someone's feelings. So your free speech rights are not infringed.
>>24337850
it is very apparent you've never read a history book in your life.
>>24337957
but anon that is how every civilization has gone down and risen up
>>24337957
>reading history books
>reading an amalgamation of non-primary sources riddled with bias and opinion
>not researching and reading legitimate primary sources
Stay keked goyim
>>24337515
sauce/name
>>24337819
All laws are made up, senpai. I can go out and steal shit; but that's against the law. You can still be prosecuted for that though.
I don't think you fully understand what rights are. In the US at the very least, rights are something that everyone is entitled to just for being alive. They aren't a physically observable phenomena like you seem to think. The founding fathers of the country decided that certain rights are recognised as inherent to every person by the US, so the government has to work to preserve these rights and allow people to defend them.
I never said anything about the universe. Inherent rights are simply recognised by the US government.
I seriously hope you are just "trolling."
>>24337986
>legitimate primary sources
literally does not exist
>>24337889
>They are saying you have inherent rights because they are inherent, because you do, just because. There is nothing more too it. You have the right to free speech because you do. They are self evident.
There is no evidence. Something with no evidence cannot be "self-evident". Believing something is true without evidence is literally religion. Unless, you can present evidence that rights exist?
>Those who try to infringe on these rights can be dealt with legally, instead of just killing them/beating them up.
What's the difference between "legal action" and killing/beating someone up? Isn't that exactly what the police do when you do something they don't agree with? There isn't any difference, other than the group that does things "legally" is more powerful than a couple of hooligans. Powerful enough to hoodwink you into believing that you have inherent rights and that they are allowed to beat people up and kill them when you are not.
I'm just so baffled. Do you seriously think since the cosmos began expanding that the concept "Humans have the right to be happy and not be fucked with" existed? What about animals? Do chimpanzees have inherent rights? What makes us different? Is it intelligence and feelings? Elephants are extremely intelligent and feel all sorts of emotions. Do they have rights? What about deer? What about fish? What about lizards? What about mosquitos? What makes humans so special?
>>24338020
wat
>texts written by individuals who lived during a particular event or period of time dont exist
>instead ill just read a government mandated book that summarizes and interprets those sources for me
wat
>>24338042
>something without evidence cannot be self evident
You are either a downsy or trolling, Jesus Christ.
>>24337979
That's not even how the Roman Empire, the famous 'fallen' civilization ended.
>>24338042
>Believing something is true without evidence is literally religion
No its called intuition
>>>/r/atheism/
>>24337924
That's literally what I said in my first post, I'm not complaining about anything other than people thinking that rights inherently exist
>>24337380
>>24338015
>They aren't a physically observable phenomena like you seem to think.
Are you people even reading my posts? I have literally been saying that there is no observable evidence that rights exist.
That's why I think it's so funny when you guys agree with basic things I say after I say them while telling me I'm wrong and that rights still exist when they literally do not and you admit that they do not. It's like you guys don't even think out your stances. "There is no evidence that rights exist but they do because you live in the US and people say they do so blabla" lmfao what.
My only stance has been that humans don't have inherent rights. Pieces of paper that say humans have inherent rights don't make it so. I am so confused by your guys' stances. It's like, you recognize rights don't inherently exist, and then say they do because a country says they do? what the fuck?
>>24338042
Everytime you post you supply with more information that will make it easier for me to track you down and find you
>>24338042
>There is no evidence.
It is self evident, you fucking retard.
>>24338058
>>texts written by individuals who lived during a particular event or period of time dont exist
They exist, they're just worthless.
>some guy said something... so it's true
Nothing said by a human is true or has any worth, aside from mathematics.
>>24338146
>>24338086
Atheism makes just as much of a morally-truth apt statement as claiming rights exist inherently. It's equally illogical. Calling everyone who points out that your beliefs aren't based in reality an "atheist" doesn't dismiss anything m8. You need to take your hands off of your ears and stop believing in things that aren't real. Or, continue to, I guess, it doesn't actually matter to me. I just like telling people when they're objectively wrong about something.
>>24338145
It's exactly how it fell.
>people became weak
>women gained footholes in politics
>there were savages on the boarder
>shit went to fuck
>savages did what they do best, fucking up weak sheltered peoples
>rome falls
>savages steal their ideas and knowledge
>make their own society
>said society turns to shit in time
it's one big cycle of shit
>>24338191
>they're just worthless.
wat
you dont have to take them for fact but you can see patterns that exist in many different sources that gives you a pretty good clue of what happened
>>24338171
That's not how science works. Chances are if your explanations for things are "It doesn't need evidence it's just real", you're probably religious.
>>24338165lewd
Who decides what is hate speech and what isn't? If it's an individual or a group, then they will surely use it to their advantage and prevent people from ever criticizing them. If it's everyone, then eventually all language will be banned. Censorship is inherently bad.
I used to wonder how we'd ever get to the point where people would be willing to worship a man and take a mark in order to buy food. Now I understand
>>24338237
>a pretty good clue of what happened
Is not what happened.
It is a clue, a guess, an estimate, a worthless hunch.
>>24338246
>That's not how science works.
good thing we aren't talking about anything related to science
The animefag is just playing the devil's advocate.
>>24338230
Where on earth did you read that nonsense?
>>24338207
>it doesnt actually matter to me
it obviously does judging from how frustrated you are
>>24338282
>worthless
an estimate is not worthless wtf youre retarded why are you even posting in this thread if you obviously dont understand how history works
come to your own conclusions about the world, you dont need someone else to tell you what to believe
>>24338316
history of what happened to rome
only major thing I left out was how fuck awful their political system was
>>24338318
Lorde looks derpy as shit.
>>24337694
>This scrub talks of being 'fit for law' right after misusing the Defamation
Uneducated swine.
If he went around telling people you were a faggot, then that would qualify as defamation insofar as it might impact your reputation.
Addressing you and personally accusing you, directly, especially in the absence of other people, does not constitute defamation.
It might be verbal harassment at most.
That being said, espousing dissenting opinions isn't verbal harassment; which is what idiots who claim skeptical views towards their own beliefs as being 'hate speech' would like to imply. But legally, the umbrage in this case is your problem should you choose to take it, and not a felony on the other person's behalf.
If it were so, I could claim grave visual offense from all the eye sores I meet on the street and prosecute them all for being ugly. See how stupid your perspective sounds?
Free speech is one thing, Hate speech another.
Both have worth.
To defend the former only is a dangerous path because it presumes the 'good' and 'wise' will outweigh the 'destructive' in a free communicative society... but to place the latter as the most important, no holds barred, leads to censorship and subsequently radicalization and extremism, which is far more destructive.
tl;dr: your 'feels' aren't legal or moral justification to suppress dialogue, however unpleasant you find it. Grow a pair.
>>24338347
>history of what happened to rome
I'm going to have to say that's doesn't sound like a real book.
>>24338298
That's the only thing I've been saying this entire time. You guys are religious and unscientific in your stances on human rights. Why? What's the point of being, just, wrong?
>>24338318
>Haha umad I was just pretending to be retarded
cute
>>24338344
>come to your own conclusions about the world, you dont need someone else to tell you what to believe
that's a weird thing for you to say, considering you were talking about texts on walls from some random fuckhead being credible let alone worth anything
anything anyone has or ever could say is worthless, aside from mathematics. language was a mistake.
It fills me with macabre glee. I want to see normies destroy themselves and their children's future. I want to watch them thrash and flail when it comes back and bites them on the ass. Say, when religious extremists and feminists start curtailing their rights and ability to express themselves and they can do nothing about it. Seeing those smug neoprogs bend over get fucked by their own ideals will make me endlessly happy.
>>24338002
Goes by Flora on Hegre.
>>24337147
>How do I deal with this?
Simple.You move out to a place where no liberal pussies live and then you're golden to speak whatever without hearing the dreadful words "That triggers me".
>>24338396
>You guys are religious and unscientific in your stances on human rights. Why?
because you can not scientifically order or quantify an idea. it is what it is
thus science isn't of any use when it comes to human rights
you moron
>>24338430
What you're saying follows the same logic as
>thus science isn't of any use when it comes to astrology
or
>thus science isn't of any use when it comes to magic
or even
>thus science isn't of any use when it comes to unicorns
That's how inherently real "human rights" are. 100% artificial construction. I don't see how choosing to not believe in something that isn't real makes me a moron but whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>24338355
*Randy Marsh
>>24338490
>100% artificial construction
no fucking shit you moron, some asshole came up with them
they didn't appear from nowhere
you are a moron because you can't understand the concept of self evident ideas created by people and upheld by people. you seem to think science has anything to do with this.
>>24338490
Science can't thrive without freedom of expression and freedom in general. For someone who seems to love science you aren't really considering what's in science's best interests.
>>24338490
>how can ideas be real if we can't quantify them
you're reaching Jaden levels of blathering nonsense.
>>24338535
>you can't understand the concept of self evident ideas created by people and upheld by people.
I think I've thoroughly proven that I have a keen sense of being able to tell when people are making stuff up from make-believe, such as human rights. I don't know why you would think otherwise as that has been my consistent stance.
>you seem to think science has anything to do with this.
I have said multiple times science has nothing to do with human rights. It's as if you guys don't even read. This is what I'm talking about, it's so fucking funny.
>"WHAT YOU SAID IS RIGHT, BUT YOU'RE WRONG! HUMAN RIGHTS ARE A MADE UP ABSTRACTION, BUT THEY EXIST, OKAY?!"
like, wut lmao
>>24338389
This anon gets it. Hat's off.
>>24338589
>It's as if you guys don't even read.
yup
only a moron would read whole posts
the key is to skim through them quickly, find something dumb, quote it, and then make fun of the poster who said it
>>24338542
I don't see what social conditions necessary for a scientific community to thrive has to do with the objective, observable existence of inherent human rights. Why are you talking about this? I have not said that I am pro-science nor anti-freedom, neither qualities are relevant to the discussion. I'm just saying that there is no evidence that human rights are inherent, which is factual.
>>24338574
I never said this nor anything remotely like this. You guys are getting to the point where you can only make irrelevant red herring/straw man arguments to poorly attempt to defend your shitty claims it seems.
>>24338657
You said you didn't believe in them so I figured you meant you were against them. No shit human rights are made up that doesn't mean they aren't valuable.
>>24338657
>human rights are 'unscientific'
back to reddit you drone
>>24338681
"value", another worthless concept requiring a social context to even begin to exist. Your worldview is built upon a foundations of toothpicks, why are you okay with this? Genuinely curious.
>>24338693
Are you trying to say that this website is some kind of gathering point for moral realists with this post?
>>24338770
Because I value science and want science to prosper and continue advancing. Any self proclaimed scientist would be in favor of liberty and securing liberty with human rights.
>>24338807
Perhaps that might be true but I don't see how it's remotely relevant to whether or not human rights inherently exist.
Have fun with your religious cult of inherent rights I gotta go to the store.
>>24338944
bye, thanks for the images tho.
>Normies delude themselves that their intelligent and the future will be science, technology and unity
>Not realizing that this civiization will fall in the same manner as Rome
>b-but it'll be different this time, were very liberal
>mfw
