Immigration

[Minimalist]

That's just silly.

I've never seen a white guy operate a leaf blower in the six years I've been out here. I don't even own one. My Mexicans bring their own.

and there are unalienable rights

Not for aliens, there aren't. And as the Nisei showed, even for American citizens there were no inalienable rights.

"Rights ain't rights if someone can take 'em away." So far, Carlin is beating you hands down.

[tackattack]

@Min so you feel no one has any inherint privaleges at all? That it's take or be taken, kill or be killed, the strongest survive?

[Violet]

@Min so you feel no one has any inherint privaleges at all? That it's take or be taken, kill or be killed, the strongest survive?

Actually, it's only the luckiest (or perhaps it is that they are unlucky) which survive. Strength but increases ones' 'chances' (... determinism...) of surviving.

And this is a dog-eat-dog world where compassion (kinship, friendship, etc) is optional and plenty often destroys the future potential of a life. That being said, if I cannot have a future by being pleasant: I will not have one at all.

... Please note that I do not find the butchery of my enemy's civilians on a massive scale to be unpleasant.

[Minimalist]

@Min so you feel no one has any inherint privaleges at all? That it's take or be taken, kill or be killed, the strongest survive?

Inherint? No. Not even inherent. Carlin is correct. "Rights aren't rights if someone can them them away."

We see even in America today a concerted effort by rich corporate plutocrat cocksuckers to take away rights from the middle class so they can fill their filthy pockets even further....aided and abetted by a tiny group of naive fools called "Libertarians."

[Anomalocaris]

Humans are social animals. All rights and privileges are artifacts of particular construction in the society in which they are found. Individuals may come up with all sorts of arguments for or against particular ones, but ultimately any rights and privileges can be taken away by any society which grants them. Religious faith is attractive partially because it can be used as another bluff in the argument for or against certain privilege or rights, partially because it also readily turns the sand into which weak minded can plung their heads to deny the unreassuring bedrock fact of human existence that one has no rights and privileges beyond the ones that fellow men can take away. The same also applies to constitutional fundamentalism. However, that rights and previleges are conceived and granted by men does not demean their potential value as advantageous traits of a society.

[tackattack]

---

@Min so you feel no one has any inherint privaleges at all? That it's take or be taken, kill or be killed, the strongest survive?

Inherint? No. Not even inherent. Carlin is correct. "Rights aren't rights if someone can them them away."

We see even in America today a concerted effort by rich corporate plutocrat cocksuckers to take away rights from the middle class so they can fill their filthy pockets even further....aided and abetted by a tiny group of naive fools called "Libertarians."

Humans are social animals. All rights and privileges are artifacts of particular construction in the society in which they are found. Individuals may come up with all sorts of arguments for or against particular ones, but ultimately any rights and privileges can be taken away by any society which grants them. Religious faith is attractive partially because it can be used as another bluff in the argument for or against certain privilege or rights, partially because it also readily turns the sand into which weak minded can plung their heads to deny the unreassuring bedrock fact of human existence that one has no rights and privileges beyond the ones that fellow men can take away. The same also applies to constitutional fundamentalism. However, that rights and previleges are conceived and granted by men does not demean their potential value as advantageous traits of a society.

---

Fair enough, so no inherent rights. Would it be more accurate to say then - It is advantageous for a civilized society to grant members of that society certain privileges that are conducive and productive to the type of society that it’s leaders aim for?

[Violet]

Fair enough, so no inherent rights. Would it be more accurate to say then - It is advantageous for a civilized society to grant members of that society certain privileges that are conducive and productive to the type of society that it’s leaders aim for?

No... that would be advantageous to the country's leaders, which is not necessarily advantageous to the society.

[tackattack]

How about there are rights that are beneficial to any society that all people should have access to and be granted?

I've changed my tune a little on this after thinking more about the first amendment. Bottom line here is they're entitled to burn what they want to get their point across. They entitled to spit on people and do almost anything except attack others physically to get their point across. If people don't have mutual respect, peace and understanding before they are granted these rights or immigrated into society, the society obtaining them is weaker for it not stronger, and would be better putting a stop to it, before sympathizers tear apart the country internally.

[Violet]

How about there are rights that are beneficial to any society that all people should have access to and be granted?

Depends on the kind of society you intend to foster. It certainly will not foster an adaptable and competitive community if protect the society from every 'evil' you can conceive of. Also, not all people should have the 'access to bear arms'... only those who show they are competent in the use of a tool should be allowed to use that tool outside of controlled conditions in which to learn to use a tool. I'm against 'baseline rights' for a people. They are entitled to nothing that have not proven themselves capable of doing anything.

But that's my own belief. 'Rights' are plenty often granted as you suggest (minus beneficial) with some few exceptions.

I've changed my tune a little on this after thinking more about the first amendment. Bottom line here is they're entitled to burn what they want to get their point across. They entitled to spit on people and do almost anything except attack others physically to get their point across. If people don't have mutual respect, peace and understanding before they are granted these rights or immigrated into society, the society obtaining them is weaker for it not stronger, and would be better putting a stop to it, before sympathizers tear apart the country internally.

The bottom line is that we are *not* allowed to burn things to express our speech. I should be impressed if a man who spits upon a president is not arrested immediately. If you are denied the ability to attack others as a statement, then it is clear that your ability to state (by whatever means) is not free.

Try not to blame the common people, immigrants and 'natives' alike, because employers see no reason to offer more jobs.

[tackattack]

We are allowed to burn things, it's just in really bad taste and never leads to anything good. Look what happened when the preacher burnt a Quran in Florida. People burn the flag all the time. I shouldn't be so sensitive about it. I just don't think it helps their cause any to go around burning things and spitting on people.