Hooray For Pedophilia!

[Idolater]

Stop looking for who and start understanding how.

You think you have access to absolute right and wrong through God.

No, he doesn't, not practically, which is all you should be caring about. RD ascribes our human rights to God, but you don't need to believe in God to believe in human rights.

There are a number of ways to demonstrate that human rights are real and exist, self-evidence being one (that's the one mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, where our human right of ethical independence is first mentioned, in all history), which declares that we are all morally protected from ever having malum in se crimes committed against us without justification, this is what a human right is, whether or not you agree that it is God-given.

You strain to make sense of a sacred book and apply it to modern problems?

Believing in human rights doesn't depend upon the Bible.

If we agree to the simply criteria that it is a virtue to reduce human suffering and increase satisfaction, then we can build a testable moral framework that co-exists along side law, using empiricism and developing precedent along the way.

That's just utilitarianism, very typical of legal positivists and consequentialists.

==Edit
Utilitarianism is repugnant to absolute, universal human rights.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How about love and affection?

It is far more loving, rather, it IS loving, to deter people from descending into mental illness. If you hate someone, you wouldn't care, or you would even legitimize (to make legally valid) their illness.

Meanwhile autocracy has no balancing mechanism leaving evil to grow unchecked.

Sure it does. A wicked king can, at the very least, die.

A Democratic Republic is

A terrible idea.

the closest humans can come to government by reason because it exposes ego and superstition.

What it does is allow the unreasonable masses to overthrow the reasonable minority simply by voting.

At least with a monarch, you only have to convince one person to change his mind. Try convincing millions they're wrong. It's not doable.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, he doesn't, not practically,

Uh, yeah, he does. It's called God's word. AKA the Bible.

which is all you should be caring about. RD ascribes our human rights to God, but you don't need to believe in God to believe in human rights.

Human rights come from God.

If you reject the idea of God, human rights go out the window with Him.

 

[Skeeter]

It is far more loving, rather, it IS loving, to deter people from descending into mental illness. If you hate someone, you wouldn't care, or you would even legitimize (to make legally valid) their illness.

When one defines what constitutes an illness solely based on how his tummy feels when he thinks about something, he is being narcissistic. When one ignores several independent lines of research that have meaningfully described what constitutes a mental illness and what does not, he is being idiotic. When one tries to impinge on the rights of other solely based on how his tummy feels, he is being sociopathic.

Sure it does. A wicked king can, at the very least, die.

Wreaking havoc in the meantime? And who will replace him? A candidate vetted from different angles by the public? Nope. An even stupider relative of the first guy or a new guy who has advanced tactics in bullying.

A terrible idea.
What it does is allow the unreasonable masses to overthrow the reasonable minority simply by voting.

Trump is an example of the inherent weakness in the system. However, a republic rather than enact the whims of the populace directly, installs leaders to make the decisions for them. The qualities of each leader are associated with particular consequences and the public can vet future leaders on that basis. Also, power is balanced by branches of the government. Fail safe mechanisms exist to remove problem children. Trump would have been impeached by republicans if he had not taken steps to leave office.

At least with a monarch, you only have to convince one person to change his mind.

That's a nutty consideration.

Try convincing millions they're wrong. It's not doable.

For immediate matters, you only have to convince a handful of people in a Republic.

 

[Idolater]

Uh, yeah, he does. It's called God's word. AKA the Bible.



Human rights come from God.

If you reject the idea of God, human rights go out the window with Him.

There are plenty of people who believe in human rights and are atheists.

 

[Right Divider]

There are plenty of people who believe in human rights and are atheists.

And yet atheists have nothing to base those rights on. Just some useless opinions.

 

[Skeeter]

There are plenty of people who believe in human rights and are atheists.

Human Rights can be a helpful concept but there are so many flaws when trying to apply them in real world dilemmas! I prefer Essential Ethical Principles.

 

[Idolater]

Human Rights can be a helpful concept but there are so many flaws when trying to apply them in real world dilemmas! I prefer Essential Ethical Principles.

All other moral theories have been dispatched since human rights were finally recognized. Because we judge all other moral and ethical theories against our conception of human rights. Which means that human rights are the moral theory now.

 

[Idolater]

And yet atheists have nothing to base those rights on. Just some useless opinions.

They base it on self-evidence, which is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Right Divider]

They base it on self-evidence, which is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The "self-evidence" referred to in the Declaration of Independence is based on the rights coming from the Creator.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The rights are NOT self-evident without the Creator.

 

[Skeeter]

They base it on self-evidence, which is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The declaration is not a document that is binding on the government or its citizens. At this point it is aspirational only.

Rights are codified in the Constitution but the scheme is weak as the penumbras in the wind. And, no direction on how to handle competing rights is given.

Level of scrutiny is mixed up with weight of purpose.

 

[Idolater]

The "self-evidence" referred to in the Declaration of Independence is based on the rights coming from the Creator.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The rights are NOT self-evident without the Creator.

Are you denying that there are many atheists who believe in human rights, or not?

 

[Idolater]

The declaration is not a document that is binding on the government or its citizens. At this point it is aspirational only.

The Civil War was righteously waged based on the Declaration.

Rights are codified in the Constitution but the scheme is weak as the pneumbras in the wind.

It's the strongest 'scheme' we have.

And, no direction on how to handle competing rights.

That's what the Supreme Court is for, and that is 'directed' democratically.

Level of scrutiny is mixed up with weight of purpose.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Skeeter]

The Civil War was righteously waged based on the Declaration.

The revolutionary war was. The civil war was a foolish attempt to create a slave empire.

It's the strongest 'scheme' we have.

Still not strong enough.

That's what the Supreme Court is for, and that is 'directed' democratically.

The Court was designed to be far removed from politics so reason would reign. It has become too political.

I don't know what you mean.

That was a test of your understanding of Constitutional law.

 

[Right Divider]

Are you denying that there are many atheists who believe in human rights, or not?

You are very dense.

My point was that their belief system has nothing to base human rights on but they own vain opinions.

 

[Idolater]

You are very dense.

My point was that their belief system has nothing to base human rights on but they own vain opinions.

So iow they are correct, you just don't like their reasoning.

 

[Skeeter]

You are very dense.

My point was that their belief system has nothing to base human rights on but they own vain opinions.

In contrast to theists who tend to hide their own opinions behind Bible verse and pretend they have ballast. They tend also to wear a cloak of humility around massive egos in a similar fashion.

 

[Idolater]

The revolutionary war was. The civil war was a foolish attempt to create a slave empire.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Still not strong enough.

It's pretty strong. The limit right now isn't the Constitution, it's all the independent sovereign states who aren't under it right now.

The Court was designed to be far removed from politics so reason would reign.

It's democratically 'directed'.

It has become too political.

You mean partisan.

That was a test of your understanding of Constitutional law.

So what did you actually mean.

 

[Right Divider]

So iow they are correct, you just don't like their reasoning.

Their opinions are correct? How so?

Again, they have NO basis on which to determine "human rights".

 

[Right Divider]

In contrast to theists who tend to hide their own opinions behind Bible verse and pretend they have ballast. They tend also to wear a cloak of humility around massive egos in a similar fashion.

How can you determine "human rights" from looking at atoms?