Oh the Irony...

[JudgeRightly]

Hmm, well ranting aside, there's articles 25 and 26 of The United Nations declaration of human rights:

Sorry, but first of all, this is an appeal to authority, and second, rights don't come from any government, but only from God.

If rights came from governments, then all it would take is for the government to change what it considers "rights" to something more preferable. Which means they weren't rights to begin with.

But, because rights come from GOD, and not any government, those rights do not change, no matter where one goes. Whether a government recognizes those rights is besides the point.

In regards to the article, then isn't it understandable why there is so much protest?

No, it's not understandable, or at least, because of the fact that "the right to shelter/housing" isn't actually a right, no matter what the UN says, but the right to purchase, own, and use property" is, it's not legal, not rational to support it, and not responsible to allow it.

Oakland isn't the only area where there's problems with affordable housing

Blame high taxes and too many regulations for that.

But so what? So therefore, we should allow bums to live on property they don't own?

and yet some people on the far right dismiss any concerns with stuff like that and just regard anyone on the lower end of the ladder as lazy or "bums".

:yawn:

So a corporation had a vacant property inhabited by some single mothers.

Sorry, but those women do not own the rights to live on that property, no matter how much you emote about it.

Oh, boo hoo, they must have been devastated.

Appeal to emotion.

Justice (at least to some extent) was served to those women for violating the rights the company had regarding those houses.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why would anyone take seriously an argument that suggests that Christians are somehow apposed to the poor or to charity? I mean, how desperate are you to find something bad to say about God, the bible and those who believe in both? It's just utter insanity!

It is not a sin to be a beggar, per se. The condition can and often does arise because of sin but certainly not always. Nor is it a sin to give a beggar the alms he's asking for. On the contrary, giving alms to the poor is a very good thing to do so long as you are giving those alms to those in need due to circumstances outside of their control and that you aren't enabling the person to live a destructive lifestyle of drunkard laziness. The policies of this country make it very difficult indeed to be kind to the poor because the left has robbed us of the opportunity to help the honestly downtrodden and left, for the most part, only those who will not provide for themselves to beg on street corners and thus should be left to go hungry that they might be better motivated to buy food with their money instead of drugs and alcohol.

Regardless, all of that, whether you agree with a syllable of it or not, is entirely beside the point! The disagreement we have with these squatting women has nothing to do with whether they are poor, why they are poor or whether someone should give them a place to live. It isn't about that - AT ALL!!! If your on the left, you are stupid and therefore have no idea, at this point, what I could possibly be getting at and so I'll have to repeat what I've already said and spell it out for those of you who can't think past your own noses.

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO ANYTHING THAT MUST BE PROVIDED TO THEM BY SOMEONE ELSE!!!!

The fact that someone is poor does not give them a claim check to the assets of the rich! The rich may and very often do choose to help the poor in any way they see fit. They can be as generous as they desire to be to whomever they choose for whatever reason they decide but to force them to give over the use or disposition of their property is theft. It is nothing but a back door form of slavery that undermines the very premise of freedom from tyranny that not only harms the rich but the poor that is supposed to be helping and in the end collapses the very society that makes getting rich possible in the first place.

:first:

 

[ok doser]

Sorry, but those women do not own the rights to live on that property, no matter how much you emote about it.

apparently the fact that the property was owned by a (gasp) corporation (!) is significant

not sure why :idunno:

 

[God's Truth]

apparently the fact that they were owned by a (gasp) corporation (!) is significant

not sure why :idunno:

Yeah as if that should make a difference.

Walmart is a corporation. Do they think it is okay to go there and take what they need without permission?

 

[ok doser]

So a corporation had a vacant property inhabited by some single mothers. Oh, boo hoo, they must have been devastated.

I seriously doubt they were "devastated", and the suggestion that they were strikes me as more than a little retarded/emo/girly - it's the sort of statement one would expect to hear from an overemotional girl in junior high

or a homo

 

[ok doser]

Yeah as if that should make a difference.

Walmart is a corporation. Do they think it is okay to go there and take what they need without permission?

the UN says I have a "right" to food, water and clothing, so yeah, I guess I should feel entitled to go into Walmart and take what I need :idunno:

 

[God's Truth]

the UN says I have a "right" to food, water and clothing, so yeah, I guess I should feel entitled to go into Walmart and take what I need :idunno:

So no one in the UN gets arrested for stealing in stores?

 

[ok doser]

So no one in the UN gets arrested for stealing in stores?

heck, they don't even get disciplined for rape

:think: kinda surprising that the UN doesn't recognize my "right" to sexual fulfillment

 

[God's Truth]

heck, they don't even get disciplined for rape

:think: kinda surprising that the UN doesn't recognize my "right" to sexual fulfillment

Yeah! And how about a woman who can't have children, she should be able to pick any one and just take it.

 

[way 2 go]

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO ANYTHING THAT MUST BE PROVIDED TO THEM BY SOMEONE ELSE!!!!

so by that logic a baby does not have the right to life :sigh:

 

[ok doser]

so by that logic a baby does not have the right to life :sigh:

good point, but I'd nuance that by saying that by that logic a baby doesn't have the right to the care that insures life

 

[ok doser]

does an adult have a right to life, in the context of demanding that others provide the means for maintaining that life?


If I get smooshed by a truck and lie on the pavement bleeding out, does my right to life overrule your right to pass me by?

 

[Right Divider]

so by that logic a baby does not have the right to life :sigh:

You're having a problem with context. Clete was specifically talking about property rights.

 

[ok doser]

You're having a problem with context. Clete was specifically talking about property rights.

if my life is at risk, am I justified in violating your property rights?

 

[way 2 go]

does an adult have a right to life, in the context of demanding that others provide the means for maintaining that life?


If I get smooshed by a truck and lie on the pavement bleeding out, does my right to life overrule your right to pass me by?

where do rights end and responsibility begin

Am I my brother's keeper?

 

[way 2 go]

if my life is at risk, am I justified in violating your property rights?

something like
can I steal your truck to drive myself to the hospital ?

 

[jgarden]

 

[ok doser]

(Lazarus) should have just got a job before any such situation came about then shouldn't he? Then (Lazarus) wouldn't have had those sores and no need to beg for scraps of food, right?

Considering the situation in which Lazurus found himself, a beggar, covered with sores, unable to walk - would he have been justified, Arthur Brain , in stealing what he needed?

 

[ok doser]

something like
can I steal your truck to drive myself to the hospital ?

something very like - I had in mind a situation I found myself in forty years ago, out on the water in a boat that died, very late in the season with a storm blowing in, on an island with resources that would have provided for survival if I was willing to break a lock or two.

 

[ok doser]

where do rights end and responsibility begin

Am I my brother's keeper?

indeed

but do I have the right to demand from my brother resources that God is willing to let him deny me?

and to use the power of the state to back up that demand?