From where do YOUR rights come?

[W54/XM-388]

I just read the key parts of the Magna Carta in the Salisbury Cathedral in the UK on Friday. Much of the concepts from that succinct document translated into our Declaration of Independence (go figure, right?). Fact is, your rights are granted to you by the Govt you are loyal to. If you don't agree, try a living under a different system, and post that same question publicly!
We far often assume the world is like ours.

You might forget that the great Magna Carta wasn't exactly some benevolent grant by the government / king.

Essentially the nobles were tired of the B.S. the King and the government did to them on a whim and pretty much at sword point forced the issue of "natural rights".

But just like here in this country, they were of course mostly interested in rights for themselves, not so much rights for their serfs and slaves.

 

[Ronws]

Point being, USA is the first place and nation on Earth to make legal precedent of our rights. I hear all this stuff about how we only have rights given to us by the government. First right is that of free speech, which we are doing right now, right here.

 

[Devildog]

From my creator God Almighty.

 

[Haney]

Athiests still have a creator. That they refuse to recognize it is no different than guys thinking they're women.

That is some stupid shit right there . Laughable . What about abortion ?

 

[quietmike]

That is some stupid shit right there . Laughable . What about abortion ?

Killing an unborn baby to avoid one predictable consequence of being a road whore?
What about it?

 

[Maxduty]

 

[higginsworksforme]

Deez.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

To me, there is a specific legal reason for noting that our inalienable rights come from the Creator. Simply put, no man can take away what is given by God. And the Bill of Rights was saying this quiet part out loud

Which is why they killed God first.

 

[Ronws]

That is some stupid shit right there . Laughable . What about abortion ?

Okay, at the risk of engendering a Billy Madison moment, how does abortion disprove God or disprove that atheists have mothers? Serious question, no gotcha, I just cannot seem to follow the logic.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

Okay, at the risk of engendering a Billy Madison moment, how does abortion disprove God or disprove that atheists have mothers? Serious question, no gotcha, I just cannot seem to follow the logic.

If there was a God he wouldn't let it happen.
This is their insane logic.
We all just magically came into existence by time and magic.........talk about faith.....

 

[Ronws]

If there was a God he wouldn't let it happen.
This is their insane logic.
We all just magically came into existence by time and magic.........talk about faith.....

To me, that was the funniest thing. Scientists saying there was no Creation.

So, how did the universe get here or was it always here?

Well, see, there was this big bang and everything has cooled from that initially expansion.

What was before that?

Nothing.

Wait .... what?

 

[armorpl8chikn]

Here's the thing though.....
Even the luciferians who promulgate these clowns, believe in a creator. Even luciferians believe Haney and his ilk are insane.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

To me, that was the funniest thing. Scientists saying there was no Creation.

So, how did the universe get here or was it always here?

Well, see, there was this big bang and everything has cooled from that initially expansion.

What was before that?

Nothing.

Wait .... what?

Not that there was nothing....that all mass in existence was compressed into a dot smaller than this: .

Nothing exploded and became everything.

 

[Ronws]

Not that there was nothing....that all mass in existence was compressed into a dot smaller than this: .

Nothing exploded and became everything.

You are just moving the question backward. Where did that compressed mass come from?

In the beginning was the Word. And the word was God. Whether He wears a suit or a moomoo, the evidence to date has not disproven God. It only proves that some people are salty and need to blame someone for something.

 

[Charmingmander]

There's no such thing as "rights".

We made em up. Like the bogyman.

The only thing stopping you from being as free as you want and doing what you want is fear of violent consequences from a system that mankind set up so that they can pretend to control outcomes.

 

[Ronws]

There's no such thing as "rights".

We made em up. Like the bogyman.

The only thing stopping you from being as free as you want and doing what you want is fear of violent consequences from a system that mankind set up so that they can pretend to control outcomes.

I have been fond of saying that we all have freedom of speech. You can say what you want. And have the freedom to face consequences, as well.

It is said that freedom of speech does not cover yelling "fire" in a theater. Yes it does, especially if there is a fire.

If there is not a fire, you could be arrested for disturbing the peace. But you physically did have the ability to express yourself.

People lie all the time, big and small ones.

If I were face to face with a person, what is to stop me from saying something that really upsets someone or sounds threatening? Fear that they might personally attack me in a pre-emptive strike? Then that is not a governmental system, that is one redneck against another.

Or, to put it another way, someone would have to kill me to stop me from speaking. But other times, I may keep my mouth shut, which is also freedom of speech. I try to choose my battles carefully.

 

[Charmingmander]

I have been fond of saying that we all have freedom of speech. You can say what you want. And have the freedom to face consequences, as well.

It is said that freedom of speech does not cover yelling "fire" in a theater. Yes it does, especially if there is a fire.

If there is not a fire, you could be arrested for disturbing the peace. But you physically did have the ability to express yourself.

People lie all the time, big and small ones.

If I were face to face with a person, what is to stop me from saying something that really upsets someone or sounds threatening? Fear that they might personally attack me in a pre-emptive strike? Then that is not a governmental system, that is one redneck against another.

Or, to put it another way, someone would have to kill me to stop me from speaking. But other times, I may keep my mouth shut, which is also freedom of speech. I try to choose my battles carefully.

Not what I'm talking about.

 

[Ronws]

Not what I'm talking about.

Evidently not.

 

[Rthur]

The same magical place energy and mass and the elements came from before the big bang.

R

 

[lariat]

There's no such thing as "rights".

We made em up. Like the bogyman.

The only thing stopping you from being as free as you want and doing what you want is fear of violent consequences from a system that mankind set up so that they can pretend to control outcomes.

As much as I hate to admit it, this is the truth. It’s one thing to have rights from God, it’s entirely another thing for a government or society to allow them. IOW, free will has its limits. We can disagree with that, but it doesn’t change the fact that everyone curbs or changes behavior based on the stick the State wields against such activities. Case in point: fully auto weapons are carefully controlled, but very few go through the hoops to have them legally and even fewer want to risk having them or even an “oil filter”. This despite the second amendment shall not be infringed. Even if the right to have a Thompson is protected under the second, nobody runs around with one. So again, it makes absolutely no difference what God has given. It only matters what the government allows and one decides to conform to. And very very few decide to FAFO. So if God does indeed give freedoms, we have given them to the government by virtue of compliance.

 

[Longshot231]

If you have the time; for your reading enjoyment...

https://archive.org/details/PaineRightsOfMan/mode/2up?view=theater

 

[Bullfrog08]

You have a "right" to do anything you want, but gov't mandates those right to fit the society you live in. Our "rights" in this country are those granted by gov't of the people. For instance, some men on the earth can marry multiple times. Some women must cover their face. The right of women to go around with uncovered faces is set by certain gov't. We are the only creatures of the earth to cover our bodies with cloth. It is no longer a "right" to travel around that way, under this gov't.

People of certain religions believe their rights are guided by the book of their religion. That also varies by religion.

Initially, we are all children and only understand our rights as they are fed to us through parents and society. You parents and society teach you not to slap women. Without that enforced into us, we would be slapping the shit out of women and each other, just like dogs and their food. Your rights get fed to you by parents, thus society, thus an operating authority of society, or gov't.

I want the right to punch some people, but society say "NOPE"......not without punishment.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

You are just moving the question backward. Where did that compressed mass come from?

In the beginning was the Word. And the word was God. Whether He wears a suit or a moomoo, the evidence to date has not disproven God. It only proves that some people are salty and need to blame someone for something.

"Magic"
I'm just playing devils advocate.

It
Is
Written

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

There is no such thing as a creator or in-alienable rights. Those are made up terms by men to keep other men under their control.

The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to fight and die for. Every RIGHT has been paid for in blood and sweat.

Otherwise a government or someone can take it away at any time.

You choose to live free and defend the rights you truly believe in with your life, or you don't

 

[sirhrmechanic]

There is no such thing as a creator or in-alienable rights. Those are made up terms by men to keep other men under their control.

The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to fight and die for. Every RIGHT has been paid for in blood and sweat.

Otherwise a government or someone can take it away at any time.

You choose to live free and defend the rights you truly believe in with your life, or you don't

But no man is an island... with the exception of those who live 'truly free' off the grid somewhere with no connection to society. They are out there. Some live in cabins and mail out suspicious packages to airline executives and professors.

So to live in a polite functioning society, one has to accept that utter freedom is sacrificed for the good of the group. Adam Smith said What is good for the individual is good for the group. But John Nash later proved that what is good for the individual and the group is good for the group (the movie is good, but the book is better.) In short, in order to not be cave men, we subvert our utter freedom to the good of a group and we all benefit.

That said, we DO and should have a lot of freedom. But also remember, your freedom stops where my rights begin. Something that libtards and governments seem to forget. Shall not be Infringed means a lot more than arms! My right to travel, build wealth, pass on wealth, own property, speak, worship (or not), etc... all are mine. And NOT to be infringed if someone doesn't like the way I choose to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

The issue keeps cropping up when a bunch of freakish leftards start creating 'rights' for things like chickens and gaia and baby seals and their feelings. Sorry, I don't live my life in order to protect the feelings of some Greenwich Village cock-gobbler with too much empathy.

To live as a society (and the world is pretty much too small to 'not' live in a society these days. Except maybe in Montana or Idaho, and to live in an advanced Western Society, we have to accept a level of taxation (and it's too fucking high). Accept some rules "No crying Fire in a crowded theater." And some societal norms "Don't fuck the 9-year olds like Muhammad." And some other basic precepts. I'm ok with that.
What I am NOT ok with is people fucking with my right to speak. To choose elected leaders without election interference. To have a system of justice that is 'for thee and not for me" (aka All leftist scum). To tell me they want freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion (and I'm an athiest... I just think religion is good for the people who want to be religious. I don't want to stamp it out... I just don't want to partake.) I don't want people telling me they can create 40 trillion in debt that makes my savings and hard work worthless. I don't want a ton of things that are being foisted on us daily by a swamp and scum being elected by urban scum.

But I AM willing to play nice with others... in order to have a nice safe, prosporous, happy Western Civilization.

Sadly, that seems to be getting fucked up at every turn. And if they really run it into the ground (like 'they' are trying to do) and we have no more law and order, lots of folks Won't play nice. Few are 'less nice' than those who just wanted to be left alone and whose world is taken away by scum.

Pardon the rant... It's been a long day.

Sirhr

 

[lariat]

But no man is an island... with the exception of those who live 'truly free' off the grid somewhere with no connection to society. They are out there. Some live in cabins and mail out suspicious packages to airline executives and professors.

So to live in a polite functioning society, one has to accept that utter freedom is sacrificed for the good of the group. Adam Smith said What is good for the individual is good for the group. But John Nash later proved that what is good for the individual and the group is good for the group (the movie is good, but the book is better.) In short, in order to not be cave men, we subvert our utter freedom to the good of a group and we all benefit.

That said, we DO and should have a lot of freedom. But also remember, your freedom stops where my rights begin. Something that libtards and governments seem to forget. Shall not be Infringed means a lot more than arms! My right to travel, build wealth, pass on wealth, own property, speak, worship (or not), etc... all are mine. And NOT to be infringed if someone doesn't like the way I choose to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

The issue keeps cropping up when a bunch of freakish leftards start creating 'rights' for things like chickens and gaia and baby seals and their feelings. Sorry, I don't live my life in order to protect the feelings of some Greenwich Village cock-gobbler with too much empathy.

To live as a society (and the world is pretty much too small to 'not' live in a society these days. Except maybe in Montana or Idaho, and to live in an advanced Western Society, we have to accept a level of taxation (and it's too fucking high). Accept some rules "No crying Fire in a crowded theater." And some societal norms "Don't fuck the 9-year olds like Muhammad." And some other basic precepts. I'm ok with that.
What I am NOT ok with is people fucking with my right to speak. To choose elected leaders without election interference. To have a system of justice that is 'for thee and not for me" (aka All leftist scum). To tell me they want freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion (and I'm an athiest... I just think religion is good for the people who want to be religious. I don't want to stamp it out... I just don't want to partake.) I don't want people telling me they can create 40 trillion in debt that makes my savings and hard work worthless. I don't want a ton of things that are being foisted on us daily by a swamp and scum being elected by urban scum.

But I AM willing to play nice with others... in order to have a nice safe, prosporous, happy Western Civilization.

Sadly, that seems to be getting fucked up at every turn. And if they really run it into the ground (like 'they' are trying to do) and we have no more law and order, lots of folks Won't play nice. Few are 'less nice' than those who just wanted to be left alone and whose world is taken away by scum.

Pardon the rant... It's been a long day.

Sirhr

Yup. Rights are limited to what the State and society decides. To go outside of those boundaries is where issues begin. It just so happens that what those two entities desire for society is very different now and the rules are changing because of it. And it has happened very quickly.

What I am saying is that the constitution and BoR are not really in effect any longer. The president ignores the SC rulings, states are beginning to defy the federal mandates, the federal government is in violation of protecting borders, the constitution and so on. When a country reaches banana republic stage there are no real rights, just coping. We aren’t to that point yet, but individual rights are becoming increasingly eroded. IOW, there really are no rights, there are behavior allowances. And those are rapidly changing around the world.

We are kidding ourselves by saying we have inalienable rights when those things are plainly being removed in favor of new laws that are more restrictive.

 

[Devildog]

Politico Reporter on MSNBC Frets That Christian Nationalists Believe Americans' Rights Come From God, Not the Government (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Mike LaChance

Heidi Przybyla, a reporter for Politico, appeared on MSNBC this week and fretted as she explained that Christian Nationalists believe that Americans’ rights are granted by God and not Congress or the Supreme Court.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Hmmm they have a label for people like me. Sweet!

 

[Death From A Distance]

Our Rights, are Inalienable Rights and they come from God almighty.

 

[LuckyDuck]

OP

It's an interesting question and here's some topics to research for kind of neat/compact look at the history of this question throughout the centuries. For the sake of being concise I'll keep this list to just American History, which is what I presume you're focused on since many country's have their own list of rights and frankly I've got stuff to do in the morning and that helps me out by limiting it to just the American landscape. It'll require you to do some reading on your own but I hope this will be of some value to you.

Just to set up the assignment, I'm not sure if you're a student of theater by chance but if you are that'll help out immensely with this short rubric because the American Tradition/Story with regards to your question about rights follows the EXACT structure of what academically is called a 5 Act Play which was really popularized in Western Culture by this English dude by the name of William Shakespeare (I kid you not). If that wasn't your bag or if, like me, you didn't need to take theater in college as a general education requirement of X number of credits, that's ok I've got you. I'm going to cheat just a bit and copy them from Wikipedia in the interest of time with each act's name and description so you got something to go off of...

Act One: Exposition and inciting incident
Act Two: First major Turning Point and progressive complications
Act Three: Rising Action and climax
Act Four: Falling Action
Act Five: Resolution (For tragedies, a catastrophe is added before it)

Alright so now that we've got that covered- here's a quick cheatsheet for you to research about rights...

18th Century (Act One)- This is a good one, it has the founding of our country, our founding fathers. Look into key terms such as "Declaration of Independence", "Articles of Confederation" "Constitution & Bill of Rights". The secret sauce here is to start at the beginning, you really only need to be focused on the last 25-35% or so to get to the most important parts so this century is a breeze. If you get that you'll get all the important introductions/characters etc.

19th Century (Act Two)- This one is a bit longer but this is the part of the story where problems start showing up. Lots of important details but if you need to hit the restroom or concession stand before intermission. You'll really want to make sure you stick around for the middle part of this century say... 1850's-1870's otherwise the next part of the story won't make any sense to you in my humble opinion.

20th Century (Act Three)- Trust me on this you'll want to stay tuned for the whole part in your research. It starts off with a bang immediately and you think the show is winding down but wait you'll get even more even before halfway of this century. It's practically like a Michael Bay Transformer movie and the sequel where you'll wonder how the heck are they going to top that but then you watch the second one and everything bigger, the problem's bigger, there's more explosions and more riding at stake and you're only halfway through it. The second half will leave you on the edge of your seat with how rights evolve. You'll have decided this story is an action genre but no sooner decide that before you experience whiplash as it changes to a drama and all of a sudden rights are at the forefront and you'll forget about the entire first half of this act and immediately get a flashback of where you left off with Act Two. <Spoiler Warning> Don't be disheartened though, you'll end this century/act out with the happy (or mostly happy) resolution all but being ensured.

21st Century (Act Four)- This is where we're at now and I've only seen the first quarter of it. Lots of topics to look into but perhaps "September 11", "Tech Companies", and "Global Pandemic" are a good point to zero in on. This is the point that 75% remains I have some filler to add and will go back to my original explanation. Many folks would break down the different genres of Shakespearean plays as being either Comedies, Histories, Tragedies, and Problems. There's a whole slew of PhD's out there with their dissertation on Shakespeare that would argue all sorts of opinions but I'm trying to be concise so we'll stick with those four and since this story is evolving/still being written, please allow me some grace to throw the 'history' category out in my metaphor of choice. So that leaves us with either a Comedy/Tragedy/or Problem (which is essentially a catchall for things that don't fit into either Shakespeare or any of the other classical genres at a high level). The important thing to note though, is in the 5 act model- this is the Act that defines what the genre of the story (in this case being the story of America and American Rights). One of the highly regarded philosophers of the 21st century who tragically passed away in 2008 but for the sake of this discussion, he did record many of his thoughts and it's easily searched on YouTube. If you quarry "George Carlin" and "Rights" (use the '+' symbol and keep the quotations as a researcher type to narrow down your results) you'll get a short video that provides a fairly modern point of view on your exact question from the 21st century perspective and is an interesting contrast to where we started during the late 18th century/Act one but the good news is, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of this act, that's a modern interpretation of where we're heading thus far but I will say that we've got quite a ways to go before this century/Act concludes to know what kind of a story we're in.

22nd Century (Act Five)- To be written once we understand what genre of story the American Experiment and their rights are determined during our current century/act.

Anyway- I hope that helps and provides you with a thoughtful, non-hostile (can't always count on that in the Pit as you know) and apolitical response to your question and hopefully gives you the tools you need to formulate your own opinion. As for my own thoughts- well I'd rather keep my personal opinion out of it and remain neutral for this particular topic. Besides- I've only got about 20 minutes left before I have to head to bed myself so I'm able to get up early for work and I haven't quite finished my nightly shitposting of the review section of sex toy products so I'd like to preserve what little time I have left tonight to drop reviews about how product 'X' was so much better than the egg beater I was using or how product 'y' vibrated so good it gave me a prolapsed vagina and I have no regrets. Bitches love that kinda stuff. I'd buy stock in those companies since my comments always seem to drive sales but I'm afraid I'll be hit with Insider Trading laws so I just keep it as a personal passion for myself.

-LD

 

[TC.TURTLECREEK]

Bravo

 

[Frgood]

A lot of hoopla risen from a pundit with no power. I am sure there are quite a few folks who do not understand our nation's founding. To me, the conversation is a non-starter unless it was a genuine inquiry with an educational purpose. [Which it was not.]

 

[LuckyDuck]

Bravo

Let me guess- it was the prolapsed vagina without regrets comment? If so- I'd agree, that's one of my better ones. I've come a long way since when I started this journey with juvenile comments like "this vibrator beats my box up harder than the USPS" although I was kinda proud of how much of a wordsmith I was at the time even then too.

-LD

 

[Dunraven]

Rush always said his 'talent, on loan from GOD". Same as your rights.

 

[mosin46]

a lot of ideas here. mine are thus. the origin,nature,extent,security and even the existence of "rights" becomes an almost academic debate. are they real? do they originate with god,fdr,sup court,jefferson? they must be considered in a historical and societal context. simply they must be enumerated and agreed by the culture. ours is different and historically unique. i believe the US has had a a unique and profound answer to these questions. it is and was imperfect and being gravely eroded by societal actions and inaction. you can't talk about rights,or obligations,outside of a human "group". this issue has usually been addressed by some form of social contract usually coded in writings. and,often enforced by force or threat of some kind. infringement,protection and enforcement are usually some kind of group action. once the existence and enumeration of rights is agreed then changing them by contract or fraud and force becomes a problem to be dealt with by different parts of the group. that often has led to violence historically. unfortunately we are getting there rapidly. IMHO the argument about origin is just bean breeze that will never be resolved. here are the rights that our social contract allows us. here is how and by whom that is altered. the 1st principal is the consent of the governed. the 2nd is your rights end where my nose starts ie you are not allowed to deprive me of my rights by exercising yours. 3rd the individuals and their liberty is the critical test of what the group is allowed to do.
these ramblings come from a self IDed radical libertarian,almost anarchist,atheist who thinks all government is fundamentally evil and regrets it's obvious necessity. yes,read nock and bastiat. they help.

 

[BillyBob13]

Any good books / suggested reading on this topic regarding natural rights? Thomas Paine, etc? I'd like to delve in and learn more and educate myself.

 

[mosin46]

dalyrmple,clemmons,nock,bastiat,rand,mencken,goldberg,savage,sowell,hansen for starters

 

[quietmike]

Killing an unborn baby to avoid one predictable consequence of being a road whore?
What about it?

@Haney ?
Almost four days later and nothing?

 

[Maxduty]

To me, that was the funniest thing. Scientists saying there was no Creation.

So, how did the universe get here or was it always here?

Well, see, there was this big bang and everything has cooled from that initially expansion.

What was before that?

Nothing.

Wait .... what?

According to the theory, there was a whole universe that collapsed on itself. the big bang was the smallest point at which it all collided and began to expand again.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

How many of you in reality, get some of your rights from your wife? All of my rights were from birth, then when I married I had to relinquish some & tone down a few others. When she passed away, all rights were restored & expanded upon.

 

[Ronws]

According to the theory, there was a whole universe that collapsed on itself. the big bang was the smallest point at which it all collided and began to expand again.

So you are saying that it's a steady state of big bangs? How does that not violate entropy?

 

[quietmike]

So you are saying that it's a steady state of big bangs? How does that not violate entropy?

Religion and evolution both share the same unanswerable question: Where did the original matter/God come from?

 

[lariat]

How many of you in reality, get some of your rights from your wife? All of my rights were from birth, then when I married I had to relinquish some & tone down a few others. When she passed away, all rights were restored & expanded upon.

What rights that we are talking about that you had to give up when you got married? I mean, other than free speech.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

What rights that we are talking about that you had to give up when you got married? I mean, other than free speech.

Free speech is one.
The right to assemble the guys on a whim.
The right to express ones self in all things.
The right to wonder, or partake of adventurers anywhere, anytime.
The list was long, LOL

 

[lariat]

Free speech is one.
The right to assemble the guys on a whim.
The right to express ones self in all things.
The right to wonder, or partake of adventurers anywhere, anytime.
The list was long, LOL

Yeah man, that's marriage!

The reason I bring this up is that those are things you have voluntarily chosen not to do, you still have those rights but as a decent human you decided to think of her and the relationship. This is what normal people do, and it is to the great benefit of society.

But that is not the same as having rights legislated away after they have been agreed to via contract. IOW, stripped away. Now the argument becomes: is Joe Sixpack willingly giving away his rights by just taking it or are they rightfully stripped away by the government because they are the ones that actually own them? This is not an idle question - it speaks to the nature of the origin of rights. In this thread we have identified three possibilities:

1. Rights in the US are God given and therefore no government rule has the ability to supersede them, despite the fact it occurs.
2. Rights are allocated to us by the Constitution and if the Constitution is changed to curb those rights then that's the way it is.
3. We actually have no rights beyond what we can keep (regardless of any social contract) and they are only kept through elections, etc. IOW, the power of the people is the only thing that keeps the BoR intact.

Marriage isn't the same - you can twist off at any time and it's still legal but would injure your relationship with your wife. That's voluntary, an exercise of free will. The stripping of rights through legislation, agency interpretation of legislation, EO or flat out making up shit by agencies would indicate an involuntary giving up of rights and free will.

Why is this an important distinction? because it directly translates into the perceived value and origin of rights. If those in power have no reverence for God and do not believe that human rights come from Him then there should be no expectation that inalienable rights will be respected. We can see every day that this is the case - Covid lockdowns, vaccine mandates, gun control, etc. There is a mismatch in opinions between the citizenry and the government, but it seems that many are leaning toward the government's opinion as time goes on, for various reasons. The less God is respected the less that humans see value in their rights and the rights of others.

If we do not have agreement on what is inviolate it doesn't matter what anyone thinks and is all about who has the power to enforce or restrict behavior. Nor does it matter what one thinks regarding the origin of their rights, at least in a macro sense. This seems to be where we are at with respect to state's rights and the SC rulings; things are changing.

 

[Ronws]

Religion and evolution both share the same unanswerable question: Where did the original matter/God come from?

Yeah, I have an irritating habit of thinking with logic, which upsets people.

 

[Maxduty]

Yeah, I have an irritating habit of thinking with logic, which upsets people.

So you are saying that it's a steady state of big bangs? How does that not violate entropy?

Meh, I'm not upset at all. I realize that scientific theories and facts change as we learn more. But I'm not sure I understand how you feel it violates the rule itself.

Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began?

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy always increases. But that doesn't mean it was zero at the start of the Big Bang.

bigthink.com

 

[TC.TURTLECREEK]

Let me guess- it was the prolapsed vagina without regrets comment? If so- I'd agree, that's one of my better ones. I've come a long way since when I started this journey with juvenile comments like "this vibrator beats my box up harder than the USPS" although I was kinda proud of how much of a wordsmith I was at the time even then too.

-LD

No, I a was able to look past your drivel in order to see the relevant. I was appreciative of your connection between a shakespearean production and the story of the US. Tragedy. If things don't change, based on your reply, we are in a Tragedy. Carlin is wrong.

 

[Ronws]

Meh, I'm not upset at all. I realize that scientific theories and facts change as we learn more. But I'm not sure I understand how you feel it violates the rule itself.

Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began?

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy always increases. But that doesn't mean it was zero at the start of the Big Bang.

bigthink.com

 

[LuckyDuck]

No, I a was able to look past your drivel in order to see the relevant. I was appreciative of your connection between a shakespearean production and the story of the US. Tragedy. If things don't change, based on your reply, we are in a Tragedy. Carlin is wrong.

Pity that you feel that way about it being drivel as I thought I rather succinctly encapsulated the entirety of American history with regards to your question on where rights come from as well as everything that occurred since that original thought had been challenged and with a few terms to zero in on. Oh well, guess it wasn't for everyone but I tried- I'm glad that you enjoyed the Shakespearean reference though and if you do any of the research I humbly suggested, I think you may be surprised how accurate my drivel was.

But hey- you do you and bury your head if you want... oh wait you do have 'turtle' in your name so maybe that's your thing... err let me start that one over. Wishing you the best of luck and all of the riches in life. Carry on sir.

-LD

 

[TC.TURTLECREEK]

Pity that you feel that way about it being drivel as I thought I rather succinctly encapsulated the entirety of American history with regards to your question on where rights come from as well as everything that occurred since that original thought had been challenged and with a few terms to zero in on. Oh well, guess it wasn't for everyone but I tried- I'm glad that you enjoyed the Shakespearean reference though and if you do any of the research I humbly suggested, I think you may be surprised how accurate my drivel was.

But hey- you do you and bury your head if you want... oh wait you do have 'turtle' in your name so maybe that's your thing... err let me start that one over. Wishing you the best of luck and all of the riches in life. Carry on sir.

-LD

to be clear, i was only referring to the juvenile comments, self-described. 90% of what you said was good. sorry it came across so broad.