First Amendment Areas.

[stumpy]

They had three choices. Do nothing, back off, or move forward. Moving forward would have required them to use force against a bunch of people armed with guns. Considering that they were outnumbered and outgunned they decided that it would be best to back off before getting killed for attacking people that were peacefully protesting.

So I guess they are a bit more cowardly than Hitler.

This is where you tax dollars go, people. To welfare programs meant to keep mentally incompetent genetic rejects like Therionn from starving to death in the gutter as God intended.

[Kulanae]

They had three choices. Do nothing, back off, or move forward. Moving forward would have required them to use force against a bunch of people armed with guns. Considering that they were outnumbered and outgunned they decided that it would be best to back off before getting killed for attacking people that were peacefully protesting.

So I guess they are a bit more cowardly than Hitler.

They were not peacefully protesting.

[Deleted]

All I'm saying is that if you allow unalienable rights to coexist unrestricted, it will end up in conflict and contradiction. It is therefore necessary to have some limitation on them and limitation must be argued for or against on individual merit and not merely on the grounds that it is a limitation.

If everyone's individual rights are maintained we would have nothing to worry about. There really would be no need for conflict.

[Nostop it]

All I'm saying is that if you allow unalienable rights to coexist unrestricted, it will end up in conflict and contradiction. It is therefore necessary to have some limitation on them and limitation must be argued for or against on individual merit and not merely on the grounds that it is a limitation.

You realize that other people have those same rights. That is the check on your unalienable rights.

[Deleted]

This is where you tax dollars go, people. To welfare programs meant to keep mentally incompetent genetic rejects like Therionn from starving to death in the gutter as God intended.

Hm. Interesting. Are you implying that people on welfare are somehow lesser than other people? It's also interesting that you are trying to dehumanize me because that's something that Hitler and his supporters liked to do.

P.S. I'm not on any Government welfare programs.

[Kulanae]

You can stand on the sidewalk and protest all you want, with no permit.

Individually? Certainly. But remember that a sidewalk is provided to all citizens. Any protest that would significantly impede its use by others would not be legal without a permit to close down its use to the public for said protest.

[Deleted]

It's still a check, a limitation.

The limitation is that everyone has rights that cannot be violated... Uh, amazing.

[Kulanae]

If everyone's individual rights are maintained we would have nothing to worry about. There really would be no need for conflict.

Untrue. All citizens of a society sacrifice some of their individual rights in respect of the rights of other citizens.

While it may be your individual right to drive.......the collective rights of citizens to be safe on the road limits what you can do while driving.

[lockedout]

When did all you people forget you had rights? You talk about the government as if it isn't we the people, I think most of you are very uninformed and that is pretty disturbing. There should not be one person who isn't outraged by the picture in the first post, yet I see people trying to defend first amendment areas. It's disgusting.

[Kulanae]

The limitation is that everyone has rights that cannot be violated... Uh, amazing.

What rights do you have that cannot be violated?

- - - Updated - - -

When did all you people forget you had rights? You talk about the government as if it isn't we the people, I think most of you are very uninformed and that is pretty disturbing. There should not be one person who isn't outraged by the picture in the first post, yet I see people trying to defend first amendment areas. It's disgusting.

Why should I be outraged?

[Nostop it]

Untrue. All citizens of a society sacrifice some of their individual rights in respect of the rights of other citizens.

While it may be your individual right to drive.......the collective rights of citizens to be safe on the road limits what you can do while driving.

wrong. The collective have rights because individuals do. And what rights are you talking about? Life and property?

[lockedout]

While it may be your individual right to drive......

Driving is a privilege not a right.

[Nostop it]

I established, and you even conceded, that unalienable rights are not absolute and have limitations. Ergo, we are at the position that I already stated: Limitation must be argued for or against on its own merit and not merely because it's a limitation.

Ergo, you lost.

[Kulanae]

Driving is a privilege not a right.

It was a parable. But for the sake of argument. Liberty is a right Can you be deprived of liberty? Certainly. The limitation is that you should not be deprived of liberty without due process. And part of that due process is that the government can detain you without charge for a certain period of time.

There are limits on rights.

- - - Updated - - -

wrong. The collective have rights because individuals do. And what rights are you talking about? Life and property?

Wrong. Individuals have rights because the collective chooses to respect them. There have been many occasions in the history of the world that people did not have certain individual rights because the collective did not respect or support them, i.e. slavery.

[Deleted]

Untrue. All citizens of a society sacrifice some of their individual rights in respect of the rights of other citizens.

While it may be your individual right to drive.......the collective rights of citizens to be safe on the road limits what you can do while driving.

There is no right to drive.

- - - Updated - - -

I established, and you even conceded, that unalienable rights are not absolute and have limitations. Ergo, we are at the position that I already stated: Limitation must be argued for or against on its own merit and not merely because it's a limitation.

No I didn't. I said they're absolute and everyone has them.

[Nostop it]

It was a parable. But for the sake of argument. Liberty is a right Can you be deprived of liberty? Certainly. The limitation is that you should not be deprived of liberty without due process. And part of that due process is that the government can detain you without charge for a certain period of time.

There are limits on rights.

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong. Individuals have rights because the collective chooses to respect them. There have been many occasions in the history of the world that people did not have certain individual rights because the collective did not respect or support them, i.e. slavery.

And the Jews.

[Wells]

They had three choices. Do nothing, back off, or move forward. Moving forward would have required them to use force against a bunch of people armed with guns. Considering that they were outnumbered and outgunned they decided that it would be best to back off before getting killed for attacking people that were peacefully protesting.

So I guess they are a bit more cowardly than Hitler.

So they should have enforced the law and risk of cost of life?

[Deleted]

It was a parable. But for the sake of argument. Liberty is a right Can you be deprived of liberty? Certainly. The limitation is that you should not be deprived of liberty without due process. And part of that due process is that the government can detain you without charge for a certain period of time.

There are limits on rights.

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong. Individuals have rights because the collective chooses to respect them. There have been many occasions in the history of the world that people did not have certain individual rights because the collective did not respect or support them, i.e. slavery.

Everyone has unalienable rights. Everyone has always had unalienable rights. However people allowed themselves to oppressed, and therefore their rights were violated.

[lockedout]

And part of that due process is that the government can detain you without charge for a certain period of time.

Not for no reason. They has to be a reason, like you are suspected of committing a crime and there is enough evidence to hold you for a legal period of time. In this case you lose your rights.

[Kulanae]

There is no right to drive.

On a Federal basis I have already conceded the point that my example was not meant to illustrate that driving is a right.....but an example of how a perceived right could be limited. And in some States of the Union, driving is a right.

Now how about you answer some questions I have posed.