Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3171)	10/19/2000 12:32:49 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 10042

So if society decided that you had no rights it would not only be legal but ok to kill you?yes Or to look at it another way if a pro-life constitutional amendment was passed giving rights to fetuses you would not have a problem with that because now fetuses would have rights as they would have been granted them by society? yes Did Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others of their ilk not violate anyone's rights because the society that they controled didn't give rights to the victims?I would have to look at each case separately- to see if the existing law of the society had been violated or not, to tell you if rights were violated. Even under my formalistic and legal definition of rights it is still possible to violate them. But EVEN if existing rights were violated within a state- Nazi Germany, for example, it is an internal matter until the state steps outside it's own territory.

To: TimF who wrote (3171)	10/19/2000 3:18:18 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

This "great nation" has done all those things those countries are guilty of when it saw fit and conveniently forgets as soon as convenient. The fact that we don't teach it in high school history doesn't make it the same as being "it hasn't happened". The very fact that you can put the US into a fundamentally different category shows the success of this propaganda. Does that make us as bad as them now? No, but that is a relative measure that needs to be looked at in context. I think that is all X is saying. This seems obvious. What is the basis for these "natural rights"? I think it is okay to question these words and truth of the Founding Fathers words. We should question all things like this and make sure we don't create some sort of cult-like following of our government that is not really rational or defendable.