LOL! No one is forcing you to join any Social Clubs, or have people over to your house! :)
But when you claim citizens may discrimminate against people "EXCEPT" in certain cases, you force social clubs. This is leftism.
WRONG!!!! As I pointed out --- it is of UPMOST IMPORTANCE to the nation-state. (IE, certain rules/privileges/constitutional protections apply to *citizens* that do NOT apply to none citizens. GET REAL!
The point is that we are not talking about the importance of citizenship to the nation-state. We are in agreement that it is vitally important here. The issue under discussion concerns the circumstances in which citizenship is applicable - who gets to be a citizen and who does not. You were claiming that since "personhood" has not yet been established, citizenship can't be established. By science we know exactly when a new human organism is established here with us. Now if "personhood" is anything different from what science tells us, then personhood is just religious stupidity. What you leftists are doing here is intentionally resorting to the religious nonsense of "personhood" to ignore the truth so that you can deny the rights of certain humans.
I suppose that it certainly could be extended to 'unborn' (presumably exactly what constitutes 'unborn' would have to be clearly defined...else maybe any woman who missed her period could vote twice in elections, or some other such problems and complications could ensue)
Lord, man. Think beneath the issue down to the simple essentials. The concept "unborn" need not be defined at all here. The only thing we need to know is what science is fully capable of telling us, to wit, the moment at which a new human organism joins us. Once that new human joins us, whether it is in the womb or sitting in a Starbucks, it automatically has certain rights, amongst them being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Citizenship could be applied to this organism in the same way it is applied to neonates. As for a mother being able to vote twice due to the existence of her child, this idea of yours is just complete stupidity. She obviously would not vote twice for the same reason she would not vote twice having a neonate. Her unborn child is a separate human organism who simply is too young to vote.
...a Nation has the sovereign right to extend citizenship any way it wants to.
Resorting to the sovereignty of government here betrays your statist leftism better than I ever could. The purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens, not to define away the identity of certain humans so that their unalienable rights may be infringed. Your mistake was made in 1787 with the 3/5ths Compromise and leftist libertarians are making it today - just as you have here.
Are you psychotic? Could you POSSIBLY be more ridiculous????? Express your 'concepts' (I use the term loosely) ONE by ONE and I'll be happy to knock them down... but a run-on nonsensical *babble* like the above is best suited for medical intervention, not debate.
Well, you wanted the idea of "human organism" defined "a bit" and so I defined it in an easy to understand way. Here is Dr.Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D on the matter:
The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)
This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being — the single-cell human zygote — is biologically an individual, a living organism — an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:
"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)
vanderbilt.edu
Science tells us flatly when a new human being comes into existence. Your silly notions of "personhood" are not science, have nothing to do with science and never will. These notions are rank leftist religion and have no place in this discussion. We know when a human shows up here for the very first time. Killing it because you leftists invented some goofy religious ignorance called "personhood" does not change the fact that you are supporting the murder of human beings fundamentally just like you.
Trying to 'debate' such gobblety-gook would be like arguing whether there were more 'fish heads or dogs and cats dancing on the head of pins then there were angels'.
It absolutely is not. But you so desperately wish it were like this, such is the dishonesty of leftist libertarians.
HILARIOUS, Pilchie!!!!!!! You refute your own claim from one sentence to the next, LOL!!!!!!!!! First, you say the term 'personhood' (ie, dividing things into the separate classes of 'person' and 'nonperson') is "nonsensical"... then in the very following sentence you say that I am "not a person" which presupposes that there is such a class as 'not a person'! HaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!
Please. I am saying the term is nonsensical in that you and I cannot both sense it objectively. It is subjective religion. I may legitimately define personhood quite differently from the way in which you define it. This is not so regarding the definition of essential human identity. By objective science we know exactly when a new human organism first arrives on this earth. We all know this. There is no religious horse-hockey concerning it. You must intentionally deny the truth to get around this, which is exactly what you anti-freedom "libertarians" do as a matter of course. You're pathetic in the way you lie to yourselves and to each other to support the denial of human rights.
You are either arguing here with a 'person', or you are arguing here with something that is 'not a person'.
Again, the notion of "personhood," if it differs from the definition mentioned above, is just nonsensical religion and has no place here. To me, you are not a person at all, but are an intentionally ignorant, self-righteous liar and murderer who because of his lack of humbleness to the truth is already marked for the pit of hell. On the other hand to you and undoubtedly many others, you are likely a person. Nevertheless to everyone, everywhere, you are a human being - and this is scientifically demonstrable to anyone who is willing to see.
In merely two short sentences you establish yourself as not only rude, insulting and disagreeable, but also illogical and dense! Way-to-go, Pilch!
You wish.
LOL! You are free to define your own 'reality' anyway you want to. All I can say is that these distinctions *matter plenty* to the groups involved.
Big deal. It is all just leftist religion. Believe it if it helps you, but you have no logical basis to demand that anyone else should believe it.
Fine by me... who are you claiming disagrees with this?
Well it is good to see you agree that libertarianism supports the right to fire sodomites, just because they are sodomites.
NOT TRUE!!!!!! (For example: I am composed of BILLIONS of cells... not just a couple of dozen.
Please try to think in essentials. You are saying here that your having more cells than an unborn child makes you so fundamentally different from the child that you can logically murder it, despite that you were once at the same stage of the unborn child. Well, Buddy, I likely have more cells than you, since I am probably much bigger and stronger.
I have a brain and spinal cord... not just undifferentiated tissues and stem cells.
You are saying here that your having more development than an unborn child makes you so fundamentally different from the child that you can logically murder it, despite that you were once at the same stage of the unborn child. Well, Buddy, your grandkids may not have pubic hair yet.
I speak, write, pay taxes.
Neonates do none of this. So you are claiming they are fundamentally not like you, despite that you were once a neonate.
I have been born
You are saying here that your having more development than an unborn child makes you so fundamentally different from the child that you can logically murder it, despite that you were once unborn yourself. Well, Buddy, your wife doesn't have your kind of natural plumbing. So go on and kill her. (Sheesh.)
...educated, work. I feed myself and am an autonomous organism...
Neonates are none of these things. Go on and kill them.
I am not receiving all sustenance and oxygen through an umbilical connection to my female parent. 'Just like me' is demonstrably false....)
As undoubtedly you now see, they are essentially just like you, and there is no way for you to objectively distance yourself from them so that you may logically murder them. This is because where they now are, you once were. You cannot logically destroy their nature, without logically destroying your own. You libertarians are not true Libertarians, pal. You are rank leftist murderers and liars.
HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!! (Don't worry, Libertarians wouldn't see you as one of their fellows, either!)
Whew! Thank heavens.
The terms that most accurately *define* your politico-social views are: Theocratic-Authoritarian-Luddite. ('Mystical-wacko-lunkhead' also comes to mind....)
Well fine. I am not the guy here trying to justify murdering kids - you are.
LOL!!!!! Let's add one more term to the description of your views! You are actually a PURITANICAL-Theocratic-Authoritarian-Luddite-wacko-lunkhead.
That is just fine, Buddy. But I am the guy here defending the right of all humans to life and freedom. I am not the guy here trying to justify murdering some humans - you are.
1) Who has the right of free association, individuals or 'associations'?
The rights of the Association flow from individuals.
2) What defines your term 'associations'?
Any group of individuals linked in interaction.
Are these PUBLIC or PRIVATE?
Inapplicable.
3) ("associations of associations ...have a right to form ever larger associations") Isn't our nation a 'larger association'??????
Indeed it is. But it is based upon leftism and so is invalid as a truly libertarian organism.
4) Hasn't that 'association' adopted rules for it's members (ie, the Constitution and our legislation)??????
Indeed it has and they are leftist rules, even granting certain humans the right to murder certain other humans.
5) If you don't *like* the rules of the association, don't you have the free right to move to change the rules, or else the freedom to give up your membership in the association, even move away if you like?
No. I do not have that freedom. The very moment I should decide to detach from the association, I would be forced to sell my property, property that I am not renting, mind you, but that is mine to keep and do with as I please. It is my innate right to own my property and I ought not be forced by the tip of a gun to abandon it simply because I choose not to associate with certain associations of people.
LOL!!!! Is the State Department or Homeland Security quartering Central Americans in your *spare bedrooms*? HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!
Dear me. What a vagina.
Actually, the nature of evolution and carbon-based life are writ in biology... but I doubt that you can show, in the wildebeast being run-down and eaten by a pride of lions, much about the 'nature of freedom.
I certainly can.
Now you verge on the edge of outright misrepresentation and lying. I CLEARLY stated that I believe that ALL nations should treat their peoples equally (before the law), and that I believe *strongly* in the individual rights of man.
But you also CLEARLY said you do not believe all men are created equal, which Jefferson claimed was the case and which point his his entire independence argument is based. I did not misrepresent you. You came right out and rejected Jefferson, betraying your ignorance of his belief and of true libertarianism.
What I do *not* believe is that 'all who are born' necissarily have equal potential (for example: the severely retarded...
I see. Buddy, you are ignorant of libertarianism. You should read Jefferson to understand his position. I had all this time assumed you understood the Declaration of Independence. You obviously never have, which is why you so easily reject it. I suspect most of your Libertarian Party members are in the same ignorant boat with you.
You SEE? You ARE an Authoritarian Puritanical, you want to utilize the POWER of the State to enforce over your fellow free citizens your puritanical vision. That is Theocracy and, as we have previously established, your apparent desire to reject the advance of modern technology paints you as a Luddite as well.
Well okay!
I notice YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION! (Big surprise, LOL.)
I certainly did answer it.
"The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists — not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists....The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question...
"To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced."
vanderbilt.edu
Now that is the objective science of the thing. But of course we all know you are going to run to religious nonsense as all leftist liars do, so that you can continue justifying the denial of human rights. You are no real libertarian.
1)Now you say that humans *are* 'heterosexual information'.
They are heterosexual information encoded in biological medium-- biochemical code.
Is that *to the exclusion of ALL other information that they also are? If NOT, then it is only PART of what you claim they 'are'.
All else is but an expression of the heterosexual biochemical information.
2) If part of what humans are is the expression of heterosexuality biologically...
Humans are not biochemical information in part. They are completely biochemical information that is self-actualizing into various expressions, like brains, arms, legs, poetry, love and happiness. All of the things you are claiming are additionally humans are nothing more than expressions of essential humanity. The essential human begins at a scientifically objective point and we know where that point is.
then does the continual existence (down through all recorded history) of homosexuality, bi-sexuality, 'other' sexuality not ALSO establish that part of what 'humans' are is this as well?
Homosexuality is but an expression of a human organism. Merely because a human gives off an expression does not mean the expression itself is human. To see the logical "humanness" of an expression, one must compare it to essential human identity to see if that identity is contradicted. Homosexuality clearly represents a contradiction and is therefore a defect.
If you claim not to either of the above... then let's see if you can make a cogent argument in support of your 'out-there' claims... one that does not abandon the field of logic for mystical mumbo-jumbo and unsupported assertions....
No mystery at all. The matter is very simple and so obvious that you are intentionally overlooking it so that you might, yet again, deny human rights.
You see, there's that LARGE PROBLEM again! The 'essential biological character of humans' does not express itself in unambiguous LANGUAGE. it cannot speak in English (nor German, Chinese, Hutu, etc.)
What an anti-intellectual dweeb. Essential biological character most certainly does "speak in unambiguous language. You may objectively "hear" it the very moment the biochemical information in a human male's sperm is joined with the biochemical information in a human female's oocyte. There is a reason the information must come from these two differing sources. The information is actually gender imprinted by those sources. That is as unambiguous as it gets.
If the 'biological character of humans' tells us anything at all about societies should be organized, it must be subject to interpretation --- for it has no voice of 'it's' own.
Its voice is human existence and logic, neither of which are predicated upon homosexuality.
I'm afraid that your reading of the MINUTIA of the organization of human societies and laws into biology and physics betrays FAR MORE about your own PERSONAL biasis and predelections then it does anything else.
Why of course. I personally follow the truth wherever it leads, and am therefore biased against your "libertarianism" horse-hockey.
If you are gonna define what Tort Law or Property Law 'ought to' say based upon what mytozomes are allegedly 'telling' you... then you damn well better be able to explain how you arrive at you 'translation'... or else be prepared a a HUGE HEAPING DOSE of ridicule!
Wooooh! Frightening.
Oh contrare, you poor delusional fool!
Hey, you're the guy here yelling (and at what?), as if being an hysterical old baglady. (grin) |
