LOXO7's forum posts

Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

What about the roads that you never use? Whould you be happy to pay for these roads also?

tenaka2

I use the products that come from the roads. I want roads. I love the invention of the road. Thank you Romans! Whatever it takes for me to eat chocolate at the smallest price I will be in favor for.

SO you are happy to pay taxes then, I don't know what you are arguing about then.

I am not. Maintaining and building roads is good. It doesn't mean it makes the tax for it just. I have faith people will see the benefits in having maintained roads, ships, trains, plains, and will, like me, gladly pay for them. Taxes are not needed here.
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] If we're talking about legal rights, sure. But if not all of your conceived "inalienable" rights aren codified into law then you can't honestly say "I know I can do/own X"(except in a very literal sense where it is true that you can do X but there will also most likely be legal repercussions for doing so). An honest interpretation of what inalienable rights are is that they are merely freedoms that someone thinks people should be entitled to. Talk of inalienable rights is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy - an appeal to an authority that isn't there. It is not a description of reality. Nature doesn't endow anyone with any rights. Rights are a social construct made by men, for men. -Sun_Tzu-

That is your belief. I had no part in my creation and yet here I am, existing. Some sort of authority created my organs. But my right to exist is only bound by words of men? No. That authority is there. And I want to copy it. I have rights. No one can command me to do or allow me to own anything.

Merely because you do happen to exist does not mean that you have some inalienable right to exist. In fact you could very easily not have existed at all if the wrong sperm fertilized the egg, or if you fell victim to a miscarriage or an abortion. You could've very easily existed for only a short time - you could've gotten fatally ill or fell victim to a deadly accident. Indeed, a fatal illness or accident is in your future. There will inevitably come a time when you don't exist at all anymore. What of your "right to exist" then? How can anyone have a "natural right" to exist if none of us will be getting out of here alive? Nature doesn't care one way or the other - the universe is indifferent to our entire existence on this relatively tiny pebble of a planet that is floating through space. We are responsible for our own wellbeing, and I think it's important to fully appreciate that responsibility. 

I agree with everything in this post. And in the time that we have on this planet is the time that we treat each other as if we are gods. Imitators of creators. I want the power of creation. To help with my role play it would help if I had power of what I do with my time.
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

No not really, I am happy to pay my taxes. 

But obviously you have, who do you think will build the roads?

tenaka2

I'm happy to pay into things that I think that are worth it. Roads do help my quality of life and without them it would hurt me.

What about the roads that you never use? Whould you be happy to pay for these roads also?

I use the products that come from the roads. I want roads. I love the invention of the road. Thank you Romans! Whatever it takes for me to eat chocolate at the smallest price I will be in favor for.
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

We get it, you want to be part of a society but you don't want to contribute towards it.

tenaka2

Hehaha. Who will build the roads is one of my favorite questions. Have you thought about it?

No not really, I am happy to pay my taxes. 

But obviously you have, who do you think will build the roads?

I'm happy to pay into things that I think that are worth it. Roads do help my quality of life and without them it would hurt me.
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] So you want everyone to have government marriage benefits to help with government taxes? Why not just remove the taxes? Oh right, I forgot. Who will build the roads?tenaka2

We get it, you want to be part of a society but you don't want to contribute towards it.

Hehaha. Who will build the roads is one of my favorite questions. Have you thought about it?
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts
[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The only rights people have are those that are institutionalized through law. And yes, that means that these rights can also be abolished through law. 

Any talk of natural or inalienable rights is just a fancy way of saying "I think I/we should be legally entitled to X." 

-Sun_Tzu-
Rights are more like, I know I can do/own it.

If we're talking about legal rights, sure. But if not all of your conceived "inalienable" rights aren codified into law then you can't honestly say "I know I can do/own X"(except in a very literal sense where it is true that you can do X but there will also most likely be legal repercussions for doing so). An honest interpretation of what inalienable rights are is that they are merely freedoms that someone thinks people should be entitled to. Talk of inalienable rights is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy - an appeal to an authority that isn't there. It is not a description of reality. Nature doesn't endow anyone with any rights. Rights are a social construct made by men, for men.

That is your belief. I had no part in my creation and yet here I am, existing. Some sort of authority created my organs. But my right to exist is only bound by words of men? No. That authority is there. And I want to copy it. I have rights. No one can command me to do or allow me to own anything.
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts
[QUOTE="megam"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] What I find more ridiculous is how to define Superman's powers in the world of Nolan's Batmans. How would Superman interfere with the world's plots? Would Bane even attempt such villainy if he knew if there were an invincible man about? Batman can fit, but I have a hard time seeing it in Nolan's universe. The city needs to be Gotham, not Pittsburgh or Chicago.

I really don't understand this criticism. It can basically be waived off with an excuse like the other members of the Justice League were busy with their own affairs. It requires relatively little in the way of suspension of disbelief, considering just how unbelievable super hero movies are to begin with. Plus, Superman has disappeared from Earth for years in the fiction before.

Personally, I'm really excited for The Justice League, especially if Nolan is going to have such an influential role. After the Michael Bay-esque treatment of the Avengers, it'd be nice to see an ensemble cast of superheroes in a more mature setting.

The gravity of the world Nolan creates doesn't apply with the ones of the other members of the league. I like Blazerdt47's comment.
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] All "rights" are in actuality privileges

America is no different from England in that regard, or from anyone for that matter

And most if not all of the legal rights found in the declaration and the bill of rights were first originally formalized into law in England, which is why it was common for leaders of the American revolution to talk about how they were being deprived of their rights "as Englishmen" 

It's not as if the enlightenment thinkers of the 17th century and early 18th century had no influence on the politics in Europe prior to American independence. 

-Sun_Tzu-

When I place quotes around a word I mean the exact opposite of what that word is. Subjects have "rights" meaning they do not have rights. Is this what you mean when you say, "All 'rights' are in actuality privileges?"

Legal rights. What is this? Law gives you rights? These so called rights are privileges. Who created the law? Men. Then men can take these rights away. 

The only rights people have are those that are institutionalized through law. And yes, that means that these rights can also be abolished through law. 

Any talk of natural or inalienable rights is just a fancy way of saying "I think I/we should be legally entitled to X." 

Rights are more like, I know I can do/own it.
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts
[QUOTE="CodingGenius"]College is a waste of time and money for some people. People who are not academically inclined and/or who take out expensive loans without having a purpose or goal in mind. Remember that without it, we wouldn't have doctors, lawyers, engineers, and many other important professions.

The context of college has changed. My father worked his way through college. I wish I could have done the same. People did that. It was normal. Not so today. Where there people called doctors without degrees saying so? Current colleges are a waste of time and money.
Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

40

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, it wasn't. For one example, the English had the Magna Carta, which established individual rights, more that 500 years before the American revolution.

-Sun_Tzu-

Really? And were these individual rights as equal as the king's rights? I say they are glorified rights that are merely called rights, but are really privileges granted by the king.

All "rights" are in actuality privileges

America is no different from England in that regard, or from anyone for that matter

And most if not all of the legal rights found in the declaration and the bill of rights were first originally formalized into law in England, which is why it was common for leaders of the American revolution to talk about how they were being deprived of their rights "as Englishmen" 

It's not as if the enlightenment thinkers of the 17th century and early 18th century had no influence on the politics in Europe prior to American independence. 

When I place quotes around a word I mean the exact opposite of what that word is. Subjects have "rights" meaning they do not have rights. Is this what you mean when you say, "All 'rights' are in actuality privileges?"

Legal rights. What is this? Law gives you rights? These so called rights are privileges. Who created the law? Men. Then men can take these rights away.