@metal-brain saidmoron
Did you read the part where he said the Netherlands makes the USA look like a dictatorship? Of course not, you don’t bother reading or studying anything and you project it onto others.
Try reading it this time.
https://tass.com/politics/1381099
@no1marauder saidOh I see so genocide is not a crime against humanity it’s a crime against lockean philosophy and an affront to the constitution.
Actually a wealth of scientific advances in psychology, anthropology, biology and other disciplines in recent decades have only strengthened the case for the core idea of Natural Rights theory i.e. that humans have a hardwired sense of right and wrong that equates to an idea of Rights for everyone. The Nuremberg Tribunal meted out punishments for violations of Natural Law ...[text shortened]... you could have a Natural Law even without a God. Guess you're behind even 17th Century philosophers.
I see you’ve avoided the core issues.
You and Locke are clearly taking a human desire for freedom of action which could just as easily be a consequence of any given socialisation process and claiming, without any real evidence, that it is some kind of innate and hard wired need like the need for water or food.
Freedom is so evidently a subjective and relative term that it defies actual definition in the real world, there are no natural rights, there may be a very common desires for certain conditions, but there are no natural rights, nature does not give a flying one about your desires. You and Locke obviously believe in the existence of a supreme being because only such a being could confer ‘rights’ upon an unusually intelligent and dexterous primate.
@metal-brain saidJust what we need here, Putin's propaganda arm, to match you spouting his propaganda.
Did you read the part where he said the Netherlands makes the USA look like a dictatorship? Of course not, you don’t bother reading or studying anything and you project it onto others.
Try reading it this time.
https://tass.com/politics/1381099
Have you no shame?
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidYou're inflexibly stupid.
Oh I see so genocide is not a crime against humanity it’s a crime against lockean philosophy and an affront to the constitution.
I see you’ve avoided the core issues.
You and Locke are clearly taking a human desire for freedom of action which could just as easily be a consequence of any given socialisation process and claiming, without any real evidence, that it is some ki ...[text shortened]... because only such a being could confer ‘rights’ upon an unusually intelligent and dexterous primate.
There's really no other way to describe your posts, which invariably have to lie about my positions since you don't seem to have any reasoned rebuttals to them.
Of course, "nature" doesn't care about human desires in the abstract way you seem to think about it, but our nature leads us to basic beliefs in right and wrong.
Your first paragraph is gloriously moronic. Here's a basic explanation that even you might be able to grasp:
"The main defense of the Nazis during the Nuremberg trials, where they were being tried for war crimes, was based in the philosophy of moral relativism. This closely tied in with the legal philosophy called legal positivism. Legal positivism says that the state government determines right and wrong, good and evil. The Nazis said they did nothing illegal. They assumed that whatever is legally right is also morally right.
Those opposing the Nazis during the Nuremberg trials leveraged their prosecution using natural law as their basis for ‘crimes against humanity’ which should never be done. The Nazis had killed millions of people. The prosecution’s case was built upon the fact that there is a moral law to which even the government answers. This higher natural law judges the laws of a nation."
https://ses.edu/the-holocaust-and-natural-law/
Genocide (real genocide - not the claims of genocide cynical Western leaders trot out to justify aggressive war) is and always has been a "crime against humanity" not because it violates some treaty agreed on by nation states but because it violates our innate sense of justice and reason.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidAnd your arrogant plus stupid which is a heady mix at best the best of times.
You're inflexibly stupid.
There's really no other way to describe your posts, which invariably have to lie about my positions since you don't seem to have any reasoned rebuttals to them.
Of course, "nature" doesn't care about human desires in the abstract way you seem to think about it, but our nature leads us to basic beliefs in right and wrong.
Your first para ...[text shortened]... me treaty agreed on by nation states but because it violates our innate sense of justice and reason.
“ Of course, "nature" doesn't care about human desires in the abstract way you seem to think about it, but our nature leads us to basic beliefs in right and wrong. ”
Our nature is the result of many interlocking factors, some congenital and some environmental, this over riding conferred nature you keep referring to doesn’t actually exist, you just cannot grasp this because your ‘nature’ is partly the result of an internalisation of Lockean philosophy in much the same way as you have internalised your constitution as the ultimate charter of governance, which itself etc.
“"The main defense of the Nazis during the Nuremberg trials, where they were being tried for war crimes, was based in the philosophy of moral relativism. This closely tied in with the legal philosophy called legal positivism. Legal positivism says that the state government determines right and wrong, good and evil. The Nazis said they did nothing illegal. They assumed that whatever is legally right is also morally right.”
I don’t think that’s what the Nazis were arguing I think they were arguing that by following their governments orders they were exempt from legal consequences because the state decides on the legal framework in which we operate. You can still judge them morally if you choose to but you can only punish them with legal consequences if you take them out of the legal framework in which they committed their immoral acts. Which we did when we won the war and destroyed the Third Reich.
Your own government commits legalised murder all the time are you arguing that the gas chamber guards should be open to legal consequences for their moral crimes if, in some alternative universe, the US is invaded and defeated by a state that is opposed to the death penalty
Why have you diverted this away from a debate on the reality of human nature and into a legalistic discussion?
Well apart from the obvious answer that you can bamboozle your way out of your corner with elongated tracts of legalese.
I repeat: There are no such things as conferred innate rights out with the legally constructed ones we confer on ourselves. Your confusing a commonly held desire for a certain condition for rights that are conferred from nature and/or a supreme being. This is not an objective legal argument it’s a debate about reality itself.
@no1marauder saidThe term limit in the USA was imposed through a democratic process and could be removed through a democratic process, therefore it is not arbitrary.
Just admit that "safeguard" is anti-democratic.
Democracy means "rule by the People" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy) and if the People can't choose the representatives they want because of an arbitrary rule, you don't have a democracy.