Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam

[jem]

you could not be more full of shit on so many levels.
But, while obnoxious and and totally misleading Stu, there is a good question in there...
So I will respond in a civil manner with an analogy.

Lets say... that like the shadows in Plato's cave....

Natural Laws are like Oranges in a refrigerator low on coolant.
The first question is ... who gets to be the judge, who reaches in the fridge quickly pulls out a proper looking Orange and gets to tell his subjects how the orange applies to the current situation. We are fortunate our founders enshrined some Natural Laws in our founding documents and that we allow our Supreme Court Judges to claim that power rather than a king, a junta or a dictator. But make no mistake about it... Dictators and Kings love to be the guy who has control of the oranges... therefore natural law can be temporarily subject to change and interpretation by bad "judges".

The above makes for a fun jurisprudence when you throw other laws into the mix.

However, the question not addressed is... who put the Oranges in the fridge.
Who puts the laws in natural law.

In short, in no way is the concept of Natural Law in conflict with a Creator. You would expect them to go hand in glove... as our founders stated in the Declaration of Independence.

What's so ironic and ridiculous about your nonsense is the stuff you post that directly contradicts the brainless argument you're trying to make.

It doesn't matter if the founders did or didn't find natural law inconsistent with a "Creator". It simply is.

It's really very straightforward as stated above. Inalienable rights (natural law) cannot be bestowed, endowed, transferred, given, taken away or whatever.
Not by a so called Creator, any form of religion or religious "law", nor anything or anyone else.

Upon that very unequivocal foundation stands the secular law this country adopted. Not to say it isn't peppered with superstitious superficial religious nonsense here and there; no more than an embarrassment in the 21st century.

You can continue with name calling and silly argument all you want, including copying ridiculous amounts of text which contradicts basic logic , but unless you can sensibly address how inalienable rights and natural law incapable of being repudiated or transferred, can be repudiated or transferred, then you're just talking the usual religiously fueled bs.

 

[stu]

you could not be more full of shit on so many levels.
But, while obnoxious and and totally misleading Stu, there is a good question in there...
So I will respond in a civil manner with an analogy.

Lets say... that like the shadows in Plato's cave....

Natural Laws are like Oranges in a refrigerator low on coolant.
The first question is ... who gets to be the judge, who reaches in the fridge quickly pulls out a proper looking Orange and gets to tell his subjects how the orange applies to the current situation. We are fortunate our founders enshrined some Natural Laws in our founding documents and that we allow our Supreme Court Judges to claim that power rather than a king, a junta or a dictator. But make no mistake about it... Dictators and Kings love to be the guy who has control of the oranges... therefore natural law can be temporarily subject to change and interpretation by bad "judges".

The above makes for a fun jurisprudence when you throw other laws into the mix.

However, the question not addressed is... who put the Oranges in the fridge.
Who puts the laws in natural law.

In short, in no way is the concept of Natural Law in conflict with a Creator. You would expect them to go hand in glove... as our founders stated in the Declaration of Independence.

What a load of crap.

However, the question not addressed is...
Who puts the laws in natural law.

Nature. They occur naturally. That's why they are natural.
The question was also addressed in the links YOU made!

Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., cannot be sold, transferred, or removed).

No one, nothing, nobody, not 'dictators, Kings, junta, bad "judges" ' , no beliefs , religious or otherwise, or God whatever that is.... can transfer, change , give, alter , confer or whatever, inalienable rights. That's why they are inalienable.

 

[bigarrow]

you could not be more full of shit on so many levels.
But, while obnoxious and and totally misleading Stu, there is a good question in there...
So I will respond in a civil manner

 

[jem]

Stu argues with dictionaries. Stu argues with historians... now stu argues with the Declaration of Independence.

Your argument is absurd... your anti God stance causes you to lie about everything.

Yeah ---you are correct about Natural Law and Thomas Jefferson and the founders made a mistake when they said endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.




"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What a load of crap.



Nature. They occur naturally. That's why they are natural.
The question was also addressed in the links YOU made!



No one, nothing, nobody, not 'dictators, Kings, junta, bad "judges" ' , no beliefs , religious or otherwise, or God whatever that is.... can transfer, change , give, alter , confer or whatever, inalienable rights. That's why they are inalienable.

 

[stu]

Stu argues with dictionaries. Stu argues with historians... now stu argues with the Declaration of Independence.

Your argument is absurd... your anti God stance causes you to lie about everything.

Yeah ---you are correct about Natural Law and Thomas Jefferson and the founders made a mistake when they said endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The founders made no mistake. Their original draft, which had no contradictory mention of a "Creator", was just fine.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, .…"

Get back to me if you ever accomplish common sense.

 

[jem]

even if that is one of many different drafts... who cares... you are arguing with the Declaration of Independence, the founders, logic and truth.


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence

This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[6] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[7] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[8] It provided inspiration to numerous national declarations of independence throughout the world.

The founders made no mistake. Their original draft, which had no contradictory mention of a "Creator", was just fine.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, .…"

Get back to me if you ever accomplish common sense.

 

[stu]

even if that is one of many different drafts... who cares... you are arguing with the Declaration of Independence, the founders, logic and truth.

Nah, I’m really not. That's just you without an intellect to understand the argument or address it directly.

The foundational concept of inalienable rights is that they come from natural law, not so called religious "law" handed down by whatever a God is supposed to be. That is supernatural law, and through it you end up with things like an Islamic theocracy.

It doesn't matter the word "Creator" gets included before Congress ratifies the DoI. The point is inalienable rights cannot be transferred, from Kings or Gods, otherwise they are not inalienable.

Stu argues with dictionaries.

Unintended irony is the funniest thing.

 

[jem]

Now you are changing the definition and now once again you are having to lie to cover up your emotional charged ignorant statements.
No one is arguing that Natural Law is the same as Religious Law or "super natural" law. nice red herring though.

Stu, you need a mental health checkup... you just can't think straight when someone mentions a Creator.
My statement was that Natural Law is not inconsistent with a Creator. I stated the concepts fit hand in glove.
And the Declaration of Independence proves it.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


Note the plural of dictionary is dictionaries so the irony is that you got that wrong, too.

Nah, I’m really not. That's just you without an intellect to understand the argument or address it directly.

The foundational concept of inalienable rights is that they come from natural law, not so called religious "law" handed down by whatever a God is supposed to be. That is supernatural law, and through it you end up with things like an Islamic theocracy.

It doesn't matter the word "Creator" gets included before Congress ratifies the DoI. The point is inalienable rights cannot be transferred, from Kings or Gods, otherwise they are not inalienable.



Unintended irony is the funniest thing.

 

[stu]

My statement was that Natural Law is not inconsistent with a Creator.

Natural law certainly is inconsistent with any kind of a religious Creator. One called God for instance.

No one is arguing that Natural Law is the same as Religious Law or "super natural" law.

So to be consistent with your statement above, the source of natural law cannot be any kind of a religious one. To suggest otherwise would be inconsistent.

The foundation of natural law is that it exists regardlessly.

I stated the concepts fit hand in glove.

Indeed, You are always making self-contradicting statements.

Note the plural of dictionary is dictionaries so the irony is that you got that wrong, too.

I've not mentioned the word. The irony you can't even read in context properly, makes it double irony .
Twice as funny

 

[jem]

troll playbook page # 9.
if you caught completely lying your ass off... like stu was... just lie your ass off.

Basically the troll saying Natural Law is certainly inconsistent with a Creator that might be a Creator you might believe in. "regardlessly"


This quote below is so lacking in I.Q. points... this must me the new 3 iteration of Stu.
its really not up to the old stu trolling standards.

Natural law certainly is inconsistent with any kind of a religious Creator. One called God for instance.


So to be consistent with your statement above, the source of natural law cannot be any kind of a religious one. To suggest otherwise would be inconsistent.

The foundation of natural law is that it exists regardlessly.


Indeed, You are always making self-contradicting statements.


I've not mentioned the word. The irony you can't even read in context properly, makes it double irony .
Twice as funny