Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh the Irony...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by God's Truth View Post

    Protest for someone getting removed from a house they aren't legally entitled to be in?
    The women were protesting the way some buildings look by trespassing on and living in privately owned property that they had no right to be in. That's where quip is coming from.

    The fact is that dislike of gentrification is not a valid reason to trespass.

    The point of this thread, however, is to point out how ironic it is that the women, who are part of an activist group related to homelessness, were themselves homeless, and because they were trespassing, were ironically evicted from the house they were living in, and has nothing to do with gentrification.

    Comment


    • #32
      oh dear

      he's gone all red



      do artie next!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ok doser View Post

        it's called trespassing - try doing it on my land and I'll shoot you
        Bet you's miss! I bet you'd be shaking like a leaf if you saw a Mum and Kid asleep in your vacant empty unused extra property.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

          The women were protesting the way some buildings look by trespassing on and living in privately owned property that they had no right to be in. That's where quip is coming from.

          The fact is that dislike of gentrification is not a valid reason to trespass.

          The point of this thread, however, is to point out how ironic it is that the women, who are part of an activist group related to homelessness, were themselves homeless, and because they were trespassing, were ironically evicted from the house they were living in, and has nothing to do with gentrification.
          Just posing my reply to him as a question in hopes he sees how ridiculous his argument is.

          I really did have to move out of my hometown because housing went sky high. It was a little beach and agricultural town, not so much agriculture anymore, and half a million for a little older home is a sad case for sure.

          I can't imagine just living in someone's vacant property there because I didn't want to leave my hometown.
          Oh how I love the Word of God!

          Don't just hear the word and believe it---do it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

            Isn't it true that according to you, the basic essentials for survival aren't rights either, like food, water and any sort of shelter? Oh, and education etc? Shame for any kids caught up in such eh? But hey, never mind right?

            You people on the left are just stupid. I mean profoundly mentally handicaped! The "essentials for survival" is the very concept that makes what these women were doing wrong, not right!

            No one has the right to ANYTHING that has to be provided to them by someone else.

            Life itself is the source of all rights. You do not have the right to my life! When I spend my time and talent (i.e. my life) producing something, it is mine by right to use or dispose of in whatever way I see fit because it was my life that was expended in it's production. I can consume it, sell it or give it away but your need does not give you a claim check on my life.

            And while this idea is consistent with the Christian worldview, you do not need to be a Christian to understand and accept it. All you have to be is of sufficient intelligence to think clearly...
            .
            The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

            Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

            Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of “human rights” versus “property rights,” as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human.” - Ayn Rand




            You morons on the left think that to allow trespassing and theft is to expand human rights and it's quite exactly the opposite! What's worse is that you think this self-destructive, antisocial, lawless stupidity will stop with giving lazy people someone else's house!
            sigpic
            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
              Isn't it true that according to you, the basic essentials for survival aren't rights either, like food ...
              I'm hungry this morning and i'm going to exercise my right to food by having breakfast at the local diner and leaving without paying the bill

              , water
              I'm also thirsty, so I plan to exercise my right to water by taking a couple of cases of bottled water from the local grocery store

              and any sort of shelter?
              I plan to exercise my right to shelter too. Leave your door unlocked. I'll let myself in later on.

              Oh, and education etc?
              I'll exercise my right to education tomorrow - sit in on a class or two at the local college, maybe nap in the back of the classroom. Make sure the administration gives me a diploma, willya?



              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Clete View Post
                The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle ...

                it's understandable why the incompetent find this so appealing, and why the politicians on the left find them to be such a reliable voting base

                Don't know if you're aware of it, but there's been a push (by the left of course) to expand that voting demographic, the incompetent voter, by extending voting rights to children.

                and of course, the illegal immigrant - the more uneducated the better

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  You people on the left are just stupid. I mean profoundly mentally handicaped! The "essentials for survival" is the very concept that makes what these women were doing wrong, not right!

                  No one has the right to ANYTHING that has to be provided to them by someone else.

                  Life itself is the source of all rights. You do not have the right to my life! When I spend my time and talent (i.e. my life) producing something, it is mine by right to use or dispose of in whatever way I see fit because it was my life that was expended in it's production. I can consume it, sell it or give it away but your need does not give you a claim check on my life.

                  And while this idea is consistent with the Christian worldview, you do not need to be a Christian to understand and accept it. All you have to be is of sufficient intelligence to think clearly...
                  .
                  The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

                  Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

                  Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of “human rights” versus “property rights,” as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human.” - Ayn Rand





                  You morons on the left think that to allow trespassing and theft is to expand human rights and it's quite exactly the opposite! What's worse is that you think this self-destructive, antisocial, lawless stupidity will stop with giving lazy people someone else's house!
                  Hmm, well ranting aside, there's articles 25 and 26 of The United Nations declaration of human rights:

                  Article 25.

                  (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
                  (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

                  Article 26.

                  (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
                  (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
                  (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

                  https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...-human-rights/

                  In regards to the article, then isn't it understandable why there is so much protest? Oakland isn't the only area where there's problems with affordable housing and yet some people on the far right dismiss any concerns with stuff like that and just regard anyone on the lower end of the ladder as lazy or "bums". Maybe the rich man was right to deny Lazarus scraps of food and crumbs off his table?

                  So a corporation had a vacant property inhabited by some single mothers. Oh, boo hoo, they must have been devastated.
                  Well this is fun isn't it?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                    Hmm, well ranting aside, there's articles 25 and 26 of The United Nations declaration of human rights:
                    dude, if you incompetent morons in england want to be governed by the UN, it's no skin off my nose
                    Last edited by ok doser; January 18th, 2020, 05:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                      Hmm, well ranting aside, there's articles 25 and 26 of The United Nations declaration of human rights:

                      Article 25.

                      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
                      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

                      Article 26.

                      (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
                      (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
                      (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

                      https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...-human-rights/


                      In regards to the article, then isn't it understandable why there is so much protest? Oakland isn't the only area where there's problems with affordable housing and yet some people on the far right dismiss any concerns with stuff like that and just regard anyone on the lower end of the ladder as lazy or "bums". Maybe the rich man was right to deny Lazarus scraps of food and crumbs off his table?

                      So a corporation had a vacant property inhabited by some single mothers. Oh, boo hoo, they must have been devastated.
                      The United Nations declaration of human rights? You have got to be kidding me!

                      Of course, you're not kidding though, right?!

                      If you want to know why every post I make in response to virtually anything you say is laced with insults, this post can stand as a perfect explanation.

                      Every actual argument ANYONE makes that you bother to respond to at all is met this sort of completely pure stupidity!

                      And I mean that literally! You are flatly stupid! There can be no other rational explanation.

                      You deserve whatever you get. You have only your own stupidity to blame for whatever disaster befalls you.



                      sigpic
                      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                        Hmm, well ranting aside, there's articles 25 and 26 of The United Nations declaration of human rights:

                        Article 25.

                        (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
                        (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

                        Article 26.

                        (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
                        (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
                        (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

                        https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...-human-rights/

                        In regards to the article, then isn't it understandable why there is so much protest? Oakland isn't the only area where there's problems with affordable housing and yet some people on the far right dismiss any concerns with stuff like that and just regard anyone on the lower end of the ladder as lazy or "bums". Maybe the rich man was right to deny Lazarus scraps of food and crumbs off his table?

                        So a corporation had a vacant property inhabited by some single mothers. Oh, boo hoo, they must have been devastated.
                        You make me laugh, AB. You swear up and down you're not a Socialist and what do you do? You quote the biggest socialist organization on the planet as an authority on "rights" and morality The UN is pure socialism. It's the biggest example of rule by non-elected bureaucrats this world has ever seen. And you want them to have have power over sovereign nations as you're quoting them as "the" authority on morality and rights. As corrupt as the UN is that's just completely laughable. You've just completely destroyed your own protestations of not being a socialist.

                        I've been waiting for you to make this mistake. Not maliciously, but just because I knew a socialist like you had to expose the depth of their belief in socialist concepts and institutions. It's also nice of you to show your disrespect for liberty, for without property rights there is zero liberty. You're a totalitarian from the ground up.
                        “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                        ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                        “One and God make a majority.”
                        ― Frederick Douglass

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ok doser View Post


                          it's understandable why the incompetent find this so appealing, and why the politicians on the left find them to be such a reliable voting base

                          Don't know if you're aware of it, but there's been a push (by the left of course) to expand that voting demographic, the incompetent voter, by extending voting rights to children.

                          and of course, the illegal immigrant - the more uneducated the better
                          Democracy is evil. The more of it you have, the more evil the nation will become because the majority (i.e. as a group - a.k.a. the mob) is evil. God knew this way back in Genesis and the founding fathers of this country knew it too which is why they tried to limit the amount of democracy in the original government. Their mistake was to forget that a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

                          What we as Christians should advocate is less democracy, not more. Of course the ideal is an entirely different form of government but that's not reality. From within the context of the constitutional democratic republic that actually exists, we should push for as much republic and as little democracy as is possible. In my view that means limiting voting rights to those who own significant amount of land (i.e. an acre or more or something along those lines).

                          Also, there should be no professional politicians on the federal level. No one should be permitted to make their living in a position of power. Federal terms of power should be limited to one and only one term and then whoever sat in that seat of power can never be elected to any federal office ever again - period. The number of years of a single term would likely need to be longer than they currently are because otherwise our ability to negotiate trade deals and treaties and to otherwise deal with other governments would be severely weakened. This, however, is a fundamental flaw in the form of government we find ourselves in anyway and so, without completely changing the form of government, this issue can only be mitigated, not fixed. Indeed, it is precisely this issue that has given rise to what has come to be called the "deep state" and since the problem is innate to the actual form of government that exists in the U.S. no president will ever succeed in ridding us of it entirely. It's like trying to rid the beach of sea foam while keeping the surf. It cannot be done.

                          sigpic
                          "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Clete View Post
                            In my view that means limiting voting rights to those who own significant amount of land (i.e. an acre or more or something along those lines).
                            While I generally agree with you. I don't like the idea that you want to take away my right to vote, since my land is only about a third of an acre.

                            All of my ancestors are human.
                            Originally posted by Squeaky
                            That explains why your an idiot.
                            Originally posted by God's Truth
                            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              The United Nations declaration of human rights? You have got to be kidding me!

                              Of course, you're not kidding though, right?!

                              If you want to know why every post I make in response to virtually anything you say is laced with insults, this post can stand as a perfect explanation.

                              Every actual argument ANYONE makes that you bother to respond to at all is met this sort of completely pure stupidity!

                              And I mean that literally! You are flatly stupid! There can be no other rational explanation.

                              You deserve whatever you get. You have only your own stupidity to blame for whatever disaster befalls you.


                              Well, the reason why you lace posts with insults would seem to be because you have nothing of substance to offer, just declaration and a whole bunch of shouting. If you disagree with the articles then instead of acting like someone who constantly seems to foam at the mouth then set out why, otherwise you're just on yet another boring rant.

                              Some of the attitudes in the far right fundamentalism camp would have people like Lazarus be called a bum simply for begging for scraps of food, so your assessment of intelligence or stupidity mean absolutely squat.

                              I don't wish any sort of "disaster" to befall you in turn as you would seem to maliciously hope for me.

                              Well this is fun isn't it?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post

                                You make me laugh, AB. You swear up and down you're not a Socialist and what do you do? You quote the biggest socialist organization on the planet as an authority on "rights" and morality The UN is pure socialism. It's the biggest example of rule by non-elected bureaucrats this world has ever seen. And you want them to have have power over sovereign nations as you're quoting them as "the" authority on morality and rights. As corrupt as the UN is that's just completely laughable. You've just completely destroyed your own protestations of not being a socialist.

                                I've been waiting for you to make this mistake. Not maliciously, but just because I knew a socialist like you had to expose the depth of their belief in socialist concepts and institutions. It's also nice of you to show your disrespect for liberty, for without property rights there is zero liberty. You're a totalitarian from the ground up.
                                I'm no such thing as a "totalitarian" or whatever label you want to compartmentalize people into. I agree with both articles quoted in relation to basic human rights that I believe people should have. If you differ then set out why, don't just blow smoke and toss out labels that you want to pigeonhole people into.
                                Well this is fun isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X