Why volunteer for the armed forces?

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Democracy as I said is shorthand for liberal democracy or liberalism. Absolute or pure democracy is not the issue.

All forms of "democracy" are evil.

The idea, existence, of human rights, you can thank liberalism for.

Uh, no, that would be God who gave humans human rights, and He did that when He created man.

The idea isn't clear in history

Because you say so?

Because in the book of Genesis, even Cain was afraid of having his life taken from him by others because he was a murderer.

Which means that even he recognized that he had deprived his brother of the right to life, and therefore his own life was forfeit.

"Life for life."

until Locke.

Who?

before then you had rights if you were a citizen of, for example, Rome or London.

You're confusing man-given rights with God-given rights.

Man's God-given rights are the rights to Life and Liberty; to Worship, to Free Speech, to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish his Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail.

NO GOVERNMENT has the right to take any of those things away, because they are given by God, who is above the government.

But nobody had rights just because they were a human,

Saying it doesn't make it so.

that idea is new with Locke.

Who?

If you believe in human rights, you are a liberal,

Because you say so?

"Liberal" used to just mean "free" or "abundant."

Now it's a highly politicized term.

If you are referring to the political term, then no, "believing in human rights" is NOT being a liberal, it's being a conservative, as being "liberal" means to elevate other things over human rights.

to argue otherwise is to commit plagiarism, of liberals,

Because you say so?

like Locke.

Who?

And the institutions of liberalism are how we protect, or secure, our human rights, which is the principle purpose of government.

No, they're not, and no, the "principle purpose" of government is to protect its citizens and their rights, and the rights of others where possible, and to provide infrastructure.

If you believe in human rights you are a liberal.

Repeating your position doesn't make it come true.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
All forms of "democracy" are evil.



Uh, no, that would be God who gave humans human rights, and He did that when He created man.



Because you say so?

Because in the book of Genesis, even Cain was afraid of having his life taken from him by others because he was a murderer.

Which means that even he recognized that he had deprived his brother of the right to life, and therefore his own life was forfeit.

"Life for life."



Who?



You're confusing man-given rights with God-given rights.

Man's God-given rights are the rights to Life and Liberty; to Worship, to Free Speech, to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish his Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail.

NO GOVERNMENT has the right to take any of those things away, because they are given by God, who is above the government.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Who?



Because you say so?

"Liberal" used to just mean "free" or "abundant."

Now it's a highly politicized term.

If you are referring to the political term, then no, "believing in human rights" is NOT being a liberal, it's being a conservative, as being "liberal" means to elevate other things over human rights.



Because you say so?



Who?



No, they're not, and no, the "principle purpose" of government is to protect its citizens and their rights, and the rights of others where possible, and to provide infrastructure.



Repeating your position doesn't make it come true.
You're misunderstanding me because to understand me would be to admit your error.

I'm not saying and I have never said, and I have never implied that our rights were invented, but the recognition of them, which is objective, and yes, it requires specific language, and this is where your misunderstanding is, the language that proves positively that someone had the idea that all people possessed rights, just because of being human, didn't reveal itself in all history before John Locke the Englishman who lived and wrote in the 1600s.

The Bible not once mentions rights, though it alludes to rights, when Paul demanded to have his rights as a Roman citizen respected in the book of Acts. Paul never mentions human rights, neither does Christ, nor does any prophet, including Moses. You can argue that they are alluded to, certainly---I do that myself. The Scripture is consistent with human rights, that is completely true. But the idea of human rights does not appear explicitly in the Bible anywhere.

Human rights the idea, which is positively identified with and equivalent with its own clear language, was invented by Locke, and if it wasn't Locke, it was perhaps Hobbes, but we're talking about the same polity (England) and the same timeframe, between Locke and Hobbes.

This is liberalism, the belief in human rights explicitly. It is plagiarism to take what liberalism invented, the language of rights, the language of rights being the equivalent of liberalism, because liberalism is a political and moral philosophy, a system of thought, a school of thought, a philosophical school; and just say that it was there all along in the Bible or whatever. You can't steal. When you steal an idea from someone, you're a thief, and when you say you believe in human rights, but deny that Locke invented the language of rights, the philosophy of liberalism, you're trying to steal.

Liberalism is consistent with all Scripture, and with all Sacred Tradition as well. The Apostles' teachings in their entirety is entirely consistent with human rights. And yes, human rights are God-given, and yes, that also means that liberalism is God's own political and moral philosophy.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
God is a liberal democrat. With the words liberal and democracy being defined by me itt, not whatever your meanings are for those words, so beware, that I mean by liberal and by democracy very particular things. They are both like wax noses and people make them mean whatever they want, but I mean by them just what I say itt about them.

God is a liberal. God is a liberal democrat, small D.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
Pure propaganda. These are recruitment commercials. I can understand the Israelis are finally trying to integrate with the Arab population. However, I hope @ok doser realized that this was propaganda. I don't doubt that most Christians and Arabs who join the Israeli military have a positive experience however this has way to many elements of being scripted. Although, they didn't do as badly as the Chinese did with the Uyghur propaganda. Israel must have learned something but not enough from DINFOS.

Here's a CNN feature back when they weren't Trump 24/7.


Obviously, more is going on here. The "Israelis" actually destroyed Arab Christian communities. It's hard to look past that and it will definitely take quite some time to overcome.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
You're misunderstanding me because to understand me would be to admit your error.

I'm not saying and I have never said, and I have never implied that our rights were invented, but the recognition of them, which is objective, and yes, it requires specific language, and this is where your misunderstanding is, the language that proves positively that someone had the idea that all people possessed rights, just because of being human, didn't reveal itself in all history before John Locke the Englishman who lived and wrote in the 1600s.

The Bible not once mentions rights, though it alludes to rights, when Paul demanded to have his rights as a Roman citizen respected in the book of Acts. Paul never mentions human rights, neither does Christ, nor does any prophet, including Moses. You can argue that they are alluded to, certainly---I do that myself. The Scripture is consistent with human rights, that is completely true. But the idea of human rights does not appear explicitly in the Bible anywhere.

Human rights the idea, which is positively identified with and equivalent with its own clear language, was invented by Locke, and if it wasn't Locke, it was perhaps Hobbes, but we're talking about the same polity (England) and the same timeframe, between Locke and Hobbes.

This is liberalism, the belief in human rights explicitly. It is plagiarism to take what liberalism invented, the language of rights, the language of rights being the equivalent of liberalism, because liberalism is a political and moral philosophy, a system of thought, a school of thought, a philosophical school; and just say that it was there all along in the Bible or whatever. You can't steal. When you steal an idea from someone, you're a thief, and when you say you believe in human rights, but deny that Locke invented the language of rights, the philosophy of liberalism, you're trying to steal.

Liberalism is consistent with all Scripture, and with all Sacred Tradition as well. The Apostles' teachings in their entirety is entirely consistent with human rights. And yes, human rights are God-given, and yes, that also means that liberalism is God's own political and moral philosophy.
No. You're confusing classical liberalism with liberalism. Those are two separate concepts. Today's "liberals" are anything but liberal. They don't give of themselves for others. They take what others have to give to third parties. That's not classical liberalism. Not even close.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
......ummmmm.... a bunch of spoilt brats?

Waaaaa! Wan' ma freedom!
Waaa! Wannit all!
Waaaaa!

😆
Once again, you demonstrate your complete inability to understand any point of view other than your own.

Self-discipline is the foundation of liberty, and self-discipline has nothing, zero, nada, to do with selfishness. And you're incapable of understanding that. That's why you post the idiocy you post.
 

chair

Well-known member
Once again, you demonstrate your complete inability to understand any point of view other than your own.

Self-discipline is the foundation of liberty, and self-discipline has nothing, zero, nada, to do with selfishness. And you're incapable of understanding that. That's why you post the idiocy you post.
And yet, these people show no self-discipline, and behave selfishly.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
My point is this: Many here are very concerned for their freedom. I hear this in the Covid threads, and also here. Freedom! Freedom!
Yes, freedom from interference by the government. Freedom to go about our lives as we deem best.
What I hear little of is: Responsibility.

Then you're not listening to. Freedom from government necessarily means personal responsibility. We don't want to rely on stimulus checks. We want the personal freedom to rely upon our own responsibility to support ourselves.
Freedom without responsibility- what does that sound like?
It sounds like something other than what's being discussed here.
 

chair

Well-known member
Then you're not listening to. Freedom from government necessarily means personal responsibility. We don't want to rely on stimulus checks. We want the personal freedom to rely upon our own responsibility to support ourselves.
Oh, I'm listening. I'm carefully listening to what you say too. The only freedom you want is selfish- for yourself. The only responsibility you want is for yourself.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

Well-known member
No. You're confusing classical liberalism with liberalism. Those are two separate concepts.
No I'm not. Classical liberalism so called, is the same as modern liberalism with regard to the institutions. The institutions of so-called classical liberalism are the same institutions we have today, nothing at all has changed with regard to the liberal institutions.

Classical liberalism so called refers to capitalism, which is an economic theory, not a political theory and not a moral theory and not a legal theory. Capitalism was able to grow in the soil of liberalism like it never could in illiberal polities under illiberal regimes like absolute monarchism or pure democracy, so that's my guess as to why it quickly became equated with "classical liberalism". Capitalism, and not liberalism, has been under fire by some people politically and philosophically, ever since it was first identified as a distinct economic policy. The only people who are enemies of liberalism are the Chinese and North Koreans and other inherently illiberal polities. They don't believe in human rights, so they don't believe in liberalism, so they don't believe in the liberal institutions.
Today's "liberals" are anything but liberal. They don't give of themselves for others. They take what others have to give to third parties. That's not classical liberalism. Not even close.
It's not capitalism, is what it is, like I said.

Today's Republicans and today's Democrats are both largely liberals, though with different ethical streaks (they just look like different policy positions). Republicans and Democrats both largely believe in liberal institutions, that they should be protected and defended to the death, and liberal institutions are for securing our human rights; in other words separation of powers, civilian control of the military, rule of law, etc., are for protecting and defending the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
Top