NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

A ****wit
wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:26:16 PM UTC-4, The dork wrote:
A ****wit wrote in message

...

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:33:16 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:10:10 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

We are still waiting for you to provide examples of your evidence
against
natural rights. You said you had some, so where is it?

I'm curious what you imagine such evidence would look like.

You said such evidence existed, now present it.

==================================================

He did and you snipped it, you stupid ****.

What he wrote had nothing to do with the subject, it was therefore
irrelevant and it was therefore snipped.

Any questions?
================================================== =======
He's curious what you imagine such evidence would look like since you snip
anything you don't like, you ****ing moron.
Any answers?

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:15:35 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:

He's curious what you imagine such evidence would look like since you snip
anything you don't like, you ****ing moron.

I don't really care what his evidence against the existence of natural rights would "look like" but if he has some such evidence, as he said he did, then he needs to present it, or else he needs to shut up.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The US is not and was never meant to be a "democracy."

Sorry, I forgot that this was yet another area of your abject
ignorance.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 9:41:51 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:22:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You said such evidence existed, now present it.

I did.

You did not.

Sorry, I forgot that reading comprehension was yet another area of
your abject ignorance.

As well as your ignorance of the well recognized view that the burden
of proof typically lies on the one making the positive assertion for
the existence of anything.

A ****ing moron
wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:15:35 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:

He's curious what you imagine such evidence would look like since you snip
anything you don't like, you ****ing moron.

I don't really care what his evidence against the existence of natural
rights would "look like" but if he has some such evidence, as he said he
did, then he needs to present it, or else he needs to shut up.
=========================================
You don't care what his evidence is, snip it and then say it doesn't exist
and he needs to shut up. Got it.
Go and kill a steer, butcher it and eat it. It's your natural right to eat,
your natural right to walk on someone else's land, your natural right to
gather berries and fruit, you natural right to sow and reap wheat,
your natural right to mill it into flour and your natural right to bake
bread. Keep it up and someone will have the natural right to put a bullet in
your empty skull with a rifle from 500 yards and end your natural right to
life and natural right to defend yourself with a handgun. And if you think
you can take the shooter out first his posse will see you pay for it. End of
story, end of rights.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:41:51 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:22:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You said such evidence existed, now present it.

I did.

Yes, you presented what you claimed was evidence against "natural rights". The existence of infectious diseases was one thing you cited.

Well, I will freely admit that Nature does not respect human life.

But that isn't actually evidence against natural rights, because that's not what natural rights are.

When I say that all humans have the inherent natural right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, I am not claiming that Nature will strike any murderer or thief by lightning before he can succeed in his evil plans.

What am I claiming?

Well, I'm claiming that stuff like murder and stealing are intrinsically wrong. If a community of people, or a government, tries to say otherwise, it can manae to make it easier to do harm to some innocent people unjustly - but it doesn't change the wrongness of the acts that it has facilitated.

And then I can use Negro slavery and the Holocaust as evidence *in favor* of natural rights - because if you deny that natural rights exist, then you're saying those horrible shocking historical injustices weren't really wrong. And nobody would want to say that!

You're welcome to try to explain why this is fallacious and merely argument by intimidation...

John Savard

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:22:10 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The US is not and was never meant to be a "democracy."

Sorry, I forgot that this was yet another area of your abject
ignorance.

You don't understand what a democracy is, do you, Peterson?

You don't understand what democracy is either, do you, Peterson?

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...


Well, I'm claiming that stuff like murder and stealing are intrinsically
wrong.
================================================== ===============

That is a subjective opinion. You need to define "wrong" to give it meaning.
Nature doesn't see murder as wrong, the predator kills the prey to survive
and it is not "wrong", it is intrinsically right.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:23:36 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 9:41:51 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:22:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You said such evidence existed, now present it.

I did.

You did not.

Sorry, I forgot that reading comprehension was yet another area of
your abject ignorance.

As well as your ignorance of the well recognized view that the burden
of proof typically lies on the one making the positive assertion for
the existence of anything.

You made a "positive assertion for the existence" of evidence against natural rights, have been challenged to present it and have utterly failed so far to meet that challenge.

Try again, dumb***.

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:12:54 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, April 21, 2014 8:59:58 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:45:33 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:



On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:44:39 -0700 (PDT), RichA



wrote:



Yes, you have no rights except what the wonderful, wonderful STATE bestows on you.



In a democratic country, the people are the state.



Hah ahhahahahh!! NAME ONE where that is really the case!!!



The UK seems to come rather close, ie it is essentially governed by mob rule. However, its inhabitants are relatively well-behaved (most of the time, except maybe at soccer games.)

Side issue. The STATE in the UK has 40,000 CCTV cameras watching everyone, 24hrs a day, but continued reports of people being arrested for taking pictures continue to be seen. You can be arrested for simply saying the wrong things. The UK democracy is NOT what the U.S. has.