Constitution of Mankind

[Mavorpen]

Equality under the law from conception until death.

So in other words, you hate equality.

[Zweite Alaje]

Equality under the law from conception until death.

So in other words, you hate equality.

No, it means the exact opposite.

[Norsklow]

Mr Speaker.

As the duly constituted assembly WE are the lawmakers. L'Etat, c';est nous!

It is up to us to define this, and not defer our duties.

[Mavorpen]

So in other words, you hate equality.

No, it means the exact opposite.

Nope. He wants to punish women for being women. That's the opposite of equality.

[Raeyh]

No, it means the exact opposite.

Nope. He wants to punish women for being women. That's the opposite of equality.

And you want to punish violinists for being violinists.

[Zweite Alaje]

No, it means the exact opposite.

Nope. He wants to punish women for being women. That's the opposite of equality.

In what manner is stopping these "mothers" from killing children opposed to equality?

[Ostroeuropa]

Nope. He wants to punish women for being women. That's the opposite of equality.

And you want to punish violinists for being violinists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_ ... experiment)

To clarify what he means.
Could we either move this discussion into one about what constitues personhood or into a new thread?

[Mavorpen]

Nope. He wants to punish women for being women. That's the opposite of equality.

In what manner is stopping these "mothers" from killing children opposed to equality?

The fact they aren't killing children, and are instead exercising their natural rights.

[Norsklow]

Personhood means the ability to interact with the public. It is an attribute, not a thing per se.

[Ostroeuropa]

Personhood means the ability to interact with the public. It is an attribute, not a thing per se.

Under that definition, a fetus does not qualify as a person.
So it's probably correct.

[Norsklow]

In what manner is stopping these "mothers" from killing children opposed to equality?

The fact they aren't killing children, and are instead exercising their natural rights.

Ain't no sich animal as a natural right, and you can bet that we're not going to accept the notion of natural rights. If anything, we're going to abolish them.

[Zweite Alaje]

In what manner is stopping these "mothers" from killing children opposed to equality?

The fact they aren't killing children, and are instead exercising their natural rights.

Yes, of course, the women are so selfish as to think they are the only ones who matter. Thus is the mentality this hedonist and individualist culture of ours has birthed, it is sickening.

[Mavorpen]

The fact they aren't killing children, and are instead exercising their natural rights.

Ain't no sich animal as a natural right, and you can bet that we're not going to accept the notion of natural rights. If anything, we're going to abolish them.

Sandy: Say it!
SpongeBob: There isn't anything..
Sandy: Ain't NOTHIN'!
SpongeBob: (in high voice) Ain't NOTHIN'... too big or too ornery for you to handle.

[Ostroeuropa]

The fact they aren't killing children, and are instead exercising their natural rights.

Yes, of course, the women are so selfish as to think they are the only ones who matter. Thus is the mentality this hedonist and indiviualist culture of ours has birthed, it is sickening.

If you want to argue people SHOULDNT get abortions, i'm on board with that.
That they CANT have abortions is another thing entirely

[Samuraikoku]

The fact they aren't killing children, and are instead exercising their natural rights.

Yes, of course, the women are so selfish as to think they are the only ones who matter. Thus is the mentality this hedonist and indiviualist culture of ours has birthed, it is sickening.

Certainly a better alternative that the rest of society thinking they don't matter.

[Norsklow]

Personhood means the ability to interact with the public. It is an attribute, not a thing per se.

Under that definition, a fetus does not qualify as a person.
So it's probably correct.

See how essential it is to do these things first?
Now, how about a CORPORATION. Can it interact?
Where do its rights come from?
( I wasn't kidding about abolishing the concept of natural rights )

[Mavorpen]

The fact they aren't killing children, and are instead exercising their natural rights.

Yes, of course, the women are so selfish as to think they are the only ones who matter. Thus is the mentality this hedonist and indiviualist culture of ours has birthed, it is sickening.

Exactly. Now let's move on.

[Ostroeuropa]

Under that definition, a fetus does not qualify as a person.
So it's probably correct.

See how essential it is to do these things first?
Now, how about a CORPORATION. Can it interact?
Where do its rights come from?
( I wasn't kidding about abolishing the concept of natural rights )

A corporation is a non-entity. I would prefer we don't treat it as though it had rights. The constituent parts (the workers) have rights.
I'm willing to be swayed if you convince me.

[Norsklow]

Ain't no sich animal as a natural right, and you can bet that we're not going to accept the notion of natural rights. If anything, we're going to abolish them.

Sandy: Say it!
SpongeBob: There isn't anything..
Sandy: Ain't NOTHIN'!
SpongeBob: (in high voice) Ain't NOTHIN'... too big or too ornery for you to handle.

We're already DONE abolishing it while you were debating it!

Always ACT while others talk.

[Mavorpen]

Sandy: Say it!
SpongeBob: There isn't anything..
Sandy: Ain't NOTHIN'!
SpongeBob: (in high voice) Ain't NOTHIN'... too big or too ornery for you to handle.

We're already DONE abolishing it while you were debating it!

Always ACT while others talk.

I don't debate, I win.

[Norsklow]

See how essential it is to do these things first?
Now, how about a CORPORATION. Can it interact?
Where do its rights come from?
( I wasn't kidding about abolishing the concept of natural rights )

A corporation is a non-entity. I would prefer we don't treat it as though it had rights. The constituent parts (the workers) have rights.
I'm willing to be swayed if you convince me.

No rights unless derived.
If you want to create something and give it rights, the rights you give are the ones you lose.

This is not just about Corporations ( as enterprises ) but any legal construct with personality
Including but not limited to:

-a marriage or civil union
-commonwealth
-monastery
-commune or township
-trade union
-kibbutz

Their rights come out of the founder;s pockets, who lose the rights they gave away. Zero sum game without exceptions.

[Ostroeuropa]

A corporation is a non-entity. I would prefer we don't treat it as though it had rights. The constituent parts (the workers) have rights.
I'm willing to be swayed if you convince me.

No rights unless derived.
If you want to create something and give it rights, the rights you give are the ones you lose.

This is not just about Corporations ( as enterprises ) but any legal construct with personality
Including but not limited to:

-a marriage or civil union
-commonwealth
-monastery
-commune or township
-trade union
-kibbutz

Their rights come out of the founder;s pockets, who lose the rights they gave away. Zero sum game without exceptions.

That doesn't fit with my interperatation of rights however.
Rights aren't things, they are guarantee's that in the event of someone performing certain actions, the people shall intervene.
Under that interperatation, one could agree amongst the citizenry that corporations also have rights if they liked. I'd oppose it.
And to propose that citizens can give their rights to another entity skirts on the edge of equality before the law.
A citizen who had surrendered certain rights would not be equal to another who hadn't.
Again, willing to be convinced.
My problem with it is, how do you define a corporation?
I'd prefer that rights were written in such a way that they'd protect groups the individual belonged too as well.
(voluntary association prevents disbandment of groups/companies without reason etc.)

[Norsklow]

First: your interpretation of rights leads to collisions of rights, in the present world.
The guarantee method is inadequate unless accompanied with a mechanism for maintaining a zero sum game.

Second: I do not see equality before the Law as necessary - as opposed to equal application of law
In fact, I consider equality before the Law as a well-intended fumble.

Third: the intervention against certain actions ( mugging e.g.) can be adressed by penal law

Fourth: that a legal entitity with personality ( each and every item on my list but not limited to that list )
be seen as exactly that: a thing created THROUGH legal process, BY persons, WITH legal personality ( capable of being guilty, paying fines, receiving money, signing contracts etc etc ) THROUGH agents ( who have in this context no Personality of their own and are just agents ).

Fifth: that it be held as self evident that I can own the house, my wife can own the house, the couple ( a corporation ) can own the house, but not all at the same time.

[Dracone]

The constitution overides all other laws.
The goverment shall not make any new laws.
It is illegal to physcally harm other people.
It is illegal to rape.
It is illegal to steal.
The goverment shall use the minumum amount of interference possible,
Citizens shall decide what the punishment for a given incident, if it should be punished, in a court of law (citizen as in title not member of the population)
Anyone may become a Citizen to aid the nation. The requirments are that you must be a self made millionaire and give up everything in exchange to live on a goverment subsidy equal to the average wage of the people, minus ten percent. This ensures integrity and willingness to place the needs of others above your own.
All else is legal including gambling, drugs, prostitution, guns, anything. And the goverment may not create new laws. There will also be no taxes the goverment will run off the fees for Citizens, plus a flat $500 dollar a year resident fee per citizen

[Christian Democrats]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. That's what it'd be under the law if you recognize a fetus as a person, but don't make it a crime.

Self-Defence means an act of killing someone becomes
Justifiable Homicide.

Same as executions, military personelle acting on duty, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide


"Why did you abort that womans baby? It isn't self-defence!"
"Justifiable homicide."

"Why did you bomb the rebels? They weren't shooting at you!"
"Justifiable homicide."

You ignore the fact that there is such a thing as using proportional force.

If a young child were to trespass unintentionally on your property, you would not have the right to tear off that child's head with forceps.