you said he's playing word games, he outlines the difference between them, and you flub the difference. u can violate an individuals right, but u cant revoke it for just an individual. you're the one asking him to define things over and over lol. at least abide by provided definitions.

He is playing word games lol. He will define something then a few posts later use that term in a way that contradicts his definition. Then when called on it he hides behind another poorly defined word until I press for a definition, wash, rinse, repeat.

In this case I expect it to go something like

>revoking = all people have it revoked, then I point out that societies have had execution without due process for some groups but not others so certain groups can have their rights revoked while keeping it for others, then he'll play a word game with violation.



He's had this fight with about a dozen posters on dozens of occasions. If he has a self consistent argument he's incapable of communicating it.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 24 2020 10:45am

Executions without due process are just individualized violation of rights gone rampant.

Give an example.

I might be playing "word games" from your perspective, because I'm not willing to be pigeonholed by you and am staying ahead of it.

In your "example," I wouldn't characterize the 'execution without due process' for some but not others as violating rights.



This.

And if they are rampant enough that you have no expectation that you can keep your life, then by the definition of right being an expectation of how you will be treated by others you have lost your right to life. A right that is not respected is not a right

so im sure you have an example where a large enough portion of the population was executed without trial that the population generally lost their expectation of life as a right, right?

and let's save a step and recognize that when the Nazi's did it it was seen as such an egregious violation of rights by the rest of the world, as well as their violation of sovereignty rights by conquest, that they got fucked out of existence. and still non-jews in Germany didn't lose their expectation at all.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 24 2020 11:38am

How about North Korea? Where you can be executed for most anything if the sovereign deems it appropriate.

The Nazi Germany example is a great one of why a revocation of rights can be done for a subset of the population without it being done for the rest of the population.

So you think the Jews and Gypsies didn't have a reasonable expectation to their right to life?

That's not strictly accurate for North Korea. the state has an honor based system built off of North Korea's social contract called Juche. Violations of Juche cause reprisal by the state based on specific rules. We may find these rules barbaric, orwellian, and nearly all encompassing. but they are rules none the less. and most of the subjective ones such as anti-govt speech aren't against natural rights, as freedom of speech isn't a natural right. plus they dont kill people, they put them in camps where some live and some die due to labor and the lack of food. its hunger and injuries that they die from, totally not Kim's fault.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic



The ones living in Germany under the Nazis? By your own definition of rights they definitely did not have a right to life.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 24 2020 11:52am