Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Equal rights, equal fights?

Metallicker
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 1:10:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
First things first, I am not a mysoginist, but having just recently viewed this: , I have been forced to re-evaluate my thoughts on self-defence and equal rights for women.
Now I'm not saying that if a woman slaps a man, that she should be beat down for it, but I do think there is a line that should'nt be crossed. Personally I believe you should'nt strike anybody, that is unless retaliation is deserved, and that if you are to strike at a person, you should have the precognitive skills to recognize that you may be striken yourself, as not all people share the same ethical or moral beliefs that you possess.

Personally, if I was slapped by a woman, deserved or not, I doubt I would retaliate violently. However thats not to say I would'nt defend myself if I felt that my safety was at risk. I am curious as to see peoples take on this subject, I feel as if this is a part of modern day culture that rarely gets discussed. If I was attacked by a woman, whom is willingly trying to cause physical harm to me, is it sexist for me to not defend myself intelligently?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 1:21:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Equality is equality.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 1:29:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/24/2009 1:10:12 AM, Metallicker wrote:
First things first, I am not a mysoginist, but having just recently viewed this: , I have been forced to re-evaluate my thoughts on self-defence and equal rights for women.
I just read this recently (http://www.lewrockwell.com...), and it convinced me that the woman has been the master for quite a long time. An excerpt:

Indeed, as capitalism has immensely lightened the burden of housework through improved technology, many wives have increasingly constituted a kept leisure class. In the middle class neighborhood in which I live, I see them, these "oppressed" and hard-faced viragos, strutting down the street in their mink stoles to the next bridge or mah-jongg game, while their husbands are working themselves into an early coronary down in the garment district to support their helpmeets.

In these cases, then, who are the "niggers": the wives? Or the husbands? The women's libs claim that men are the masters because they are doing most of the world's work. But if we look back at the society of the slave South, who indeed did the work? It is always the slaves who do the work, while the masters live in relative idleness off the fruits of their labor. To the extent that husbands work and support the family, while wives enjoy a kept status, who then are the masters?

There is nothing new in this argument, but it is a point that has been forgotten amidst the current furor. It has been noted for years-and especially by Europeans and Asians - that too many American men live in a matriarchy, dominated first by Momism, then by female teachers, and then by their wives. Blondie and Dagwood have long symbolized for sociologists an all-too prevalent American matriarchy, a matriarchy that contrasts to the European scene where the women, though more idle than in the U.S., do not run the home. The henpecked American male has long been the butt of perceptive humor. And, finally, when the male dies, as he usually does, earlier than his spouse, she inherits the entire family assets, with the result that far more than 50% of the wealth of America is owned by women. Income - the index of hard and productive work - is less significant here than ownership of ultimate wealth. Here is another inconvenient fact which the female militants brusquely dismiss as of no consequence. And, finally, if the husband should seek a divorce, he is socked with the laws of alimony, which he is forced to pay and pay to support a female whom he no longer sees, and, if he fails to pay, faces the barbaric penalty of imprisonment - the only instance remaining in our legal structure of imprisonment for nonpayment of "debt." Except, of course, that this is a "debt" which the man had never voluntarily incurred. Who, then, are the slaves?

I've never ben a fan of equal rights for women. The intent is great and I agree with the purpose, but it always turns out to be a bullsh!t trainwreck, so I don't associate myself with them.

Now I'm not saying that if a woman slaps a man, that she should be beat down for it,
I do. If a man slaps a woman and he gets beat down for it, a woman should to. I believe in equality, you see. Don't like it? Well then obviously, you're not for equality.

but I do think there is a line that should'nt be crossed. Personally I believe you should'nt strike anybody,
I agree; Non Aggression Principle.

Personally, if I was slapped by a woman, deserved or not, I doubt I would retaliate violently. However thats not to say I would'nt defend myself if I felt that my safety was at risk. I am curious as to see peoples take on this subject, I feel as if this is a part of modern day culture that rarely gets discussed.
It's discussed alright, just not by public figures.

If I was attacked by a woman, whom is willingly trying to cause physical harm to me, is it sexist for me to not defend myself intelligently?
It really comes down to what makes an action or a person sexist. If we go by the common definition (or at least the one I know of, the one from one of the most liberal areas in the USA), yes, you're sexist (because the woman isn't coming out on top). By the dictionary definition of showing favoritism to one sex, not at all. It is not sexist, not one little bit.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Metallicker
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 1:42:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I do. If a man slaps a woman and he gets beat down for it, a woman should to. I believe in equality, you see. Don't like it? Well then obviously, you're not for equality.


Sorry, slight misunderstanding due to my wording. By 'beat down' I mean tp retaliate with a higher degree of force. If a woman slaps a man I can argue that it would be acceptable under equal rights to return said slap at and equal level of power. It's like Newton's third law of physics, applied to violence.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 1:44:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Clearing something up:
Now I'm not saying that if a woman slaps a man, that she should be beat down for it,
I do. If a man slaps a woman and he gets beat down for it, a woman should to. I believe in equality, you see. Don't like it? Well then obviously, you're not for equality.
Supposed to be: "I do. If a man should get beaten down for slapping a woman, then a woman should be beaten down for slapping a man. I believe in equality, you see. Don't like it? Well then obviously, you're not for equality."
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 1:47:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/24/2009 1:42:28 AM, Metallicker wrote:
I do. If a man slaps a woman and he gets beat down for it, a woman should to. I believe in equality, you see. Don't like it? Well then obviously, you're not for equality.
Sorry, slight misunderstanding due to my wording. By 'beat down' I mean tp retaliate with a higher degree of force. If a woman slaps a man I can argue that it would be acceptable under equal rights to return said slap at and equal level of power. It's like Newton's third law of physics, applied to violence.
Haha, mine was unclear too xD

If a woman slaps a man, the man should be able to slap the woman back without the threat of or the action of a mob beating him down, just as if a man slaps a woman, the woman should be able to slap the man back without the threat of or action of a mob beating her down.

But, if a man should be beaten down for slapping a woman, then a woman should be beaten down for slapping a man as well.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 5:52:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sexists.

Jk.

My opinion: That video doesn't have equal rights ; ) Can you find our what the hell they are talking about prior to the slapping? Hell, I've slapped people for insulting me in ignorant ways, and I doubt she would go up and smack him in the face if he didn't say something insulting. Same goes for the rest of you.

As for men being able to slap women if women slap them - it all depends on the context. Frankly, if a man slaps me, and I had it coming; I wouldn't hit him back (had it coming, as in, I high insulted him and am being a supernova b!tch - not because of some of the really retarded reasons people usually attribute this to), but if he slaps me and, well, it wasn't for any good enough reason, hell yeah I am going to grab the closest thing to me and beat him down.

Again, until I see why the men were being jag offs to her and saying they didn't want to speak with her (probably a huge reason as to why she would have flipped her sh!t on television and slapped him), I can't really give a proper opinion of the video.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't believe in equal rights is, well, deserving to be slapped ; )

And by equal, ladies, you know what I mean.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Metallicker
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 1:09:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/24/2009 5:52:45 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Sexists.

Jk.

My opinion: That video doesn't have equal rights ; ) Can you find our what the hell they are talking about prior to the slapping? Hell, I've slapped people for insulting me in ignorant ways, and I doubt she would go up and smack him in the face if he didn't say something insulting. Same goes for the rest of you.


From my understanding of the show, they take people lower in the caste system, and pretty much abused them psycologically. The woman was of a higher caste and was insulted when he said he didn't have the time to talk to her.

Now in the western world, and my personal opinion, I don't think it's right to strike anybody unless it is in response to a physical attack. That being said, if I was to get in an argument with a woman, and say something that offends her, I don't agree that she has any right to physically attack me, and that if she does, then I have a right to defend myself. Same goes for if i have insulted a man.

And no, I haven't punched or slapped anyone for insulting me verbally before, I have only ever resorted to a physical altercation in situations that require self defense.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:42:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/24/2009 5:52:45 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Sexists.

Jk.

My opinion: That video doesn't have equal rights ; ) Can you find our what the hell they are talking about prior to the slapping? Hell, I've slapped people for insulting me in ignorant ways, and I doubt she would go up and smack him in the face if he didn't say something insulting. Same goes for the rest of you.

As for men being able to slap women if women slap them - it all depends on the context. Frankly, if a man slaps me, and I had it coming; I wouldn't hit him back (had it coming, as in, I high insulted him and am being a supernova b!tch - not because of some of the really retarded reasons people usually attribute this to), but if he slaps me and, well, it wasn't for any good enough reason, hell yeah I am going to grab the closest thing to me and beat him down.

Again, until I see why the men were being jag offs to her and saying they didn't want to speak with her (probably a huge reason as to why she would have flipped her sh!t on television and slapped him), I can't really give a proper opinion of the video.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't believe in equal rights is, well, deserving to be slapped ; )

And by equal, ladies, you know what I mean.

That's true. You know what woman who don't fight back need? A slap! "Have some self est *slap* teem"
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
taltaltel
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 7:24:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yes. If, in the case that a man is physically assaulted by a woman, he should have the right to self-defence, just as a woman physically assaulted by a man has.
NotPurpleHaze
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 8:39:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You cant hit a girl if there are other people around you because even if she did deserve it anyone who sees it is gona back her up.

A girl hit me twice into the head before with her high heel and I knocked her out, but then I got arrested and nothing was said to her.

Another time a girl came up slapping me so I ripped the top off her and left her shamed in the middle of the street. Thats the best way to deal with it if your not looking to get a beating of the shades or anyone else who might be watching.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:28:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Grab the hand as they are slapping, avoid the issue. Don't wanna get imprisoned for defending yourself against the wrong class :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 7:19:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:28:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Grab the hand as they are slapping, avoid the issue. Don't wanna get imprisoned for defending yourself against the wrong class :).
I like this.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 9:55:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/24/2009 5:52:45 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Sexists.

Jk.

My opinion: That video doesn't have equal rights ; ) Can you find our what the hell they are talking about prior to the slapping? Hell, I've slapped people for insulting me in ignorant ways, and I doubt she would go up and smack him in the face if he didn't say something insulting. Same goes for the rest of you.

As for men being able to slap women if women slap them - it all depends on the context. Frankly, if a man slaps me, and I had it coming; I wouldn't hit him back (had it coming, as in, I high insulted him and am being a supernova b!tch - not because of some of the really retarded reasons people usually attribute this to), but if he slaps me and, well, it wasn't for any good enough reason, hell yeah I am going to grab the closest thing to me and beat him down.

Again, until I see why the men were being jag offs to her and saying they didn't want to speak with her (probably a huge reason as to why she would have flipped her sh!t on television and slapped him), I can't really give a proper opinion of the video.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't believe in equal rights is, well, deserving to be slapped ; )

And by equal, ladies, you know what I mean.

I've seen woman strike people for stupid reasons. It's not an exclusively male thing. Even if the guy in the video was being insulting, she only had the right to return the insult, not to strike him. My opinion is that anyone who resorts to physical violence needs to be prepared for a return of physical violence of equal measure. Period.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 4:03:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Take a stick of spaghetti.
Break it and make them of equal lengths.
No, one of them is a little longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal
Etc.. Etc..

THIS is equality. It is evil.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 6:17:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 4:03:54 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Take a stick of spaghetti.
Break it and make them of equal lengths.
No, one of them is a little longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal
Etc.. Etc..

THIS is equality. It is evil.

I gather you're the type of person that would prefer being the bigger portion of the stick, and everyone else who isn't you or thinks like you is the smaller portion.

Is this about right?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 7:06:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 6:17:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 4:03:54 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Take a stick of spaghetti.
Break it and make them of equal lengths.
No, one of them is a little longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal
Etc.. Etc..

THIS is equality. It is evil.

I gather you're the type of person that would prefer being the bigger portion of the stick, and everyone else who isn't you or thinks like you is the smaller portion.

Is this about right?

I don't even understand what DAT is saying there.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 7:12:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 7:06:05 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/29/2009 6:17:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 4:03:54 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Take a stick of spaghetti.
Break it and make them of equal lengths.
No, one of them is a little longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal
Etc.. Etc..

THIS is equality. It is evil.

I gather you're the type of person that would prefer being the bigger portion of the stick, and everyone else who isn't you or thinks like you is the smaller portion.

Is this about right?

I don't even understand what DAT is saying there.

I do; he means that each attempt to make two sides equal, the more is chipped away from the substance or power of each side. Sort of true, too; the more you compromise between two rights communities, the more power you'll have to give away. But, he thinks its "evil," while I think it is just the way to create a society that works for all sides.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 7:32:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 7:12:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 7:06:05 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/29/2009 6:17:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 4:03:54 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Take a stick of spaghetti.
Break it and make them of equal lengths.
No, one of them is a little longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal
Etc.. Etc..

THIS is equality. It is evil.

I gather you're the type of person that would prefer being the bigger portion of the stick, and everyone else who isn't you or thinks like you is the smaller portion.

Is this about right?

I don't even understand what DAT is saying there.

I do; he means that each attempt to make two sides equal, the more is chipped away from the substance or power of each side. Sort of true, too; the more you compromise between two rights communities, the more power you'll have to give away. But, he thinks its "evil," while I think it is just the way to create a society that works for all sides.

Oh, okay.

I don't see how the analogy fits into that, but your explanation made sense.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 7:58:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 6:17:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/29/2009 4:03:54 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Take a stick of spaghetti.
Break it and make them of equal lengths.
No, one of them is a little longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal.
No, now the OTHER one is longer, make them EXACTLY equal
Etc.. Etc..

THIS is equality. It is evil.

I gather you're the type of person that would prefer being the bigger portion of the stick, and everyone else who isn't you or thinks like you is the smaller portion.

Is this about right?

Everyone would PREFER to be bigger/richer/more powerful etc.. It has NOTHING to do with my point:

You CANNOT make someone smaller/dumber/weaker/etc into someone bigger/smarter/stronger/etc.. BUT:

You CAN make someone who is bigger/smarter/stronger/etc (through social controls; 'equality') into someone smaller/dumber/weaker/etc..

This is equality. It IS evil. Same with democracy; it replaced the strong (Monarchy, aristocracy) with the weak. (middle class jobsworths)
The Cross.. the Cross.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 8:20:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 7:58:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Everyone would PREFER to be bigger/richer/more powerful etc.. It has NOTHING to do with my point:

I ask whether or not you would, but you're avoiding my question.

You CANNOT make someone smaller/dumber/weaker/etc into someone bigger/smarter/stronger/etc.. BUT:

Sure you can. Ever heard of Ralph Lauren? Read up on his story, and your opinion will change.

Besides, just because someone is smaller/dumber/weaker/etc., does this mean they deserve no rights, no freedom? What about those that are only smaller, but are smarter and stronger and etc.? Because they're smaller, they cannot have rights, even though they have a lot of other aspects to them that are great?

You CAN make someone who is bigger/smarter/stronger/etc (through social controls; 'equality') into someone smaller/dumber/weaker/etc..

This is incorrect. Someone can be bigger/smarter/stronger/etc., but rights make sure they do not abuse their advantages over those that are smaller/dumber/weaker/etc. They place limits on what people can do to others, and give opportunity to those that you label smaller/dumber/weaker/etc., but by no means do they place absolute, stringent limits on those that have natural ability to succeed.

Without rights, a lot of those people that bigger/smarter/stronger/etc. that we see today would not have been able to get above the rank of peasant under your preferred, no-rights society, where aristocrats have all the power and everyone else has none.

This is equality. It IS evil. Same with democracy; it replaced the strong (Monarchy, aristocracy) with the weak. (middle class jobsworths)

Yes, because the monarchies and aristocracies were doing so well beforehand; they treated their citizens perfectly, all countries controlled by them were not hellholes for all but themselves and other elites, and democracy has not afforded anyone equal opportunity and increased the lives of many, many individuals.

Are you high?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 8:43:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 8:20:00 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/31/2009 7:58:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Everyone would PREFER to be bigger/richer/more powerful etc.. It has NOTHING to do with my point:

I ask whether or not you would, but you're avoiding my question.

Everyone includes me. Obviously.

You CANNOT make someone smaller/dumber/weaker/etc into someone bigger/smarter/stronger/etc.. BUT:

Sure you can. Ever heard of Ralph Lauren? Read up on his story, and your opinion will change.

We are not discussing exceptions to rules but SOCIETY remember?

Besides, just because someone is smaller/dumber/weaker/etc., does this mean they deserve no rights, no freedom? What about those that are only smaller, but are smarter and stronger and etc.? Because they're smaller, they cannot have rights, even though they have a lot of other aspects to them that are great?

They absolutely must be protected BUT they cannot expect the SAME rights as this can ONLY be accomplished by taking from the stronger which means society as a whole suffers:
Consider a 100m mens sprint. Instead of having a winner we weigh down the stronger to make everyone finish around the same time.. oh, and they ALL get a winners medal! THIS is equality.. this is SOCIALISM!

You CAN make someone who is bigger/smarter/stronger/etc (through social controls; 'equality') into someone smaller/dumber/weaker/etc..

This is incorrect. Someone can be bigger/smarter/stronger/etc., but rights make sure they do not abuse their advantages over those that are smaller/dumber/weaker/etc. They place limits on what people can do to others, and give opportunity to those that you label smaller/dumber/weaker/etc., but by no means do they place absolute, stringent limits on those that have natural ability to succeed.

Without rights, a lot of those people that bigger/smarter/stronger/etc. that we see today would not have been able to get above the rank of peasant under your preferred, no-rights society, where aristocrats have all the power and everyone else has none.

This is equality. It IS evil. Same with democracy; it replaced the strong (Monarchy, aristocracy) with the weak. (middle class jobsworths)

Yes, because the monarchies and aristocracies were doing so well beforehand; they treated their citizens perfectly, all countries controlled by them were not hellholes for all but themselves and other elites, and democracy has not afforded anyone equal opportunity and increased the lives of many, many individuals.

Are you high?

Things WERE wrong in the past (but they were a LOT better than they are now, look at everything those guys built!) but now they are going the OTHER way.
Look around you: we are surrounded my mediocracy.. by cutural marxism.

I look forward to the Return of the King..
The Cross.. the Cross.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 1:06:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Datcmoto advocates a theocracy. Great, except the fact people who hear voices in their heads are typically unfit to lead a country.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 1:33:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 1:06:20 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Datcmoto advocates a theocracy. Great, except the fact people who hear voices in their heads are typically unfit to lead a country.

No, I'm a Monarchist: I await the Return of the King of Kings AND I'd rather see Elizabeth II running ALL of the British Isles..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 1:36:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
DAT and his last post monopoly are infiltrating the Society forum.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 1:36:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 1:33:06 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/31/2009 1:06:20 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Datcmoto advocates a theocracy. Great, except the fact people who hear voices in their heads are typically unfit to lead a country.

No, I'm a Monarchist: I await the Return of the King of Kings AND I'd rather see Elizabeth II running ALL of the British Isles..

I'm presuming that the King of Kings is the christian God

And Britain has no claim over Ireland.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 1:55:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 1:36:32 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
DAT and his last post monopoly are infiltrating the Society forum.

IS infiltrating the Society Forum; and then DDO.
The Cross.. the Cross.