Thread: Muslim sub-humans.

Originally Posted by ANH

Muslims are the lowest of the low. They should not be considered human or treated as such.

All muslims?
Most muslims?
Many muslims?
Some muslims?

"Loads Of Pun"

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

It is a requirement of humanities nature, I don't know why you insist on seeing mankind as something foreign to nature, and it's properties separate.

Anthropocentrism holds that mammon is something foreign to nature and its properties are separate.

The contemporary assertion of "natural rights" is a tongue-in-cheek lie; perhaps that is the foundation of the pseudo-term "humanities nature".

You, as well as every other sophist, have fostered a false rumor that rights are violable but inalienable; it is asserted upon nonsense and pretentious piety.

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

Anthropocentrism holds that mammon is something foreign to nature and its properties are separate

That's interesting, moving on.

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

The contemporary assertion of "natural rights" is a tongue-in-cheek lie; perhaps that is the foundation of the pseudo-term "humanities nature".

It wouldn't be a lie if you deign to use the same language as us.

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

You, as well as every other sophist, have fostered a false rumor that rights are violable but inalienable; it is asserted upon nonsense and pretentious piety.

I will give an example because I don't think you are understanding when I use words (words have definitions and those are short comings).

You claimed that it is false for a right to be violable but inalienable.

You claimed that it is false for a right to be capable of being violated but not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights. .

A right is called a right because it determines the moral value of actions pertaining to it.

example:

1. - John Doe has the inalienable right to eat ice cream/
2. - John Doe is denied ice cream/

(1.) is a right.

(2.) is the violation of a right

After (2.) John still has (1.)

Meaning (2.) is wrong

Not (1.) does not exist.

It seems to me that you are saying a right is synonymous with a state, as if it's protection was required for it's existence.

It has no meaning if that were true. A right could only exist in it's inviolate state, and then it would not need protecting because that need would prove it's non-existence.

"Cunning Languish"

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

I will give an example because I don't think you are understanding when I use words (words have definitions and those are short comings).
...
A right is called a right because it determines the moral value of actions pertaining to it.

Firstly, right is an association with chirality and handedness; to which an associated morality is debase; therefore, suffering the term, we continue.

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

You claimed that it is false for a right to be violable but inalienable.

A condition upon which a right is stipulated is inherently violable.

A stipulation upon which a legal positive right is established is that a reprisal is to be enacted for a violation of its conditions.

To make this clear, for life to be a right, there must be an entity capable of exacting a reprisal for a violation of that life.

Wherefore, in the contexts of a legal positivism, a state or community exacts a reprisal and establishes a right.

Wherefore, in the contexts of inalienability, either natural phenomenon or a supposed deity will exact a reprisal to establish a right.

Even by laws of conservation within natural phenomenon, it is highly speculative that a reprisal can be argued - feel free to try.

A reprisal by supposition of a deity upon an offending soul or spirit is also highly speculative; whereby, the realm of belief, rather than reason by naturalism, is from whence the wishful notion of inalienability originates.

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

It seems to me that you are saying a right is synonymous with a state, as if it's protection was required for it's existence.

I said that its reprisal was required for a right to exist.

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

It has no meaning if that were true. A right could only exist in it's inviolate state, and then it would not need protecting because that need would prove it's non-existence.

I said that sophists generated a lie that rights were violable but inalienable.

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

You claimed that it is false for a right to be violable but inalienable.
You claimed that it is false for a right to be capable of being violated but not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights. .

I was clear in stating that others have generated a lie that a right is violable but inalienable.

Assuredly, for a reprisal, a violation of conditions must occur.

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

Perhaps but they are persons, and all people have the same rights.

Except people living in Muslim Nations. Where the only right you have is to live within the boundaries of the teachings of a dead, pedophile prophet who ripped off Christianity and Judaism to create a cult so he could fuck little girls.

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

I said that its reprisal was required for a right to exist.

Rights aren't about retaliation. I did not understand what you have been saying until just now. Rights are conditions which if satisfied produces a ethically acceptable situation, and if violated produced an ethically unacceptable situation.

Originally Posted by satv365

Except people living in Muslim Nations. Where the only right you have is to live within the boundaries of the teachings of a dead, pedophile prophet who ripped off Christianity and Judaism to create a cult so he could fuck little girls.

They have rights, they are just being violated and so it is wrong.

All the muslims should be deported to Israel and be shot in the head on arrival.

Originally Posted by satv365

Except people living in Muslim Nations. Where the only right you have is to live within the boundaries of the teachings of a dead, pedophile prophet who ripped off Christianity and Judaism to create a cult so he could fuck little girls.

That is the truth, that sick pedophile mohammed took a wife at the age of 3 or around there and divorced her at age seven, because she was too old. I think people who choose allah deserve to die.

"Natural Freedoms"

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

Rights aren't about retaliation. I did not understand what you have been saying until just now. Rights are conditions which if satisfied produces a ethically acceptable situation, and if violated produced an ethically unacceptable situation.

A zebra believes that its neck in the jaws of a lion is ethically unacceptable, while a lion believes otherwise.

Originally Posted by Universal Liberty

Rights aren't about retaliation. I did not understand what you have been saying until just now. Rights are conditions which if satisfied produces a ethically acceptable situation, and if violated produced an ethically unacceptable situation.

They have rights, they are just being violated and so it is wrong.

The only rights people have are those they are willing to defend themselves. It is obvious, Islamis gave up their human rights in exchange for Muslimism.