At least Tabby is honest when he talks about Natsoc/secual ethics vs theological ethics.

Nature does not abide by human rights. Plants and animals don't respect each other's right to life, liberty, and property. Human rights are social constructs created by religion, specifically Judeo-Christian values.

Edited 8/5/2017 04:20:54

"Human rights" is a misleading term, since you cant give yourself a rigth. It should be more like "Human agreement" or something.

Edited 8/5/2017 04:23:48

Well don't mind the thousands of child soldiers and workers while hundreds of them die in africa every day. Monsters...

^Why have you turned into an idiot?

Stating my opinions and caring about the needy is now idiocy? Times have changed...

People without food,housing,water and protection. Or you know..WITHOUT BASIC HUMAN NEEDS AND RIGHTS??!!

Good to see you still have humanity left.

Taggy, you need to remember it's just the dumb blacks. Along with the dumb whites, Asians, Jews, etc

Edited 8/5/2017 16:22:23

Ok. But should, say, Indians in DRC be taken care of if they're dumb?

Can't give yourself a right...

Some people would agree...

Some would say that the Creator has given humans certain unalienable rights, among those are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

^ I agree. Just replace "pursuit of happiness" with "property".

I disagree with your proposed exchange.

I see pursuit of happiness as an end state, with several routes to be happy (with acquiring property as one means.)

A right to property is too narrow, and for some people, would not result in happiness. There are plenty of happy people, both rich and poor.

To pretend that government knows what is best for all (narrowly defining the right to happiness as a right to property) and to enact laws only to that interpretation wouldn't be right, in my opinion.

There's also plenty of miserable poor and stupid people pursuing happiness by sh*t-posting on internet forums.

Who am I to tell them to stop?

Why do you guys perpetually circle jerk. Can't you do that on reddit or some shit. I for one want to be able to use off topic again one of these days

Should we get off your lawn too?

^What is the percentage of black farmers who refuse to store food? What about Ashkenazis? For example maybe 1% of South Koreans do not store food. However in DR Congo maybe 99% of the population do not store food. That can be a huge difference.

Where do you get those numbers from? However actually you are rigth maybe. Many people in Congo cant store their food, because they have to sell it to the greedy western world to survive. Afterall we need our 99 cents coffee, right?

I would also like to point our that almost everyone is Congo has no fridge, so due to the hot and wet climate everything that isnt canned or otherwise conserved has to be eaten within 1-2 days.
On the other hand we have South Korea, with a more temperate climate, and almost everyone having a fridge to store the food for week/months. They also have more conserved food.

^ This! I thank you for explaining this.

Human rights are social constructs created by religion, specifically Judeo-Christian values.

So you are one of those people who believe everyone would steal, murder, rape etc if they didn't believe in some kind of god? This is bogus in my opinion.
I won't do horrible things. That's not because I think there is a magical sky daddy watching over my every move, waiting to put me through eternal torment for what I've done.

What's your reason for believing rights to life, liberty and (oh so important) property require religion to be agreed upon?

Why beat around the bush? Challenge my assertion. Provide a secular basis for human rights.

"Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen." or

"Have the courage to use your own reason."