ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Craven, how fun it must be to hold a house party knowing you can insult the guests without fear of retribution or payment in kind.

Let me put torch to your strawmen. You misrepresent my positions.

In my dozen or so posts here I have not supported Icam's arguments on this thread, the basis and intent of his arguments frankapisa has so well illustrated above. But at times Icam has supported mine. This might be the source of your confusion.

Factually, like frankapisa, I have attacked Icam's basic premises and forced him back on his heels repeatedly, even going so far as to get him to admit that he was using incorrectly and obscurely the fundamental adjective of this thread, viz., "inalienable." I have also examined the other side's positions with the same level of scrutiny and pointed out their deficiencies as well.

You certainly have a right to your own opinions, but you certainly do not have a right to your own facts.

0 Replies

Craven quote:

Quote:

If the rights are deemed pre-destined and untouchable it defies change and belittles the weary struggle mankind has endured to get us where we are. It was pointed out that at various stages these eloquent declarations have been made while glaring inadequacy in the rights granted to some were not addressed. What really bothers me is that humans have shown themselves to be willing to distribute and grant basic rights in a way that was simply, wrong.

I don't see how acknowledgment of natural human rights (a proper, just claim to life, freedom and self-determination) belittles societies' work to enforce these rights--the two: natural existence of these rights, and societies' efforts to enforce these rights have a lovely partnership.

The fact that 'eloquent declarations have been made while glaring inadequacy in the rights of some were not addressed should go quite a ways in proving my point, and the point of the framers. They knew, declared and recognised that the lives of slaves, women, everyone were equal--and in possession of equally valuable, inalienable rights. You could not rightfully seperate them from their proper claim of equality--though at the time, they were separated from their ability to live as free equals. The Declaration acknowledged their equality--but it took a while for this society to honor that declaration.

Quote:

To make this short, I care that we recognize the rights are a product of mankind's efforts and advancement because to sanctify it as inherent impedes social change and minimizes the relevance of our efforts.

The chicken and the egg. Society wants to make rules for man--or man's nature reveals certain proper claims, and society responds. Society, I assert, took their cue from the nature of man, and responded.

Give respect to society for its' efforts. But, you needn't strip mankind of our inalienable rights out of concern that society won't get its' props.

Quote:

I think that an extension of the existing rights might one day be granted and that if that is to happen it is more likely to come about from the effort of mankind to make it so than a future recognition of additional inherent rights.

Extending rights is fine. It seems you think if additional future rights are not deemed as intrinsic to the nature of man, they won't be heeded! There are a multitude of these types of rights and laws already.

Quote:

I agree that there is much that biology doesn't explain. But to base our reasoning in regard to human rights on one of the many alternatives to the as of yet unexplained realms of science would be, if the chosen explanation were not true, a mistake IMO. A mistake that impedes society's progress in the recognition of fundamental human rights.

What alternatives? Scientific, medical and psychology studies since the beginning of our human history have agreed on the overriding definition of human nature, through examination of humans from in vitro to death. We have a definable nature. To some of us, the basic requirements of our nature are self-evident--and we possess proper and just claim to these upon our birth. --We do not come about them through socialization, and to assert that some are born without these proper claims is to suggest they are less human. I would still like to speak to someone who feels by virtue of societal rights, they are superior to someone born without the enforcement of these basic human rights.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Craven quote:

Quote:
If the rights are deemed pre-destined and untouchable it defies change and belittles the weary struggle mankind has endured to get us where we are. It was pointed out that at various stages these eloquent declarations have been made while glaring inadequacy in the rights granted to some were not addressed. What really bothers me is that humans have shown themselves to be willing to distribute and grant basic rights in a way that was simply, wrong.

I don't see how acknowledgment of natural human rights (a proper, just claim to life, freedom and self-determination) belittles societies' work to enforce these rights--the two: natural existence of these rights, and societies' efforts to enforce these rights have a lovely partnership.

Well, the fact of the matter is that societies normally work in exactly the opposite direction -- to limit freedom and self-determination.

(The life thing is pure poetry and has not real meaning outside of poetry. You have life for as long as you have life. Some humans are snuffed immediately after birth -- some live to over 100 years of age. Either way, life is very, very, very fleeting.)

As to freedom -- well, the basic reason for government is to limit how much freedom you have. Most of the time that is done by passing laws denying you the right to do certain things (steal, murder, extort, etc.)

And of course, government can also limit individual freedoms by refusing to allow a majority working together to unnecessarily abridge the freedom of others.

In any case, in my opinion, the "natural rights" argument simply doesn't hold water.

I'm certainly willing to discuss that in detail, but all I've heard in favor or "natural rights" or "endowed rights" are assertions with absolutely no arguements to back up the assertions.

I do not know if we have rights endowed upon us by some God -- or by nature, BUT I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT SUCH RIGHTS EXIST!

Quote:

The fact that 'eloquent declarations have been made while glaring inadequacy in the rights of some were not addressed should go quite a ways in proving my point, and the point of the framers. They knew, declared and recognised that the lives of slaves, women, everyone were equal--and in possession of equally valuable, inalienable rights. You could not rightfully seperate them from their proper claim of equality--though at the time, they were separated from their ability to live as free equals. The Declaration acknowledged their equality--but it took a while for this society to honor that declaration.

I'm going to assume you had a straight face while writing that -- but I can assure you that I was anything but straight faced while reading it.

Sofia, this was not your best effort!

Quote:

Give respect to society for its' efforts. But, you needn't strip mankind of our inalienable rights out of concern that society won't get its' props.

What "inalienable" rights?????

Where does the assertion of "inalieanable rights" come from?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to assume we humans have been "endowed" with any rights -- let alone, rights that are inherent or intrinsic.

That is a supposition pulled out of thin air.

I am not saying that it is impossible that there are rights with which we are endowed -- even by a GOD. But I am saying that there is no reason to assume that to be the case.

Ican is assuming there are. He is asserting there are.

Well, I'm not sure what Ican is asserting, but then I've never been quite sure what Ican has been asserting. But you're right, Frank: if one simply assumes the existence of inherent rights as a justification for asserting that we all have inherent rights, then that's a textbook example of question begging, a petitio principii. No logically coherent position can stand on such a foundation.

On the other hand, if you're saying that there is no possible way of defending an inherent rights position because such a position is inevitably based on the kind of assumption you point out, then I think you're wrong.

Cephus wrote:

One cannot demonstrate that these inherent rights have any existence in the real world. For societal rights, you can point to a system of laws and penalties for those who violate the social contract. Your inherent rights are not defined anywhere, carry no penalty for violating them and vary from person to person.

This is so confused, it really cannot be taken seriously. Let me see if I can address some of this confusion:
(1) For societal rights, you can point to a system of laws and penalties for those who violate the social contract. This is somewhat akin to a naturalistic fallacy. According to Cephus, I may have a right to own property because there is a whole system of laws and penalties establishing that right. But then the question is: do I have a right to rely on those rights? In other words, the whole scheme of societal rights seems to be based on the citizens' right to have rights, and so we need to ask what the source of that right is. And if it's simply another societal right, then we have to wonder if we're dealing here with another "turtles all the way down" type of argument.
Furthermore, Cephus, I suppose that, by mentioning the "social contract" in defending a societal rights position, you were being unintentionally ironic.
(2)Your inherent rights are not defined anywhere, carry no penalty for violating them and vary from person to person. Earlier, Kuvasz mentioned Schopenhauer, who had something to say about this: "Those who deny . . . that there is a right apart from the State, confuse the means of enforcing the right with the right itself." A law that protects my right to own property is not, in itself, a "right," and so the entire framework of laws that Cephus points to as evidence of societal rights is merely evidence of society's recognition of rights. Whether society recognizes these rights as inherent or societal remains an open question.

Cephus wrote:

That's basically true, although we'd have to apply the principles of falsifiability to determine that the most rational, logical position to take is the non-existence of the gnome. To falsify that proposition, one would simply have to provide a single instance of the gnome's existence.

Falsifiability is already factored into our gnome test. Per Karl Popper, we cannot have a valid inductive science if it is not potentially falsifiable. So whatever test we chose, it must be falsifiable or it isn't science.

Cephus wrote:

Those rights exist only within a given society, you can't take your 'right to free speech' elsewhere and expect it to be protected.

No, only the protections afforded that right are specific to a given society. Under an inherent rights theory, such rights are universal regardless of the society's particular laws and regulations.

Cephus wrote:

So again, how does one determine the actual existence of these natural rights without making a lot of illogical assumptions about their supposed source?

Illogical? In what way? As I mentioned before, if an inherent rights position is based solely upon the assumption that inherent rights exist, then that's begging the question. But there are plenty of theorists out there who don't engage in question begging to arrive at their inherent rights positions. Are you therefore suggesting, Cephus, that there is no possible inherent rights position that does not, ultimately, rest on an impermissible assumption of inherent rights?

0 Replies

Quote:

Where does the assertion of "inalieanable rights" come from?

From the birth of a human. They make proper, scientifically documented claims to certain basic freedoms from birth, and continue to strive for the acknowledgement and fulfillment of those claims throughout life. They have proven to be wired from within, with an intuitive, or inalienable claim to self-determination, and equality.

It is society that makes false distinctions on a person's worth.

Why don't we incarcerate and dissect aboriginal tribes found in exotic locales, and study them to forward science? They don't have written declarations or enforced human rights? What prevents it?

0 Replies

Joe wrote:

Quote:

Well, I'm not sure what Ican is asserting, but then I've never been quite sure what Ican has been asserting. But you're right, Frank: if one simply assumes the existence of inherent rights as a justification for asserting that we all have inherent rights, then that's a textbook example of question begging, a petitio principii. No logically coherent position can stand on such a foundation.

On the other hand, if you're saying that there is no possible way of defending an inherent rights position because such a position is inevitably based on the kind of assumption you point out, then I think you're wrong.

I am certainly not saying that it is impossible to defend an inherent rights position....nor am I saying that it is impossible to defend an inherent rights position because such a position is inevitably based on the kind of assumptions Ican is making.

I have noted your comments in this regard -- particularly as regards the arguments Locke makes.

I try never to bite off more than I can chew, but I did (and I think rather successfully) take on Aquinas and his so-called proofs of the existence of God.

I'd love to discuss the Locke stuff -- and if you want to, let's have a go at it. I suspect that the arguments Locke uses reduce to what Ican is doing, but like I said, I don't normally bite off more than I can chew -- and I am not completely sure of Locke's position on the issue.

Offer what you will on that.

I'll respond.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Craven, how fun it must be to hold a house party knowing you can insult the guests without fear of retribution or payment in kind.

How fun it must be to be so hypocritical and at the same time not care. Get over yourself kuvaz. I'm not going to agree with you just to be nice. Your arguments have not addressed my contentions, have rambled about missing 'greater points' when you haven't had one to make and then you complain about being mistreated when you really should look into positing a valid argument instead.

You can, and try to, insult me anytime. If you want me to care you should probably include a rebuttal of my argument that rights are a social construct instead of speaking of nebulous 'greater points'.

kuvasz wrote:

In my dozen or so posts here I have not supported Icam's arguments on this thread, the basis and intent of his arguments frankapisa has so well illustrated above. But at times Icam has supported mine. This might be the source of your confusion.

Not at all. You are not confusing to me. Your arguments were quite clear to me as nonsensical red herrings. I have asserted that rights are social constructs and you babble about 'greater points' without making any or addressing my assertion.

kuvasz wrote:

You certainly have a right to your own opinions, but you certainly do not have a right to your own facts.

If you ahve a problem with the facts I present (that rights = social construct) then debunk them. Don't babble about unrelated matters.

Again, do you maintain that rights are not a social contruct?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I don't see how acknowledgment of natural human rights (a proper, just claim to life, freedom and self-determination) belittles societies' work to enforce these rights--the two: natural existence of these rights, and societies' efforts to enforce these rights have a lovely partnership.

Well I doubt I can say anything that would lead you to see it but the fundamental question is what determines those rights. You say they are given by birth as if birth speaks of when rights the incoming child should have.

Someone has to think about what rights and not just say they have always been there. ican says anyone can make up a right as long as it extends to all and there is the folly of this whole argument.

His assertion about rights has led him to say that anyone can make them up.

Bottom line: How do we decide what rights to respect? If they are a mysterious grant it seems like we have little power to determine our rights.

Sofia wrote:

The chicken and the egg. Society wants to make rules for man--or man's nature reveals certain proper claims, and society responds. Society, I assert, took their cue from the nature of man, and responded.

Man's nature is not too great a criteria for human rights. All violation of human rights also takes a cue from human nature.

Sofia wrote:

Give respect to society for its' efforts. But, you needn't strip mankind of our inalienable rights out of concern that society won't get its' props.

It's not just so society doesn't get it's 'props'. It's because an assertion that something exists and is inherent shouldn't be allowed to face no scrutiny and not have to defend itself.

How were the rights that you say were granted at birth determined? Are you arbitrarily taking the declarations of a few men and trying to assert them as a universal and inherent law?

Sofia wrote:

Extending rights is fine. It seems you think if additional future rights are not deemed as intrinsic to the nature of man, they won't be heeded! There are a multitude of these types of rights and laws already.

Let's talk about 'deeming'. Are you willing to explain how you deem things to be inherent? Say it's human nature to want something. Does that mean we automatically have it?

Sofia wrote:

What alternatives?

Myth and folklore. When you start to make assertions with no regard to their veracity then mankind starts to acept explanations and paradigims that might eb flawed. Not illustrating how a right was pre-destined is a good example because it leads to having limited and ridgid definitions of rights.

Sofia wrote:

Scientific, medical and psychology studies since the beginning of our human history have agreed on the overriding definition of human nature, through examination of humans from in vitro to death. We have a definable nature. To some of us, the basic requirements of our nature are self-evident--and we possess proper and just claim to these upon our birth. --We do not come about them through socialization, and to assert that some are born without these proper claims is to suggest they are less human. I would still like to speak to someone who feels by virtue of societal rights, they are superior to someone born without the enforcement of these basic human rights.

Nobody ever said anything like that. I can understand the desire to speak with someone who has an indefensible position but that does nothing to strengthen a false assertion.

nature != rights

It's not too difficult a concept. If you argue that everything in our nature grants us corresponding righst I have a few 'inherent rights' that would make that an ugly scenario.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:
"Scientific, medical and psychology studies since the beginning of our human history have agreed on the overriding definition of human nature, through examination of humans from in vitro to death. We have a definable nature. To some of us, the basic requirements of our nature are self-evident--and we possess proper and just claim to these upon our birth. --We do not come about them through socialization, and to assert that some are born without these proper claims is to suggest they are less human. I would still like to speak to someone who feels by virtue of societal rights, they are superior to someone born without the enforcement of these basic human rights."

Sofia - can you defend that assertion? My thought when I read that is that what is deemed to be "human nature" has changed constantly through the millenia - and even within the same culture at the same time.

We have, for instance, the "noble savage" adulterated by civilization - the id-driven savage, barely restrained by all that law and civilisation can attempt - the currently popular hypothesised "evolutionary psychology" compromise, just to name a tiny sample of the myriad models of humanity, many mutually contradictory, that I can think of in a haze way too early in the morning!

0 Replies

And since 'human nature' is also what motivates many to break human rights the conflicting nature of that proclamation doesn't end there.

It leads to what ican said: anyone can make up rights. some just make more sense than others. When he said that he was very close to admitting that we as a society need to determine fair rights. and that was sclose to saying that they are neither mysterious or constants.

0 Replies

In defence of the universality of human rights i also refer to the long climb of humanity, out of the darkest reaches of savagery (in spite of its sometimes 'pretty face', nature is not an idylic system to be a part of), by way of a process we call 'civilization'.
Robert Ardry wrote a series of books on the subject of anthropology, concentrating specifically on this journey; African Genesis, The teritorial Imperative, and the most applicable here, 'especially' in name,
The Social Contract.

In bridging the huge gap from the unemotional instinctive surrender of the animal kingdom, to the controlled idealism of a fully 'socialized' human city state, we call on this "social contract" (remarkably similar to Craven's 'construct', but i think the subtle difference important) to guide the interactions of the individual members of this society, to protect them from each other, and from the state itself.
And the basis of this 'contract', by which persons take on responsibilities while being, in turn conferred 'rights", is the 'creed' of human rights itself.

We make this contract with 'each other', defining our relationships in such a manner as to protect the rights of our neighbours as we would ourselves be protected from transgression by others; and its strength is based upon a tacit understanding of its power to shield us from the dark night of chaos, still dwelling in our collective memory.

'We' have spontaneously created this 'contract', honed and modified it, written it into our laws, absorbed it into our behaviour, and we abandon it at our peril.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
You point to turtles all the way down without even wondering whence come the turtles and upon that which they stand.

I did nothing of the sort. You spoke of turtles and spoke of layers. I simply maintained that rights are a social contruct and not some mysterious (because ican does not want to say where they came from) gift.

You took this to a level of 'going down' by trying to ask where social constructs come from. The answer is simple, they come from the efforts of society. You posed the question rhetorically and through that your argument is far closer to 'turtles all the way down' than my simple rights = social construct argument was.

Ok, let's socially construct a set of rights such that a consensus is obtained to secure those rights by government. I'm eager to begin! Smile

What socially constructed set of rights do you recommend? Why? What argument can you make that will justify any particular set other than it be that set that wins a consensus? What makes you think that socially constructed set will satisfy your own minimum wants assuming that's one of your criteria (but why should it be?). What criteria shall you use to guide you? Shall it be the results of frequently taken polls while the social construct process continues or some other set of criteria?

If you choose another or supplementary set of criteria, why did you pick it. What wants or other values do you wish to apply? Why?

By the way, if consensus were your sole criterion, what justifies consensus as your sole criterion.

0 Replies

BGW,

Do you think it being a construct and universal mutually exclusive?

Part of the problem with this discussion is that both trains of thought can lead to the same manefestation.

Inherentists can argue that the rights are always there even if not recognized.

Constructionists can argue that the righst are only there once recognized but that the additional step to secure them is needed.

In any case I doubt that anyone argues against universal rights, just the, to me, important distinction about whether they are inherent or societal.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Ok, let's socially construct a set of rights such that a consensus is obtained to secure those rights by government. I'm eager to begin!

I'm willing to discuss it but you'll have to do the footwork to get governments to secure this. In any case I think the discussion about what rights we'd agree on more interesting.

ican711nm wrote:

What socially constructed set of rights do you recommend? Why? What argument can you make that will justify any particular set other than it be that set that wins a consensus?

Ahh, there are many. One of the first things I'd like to see is for countries to stop saying that everyone within their borders is equal and that those outside are less equal.

Now as to the assertion that what I think should be a right trumps what others think should be I never made that claim.

In fact I have long argued against individualized morality as it is a source of anarchy. What wins a consensus is what we should operate with and each should try to sway the consensus if he/she feels it's inadequate.

ican711nm wrote:

What makes you think that socially constructed set will satisfy your own minimum wants assuming that's one of your criteria (but why should it be?). What criteria shall you use to guide you? Shall it be the results of frequently taken polls while the social construct process continues or some other set of criteria?

Ican what are you talking about? An individual would use reasoning and his/her moral compass. Do you suggest other methods?

ican711nm wrote:

If you choose another or supplementary set of criteria, why did you pick it. What wants or other values do you wish to apply? Why?

Do you mean things like adopting pre-written texts?

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, if consensus were your sole criterion, what justifies consensus as your sole criterion.

The fact that consensus is the collective morality of the society and because when consensus does not supercede individualized morality there is an inherent breach in the rights YOU hold dear. Such as the effort towards equality in law.

0 Replies

A quote from another "bone-brain":

VII. Thomas Paine writing about the proper origin of a constitution, in “Letter Addressed to the Addressers of the Late Proclamation”, 1792:

“A Constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; it is the act of a people creating a government and giving it powers, and defining the limits and exercise of the powers so given.”

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, if consensus were your sole criterion, what justifies consensus as your sole criterion.

The fact that consensus is the collective morality of the society and because when consensus does not supercede individualized morality there is an inherent breach in the rights YOU hold dear. Such as the effort towards equality in law.

"The

FACT THAT

consensus is the collective morality of the society and because when consensus does not supercede individualized morality there is an inherent breach in the rights YOU hold dear. Such as the effort towards equality in law"

How about some logic to support those alleged facts?

So is the consensus of the nazis, the communists, the shintoists, the terrorists what justified/justifies their morality as superior to individual morality in their respective societies? Twisted Evil

If you think yes, you scare me?

That kind of situation morality is what has caused the failures of republics and their replacement by tyrannies that enslave and murder non-believers.

More from some "old dead farts".

IV. James Madison supporting the adoption of Our Constitution As Lawfully Amended, in “Federalist Paper No. 10”, 1788:

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.

A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists."

V. Alexander Hamilton supporting the adoption of Our Constitution As lawfully Amended, in “Federalist Paper No. 85”, 1788:

“The additional securities to republican government, to liberty and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan under consideration, consist chiefly in the restraints which the preservation of the Union will impose on local factions and insurrections, and on the ambition of powerful individuals in single States, who may acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people; … and in the precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the State governments which have undermined the foundations of property and credit, have planted mutual distrust in the breasts of all classes of citizens, and have occasioned an almost universal prostration of morals.”

0 Replies

ican,

I never claimed collective morallity was superior. Sorry to take away the wind but the sails were still pretty.

I said that consensus is the only way to establish rights while maintaining some of them. Such as the ideal for equality in representation.

I never said the majority was always right. Just that minority rule can have advantages but also has inherent wrongfulness.

Just an FYI, I don't pay much attention to copy and paste styles of debate so of there is anything in the volume of quotations you are dumping here that you want me to comment on please draw attention to it.

When I see debate through copy and paste I usually scroll. It's not dissimilar to the debate by method of dropping names or the debate by method of naming books.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

ican,

I never claimed collective morallity was superior. Sorry to take away the wind but the sails were still pretty.

I said that consensus is the only way to establish rights while maintaining some of them. Such as the ideal for equality in representation.

I never said the majority was always right. Just that minority rule can have advantages but also has inherent wrongfulness.

I never said that you said collective morality was better. I didn't have to. You already said that which implied it.

Craven de Kere wrote:

... when consensus does not supercede individualized morality there is an inherent breach in the rights YOU hold dear. Such as the effort towards equality in law.

What's an "inherent breach" when consensus does not supersede individualized morality? A good thing? No, you are posing it as a bad thing. So it logically follows that you are implying that to avoid that bad thing let consensus supercede morality.

Metaphorically speaking, my sails continue to be pretty, but you are too far and too long ensconced in fog to see them.

There's no escaping it: for consensus not to produce horrific government, honorable/moral/ethical criteria precedent to the formation of that consensus are required.

Who or what shall provide those criteria is still debatable, but they must be supplied prior to consensus to avoid the certain degradation of the community into a tyranny.

0 Replies

That last line is a nice comeback. I wish more people would riff on playful digs like that.

I honestly think collectivism sucks. I think the majority is stupid and often wrong.

But do you think minority rule and elitism any better?

On a larger scale the Nazi example you used is invalid. The greater global consensus was against it. Historical consensus even more.

I do not see it as a valid indictment against consensus.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

On a larger scale the Nazi example you used is invalid. The greater global consensus was against it. Historical consensus even more.

I do not see it as a valid indictment against consensus.

The more than 9,000,000 Nazis murdered people in the European community might want to differ if they could.

You may not be aware that in the 1930s (yes, I was there and my daddy helped me witness that) there were large groups of people all over the world who did at least at that time agree with the nazis dogma.

Both the nazis example and the communist (more murdered by them than by the nazis) example are quite valid. Whether or not one was there to witness it directly, one ought to study them very carefully for their relevance to what is going on today.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know