Do Mormons have the right to define what value you have as a human? Do they have the right to devalue (defining you as less than human) you?

Do thy have the right to define you as not having value enough to marry? This is defining you, not just stating an opinion. It would mean that being exmormon means you are, by definition less than human.

So, do Mormons have a right to define you as less than human?

I am not talking about acceptance, opinion, or anything other than defining what value you have as a human.

Or put another way, does a religion that is not yours have the right to define your value as a human? Does another religion have the right to define you as less than human, or put another way, devalue you?

I say no, a religion that is not mine has no right to define You or me as less than human, or, put another way, religion does not have the right to devalue me or you.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 01:14AM by MJ.

I am helpless to resist...

In discussing "rights" one ought to be aware that for the most part, they are artificial. What makes "rights" possible, allows them to exist, to be relied on, is "power." There is very little artificial, or phony, about "power."

Most of us have experienced a violation of one "right" or another by someone with the "power" to engage in that violation. Telling the person using his/her "power" to violate your "right" is seldom useful. You need the "power" of a community or organization to enforce the abused "right."

Without the backing of a "power" stronger than the "power" seeking to abuse a "right", your "right" is going to suffer.

So the answer to your question is, 'No, mormons do not have the "right" to define your value as a human being.'

But they have the "power" to do so, until someone or some thing uses a greater "power" to stop them. Black children had the "right" to integrate Alabama schools, but no "power" to do so until federal troops showed up.

Do I think the mormons, and other bigots are wrong for taking it upon themselves to create artificial standards and then wrecking havoc on those who won't meet their standards? Yes.

And I'm not shy about saying so....unless there are three or more of them and they look mean. They don't have the "right" to beat me up, but they might deduce, correctly, that they had the "power." It makes no sense to demand your "rights" when you're severely outnumbered.

You make an excellent point.

As you said, it's about numbers. The trick will be making sure those Feds understand and defend the Constitution.

Therein lies the power. Those three guys may beat me up today, but may also spend a considerable amount of time and money in learning the error of their ways.

Tank man changed the world.

Yeah, its all about the number, so Nazis had the right to send jews to the gas chamber because they had numbers, eh? No, they had the power, not the right.

Do you really believe that the Constitution is what grants rights? That if there were no constitution, you would be running around violating other peoples "rights" because there would actually be no rights?

I believe that a humans have value just for being human, with or without the constitution, you? If there were no constitution, would you think a human would have no rights? Would they have no value without the constitution in your eyes?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 01:56AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, its all about the number, so Nazis had the
> right to send jews to the gas chamber because they
> had numbers, eh? No, they had the power, not the
> right.

I never mentioned Nazis or Jews. If you believe I implied that numbers create "rights" I'm sorry for you. I guess I don't have the "right" to not be misunderstood. Am I supposed to be Nazi and you're trying to educate me?


>
> Do you really believe that the Constitution is
> what grants rights? That if there were no
> constitution, you would be running around
> violating other peoples "rights" because there
> would actually be no rights?

"Power" is what creates "rights." Mormons thought they had the "right" to practice polygamy. What stopped them?


>
> I believe that a humans have value just for being
> human, with or without the constitution, you?

Sure, why not? Let's not get diverted into what constitutes "value."


> If there were no constitution, would you think a
> human would have no rights?

Without the Constitution, a human would have whatever "rights" he had the "power" to enforce.


> Would they have (humans) no
> value without the constitution in your eyes?

Humans have the "value" I assign to them. Even with the Constitution, this is what happens in individual lives. Each of us assigns a "value" to people, places and things, and then we hang out with people who have the same "values." That's what the mormons are doing, hanging out with people who make them feel at comfy.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, its all about the number, so Nazis had
> the
> > right to send jews to the gas chamber because
> they
> > had numbers, eh? No, they had the power, not
> the
> > right.
>
> I never mentioned Nazis or Jews. If you believe I
> implied that numbers create "rights" I'm sorry for
> you. I guess I don't have the "right" to not be
> misunderstood. Am I supposed to be Nazi and
> you're trying to educate me?
>


I did mention Nazis, because the number of Nazis gave them the POWER to deprive the jews their right to live their life the way the jews valued their life.

>
> >
> > Do you really believe that the Constitution is
> > what grants rights? That if there were no
> > constitution, you would be running around
> > violating other peoples "rights" because there
> > would actually be no rights?
>
> "Power" is what creates "rights." Mormons thought
> they had the "right" to practice polygamy. What
> stopped them?

I believe that people have the right to define their relationships how ever they what, it was power that DENIED that right of people to live life as they wish. Power denies rights, it does not grant them.

If power or numbers grant rights, then the nazis had the number and the power to grant them the right to kill jews.

>
>
> >
> > I believe that a humans have value just for
> being
> > human, with or without the constitution, you?
>
> Sure, why not? Let's not get diverted into what
> constitutes "value."

I have not. I am not arguing what constitutes a value, I am arguing as to who has the right to DEVALUE, which is not the same as what constitutes value.

>
>
> > If there were no constitution, would you think
> a
> > human would have no rights?
>
> Without the Constitution, a human would have
> whatever "rights" he had the "power" to enforce.
>
>

Ah, might makes right. Then since nazi had the power they had the right to kill jews. That if you had the power you would have the right to kill others.

I disagree, you have the power, not the right.

>
> > Would they have (humans) no
> > value without the constitution in your eyes?
>
> Humans have the "value" I assign to them. Even
> with the Constitution, this is what happens in
> individual lives. Each of us assigns a "value" to
> people, places and things, and then we hang out
> with people who have the same "values." That's
> what the mormons are doing, hanging out with
> people who make them feel at comfy.

Yes Jews (otherwise known as HUMANS) had the value Nazis assigned to them and based on that value, were murdered. So, are you saying that if you have the power to murder someone, you have the right to murder them (with or without the constitution, if you have the power)

BTW I am a human and I have a say in what my value is. If you want to try to deny that based on power, that is based on power not right, because I have the right to define MY VALUE, not you.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 03:04AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, its all about the number, so Nazis had the
> right to send jews to the gas chamber because they
> had numbers, eh? No, they had the power, not the
> right.
>
> Do you really believe that the Constitution is
> what grants rights? That if there were no
> constitution, you would be running around
> violating other peoples "rights" because there
> would actually be no rights?
>
> I believe that a humans have value just for being
> human, with or without the constitution, you? If
> there were no constitution, would you think a
> human would have no rights?

_______________


Correct. This has been the reality for all of human history.

The way you use terms leaves me with the impression that you have the right to walk up to the podium at the GC, and declare Mormonism ended, so it is done.

If rights have no basis in the physical world, then we can claim the right to do or say what we will, as they did at GC, as did the Nazis.

Without the ability to act on your rights, they are a concept.

In no way do I confuse the atrocities committed by the Nazis when they had the power to enforce their "rights" as morally correct.

They thought crimes against humanity to be in their best interests, but they weren't, were they? I hardly call suicide a just end, but he ended up dead, and one of the most reviled of humans, for his abuse of the rights he mistakenly believed were his.

He was wrong about his "rights," because they infringed the rights of others. Those whose rights were so extremely denied could do little about it, until the numbers showed up. The concept of their rights never ceased to exist, but that had no effect until enforced.

So yes, that Constitution is the basis of any rights we enjoy in the physical world.

Even though they begin as a concept.

IMHO, it's not a document to be taken lightly. It's a first. "The pursuit of happiness..." What makes an individual "happy?" That's the power given individuals as inalienable rights. A concept backed up by numbers.

So I guess you would like to enforce your right that I be in compliance with your definition of the terms?

Am I required to submit to the values you assign?

You have every right to not read what I said and post nonsense in response.

I have every right to recognize that nonsense as nonsense and to disagree. I have ENFORCED nothing, I have only disagreed.

You seem to have problems with people disagreeing with you. You seem to be trying to make it wrong to disagree with you. You seem to be implying that because I am disagreeing with you, I am trying to force you my point of view, which is nonsense, and counter productive in discussions meant to be an open exchange of ideas.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 04:03AM by MJ.

I say that your value is that of a human, that value is defined by the fact that you are born a human.

Others my have the power to DENY you the value you have as human, but does that give them the RIGHT to devalue you? No.

Nobody has the right to define your value, defining your value as to be that of a slave. Someone may have the power to deny that right, but that is different.

The idea that power makes right should be disproven by some of the great dictatorships of recent history.

Yes, rights you have just by being human can be abused or denied by those with power, but that does not give the actual right to the powerful. Hitler did not have the right to send jews to the gas chamber just because the Nazis had power. The Nazis had the power, not the right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 01:59AM by MJ.

And you would be OK with that?

Yes they have a right to define what THEY value, but not what YOUR value is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 01:57AM by MJ.

I am talking about being able to DEFINE what my value is.

There is a difference between "think" and "define" am I correct in assuming that you understand the difference even though you come across as if you do not?

I don't give a shit what they THINK, but what they DO. And defining my value is an act that defines me as a person. I, not anyone else has the RIGHT to define who I am or my value.

Yes, it is not hard to figure out that you are not discussing the point I am making but your are using a straw man instead.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 03:06AM by MJ.

I was talking about "defining" you misrepresented what I said as "think" in order to discredit my argument. Classic straw man.

And again you use a straw man, I am not talking about coming to a subjective value.

I am talking about DEFINING the value of another person that has the right to define themselves, which is different that coming to a subjective view. By DEFINING the value, one group is trying to take their SUBJECTIVE values they believe and forcing them to be OBJECTIVE values for everyone else.

And I am not defining what that value is, so there is no subjective statement of what that value actually is. I am saying that what ever the value of a human is, other people do not have the right to make me less than that value. By discussing it this way, I remove the objectiveness from the discussion.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 03:49AM by MJ.

This is truly scary.

So One group has the right define another group as only having value as slaves? Or of not even having enough value to keep alive, so they are only worthy of death?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 01:50AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is truly scary.
>
> So One group has the right define another group as
> only having value as slaves? Or of not even having
> enough value to keep alive, so they are only
> worthy of death?


Please understand that many of us are trying to define for you what we see as differences between "rights" and "powers", not defend "rights" and "powers."

Based on the standards I grew up with, the answer to your first question above is 'no.' But if the group has sufficient power, that other group will be slaves. The existence of the notion that the first group doesn't have the "right" to make members of the second group into slaves is meaningless.

"Rights" are all artificial constructs, in the view of an atheist. But there is one naturally existing "right" and that is with regard to survival. If there is a limited amount of something needed for survival, those who depend on "power" have more "right" to survive compared to those who are weaker.

when I hear someone say, "He had no right to do that!" I have to stifle the urge to respond with, "Then how did he do it?" Because that' not what the other person wants to hear. "Rights" are violated all the time through the lack of sufficient "power" to enforce them. I don't have anything against "rights", I simply recognize that without "power", "rights" are meaningless.

IN another post, you stated, and I quote:

"'Power' is what creates 'rights.'"

If this is what you truly believe, then you must agree that since the Nazis had the power they had every right to kill millions of jews. They had the power so they created the right.

Then I would assume by your quote "'Power' is what creates 'rights.'" that were you in Nazi Germany at the time, you would have supported the RIGHT of the nazis to kill jews? After all they had the power to define that as a RIGHT. And if it truly was a right, you would support the right, right?

I beg to differ, power grants the ability, not the right.

But hey, if you are advocating that the Nazis had the RIGHT to kill jews, good luck with that. I am sure that view would fit right in at the next neo-nazi party

Unlike you, I do not believe that any group no matter how powerful has the right to commit Genocide.

I wounder if you would feel the same if you were a part of a group that was being systematically murdered because another group had the power, and thus by your claim, the RIGHT to murder you simply for the group you belonged to.

I would guess you would also agree to the idea: That a suicide bomber that has the POWER to blow up dozens of people they have every RIGHT to do so (based on your claim "'Power' is what creates 'rights.'" After all the suicide bomber has the POWER.



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 03:50AM by MJ.

Okay, maybe now we're getting somewhere:


> MJ stated, "Unlike you, I do not believe
> that any group no matter how powerful has
> the right to commit Genocide."


I wholeheartedly agree with you! The 1000 year Reich did not have the "right" to commit Genocide! Yes, we are totally in agreement! I never said the Nazi had the "right." I only said they had the "power."

The Genocide committed by expansionist Americans may have been greater than what the Nazi did, and for sure, America did not have the "right" to do what they did to Native Americans.

No one should have their "rights" trampled on just because some other group has more "power." I'll even go so far as to say, "It's not fair!!!"

The only thing lacking now is for you to get everyone in the world to agree with you. I wonder how much "power" that would take?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, maybe now we're getting somewhere:
>
>
> > MJ stated, "Unlike you, I do not believe
> > that any group no matter how powerful has
> > the right to commit Genocide."
>
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with you! The 1000 year
> Reich did not have the "right" to commit Genocide!
> Yes, we are totally in agreement! I never said
> the Nazi had the "right." I only said they had
> the "power."
>

But you said ""'Power' is what creates 'rights.'" Since nazis had the power and power is what creates the right, they had the power to create the right to kill jews, at least according to your claim "'Power' is what creates 'rights.'" Ether power is what creates rights or it is not.

You can not say that power creates rights, then claim that the nazis, having the power did not create the right. They certainly exercised their power created right to kill jews. Or are you saying that the Nazis did not feel they had such a right? I think you would be hard pressed to make the case that Nazis felt they did not have the right to kill jews.

Please do not take what I said out of context.

You are applying a double standard to the nazis. You claim that power creates rights, but not the power that nazis have. Either power creates rights for EVERYONE or it is not true. Since you seem to be indicating that power did not create the right to kill jews for the Nazis, then the idea that power creates rights is not true.

""'Power' is what creates 'rights.' Indeed, when you used the singular "is" you indicate that the ONLY thing that creates rights is power. So, why are you saying that power failed to create the rights for Nazis?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 04:14AM by MJ.

we're arguing at tangents.

I will continue to assert that "rights" can only exist when there is "power" to enforce them. I am not saying that "rights" have any moral value, other than what we each give them.

You and I agree that it was wrong for the Nazis to attempt to exterminate the Jews. To me it is irrelevant whether any "right" existed for the Nazis to follow that path; they used their "power" to enforce their desire. What good does it do their six million victims that the Nazis didn't have the "right" to do what they did?

You seem to be intent on gaining some moral high ground. Be my guest. Yammer on all you want about all your "rights." I will continue to believe that "rights" only exist when there is "power" to enforce them. Ask any victim who knew with every fiber of his being that his assailant did not have the "right" to harm him.

I have this video running in my head now: you're in a bank and some robbers burst in, masked, heavily armed, and they tell everyone in the bank to hit the floor. And there you are, walking up to one of them with a defiant look on your face, "See here, my good man! You simply have no right to burst in here like this, carrying on like a pack of thugs! I insist on my right as an American citizen to peace and tranquility. Now please leave! Tut tut, I will brook no nonsense from you, just leave before my patience wans!"

Then at your funeral everyone is in complete agreement that you were within your "rights" to do what you did...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> we're arguing at tangents.
>
> I will continue to assert that "rights" can only
> exist when there is "power" to enforce them.

Then you assert that the Nazis had EVERY RIGHT to kill jews because they obviously did have the power to enforce that right.

And to defend that, you claim that RIGHTS are irrelevant?

BTW, Nazis said that what they were doing was morally right as well. Do they get to define morals or are you saying that you have the right to define the morals of others? Or is having the right to define morals another RIGHT that is defined by power?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 08:29AM by MJ.

Rights exist; whether or not they can be exercised is another issue. Power is what protects or denies rights.

What are those rights? That's what generally gets debated.

Is there a "right" to ignore the "rights" of others?

That was the point I was trying to make in the deleted thread. Even those we find reprehesible have rights-at least under the Constitution and that includes the right to say things that others consider devaluing. However, they do not have the right to discriminate against those same people.Thoughts and words are not the same as actions.

Saying a person should be a slave is one thing.

Actually devaluing a person by MAKING them a slave is another. This is the point I am making, not taking DOING. It is the point you continue to miss in your rush to vendetta.

"With great wealth come great rights."

- - Ramon Cortez Ybarra Shibboleth, 13th Duke of Earl

Yes, and the Nazis got great wealth because they had the power to take the wealth of others, and according to you, they had every right to do so.

They will define you, whether you like it or not. But you're the one who decides whether or not their definition is going to affect you at all. You can tell them where they can shove their definition and walk away, letting it just roll off your back.

Then you are saying that Mormons have a RIGHT to define you as less than human?