After Hours

General discussion

Rock and a hard place

By BOB.B ·
Tags: Off Topic
The Repubs have waltzed themselves into a bind by allowing Trump to run wild for the last four years.

Expect to hear a lot of CYA in the coming weeks.
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

You might remember a comment I made on SE

by nopremx In reply to Rock and a hard place

some time ago. I said I felt sorry for Trump because he was setting himself up to be without a friend in the world. AP just had an opinion piece saying that time is very close, if not actually here.

Collapse -


by BOB.B In reply to You might remember a comm ...

When Trump ran for office I had no idea who he was.

After listening to his speeches I thought....this guy is full of prunes.

After watching him for the last four years my opinion is Trump does not give a hoot for you/me/the country unless there is something in it for Trump.

Now the repub congress types have a bomb on their hands.

Collapse -

What Trump cares about, and consequences

by john.a.wills In reply to Rock and a hard place

I don't know. He may be completely narcissistic. Nevertheless he - or at any rate people in his administration - did a few good things, which Biden will probably undo. Trump does not care about human rights, but Biden is definitely against them (think of the promises he will probably keep to PP, NARAL, etc.). It is the Republic which is between a rock and a hard place, not just the Republicans. But neither party will desist for quite a while from the polarization game.

Collapse -


by BOB.B In reply to What Trump cares about, a ...

This is not a hot button issue for me.

I lean toward pro choice with limits.

Another area for Joe that is Darned if you do.....Darned if you don't.

Collapse -

NARAL etc.

by john.a.wills In reply to Naral

The purpose of the state, at whatever level, is to secure such God-given human-natural rights as those to life to liberty and to property. The first condition of good governance is therefore that the state itself not violate human rights. I am, of course, using the theory promulgated by Suarez, Grotius and Locke (of whom I have actually read only Locke), and at least externally believed by the founders of the Republic. Biden is promising to use public funds to violate human rights.

You may have a different theory of the purpose of the state, Aristotle's (which might lead anywhere) perhaps; you may have a dualist metaphysics. Only so can you fail to be frightened at
Biden's promises.

Collapse -

Purpose of the state

by BOB.B In reply to NARAL etc.

Try to maintain some kind of order.
Try to keep mankind from exterminating the specie.

Where did you get this god given stuff?

Did you read it on a piece of paper written by someone?

Did someone tell you?

Collapse -

some kind of order

by john.a.wills In reply to Purpose of the state

The Tao Te Ching says "good order" (I cannot give chapter and verse off-hand) (Yes, someone told me, I read it on a piece of paper, most recently on my monitor as part of an email), but that does not help unless we can determine whether an order is good, and Suarez et al. give the criterion as I have given it above. And there is little point in maintaining the species if the members of the species have no rights.

As for "God-given", I direct you to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, where you will find two of the rights listed; all three are enumerated in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If rights do not come from God, where do they come from? Or don't you believe in human rights at all? In that case YOU have no rights, except accidentally.

Collapse -


by BOB.B In reply to some kind of order

You pointed to a piece of paper written by man.
I can write anything I want on a piece of paper.

Rights are granted by the state.
If a state wants to add or remove some right based on some god then that's the state's business.

Prove to me that god exist.
Please don't point me at a piece of paper.

I don't deny that god exist.
I don't use some god as justification for my actions.

Collapse -

origin of rights

by john.a.wills In reply to Rock and a hard place

States primarily recognize rights; they should then aim to secure them. If you compare states' securing or otherwise of human rights you will pretty quickly make a judgement that some do better than others. What is your criterion for betterness? Precisely an external set of rights against which you measure each state's activities. If you make such a judgement ("this is right, that is wrong") you are implicitly assuming the existence of God.

States which attempt to grant rights rather than to recognize them in practice violate rights pretty badly. How do we know that they are violating rights? We can judge them on the utterances of some higher-level state, as we do when we refer to the UN's International Declaration of Human Rights, but then how do we judge the utterances of that higher-level state?

Collapse -


by BOB.B In reply to origin of rights

I don't need to believe in god to know that robbing a bank is wrong.

As for some group getting together and saying this is right and this is wrong.
I have no idea what criteria they used.
Was some deity involved in their decision?

Back to my question.
Can you prove that god exist?

Related Discussions

Related Forums