How exactly was "Life better in the past"?

[PRB]

Um, then that'd be your answer I guess, but it probably doesn't make you a joy to sit next to at a picnic.

unless you're a like minded person, yeah.

[PRB]

Which proves my point that you are completely out of touch with past reality, because you are a white male. I will believe that police brutality has increased for white males, but it hasn't increased for black males, or for that matter a poor white male, because its always been at this level for them.

But you're not listening to experts like Clive Bundy who says blacks were better off when they were slaves!

If you don't believe election cheating has always been a problem, then you haven't lived in Chicago. Or any small town where 1 or 2 people would be in charge of counting the votes.

If you don't believe that the state always had fascistic tendencies, then you are apparently clueless about lobbyists and the amount of money that corporations have always used to fund their candidates, to keep out 3rd party candidates, and to pay off politician that did manage to win without their support.

State corruption is nothing new, we hear about it more, and people can talk about it more on the internet (another modern plus!), where as before they were often afraid to say anything, because they didn't know which of their friends or family would take offense, and mobilizing for change was not as easily done as it is today with the internet.

Wouldn't you say corruption, much like piracy, has been made easier and worse thanks to technology?

[osan]

Count me as a middle-aged person who things IN GENERAL, things are much better now then they used to be.

What "things"? Your statement, lacking sufficient circumscription, is essentially meaningless.

I'm betting most of the people who think things are worse, are white males. White males tend to be clueless about how unfairly everyone else--especially women and blacks, were treated.

Is that all you've got? Go back to 6th grade, learn to think, and then get back to us when you've purchased a clue.

For the majority of people (everyone but white males), are treated much more equitably today then they would have been treated in the past.

OK, so let us make sure we are understanding your admittedly vaguely constructed sentence. You seem to me implying that white males are treated less fairly than they once were and the tacit implication is that this is OK. Nice.

As for the rest, by what standard are you measuring equity? You are making statements of fact structured as proof-by-assertion. That's a big FAIL.

You guys can argue that I've always had my rights, but in the past the government greatly prevented people from exercising their rights (of course, this still happens today, but for entire classes of people, the government is oppressing less of their rights than in the past.)

This is a load of unvarnished bull$#@!. Government is in our business far more than ever before and their lapdogs are now openly brutal in their "interpretation" of policy. Forty years ago there were not any no-knock raids or the use of SWAT teams to give j-walking citations. The extent and manner to which brutal force is used and protected by the courts is staggering in comparison with what we had in the 70s, for example. Back in those days police were routinely called on the carpet and often punished substantially for their violations of human rights. No such thing today, save in the rarest of cases.

I am also very grateful for medical advances, especially vaccines (don't worry, I support your right not to get one if you would rather get the disease.) I'm very happy that none of my children have had to suffer through a potentially deadly & debilitating disease like polio, mumps, meales, etc. I'm grateful for the advances in medical treatment that enable people to live longer & healthier lives then they could have 20 years ago.

Fair enough, but are you saying that you are OK with sacrificing your individual rights for the sake of medical care? That appears to be the subtext here, so please clarify.

I am very grateful for technology which makes things much safer, safer cars, cell phones which makes it much safer for a woman to go out alone at any time of day (something that many white males don't understand), safer planes, safer cities (crime rate is drastically lower than it was 20 years ago.)

Typical liberal mentality, as if white males were the root of all global evil. Your credibility is in the crapper. That aside, your assertion that "white males" cannot understand personal peril is prima facie bull$#@! of the first order. White males have been put in harm's way more than any other arbitrarily identified "class" you care to name over the past 100 years. It was not white women who fought the battles of WWI and II, so cut the nonsense because you are not dealing with dull sixth-graders here.

I would further note that a large number of women of all stripes spent the past 40+ years telling men they didn't need any help with anything. Therefore, they have no basis for whining about the perils they still face. If you think you have a bigger dick than any man, then STFU and prove it. Otherwise, fess up that there are classes of problems and dangers you are not prepared to face alone, accept the help, and be grateful that people care enough about YOU and your life and your property to render aid when needed.

I am grateful today that poor people are tend to live in far better conditions than poor people 50 or more years ago did.

And by what virtue do they live under "far better conditions"? On YOUR nickel. If you don't mind paying, good for you. I, for one, do not cotton to anyone's uninvited fingers helping themselves to the contents of my wallet.

Yeah, the music and movies today aren't as good artistically, but fortunately I can watch/listen to anything I want thanks to technology.

I guess you really do feel no trouble with getting butt-$#@!ed so long as you have your petty diversions and conveniences. I am sorry, but I find that pathetic.

Now certainly aspects of today are worse then in the past. Police corruption/brutality has not increased, but people are more aware of it now because of technology, and the militarization of the police force has made the consequences of corruption/brutality worse. Election cheating is not more common todays, but it is easier because of technology & completely computerized voting has done away with any way to double check the votes. Fascistic tendencies of the state have not increased, but we notice them more because of the increased regulation that prevents people from starting new businesses.

More proof by assertion = more FAIL.

Overall, there is no way I would want to go back to the past, I believe overall the changes in the US have been for the better. I'm very grateful to have been born when I was born, and to have been able to see such exciting and good changes in my lifetime. This doesn't mean that there aren't real problems with the government, and real problems in the country that need to be dealt with. And I do fear that the positive changes the US has seen could very easily be wiped away if people aren't protective of them. We must all be ever vigilant of our rights, but pretending like the past was some nirvana is helpful to no one.

You need to work on your expressive style because you write in vagaries. Attributing the level of current corruption and police brutality entirely to changes in technology is not even remotely credible. The police are not only worse, they are FAR more so. They are openly brutal and hostile and their training has changed fundamentally from what it was in the past. Your claims hold little water, if any.

[osan]

For practical and non-semantic purposes, what is the difference between the 2? Seriously.

Do you have ANY idea what "semantics" means?

[osan]

Is it really a right if you are not allowed to or choose not to exercise it?

Of course it is. A right is a claim. I earn $100 and put it in my wallet. I have a right to that money. When the robber takes it from me at gunpoint, is my claim to that money nullified? No. Were it otherwise, then robbery could not be viewed as a crime. In fact, there would be no such thing as a crime. A crime, by its very fabric is ALWAYS a violation of one's rights by another.

Think of how absurd it would be if denial of a right equated with not having the right. You hold a right to your life. I come and shoot the life out of your carcass. If what you say is so, then there are no murder charges to be brought because I basically appropriated YOUR claim to life by the use of force and in so doing it was no longer your right or it was never your right. That is a formula for nihilist chaos to run roughshod across the face of the globe.

If I choose not to spend my $100, does my claim to it not exist, then?

If you are going to argue that we have no rights, then you had better be prepared for the consequences of what such a world would be. I don't think you or anyone with even a single rational and sane brain cell would want that reality.

[Zippyjuan]

I would argue that rights are given and can be taken away. There are no "natural" or "absolute" rights. Your "right" to the $100 can be taken away from you. Perhaps voluntarily, perhaps by force.

You may want or expect a right but it only exists as long as others agree that you have it and respect it.

[Danke]

No inflation, you could safely save for your future.

[acptulsa]

No inflation, you could safely save for your future.

Nope. Z2.0 doesn't agree you have that right, and doesn't respect it. He demands every hundred dollar bill you manage to squirrel away be taken away from you. Invisibly. By devaluation. Because the CEOs of the world's biggest banks aren't rich enough, and have to steal from you. So, hop in the stock market so the insiders can fleece you. How else can your representatives get their brib--er, I mean campaign contributions?

[phill4paul]

Millions of miles of land awaiting someone to join with. No government. No guarantees.

[Danke]

Nope. Z2.0 doesn't agree you have that right, and doesn't respect it. He demands every hundred dollar bill you manage to squirrel away be taken away from you. Invisibly. By devaluation. Because the CEOs of the world's biggest banks aren't rich enough, and have to steal from you. So, hop in the stock market so the insiders can fleece you. How else can your representatives get their brib--er, I mean campaign contributions?

[PRB]

Do you have ANY idea what "semantics" means?

Simply a matter of words.
se·man·tic

adjective \si-ˈman-tik\ : of or relating to the meanings of words and phrases
: of or relating to semantics

[PRB]

I would argue that rights are given and can be taken away. There are no "natural" or "absolute" rights. Your "right" to the $100 can be taken away from you. Perhaps voluntarily, perhaps by force.

You may want or expect a right but it only exists as long as others agree that you have it and respect it.

no wonder people here call you a troll. you don't believe in God given rights, you are clearly not part of the liberty movement.

[Danke]

no wonder people here call you a troll. you don't believe in God given rights, you are clearly not part of the liberty movement.

Trolls gotta troll.

[oyarde]

Trolls gotta troll.

Meh , I believe in rights from the Creator , that does not mean he did not intend for me to back them up with an axe and arrows

[oyarde]

No inflation, you could safely save for your future.

I agree that safely saving was easier for the common man .

[PRB]

Meh , I believe in rights from the Creator , that does not mean he did not intend for me to back them up with an axe and arrows

how is that different than saying there was no creator or rights, you just claim to have them and use axes and arrows to get them?

[PRB]

I agree that safely saving was easier for the common man .

why? because you spent a smaller portion of your earning? or because nobody made sucker loans?

[Zippyjuan]

no wonder people here call you a troll. you don't believe in God given rights, you are clearly not part of the liberty movement.

Does God have a list of the rights He gave everybody- or has man created lists of rights?

Does anybody have a copy of that list?

What makes something a right? Is it because most people think they should have it?

A lot of things are called rights. But what does it take to qualify as "God given"?

[DFF]

But what does it take to qualify as "God given"?

I think the Constitution already addressed this one out, Zippy.

Something about certain inalienable rights...

[acptulsa]

why? because you spent a smaller portion of your earning? or because nobody made sucker loans?

Because your savings shrinks like wool in a hot dryer. Because inflation. As we have told you. And told you. And told you. And told you. And told you.

I just negrepped you for asking the same question over again after you have been told and told and told the answer. And I'm inviting everyone to do the same. Every time you ask.

[Marenco]

Does God have a list of the rights He gave everybody- or has man created lists of rights?

Does anybody have a copy of that list?

What makes something a right? Is it because most people think they should have it?

A lot of things are called rights. But what does it take to qualify as "God given"?

You might be familiar with this part...

[oyarde]

You might be familiar with this part...

I can work with that .

[Zippyjuan]

You might be familiar with this part...

That is a document men wrote. Can you show the sections of the Bible those are listed? Liberty? Actually slavery was approved of in the Bible. Persuit of Happiness? For some, but not for all. Even the US had slavery and slaves didn't even count as a whole person in the Constitution. Life? Yes, the Ten Commands did say "thou shalt not kill".

What does God say are rights for humans?

[DFF]

Ok, it was the Declaration of Independence. My bad.

[PRB]

I think the Constitution already addressed this one out, Zippy.

Something about certain inalienable rights...

no, the Constitution says nothing about inalienable rights, you must be thinking about the Declaration.

[PRB]

Ok, it was the Declaration of Independence. My bad.

However, that document also did not make a complete list of rights God gave us.

[PRB]

You might be familiar with this part...

Let's start with "right to life". What does that mean? That the government is obligated to defend your life, or obilgated to make sure you don't starve to death?

[PRB]

Because your savings shrinks like wool in a hot dryer. Because inflation. As we have told you. And told you. And told you. And told you. And told you.

Inflation at worst means what you save shrinks in value, it doesn't mean it's "harder to save". Saving and not having the effects intended is not the same as "harder to save". Harder to save means you have less to save or it's somehow illegal to save when you don't spend.

There's a difference between harder to save what you don't spend, and harder to realize the value of what you have saved.

I just negrepped you for asking the same question over again after you have been told and told and told the answer. And I'm inviting everyone to do the same. Every time you ask.

[Origanalist]

Let's start with "right to life". What does that mean? That the government is obligated to defend your life, or obilgated to make sure you don't starve to death?

The people who wrote that meant you are entitled to life, not to be fed. If you infer any other meaning to those words you are being completely dishonest and ignoring history.

[PRB]

The people who wrote that meant you are entitled to life, not to be fed. If you infer any other meaning to those words you are being completely dishonest and ignoring history.

what does it mean entitled to life if not entitled to be fed? feed yourself, if you can't it's not a right?