I have dealt with this kind of arguments before. One person claimed that God given rights are based on societal norms and beliefs. So I responded “ So you would support the beheading of enemy combatants that lost a battle, or genocide of a group based on religious beliefs?” The response was “Of course not, these are obviously wrong!” My response was “Based off of what? Your societal norms and beliefs? What makes yours superior to theirs unless there is an overriding authority that states these things are wrong?” The person left the debate. I found when you apply their standards to them, then their arguments usually will unravel.
It's frustrating speaking to people with that mindset. Its even in the schools now. Kids no longer taught the Pledge and most young people think our rights come from the gov.
Why do want your kids indoctrinated in to pledging their allegiance to a symbol of a corrupt corporatocracy? Idolatry much? Break out of the cognitive dissonance.
My friend recently introduced me to a single young lady my age, sort of like a blind date. She had these same views you described, initially upon meeting her I asked her if she was an sjw UBI Bernie bro. She was completely about those green party ideologies. I just politely said, I’m going to see myself and I left the venue. 😂🤣 it was VERY uncomfortable to say the least.
One great point you have in this video is the common “Healthcare is a right!” Argument… It is just as much slavery as the Government having the power to draft you to go thousands of miles away to fight a senseless war for crony politicians… Government is not reason, it is not elegance, it is FORCE! And like fire, government is a fearful master and a dangerous servant… And even scarier, if you read and study the ideologies of the left wing, you will find that the common mindset of Conservatives and Liberals alike… have a complete disregard for the importance of liberties and share virtues of Marxist ideology/dogma (especially the neglect of the massive importance and necessities of tax free, laissez faire markets) If they can ban weed, newports, bump stocks, certain medicines, certain speech… what makes you think they won’t push to ban increasingly more liberties to eventually ban the most basic of rights? Especially rights such as being able to cook your own food in your own home… “get in the bread lines or face the consequences”… An excellent video, Mr Peterson.
It just ignorant in the least & at the worst it's just people being evil - for some reason they just don't know it. Thank you for tackling this subject.
You have a right to life. How you choose to protect that life or preserve that life is your responsibility. For the young, elderly and others who can’t protect their lives do we have a moral obligation to assume that responsibility?? Me personally, the answer is yes but that is my decision to make. It starts getting complicated real fast when we force things.
That's the thing, nothing is forced. People try to pawn off responsibility- a task can be delegated but responsibility can not. If you pay a trillion dollars in taxes to a local police department but are killed is the police department RESPONSIBLE?- Nope, they may have screwed up their job but they go home with a clean conscience. The young however is a different topic- parents are responsible for children until children leave. Society screws that particular responsibility up at literally every step.
here's my spin on what is a human right (the 2A is all ONE sentence, BTW): as a Category, or, a basic Order Of Existence, a human right [a 'right', ie, a so-called right] is NOTHING but a Psychological, Sociological [ie, socially agreed upon], Philosophical, Linguistic, Construct, A Construct. more generally, it is an Abstraction, ie, NOT Concrete. The 2A, however, will help us understand what is Concretely do-able, re a human 'right'. thus: Square One is being able to quickly distinguish between The Abstract, and The Concrete. ''Right''= Abstract; ''Militia''= Concrete. (but, ''to keep and bear arms'' is, of course, Concrete, yet ''the right to'' is, of course, Abstract.) BTW, i have a free-market, anti-marxist. bias. *first clause: ''a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state [large or small or micro, state]...'' *second clause: ''[therefore, AND thereby] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' these two clauses are entirely INTERDEPENDENT. think about what INTERDEPENDENT implies. i believe that unless the 2A is fully in place, (ie, militia controlled areas, with Unity Of Command re militia controlled areas), NO OTHER human 'right' should be taken seriously-- and indeed, SHALL NOT on this planet BE taken seriously, by whatever the govt happens to currently, locally, pretends to be (all govt/s are/is Pretense. public Theater). ie, unless these three, The People, The Militia, and The Govt, are completely integrated into ONE entity, well, ya know... ** re God: let's look at what Jihadists say about Allah-Given-Rights. (BTW, i'll pass, on all that mythology). and, here's big side note; do this, trust me: check out a few youtubes ''truthischrist''. if i could, i'd actually bet you $500 that after a few of this guys' youtubes, your faith will be cranked up a few notches. and, re abortion, i believe that it all, once again, comes down to the 2A. if interested in that, let me know.
I actually like that you broke down the 2a as two interdependent clauses because that is ENTIRELY correct, however I do disagree with where you took it. A militia being necessary to the security of a free state- a person must have the ability to create a well regulated militia when necessary and if a person does not have the right to be armed and own weapons he does not have the means to create a well regulated militia, therefor the government can not create any law that in any way limits a citizens right to the ownership of Arms because it would inhibit their ability to join or create a militia. The problem is that if we believe that there are no concrete rights then there are no concrete morals- if rights and morals are a "social construct" then they do not exist at all and what is right or wrong today can be opposite tomorrow. I absolutely 100% disagree. What is right today was right on day 1 and will be right on the last day and the same as what is wrong. What is legal or acceptable however is entirely different.
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors I think we actually agree on all points. But, let me state this: I believe, as a growing number of people believe, all over the world, in Local Only Govt, ie, Local Only Constitutions. These Local Constitutions, would, in effect, BE the 'absolute' morals, ethics, values, and principles, (and thus, the 'rights') of The Locale, as established BY the locals. Would you have it any other way? ie, would you prefer to have the power to impose your morals, rights, etc, on whatever Locale? I'm just asking? How about this? if you don't think that the morals, rights, etc, in a given Locale are good enough, then, you should move to another Locale, in which, you DO like the morals, rights, etc. also, i think, by your terms ''concrete rights'', ''concrete morals'', you probably actually mean ''absolute morals'', ''absolute rights''. also, as I'm currently living in VN now, The Socialist LOL Republic Of VN, in a world class tourist town, I gotta get to sleep now. i do seriously intend to return to the United LOL States LOL of America LOL, if there's ever a militia controlled area established, or if there's ever The Nation Of Texas. catchya tomorrow.
Aron pb5xy This video is consistent with Jacob's content as a whole. Your tantrum is perplexing. Why would one go to a burger joint and throw a tantrum because they offer cheeseburgers and you don't like cheese?
Well that's fair haha We all end up in that position at one time or another. All people are born with God given, inalienable rights. Whether or not the governance where that person is born respects those rights is an entirely different matter. No nation on earth truly respects all human rights, or even most.
I'm not sure if it is true that there cannot be a right to require the work or services of someone. The Sixth Amendment states that people have a right to a jury trial, literally the services and work of ordinary citizens, not just a government judge. It is highly arguable that the "right to life saving medical care" can be viewed as a form of jury duty by ordinary citizen who are medical professionals.
The right to jury trial is intrinsically tied to the presence of government. If there is no government there is no right to jury trial- If there IS a government then people have the right to use that government to settle disputes and the government has an obligation to provide an umbias jury. Jurors are not forced to work for free (although they are far too close)- the government selects non bias people and pays them. If a person doesn't want to be a Juror they show their bias and they don't do it. Of course I would say that based on what a right is that if people were forced to participate in a jury for free that the 6th amendment was flawed and it's likely at least to degree that it is. Healthcare is a service- nobody has a human right to the service of another.
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors using the way you phrase jury duty, it could very well be argued that since there is government, there is a "right" to use the government for life saving healthcare, and the government has an obligation to provide heathcare professionals who can administer it. These heathcare professionals can also be compensated by the state at the same rate, nominal or not, as jurors. Although, as you rightly note, the 6th amendment does not actually say that jurors have to be compensated, they are so at the mere pleasure and good graces of the government, but as you've already acknowledged that the 6th amendment is flawed to that extent in this sense, I won't press this point. I simply only note that there is a right under the Bill of Right where the government is obliged to provide a service from ordinary citizens who are not government employees or public officials, and if the 6th Amendment is our model, that right can be extended to virtually any other service which can be rendered by any ordinary citizen.
@rubatirabbit nope- government exists for borders and international regulation, and a form of resolving disputes for citizens (thats where the jury comes in) not for providing everything a person needs. To say that the government has an obligation to provide Healthcare is equal to saying the government has an obligation to provide food, water, and housing as well. It does not.
@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors I am not so much arguing whether or not the government has an obligation to provide x service, but whether rights can require to government to require a service from ordinary citizens who are not government employees, regardless of what that service is. Clearly rights can compel the government to require from ordinary citizens such services.
Disagree in the first, agree on the second. Again, the reality of the term right has nothing to do with what does or doesn't happen- it has everything to do with what does or does not happen is morally right. If you don't believe that the people in North Korea have rights what you are saying is that everything that is happening to them is ok- because they don't have rights. We deserve the government that we have because we have not fought for our God given rights. And saying that the term rights doesn't exist in the Bible is like saying the word homosexual doesn't exist in the Bible. It's true- and yet Roman's 1 says "a man who lies with another man as if he were a woman"- I don't need our modern word to know what that passage is speaking of.
Joined for the bushcraft and knife content. Left for the B.S religious politics. 2 things Jacob, Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1) First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Unsubscribed
2 things Aaron- 1- Keep reading Mathew 7, you need more than 1 verse for context. Ironic to say that you are leaving due to religion then trying to use religion. 2- Nothing we are talking about has anything to do with an establishment of religion, this video has to do with basic dictionary definitions so you should probably look up the definition of establishment. Furthermore, since you have this zeal for laws having to do with the establishment you should be out ticketing 501c3 laws being that the federal government has the legal right to limit what essentially every single church in this country is allowed to preach about. If you want to be mad at least be consistent, that way you can get something done. 💪🏻 Don't let the door hit you
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors I am subscribed to over 50 knife channels and not one of them mentions "abortion" or says shit like "baby killers". 2a rights are one thing but this just pushed me over the line bub. Good luck to ya.
@Aaron-pb5xy yes- marketing channels don't mention morals or anything else divisive because they just need to convince you to buy things from just corporations. That has never been what my channel is about. If the fact that you support murdering babies makes you uncomfortable- it should. Whats the name of the channel? That should be your first clue. I'm not here to sell you product from some faceless brand so I can pick up the crumbs of their profits.
The problems with these people is the have no personal responsibility. They think that abortion is a human right. It’s not. Your human right is your actions. And you have the RIGHT to take precautions to not get pregnant (male n female). Once that choice is made and a pregnancy happens your rights end because that’s another human
Ultimately, human rights are derived from the "golden rule". I won't do a certain thing to another person, because I don't want to normalize that thing, because then it can be done to me. In their very essence, human rights are protections, not entitlements. Human rights are all about what someone shouldn't be able to do to the individual or a group, not what an individual or group can demand from others. God being my creator has nothing to do with me having human rights. It has everything to do with people respecting one another as conscious and sentient beings.
I disagree- If rights were derived SOLELY on the golden rule they would be subjective. We will all be judged by the same metric by the all mighty God- that metric is what our rights are based off of. However the golden rule is CLOSE- but being subjective this concept is what people use against firearms ownership etc with "the right to feel safe" You have no right to "feel safe" but people think of the golden rule and want to disarm themselves to disarm others. This doesn't track.
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors Many people have prayed to God throughout history to enforce their human rights. Human rights, like all other laws and rules, are only as relevant as their enforcement. Gun rights are human rights, because they give ability to enforce human rights individually, or collectively as a group.
I just wanted to say I enjoy your channel, and I appreciate your arguments against the proabortionists. We don't have to agree on everything. The main reason leftists are uncomfortable with you owning firearms, is the ability to enforce your human rights, makes them uncomfortable.
@christophersteingart2237 I absolutely agree that we don't have to agree and it's enjoyable actually to disagree with people who are able to discuss things with some degree of ability. I disagree that rights have anything to do with what is legal or what happens- I believe subjective morality is no morality- and subjective rights means no rights. I believe in universal rights that every person has born anywhere and at any time on earth- whether they live in a situation where those rights are honored or not does not change whether or not those rights being honored or not is right or wrong.
A person is a fool if they define a right as what is nice or pleasant.
It’s crazy that I’m not surprised that this video needed to be made, Thank you for making it.
Man the world we live in is so far gone
YT took down my original post. I agree with you 100%
Armed citizens are safer.
I have dealt with this kind of arguments before. One person claimed that God given rights are based on societal norms and beliefs. So I responded “ So you would support the beheading of enemy combatants that lost a battle, or genocide of a group based on religious beliefs?” The response was “Of course not, these are obviously wrong!” My response was “Based off of what? Your societal norms and beliefs? What makes yours superior to theirs unless there is an overriding authority that states these things are wrong?” The person left the debate.
I found when you apply their standards to them, then their arguments usually will unravel.
🎯
It's frustrating speaking to people with that mindset. Its even in the schools now. Kids no longer taught the Pledge and most young people think our rights come from the gov.
Why do want your kids indoctrinated in to pledging their allegiance to a symbol of a corrupt corporatocracy? Idolatry much? Break out of the cognitive dissonance.
The your in this situation line. Thanks, I had to explain to my neighbor why I was choking and laughing at the same time.
🤣🤣🤣
Well said.
Man I think I saw a black bear just passed behind you 😲
Jacob, i know that I am not the best person around but you cannot fix stupid outside of the gospel.
🎯
😂
My friend recently introduced me to a single young lady my age, sort of like a blind date. She had these same views you described, initially upon meeting her I asked her if she was an sjw UBI Bernie bro. She was completely about those green party ideologies. I just politely said, I’m going to see myself and I left the venue. 😂🤣 it was VERY uncomfortable to say the least.
Man that is ROUGH.
Thanks for making this video, It was right on the money as well as precise and straight to the point. Keep up the great work!
Another excellent video!
Spot on brother!
One great point you have in this video is the common “Healthcare is a right!” Argument…
It is just as much slavery as the Government having the power to draft you to go thousands of miles away to fight a senseless war for crony politicians…
Government is not reason, it is not elegance, it is FORCE! And like fire, government is a fearful master and a dangerous servant…
And even scarier, if you read and study the ideologies of the left wing, you will find that the common mindset of Conservatives and Liberals alike… have a complete disregard for the importance of liberties and share virtues of Marxist ideology/dogma (especially the neglect of the massive importance and necessities of tax free, laissez faire markets)
If they can ban weed, newports, bump stocks, certain medicines, certain speech… what makes you think they won’t push to ban increasingly more liberties to eventually ban the most basic of rights?
Especially rights such as being able to cook your own food in your own home… “get in the bread lines or face the consequences”…
An excellent video, Mr Peterson.
🎯🎯🎯
Thanks!
Very good. Cheers
This comment is still up. I'll see if I can find the other
🎯💯
It just ignorant in the least & at the worst it's just people being evil - for some reason they just don't know it. Thank you for tackling this subject.
You're on the "right" path Jacob, almost there
You have a right to life. How you choose to protect that life or preserve that life is your responsibility. For the young, elderly and others who can’t protect their lives do we have a moral obligation to assume that responsibility?? Me personally, the answer is yes but that is my decision to make. It starts getting complicated real fast when we force things.
That's the thing, nothing is forced.
People try to pawn off responsibility- a task can be delegated but responsibility can not.
If you pay a trillion dollars in taxes to a local police department but are killed is the police department RESPONSIBLE?- Nope, they may have screwed up their job but they go home with a clean conscience.
The young however is a different topic- parents are responsible for children until children leave. Society screws that particular responsibility up at literally every step.
@@ThepreppersbunkeroutdoorsExactly.
100% FACT!
here's my spin on what is a human right (the 2A is all ONE sentence, BTW):
as a Category, or, a basic Order Of Existence, a human right [a 'right', ie, a so-called right] is NOTHING but a Psychological, Sociological [ie, socially agreed upon], Philosophical, Linguistic, Construct, A Construct. more generally, it is an Abstraction, ie, NOT Concrete. The 2A, however, will help us understand what is Concretely do-able, re a human 'right'. thus: Square One is being able to quickly distinguish between The Abstract, and The Concrete. ''Right''= Abstract; ''Militia''= Concrete. (but, ''to keep and bear arms'' is, of course, Concrete, yet ''the right to'' is, of course, Abstract.) BTW, i have a free-market, anti-marxist. bias.
*first clause: ''a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state [large or small or micro, state]...''
*second clause: ''[therefore, AND thereby] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
these two clauses are entirely INTERDEPENDENT. think about what INTERDEPENDENT implies.
i believe that unless the 2A is fully in place, (ie, militia controlled areas, with Unity Of Command re militia controlled areas), NO OTHER human 'right' should be taken seriously-- and indeed, SHALL NOT on this planet BE taken seriously, by whatever the govt happens to currently, locally, pretends to be (all govt/s are/is Pretense. public Theater).
ie, unless these three, The People, The Militia, and The Govt, are completely integrated into ONE entity, well, ya know...
** re God: let's look at what Jihadists say about Allah-Given-Rights. (BTW, i'll pass, on all that mythology).
and, here's big side note; do this, trust me: check out a few youtubes ''truthischrist''. if i could, i'd actually bet you $500 that after a few of this guys' youtubes, your faith will be cranked up a few notches.
and, re abortion, i believe that it all, once again, comes down to the 2A. if interested in that, let me know.
I actually like that you broke down the 2a as two interdependent clauses because that is ENTIRELY correct, however I do disagree with where you took it.
A militia being necessary to the security of a free state- a person must have the ability to create a well regulated militia when necessary and if a person does not have the right to be armed and own weapons he does not have the means to create a well regulated militia, therefor the government can not create any law that in any way limits a citizens right to the ownership of Arms because it would inhibit their ability to join or create a militia.
The problem is that if we believe that there are no concrete rights then there are no concrete morals- if rights and morals are a "social construct" then they do not exist at all and what is right or wrong today can be opposite tomorrow.
I absolutely 100% disagree. What is right today was right on day 1 and will be right on the last day and the same as what is wrong.
What is legal or acceptable however is entirely different.
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors I think we actually agree on all points. But, let me state this: I believe, as a growing number of people believe, all over the world, in Local Only Govt, ie, Local Only Constitutions. These Local Constitutions, would, in effect, BE the 'absolute' morals, ethics, values, and principles, (and thus, the 'rights') of The Locale, as established BY the locals.
Would you have it any other way?
ie, would you prefer to have the power to impose your morals, rights, etc, on whatever Locale? I'm just asking?
How about this? if you don't think that the morals, rights, etc, in a given Locale are good enough, then, you should move to another Locale, in which, you DO like the morals, rights, etc.
also, i think, by your terms ''concrete rights'', ''concrete morals'', you probably actually mean ''absolute morals'', ''absolute rights''.
also, as I'm currently living in VN now, The Socialist LOL Republic Of VN, in a world class tourist town, I gotta get to sleep now.
i do seriously intend to return to the United LOL States LOL of America LOL, if there's ever a militia controlled area established, or if there's ever The Nation Of Texas. catchya tomorrow.
@@ThepreppersbunkeroutdoorsExactly.
Aron pb5xy This video is consistent with Jacob's content as a whole. Your tantrum is perplexing. Why would one go to a burger joint and throw a tantrum because they offer cheeseburgers and you don't like cheese?
What is crazy, is what one human right one has, another may not.
Not sure what you mean.
The man that makes these videos keeps it so clear that even I can understand... Cheers
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors I'm not sure I know what I mean
Well that's fair haha
We all end up in that position at one time or another.
All people are born with God given, inalienable rights.
Whether or not the governance where that person is born respects those rights is an entirely different matter.
No nation on earth truly respects all human rights, or even most.
I'm not sure if it is true that there cannot be a right to require the work or services of someone. The Sixth Amendment states that people have a right to a jury trial, literally the services and work of ordinary citizens, not just a government judge. It is highly arguable that the "right to life saving medical care" can be viewed as a form of jury duty by ordinary citizen who are medical professionals.
The right to jury trial is intrinsically tied to the presence of government. If there is no government there is no right to jury trial-
If there IS a government then people have the right to use that government to settle disputes and the government has an obligation to provide an umbias jury.
Jurors are not forced to work for free (although they are far too close)- the government selects non bias people and pays them. If a person doesn't want to be a Juror they show their bias and they don't do it.
Of course I would say that based on what a right is that if people were forced to participate in a jury for free that the 6th amendment was flawed and it's likely at least to degree that it is.
Healthcare is a service- nobody has a human right to the service of another.
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors using the way you phrase jury duty, it could very well be argued that since there is government, there is a "right" to use the government for life saving healthcare, and the government has an obligation to provide heathcare professionals who can administer it. These heathcare professionals can also be compensated by the state at the same rate, nominal or not, as jurors. Although, as you rightly note, the 6th amendment does not actually say that jurors have to be compensated, they are so at the mere pleasure and good graces of the government, but as you've already acknowledged that the 6th amendment is flawed to that extent in this sense, I won't press this point. I simply only note that there is a right under the Bill of Right where the government is obliged to provide a service from ordinary citizens who are not government employees or public officials, and if the 6th Amendment is our model, that right can be extended to virtually any other service which can be rendered by any ordinary citizen.
@rubatirabbit nope- government exists for borders and international regulation, and a form of resolving disputes for citizens (thats where the jury comes in) not for providing everything a person needs.
To say that the government has an obligation to provide Healthcare is equal to saying the government has an obligation to provide food, water, and housing as well.
It does not.
@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors I am not so much arguing whether or not the government has an obligation to provide x service, but whether rights can require to government to require a service from ordinary citizens who are not government employees, regardless of what that service is. Clearly rights can compel the government to require from ordinary citizens such services.
@@ThepreppersbunkeroutdoorsExactly.
The bible says nothing about rights, only God-given opportunities. We have the government we deserve
Ask someone from North Korea what a human right is.
Disagree in the first, agree on the second.
Again, the reality of the term right has nothing to do with what does or doesn't happen- it has everything to do with what does or does not happen is morally right.
If you don't believe that the people in North Korea have rights what you are saying is that everything that is happening to them is ok- because they don't have rights.
We deserve the government that we have because we have not fought for our God given rights.
And saying that the term rights doesn't exist in the Bible is like saying the word homosexual doesn't exist in the Bible. It's true- and yet Roman's 1 says "a man who lies with another man as if he were a woman"-
I don't need our modern word to know what that passage is speaking of.
Joined for the bushcraft and knife content. Left for the B.S religious politics. 2 things Jacob, Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1) First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Unsubscribed
2 things Aaron-
1- Keep reading Mathew 7, you need more than 1 verse for context. Ironic to say that you are leaving due to religion then trying to use religion.
2- Nothing we are talking about has anything to do with an establishment of religion, this video has to do with basic dictionary definitions so you should probably look up the definition of establishment. Furthermore, since you have this zeal for laws having to do with the establishment you should be out ticketing 501c3 laws being that the federal government has the legal right to limit what essentially every single church in this country is allowed to preach about.
If you want to be mad at least be consistent, that way you can get something done. 💪🏻
Don't let the door hit you
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors I am subscribed to over 50 knife channels and not one of them mentions "abortion" or says shit like "baby killers". 2a rights are one thing but this just pushed me over the line bub. Good luck to ya.
@Aaron-pb5xy yes- marketing channels don't mention morals or anything else divisive because they just need to convince you to buy things from just corporations.
That has never been what my channel is about. If the fact that you support murdering babies makes you uncomfortable- it should.
Whats the name of the channel? That should be your first clue. I'm not here to sell you product from some faceless brand so I can pick up the crumbs of their profits.
Yo!!! Black bear walking behind you at 9:05
That's my boi lol
I think that this is one of the most important videos thst you have made. IMHO!
Thanks!
Wow! Brilliant video.
Thanks!
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors You are welcome, good sir.
Bigfoot 9:25.... Far right
The problems with these people is the have no personal responsibility. They think that abortion is a human right. It’s not. Your human right is your actions. And you have the RIGHT to take precautions to not get pregnant (male n female). Once that choice is made and a pregnancy happens your rights end because that’s another human
🎯🎯🎯
Ultimately, human rights are derived from the "golden rule". I won't do a certain thing to another person, because I don't want to normalize that thing, because then it can be done to me. In their very essence, human rights are protections, not entitlements. Human rights are all about what someone shouldn't be able to do to the individual or a group, not what an individual or group can demand from others. God being my creator has nothing to do with me having human rights. It has everything to do with people respecting one another as conscious and sentient beings.
I disagree-
If rights were derived SOLELY on the golden rule they would be subjective.
We will all be judged by the same metric by the all mighty God- that metric is what our rights are based off of.
However the golden rule is CLOSE- but being subjective this concept is what people use against firearms ownership etc with "the right to feel safe"
You have no right to "feel safe" but people think of the golden rule and want to disarm themselves to disarm others.
This doesn't track.
@@Thepreppersbunkeroutdoors
Many people have prayed to God throughout history to enforce their human rights. Human rights, like all other laws and rules, are only as relevant as their enforcement. Gun rights are human rights, because they give ability to enforce human rights individually, or collectively as a group.
I just wanted to say I enjoy your channel, and I appreciate your arguments against the proabortionists. We don't have to agree on everything. The main reason leftists are uncomfortable with you owning firearms, is the ability to enforce your human rights, makes them uncomfortable.
@christophersteingart2237 I absolutely agree that we don't have to agree and it's enjoyable actually to disagree with people who are able to discuss things with some degree of ability.
I disagree that rights have anything to do with what is legal or what happens- I believe subjective morality is no morality- and subjective rights means no rights.
I believe in universal rights that every person has born anywhere and at any time on earth- whether they live in a situation where those rights are honored or not does not change whether or not those rights being honored or not is right or wrong.