Siro goes to to pre-military training

[Jon Miller]

I dub thee the thread of long posts

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

Why assume there is a "God", I don't.

You were saying that if someone "created" life, He would have moral authority over me. Why can't I apply a God to the argument?

I'm trying to see how your idea of creation giving morally authority is justifed. If you don't like talking about God, you can talk about "some dude from the Alpha Centauri system who have started life on Earth."

What is your morality tied to?

My brain. My emotions.

Because you would not exist without my effort.

The same could be said of my parents.

Because I don't own you.

And?

And without the creation of life, they wouldn't exist. And you wouldn't exist if the "creator" had not instilled in your parents (and theirs) the desire to procreate.

But you just said that the "creator" has moral authority over me because I would not exist without his effort; why isn't the same true for my parents?

You are the one who insists on introducing "God", not me.

God, that dude from Alpha Centauri, makes no difference from me.

Then this debate is meaningless, I thought I was dealing with someone who was serious. Do you have evidence for this?

Extremely likely is not equivalent to "self-evident."

Then wouldn't I have proof to back this up? I don't.

That doesn't invalidate my assertion. You said that your assertion was "self-evident." Fine. Prove it.

Humans did not create life, they were created by that which created life.

So that dude from Alpha Centauri didn't "create" life. Only "God" did (the first one, apparantly)? So why can't I use "God" instead of "creator?"

Because you have the moral authority over that which you create because it belongs to you.

Why?

Then "God" wouldn't be "God", would he?

Why not? What if God A lived a while, and then created God B and destroyed himself, and then God B created the Earth.

The difference between conception and creation is that conception is how life perpetuates itself, not how life began.

What's the real distinction? Surely, you're not using something as totally aribitrary as that for your natural rights argument.

Btw, the first human is long gone. As for "God", did your parents create the DNA that constitutes your body? Nope.

And again, why is that relevant? All this "creation" stuff sounds like nonsense to me.

Can't or won't? I choose not to depend on a moral system devised by someone who can't explain why something is or is not immoral.

I choose not to depend on a moral system that purports a universality that doesn't exist.

Why does coercion violate your definition of morality?

Because that's how my moral system is defined.

Would that be the human mind that dreamed up mass murder as a political tool?

Yep. Some people consider that moral. I consider that immoral, but I don't consider it to be absolutely immoral.

Strange you would claim morality stems from the human mind when you can't explain why something is immoral.

Not strange. I can't use certaink kinds of assertions, due to the fact that its tied to the human mind, for the explanation you want.

Dogs don't have a "government", why do they defend their turf so strenuously?

Natural selection.

Meaning you wouldn't resent the situation?

No, I would indeed resent the situation.

We all would, natural rights can be detected by identifying universal traits and behavorial characteristics.

How so?

And how is resentment of servitude universal? Plenty of people seem to like our government...

But you just said ownership can't exist without government, so why would your slavemaster own you?

Government, I define, as a person or organization with coercive authority over others. If he has coercive authority over me, he would by my government.

Ramo, I think you'd better quit before...you get even more behind

Bah, you're just a dirty Randist.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
While Israeli society holds military service as a prerequisite to get anywhere. It's not quite as considerate as it sounds.

Not true.

Military service is prerequisite to get security related jobs only.

There are arab MKs, soldiers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, workers... what ever.

And that doesn't justify conscription of non-Arabs.

That specifically doesn't. I just explain that Israel isn't as evil and inconsiderate as you might think.

You want to fight for you country, fine, but don't force others who may also have moral conflicts with being in the armed services.

The armed service is a pre-requisite of citizenship here. It's part of the terms. Your morals are very nice, but there's that and there's reality.

Those who have moral conflicts about defending Israel, must have moral conflicts about Israel existing in the first place, and should therefore leave.

If you're talking about morality regarding illegal orders, people are free to reject illegal orders.

Do you have a source?

"...the lands we buy, mostly, from the owners of big mansions... when we buy such property, we push away it's previous workers compltely. True, we dont' send them away empty handed, we pay them for the buildings and gardens generously, and don't get stingy in the "al-fatir" days as well. From the point of view of justice and formal integrity we are complete saints and go before judgement."

"The Shiloah" jewish newspaper, issue 27, 1907.

There was hardly any legal responsibility for peasants in the Ottoman Empire, particularly after the Ottoman Land Code of 1858. Feudal lords could dispossessed peasants of their land without any legal hassle...

So what's the problem

No, it doesn't. If A implies B, A can't be true while B is false.

You can't minimilise this to pure logic.

I haven't the slightest idea what' we're talking about

That's not a justification...

And you're avoiding my points.

If you want to undo unjustices, start with your own - indian and mexican lands occupied and annexed by USA.

Furthermore, war conditions are excellent justification for nationalizing private land.

It might be immoral, but it is legitimate and justified.

You'd rather have them killed? Would you stay in your home, if it was a likely battlefield? Their problem, my arse.

The battle field was created as a result of the Arab agression.

Why should Israel bear the responsability alone?

Source?

My unit stormed and passed the first row of houses. I was among the first to enter the village. There were a few other guys with me, each encouraging the other to advance. At the top of the street I saw a man in khaki clothing running ahead. I thought he was one of ours. I ran after him and told him, "advance to that house." Suddenly he turned around, aimed his rifle and shot. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was hit in the foot
- Uri Milstein, History of Israel's War of Independence. Vol. IV, (Lanham: University Press of America. 1999), p. 262.

[i/]“Paradoxically, the Jews say about 250 out of 400 village inhabitants [were killed], while Arab survivors say only 110 of 1,000.” * A study by Bir Zeit University, based on discussions with each family from the village, arrived at a figure of 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," evidence that the number of dead was smaller than claimed and that the village did have troops based there.** Other Arab sources have subsequently suggested the number may have been even lower.***[/q]

* Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948, (OH: New American Library, Inc., 1970), p. 148.
** Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi, "Deir Yassin," Monograph No. 4, Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project, (Bir Zeit: Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, 1987), p. 55.
*** Sharif Kanaana, "Reinterpreting Deir Yassin," Bir Zeit University, (April 1998).

In fact, the attackers left open an escape corridor from the village and more than 200 residents left unharmed. For example, at 9:30 A.M., about five hours after the fighting started, the Lehi evacuated 40 old men, women and children on trucks and took them to a base in Sheikh Bader. Later, the Arabs were taken to East Jerusalem. Seeing the Arabs in the hands of Jews also helped raise the morale of the people of Jerusalem who were despondent from the setbacks in the fighting to that point.41 Another source says 70 women and children were taken away and turned over to the British. * If the intent was to massacre the inhabitants, no one would have been evacuated.

* "Dayr Yasin," Bir Zeit University.

After the remaining Arabs feigned surrender and then fired on the Jewish troops, some Jews killed Arab soldiers and civilians indiscriminately. None of the sources specify how many women and children were killed (the Times report said it was about half the victims; their original casualty figure came from the Irgun source), but there were some among the casualties.

At least some of the women who were killed became targets because of men who tried to disguise themselves as women. The Irgun commander reported, for example, that the attackers "found men dressed as women and therefore they began to shoot at women who did not hasten to go down to the place designated for gathering the prisoners."* Another story was told by a member of the Haganah who overheard a group of Arabs from Deir Yassin who said "the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and killed the Arabs in the area."**

* Yehoshua Gorodenchik testimony at Jabotinsky Archives.
** Milstein, p. 276

And were these villagers allowed back into their land after the war?

Were jewish residents of Jerusalem allowed back into their land after the war?

[Bereta_Eder]

Siro, when are you going to go to the army? (do you know?)

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Being able to move doesn't make the draft moral.

No, it doesn't make it illegal too.

Your government protects your right of life. In order to protect it, it has to have an army, to protect it from others. As a reponsible citizen you have a duty to participate in the shared effort of the army, just the same way you pay taxes and social security, most of which doesn't go directly to serve your personal interest.

But they do force you into conflicts.

So, infact what you expect is the govt. to protect you, but you're not willing to risk your life for it?

Comparing the Nazis to Palestinian bombers ignores that the Nazis murdered people out of hatred while Palestinians murder over stolen lands and abuse.

Shows how much you know

First read about the "knife in the nation's back" myth and the versailles accords.

Then read, about the hatred and anti-semitism in the PLO and Arab school books.

And science has found this gene? No, this guy is speculating... He didn't find a self-defense gene, this is BS.

You work in science and you determined there isn't such a gene?

I think you're bull****ting.

Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't make it false.

Soon you'll deny the moon landing because you never witnessed it in person?

Of course it's unrelated, you brought it up, not me.

It's related.
But you're so eager to argue with me, that you try to refute claims over which you have no authority - like this research made by a russian scientist.

Untill you've reached a level of knowledge in genetics similar to him, and can refute him, I'll take the scientist's word over yours

Equating space travel with speculations about genes allegedly preventing Neandertals putting up a unified defense is illogical. We don't even know why the Neandertals went extinct, yet this guy claims their genes were the culprit? Was cold fusion a fact simply because another American scientist discovered electricity?

You don't know why neandertals went extinct.

I've seen quite many interesting theories about it, and while none were claiming to be the only reason, I'm sure they all together contributed to their extinction.

You're ruling out an interesting theory, just because you, a nobody in science (as far as i know) don't agree with it.

And did he say he refused to support the local sheriff? I'm waiting for proof, not repeated claims asserting your original argument.

His rights for security is protected by the military much the same as the local sherif. It depends on the level of the threat.

Yup. If you say we have an obligation to act on someone else's behalf, a contract will show consent.

When you become a citizen, you sign a contract that you will protect this country in case of war.

You don't sign a seporate contract for each war.

That's what I do before signing a contract, don't you?

I do.
I see the rights given to me by the state of Israel, and I agree that I have to participate in the defence of the state.

You don't sign a different contract for each war.

Furthermore, your chase for personal gain from each thing, and selfishness are not things to be proud of.

Is that a contract people signed, or just an obligation some people imposed on others? If they signed it, did small children also sign it?

People here are aware of it.
If they don't wish to serve, they can try to acvoid it by presenting their moral problems with it, or leave the country for good before reaching 18.

You're not proving you have a contractual obligation to serve in the army, only that it might be a good reason.

The law that makes draft obligatory for civilians over 18 makes it a contractual obligation.

By living in this country you're in a contract to follow it's laws.

So you don't ask "why" when others force you to fight and/or die for their security? "Just following orders" didn't save the Nazi underlings at Nuremburg.

It's idiotic and unrelated.

Obviously the right to disobey illegal orders is protected by law and honoured.

However to compare army service to war crimes, or to necessarily equate them is both idiotic and demagogical.

Then stop fighting and give the land back. Maybe that'll stop your opponents from fighting since they seem to be fighting to get their land back.

No, they're fighting because they want "all their land" back, even that which isn't really theirs.

Jews came and settled in either their own, or publically owned lands since the 1880s. The arabs didn't like it, but that's no justification to call it "theirs".

It's just like white folk protest when black people come to live in "their" neighbourhood.

These wars taught me it is moral to kill people resisting my theft of their land? Hmm...they taught me the opposite...

So quote him saying he refuses to support the local sheriff.

local sherif is their to deal with local criminals.
the army is there to deal with foreign countries.

this is just like jury duty.

But did they start WWI? I offered two questions, not one.

It's irrelevant if they started it.

Imposing such harsh conditions was wrong, and did lead to war eventually.

Not if they were the aggressor in WWI. And it wasn't Austria and Poland that imposed Versailles upon them anyway so their claims weren't even germaine.

Alright, let's use your logic - agressors have no claim in results after war.

Therefore, since Arabs started 1947 war over "we don't want jews in our neighbourhood" claim, they should have no claim over the results - Israel occupied most of the west palestine.

If their claims were valid, the claims should have been resolved peacefully before the evil regime came to power. About 14 years went by between Versailles and Hitler.

Exactly.
But sadly, they weren't.
And their appeasement during Hitler's regime was just as wrong, as it lead to a war.

I did, the UN doesn't have the moral authority to hand me your property.

Then the UN is illegitimate and let's leave it out of any further discussion.

We've had this discussion before. If an Indian can provide proof his ancestors owned my land, I will return it to him.

The US government destroys such evidence:

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,45717,00.html

The fact is, most of the land here was not owned by anyone.

The fact is, most of the land jews settled pre 1948, was either bought by them, or not owned by anyone.

The arabs' reason for war was "we don't want jews in our neighbourhood".

There wasn't any land stealing. Never did the jews empose the 1947 or division plans.

Had I been around back then, I would have opposed stealing and keeping Indian land. Why do you try to justify the ongoing theft of land? Pointing to another's immorality to justify Israeli immorality is called a rationalization.

Why do you keep ignoring your immorality and justifying it on the basis that anyone who could prove it is by now dead?

And then you have the guts to blame me of the same?

Why not?

My answer was the next sentance.

Also, if you don't get it, then it's sad.

Legalising theft doesn't make the theft moral. You keep jumping back and forth between individual countries and the world. If a majority of the rest of the world told Israelis they were being immoral and invaded Israel, would you accept their definition of morality?

I wouldn't like it, but I hadn't much choise.

Furthermore, there was no theft.

No, the UN delegitimized itself by assuming the moral authority to hand one people land stolen from another.

There wasn't land stolen.

Previously to 1948 jews settled on no one's land, or bought land.

After 1948, during the war, Israel conquered and annexed land in wars, started by arab agression.

You yourself legitimised it, by saying that previously that since Germany was the agressor in WWI and WWII, it had to accept the results of the wars.

Then Israel isn't planning on giving the land back, true? So why claim you'll must stop the fighting before returning stolen lands?

How is returning 4+ Million refugees equal to returning 1967 conquered land?

But it does have to be an international treaty. You said the Nazis had some agreement with other nations not to murder Germans. They didn't. So upon what basis would you condemn the Nazis for murdering so many people within their own country and society?

It's not an agreement but rather an understanding.

And the Nazis knew that, since they actively tried to erase evidence about this, knwoing that the rest of the world would jduge them for it.

That punishment came after WWII and the repeated invasions of other nations, not because of what Germans were doing to Germans. And any punishment that came after WWII is irrelevant to your claim that the Nazis were punished for violating some fictional international agreement.

I dont' get your claims.

You claim that punishment of German war crimianls had no relation to the genocide?

Of course, I never said they weren't. We are talking about natural rights, not laws. If Nazi law allowed for the mass murder of Germans, why would you condemn the Nazis?

Because I don't give any law or moral a "natural" throne, but rather find my own moral and try to enforce it.

You've offered this indictment before, but can't offer a logical explanation to refute natural rights.

Sure I can - rights have to emminate from something.

There's no natural force that decided upon such rights.

It's we who decided to give these rights the "natural" label, which is what you don't understand.

And this label, means that we, modern wester democracies usually take them for granted.

It doesn't make them real or more moral than other morals per se.

Claiming that the Nazis should have been condemned for murdering millions of Germans simply because they allegedly agreed with foreign nations not to murder these people is absurd.

Claiming that the Nazis should have been condemned for breaking some "natural" moral code which exists on it's own is more absurd.

Would that mean the mass murder should not be condemned if foreign nations agreed with the slaughter?

You are so limited that you can't see beyond your tiny little head.

Your morals are not any better than mine. Get it.

It's exactly this line of thought, applied to less friendly morals, that brought WWII.

Whomever or whatever created him. He's alive isn't he? Did you create him? Nope, so why do you have the moral authority to end his life?

According to socially accepted morals in my (western) society I have the moral authority to do certain things, to protect the rights of other peoples.

So why would you condemn the Nazis for the mass murder of Germans?

Because my morals instruct me to do so. And because the most of the world shares them.

Then why would you defend yourself from an attacker?

Because my morals which say that I should defend myself.

Natural rights are moral or just claims individuals have and make on their own behalf. Do you have a moral claim to live? If not, murdering you wouldn't be immoral, true?

Depending on whose morals.

There are no objective and superior morals, since there is no authority to make them, and they aren't part of nature, like, say, physical laws.

Then the majority has the moral authority to murder or enslave you and your family.

If that's their morals and they are the majority, then according to their morals they do.

According to mine they don't.

Did you create life? If not, who or what did? If you didn't create other humans, what moral claim do you have to impose upon them your will?

Did you create Natural Rights? Did you create Israel? If not, what moral claim do you have to impose Natural Rights upon Israel?

Can you quote me claiming this "deity" exists?

Your assumption of existance of a prioric natural rights is essentially equivalent to assumption of a deity and a deity's laws.

So sacrificing thousands of people as the Aztecs did was moral because that was what their society did?

In the eyes of their society it was moral.

You're very ethno-chrono-centric, you know that?

I just refuted your strawman and you ignore the refutation? Take a poll ("consensus") - how many people here think the combined intellect of the Founders is inferior to notyoueither's intellect.

My claim is that just as the notion that the founders are smart comes from a concensus, rights and morals come from it as well.

So your claim that politicians stopped doing what they wanted and doing what the majority wants (even in democracies) is wrong.

I have no idea how you reached that.

My point is that morals, just like anything else, is concensus based.

[Sirotnikov]

Sure I can, society doesn't have the moral authority to murder people because society did not create the victims. If society doesn't own you, it lacks the moral authority to take what does not belong to it.

So if my parents created me, they have the right to kill me?
Or if they didn't, then what ever thing that did has such right?

Wrong again, I never said society was ruled by anything.

You don't claim that your morals should be applied to society?

Whomever or whatever created life. Since we didn't create each other, we don't have the moral authority to steal what was given to each of us.

Again, this is very simplistic.

Then whatever created us does have such moral authority?

According to your logic, it does, i guess.

The freedom of speech doesn't include slander and fraud. Freedom has a specific meaning, it doesn't mean we can do whatever we want. I don't have the right to lie about others...

Says who?

What is a "menace" to society? A murderer? By definition, murderers have violated the freedom and life of their victim.

says who?

Murder is not an act of freedom,

says who?

therefore prohibiting murder doesn't violate anyone's freedom.

How about the murderer's?

The policeman's (courts) authority to stop or punish murderers stems from the victim's right to self-defense based on the victim's self-ownership - natural rights.

how come his right to self-defence extends to the policeman's right to use it?

"Risking" me? That's too vague. But so what? This policeman is acting morally on my behalf because I can act morally on my behalf,

who granted him that power?

could i claim I'm acting on your behalf any time I will?

not because the majority decided I can act morally on my behalf.

exactly for that reason

If this was up to the majority, slavery would be moral if the majority said so.

slavery would be moral according to their morals.

again, there isn't some divine "right" and "wrong".

You seem to be locked in the idea that the morals you consider right, are obviously right and above every other set of morals- infact, you bleieve that your morals are the only ones that exist.

Hiring a policeman to defend me doesn't limit my rights.

Did you hire the entire police force?
Did every single person in the USA hire the police force?

Nope.
The states and federal government did.
Why?
Because of the concensus of the people of thier authority to do so.

I've read their writings, ever hear of books? Sheesh.

So you agree that these morals eminate from their very intellectual, rather than from some natural phenomena?

Sure it is, it's called a contract.

Did you personally sign a contract with the USA government?

Why does it depend on the case?

Because in some cases they'd be trying to hide things which the people would consider immoral, and would be abusing their power. In other cases, they would be trying to hide things which should be hidden, such as potencial threats to your security.

I have proven it repeatedly, you are the one who cannot prove that morality is defined by a consensus within society.

I've yet to see your proof.

I proved that morality is defined by a consensus since you yourself rely on the consensus over the morality as defined by the founders of the USA.

One of the founders happenned to discover electricity - a natural phenomena.

He didn't ahppen to discover natural rights - he reached them using intellectual thought.

When I've cited crimes committed by societal majorities, you bring in fictional international agreements as if majorities in other countries now have the authority to define morality if the majority within a certain society doesn't define morality as you define it. So what if this international majority doesn't define morality as you define it?

Then I've the power to enforce my morality.

No morality is more just since there is no objective scale.

You continue to claim that morality is a-priori and natural but failed to prove it's existance outside of the bounds of society.

Instead, each time you say something like "how can A be considered moral????" which is completely based on your personal morals.

Then explain why you condemn the Nazis, not for committing mass murder, but for violating some non-existent international agreement.

Again, there is no self eminent moral.

The nazis were well aware of that, and were trying to hide thier deeds from the rest of the world, knowing that they would be judged.

I do? When did I say morality as I define it rules the world?

Because what you define "natural rights" is part of your morality, and you apply it to the rest of the world, as if it was the definite definition of morality.

I don't accept morality based on what foreigners think, how did I contradict that? You were the one who claimed morality is defined by foreigners after claiming morality was defined by societal consensus.

By definition foreigners are not part of the national society.
They are however a society in which the nation exists.

And again, you contradict yourself, by claiming that Israel should accept morality based on what you view as natural rights.

You jumped from the latter to the former when I brought up the Nazis which clearly refuted the "societal consensus" argument. The contradictions are in your arguments, not mine.

Nope, you still claim you don't see a societal consensus, while the nazis did see one.

You should learn to answer questions, what do these have to do with my question?

Your questions loose grip with reality.

I again ask you to see beyond the notion that your opinion is based upon natural morals which constitute ultimate justice.

True, do we know for a fact that Israelis stole Arab land? Yup.

No, we don't. Infact I know for a fact that it didn't happen.

If you know the countrary, please bring examples.

I'd call that evidence, legitimacy is a term describing the results of a successful search for truth.

Legitimacy is a term describing compliance to accepted morals, irrelevant from the whole truth.

A picture created from the whole truth according to morals is "justification".

At least that's how I describe it.

If you wish to use other words to describe it, I'll happily agree.

But I imagine your problem is that you don't see the possibility of any morals detached from some ultimate truth, which is unreachable.

Why do you resent "theft" as a description? If Israel has a legitimate claim to those lands, wouldn't giving them to Palestinians effectively be stealing them from the rightful Israeli owners?

I resented theft as a description of the Jewish and Israeli actions.

Furthermore, if it will later be agreed to change ownership of some lands, whether by Israel, or international consensus, it wouldn't be theft.

"Absolute" justice requires returning the land to it's rightful owners, not any "state" or country. But we agree that won't happen.

The palestinian residents owned palestinian lands, mostly, just as much as indians owned lands in america, which you already described as "free". The rest was in the hands of rich owners, from whom jews purchased the lands.

This was my question:

Again, it is legitimate for me to kill someone who threatens me.

It would be unjust however, if for instance, I'm a criminal and the one I kill is a policemen. But it's still legitimate.

Then "societal constructs" of rights and morality is meaningless, you believe the "world" defines morality. And the rest of the world didn't decide this, WWII didn't begin until after the Nazis invaded multiple countries.

Because the world chose to overlook Nazi crimes. Not because they didn't exist.

Furthermore, the rest of the world didn't accuse the Nazis of immorality for slaughtering people, perhaps a majority of the world decided their conduct was immoral. And that begs the question, if the majority in a society cannot define rights and morality, why can majorities in other societies define rights and morality throughout the world?

If those societies together make the world majority, then they can enforce their vision of morality.

What if this world majority decided you didn't have the moral right to live and murdered you, would their decision and act be moral? Nope.

Depends on whose morals you judge this.

You still think that there is some a-priori morality.

I don't have a right to be exempt from death, I have a right to not be murdered. And don't introduce "equality" into this debate, you've got enough strawmen in here already.

That's your interpertation of the rights.

You again don't feel comfortable with any interpertation but the one you like.

That's your argument, not mine. And your argument puts you in the position of defending crimes committed by the majority as moral if the majority says it's moral.

I'm not saying they are moral according to some ultimate moral. I make no claim about such moral except that it isn't there.

Repeating the same claim isn't proof.

You still haven't prooved the existance of such morals.

I prooved the lack of such morals, in many examples brought that show that morals do not exist outside society and are result of the human intellect.

Explain how the moral right to life justifies mass murder.

I made no claim about the moral right to life as you see it justifying mass murder.

I said that when people begin to believe that some of their morals are absolute, they use them to justify mass murder.

The Nazis believed that their morals of ultimate race were abosulte enough to justify genocide.

The christians and muslims beleived that their morals were absolute enough to justify slaughter and genocide.

No, the problem stems from people who reject natural rights and assume the authority to define morality based on their subjective desires.

The problem is with people who can't comprehend that morality is their subjective desires.

When you see that, you become much more responsible with morality, rather then when you believe it's natural.

Your argument would mean the majority, not just in a country, but in the world, defines morality. When did the world take a poll?

Nice simplistic question.

When were natural rights discovered?
How?
In a laboratory?

Wouldn't this mean homosexuals and witches could morally be put to death if the majority of the world said they were immoral?

Yes this could happen, and already did.

You judge by your own moral that it's wrong.

Almost a majority of people live in East Asia, if they believe certain behaviors are immoral and worthy of death and you and I disagree, are they right?

They are right within their own society.
They are wrong according to our perceptions.

We can try and force our perceptions over theirs. Infact we do.

Prove it.

Because jews weren't murdered in such an organized fashion since the beginning of time until WWII and again weren't murdered in such a way since.

Huh?

People who think ethno-centrically => crimes.

No, but the fact I didn't create the Jews means I lack the moral authority to take what belongs to them. A natural right is a moral or just claim to act, do Jews have a moral or just claim to exist?

Again, you've yet to prove the existance of morality on it's own.

Prove to me a morality outside of soceity, if you will.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Freaking long threads... makes it harder to

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Freaking long threads... makes it harder to

I always thought it made it easier, spammer

Jon Miller