[Wondergirl]

It says nothing about a higher standard of morality? Well, it certainly speaks of a higher standard which is Jefferson's point. Those certain rights are inalienable because they did not come from man but from God, and what higher standard do you want?

And you want to suggest that human rights bear no relationship to moral values? You really believe that the rights of humans have nothing to do with morality? It IS morality. Your liberal political persuasions have driven you away from the most obvious thing in world.

It isn't a definition of morality. And that ain't liberal thinking. Morality and human rights are not synonymous terms. Both are in the fruit basket, but one's an apple and one's an orange.

[jlisenbe]

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

[Wondergirl]

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

You are confused. That's not part of this discussion. Morality is NOT the same as human rights. The two terms are not synonymous.

[jlisenbe]

Morality is NOT the same as human rights.

Now you're ducking TWO questions. I frequently think that "Evasion" must be your middle name.

[Wondergirl]

Now you're ducking TWO questions. I frequently think that "Evasion" must be your middle name.

No, YOU are the stubborn one who refuses to admit that morality and human rights are two different animals. Do you own a dictionary?

[jlisenbe]

Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

[Wondergirl]

Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little.

I made a statement you disagreed with. The burden is on you now.

Guess I'll send you a dictionary for your birthday?

[jlisenbe]

Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions yet again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little. Are all liberals as afraid to answer questions as you are? So fearful. So hesitant. So devoid of answers.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

It's what I like about Tal. I don't usually agree with him, but he will generally answer questions UNLIKE YOU.

[Wondergirl]

Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions yet again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little. Are all liberals as afraid to answer questions as you are? So fearful. So hesitant. So devoid of answers.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

Mr. Evasion, I'm waiting.

[jlisenbe]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you so much!!

I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, your utter lack of seriousness bothers me, and I frequently think that being bothersome is your primary goal in all of this. Too bad. You could think if you'd try it. I think you don't out of fear of where it will take you.

[Wondergirl]

I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, your utter lack of seriousness bothers me, and I frequently think that being bothersome is your primary goal in all of this. Too bad. You could think if you'd try it. I think you don't out of fear of where it will take you.

I'll parrot that back to you -- I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, your utter lack of seriousness bothers me, and I frequently think that being bothersome is your primary goal in all of this. Too bad. You could think if you'd try it. I think you don't out of fear of where it will take you.

[jlisenbe]

I'll parrot that

That made me laugh. I hope you know why. Parroting seems to be what you are good at! You do at least amuse me.

Probably a vain hope, but just in case.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

[Wondergirl]

That made me laugh. I hope you know why. Parroting seems to be what you are good at! You do at least amuse me.

You, dear sir, are a master of deflection -- almost as good as Trump.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

I have yet to hear your explanation of how morality is the same as human rights.

[talaniman]

Here's a question for you, why am I obligated to feel as you do about anything because you think you are right? Haven't you ever noticed morality changes as does the laws around them. You seem to be stuck in your own ideas of morality, and there is no room for any other ideas. It's small wonder that when you disagree with someone you think they haven't answered the way you think they should.

Hey we all have those character flaws that keep us from being perfect. You're no different even assigning labels to people which is a form of name calling though it's okay when you do it. If you think it's true fine, if not that's okay too, but no matter what you think don't expect people to bend to your way of thinking and that doesn't make them wrong either.

It's okay to believe sticking your head up the dufus's arse shoulder deep is the right and moral thing to do, but rather foolish to expect me or anyone else to do it too.

[jlisenbe]

I have yet to hear your explanation of how morality is the same as human rights.

Since I haven't said that, then I don't need to explain it. You must learn to read more carefully. MUCH more carefully.

Here's a question for you, why am I obligated to feel as you do about anything because you think you are right?

You're not.

Haven't you ever noticed morality changes as does the laws around them.

Personal morality changes with the winds. The higher standard of morality that Jefferson appealed to does not change. That's why the rights he referred to are "inalienable".

You see, WG, how easy it is to simply answer questions? Try parroting me on this one.

It's okay to believe sticking your head up the dufus's arse shoulder deep is the right and moral thing to do, but rather foolish to expect me or anyone else to do it too.

A completely stupid and moronic thing to say. It's about what I'd expect from an ignorant fifth grader. I have to think you can express yourself better than that.

[Wondergirl]

Since I haven't said that, then I don't need to explain it. You must learn to read more carefully. MUCH more carefully.

Always the putdown that you think strengthens your comment. (It doesn't.)

Personal morality changes with the winds. The higher standard of morality that Jefferson appealed to does not change. That's why the rights he referred to are "inalienable".

You see, WG, how easy it is to simply answer questions? Try parroting me on this one.

Jefferson wasn't talking about morality; he was talking about human rights. (Hmm, haven't I posted that already? Sounds familiar....)

[jlisenbe]

Always the putdown that you think strengthens your comment. (It doesn't.)

You want me to explain something I've never said. You are putting yourself down when you do that. Don't blame me for it.

Jefferson wasn't talking about morality; he was talking about human rights. (Hmm, haven't I posted that already? Sounds familiar....)

That's fine as long as you can explain how you can have human rights without moral standards. You plainly can't, so the discussion is over.

[Wondergirl]

You want me to explain something I've never said. You are putting yourself down when you do that. Don't blame me for it.

You equated morality with civil rights. They aren't even close to being the same.

That's fine as long as you can explain how you can have human rights without moral standards. You plainly can't, so the discussion is over.

That isn't the question! You can't explain the difference, so you cut and run. You conservatives!

[jlisenbe]

You equated morality with civil rights.

No, I didn't. Once again you debase yourself. How much shame can you handle?

Whatever. Suit yourself. We can have human rights without moral standards. Congratulations on likely being the only person on the planet to believe such a ridiculous idea. I'll stick with Jefferson.

[talaniman]

Hilarious, the guy with his head shoulder deep up the dufus arse is lecturing people on morality! Only in America, is crap in your ears a status symbol.