Do they deserve rights ?

kaiser wrote:

The quote wasn't meant to be taken so literally. It merely serves to point out that individual rights are limited when they intersect with the rights of other individuals.

 

I believe i do know the distinction my dear sir. I was trying to continue this example to show that ,like what you mentioned,it is a right that limits individual right. But more importantly,to point out that the attempt or intention for crimes must also be stopped before its execution.

It's like tying a weight to your neighbour's shoulders and to yourself(the weight of alot of laws)

 

I see what you mean - although continually swinging your fist in front of a person's face as if to punch them is also harassing the poor guy.

 

Now my dear Ricky,who might you be talking to?

 

Sorry - that was to you Kaiser, old chap!

 

Now wouldn't that be what i was trying to tell our dear old Grieg over there in the States?

 

Yes, but I think that the dear old fruit* thought that you were taking him far too literally.

* 'old fruit' in this case was use of posh banter equal to 'dear old thing' and 'old chap' - it is not intended to carry the limp-wristed connotation that it does in the US.

 

Can't blame him,it's pure nightmare to be talking to someone that sometimes doesn't know what he is talking about.(in case your wondering,why i am talking about myself of course!)

 

I thought you where talking about now the 21st century i've heard of the crusades and the idea to force the to christianity or death they did that to alot of trible people they found

and bye the way i think the way you limeys talk is quit fastinating

No offence bye the limeys remark i hope

 

None at all Yank!

 

Bloody Colonials....... :kill:

 

we'll even if we didnt have a revolution i bet that we would of broken off mabe you would of let us go anyways like Canada well that is i think you let the canadians go. The one time the french come out and help someone else was ehen they helped us at yorktown.We payed the them back for saving themin the first and secound world war's

 

lo,,but you didn't save the French monarchy in the French Revolution when he needed you most.IT was them that payed for your war of independence to a large extent.
But that is out of point.

TD,for your information,i am not British,just a normal Chinese Singaporean.
The reason why i talked like one(if indeed you are talking about me TD me mate),was because Singapore followed a British education system which left us writting and at times,talking like them.hahah

 

kaiser wrote:

The French monarchy was far more interested in poking a stick in England's eye than in helping America gain independence.
The French Revolution was in part inspired by the American one...though it's excesses and looniness was entirely home grown.

 

Though just as obviously, no English and French philosophers = no American revolution.

TD: I will not have any of your anti-French sentiment here, we've been through that.

 

roel wrote:

Um..one would have to be a fool to deny the European roots of America. Without Europe our country wouldn't exist...another one would of course, populated by indigenous peoples, but not anything like the one that does exist today.

 

Well that's true Grieg,but imho,a favour's a favour don't you agree?

 

Actually the french monarchy never expected any help in return from the US.
On the contrary, the young french Republic expected help from their american brothers, as it was figthing the combined monarchies of Europe from 1791-1815....

 

True, just like the US in WW2 was more interested in defeating Germany than in liberating France....

 

In either case,help did not come did they?(anyway,before anyone says i am anti-usa,i'm not.US Aegis Cruisers keep my country free.)