Translate

Thursday, 12 June 2014

Human rights are a conceptual nonsense

Complaining Canadian Facebook friend:

Human rights are incompatable with freedoms. When you start favoring human rights you start curtailing freedoms. Thought crime is the inevitable result of human rights. Just see Canada and its marxist Human Rights Commission. Thought crime is alive and well in Canada.

It is a nonsense anyway. All rights are human rights. All the rights humans can conceive of are human rights. Do non-humans even know what rights are?

Its very premise is NONSENSICAL.

While there are such concepts as mineral rights and animal rights, these rights can only be asserted through human agency.

"Human rights" are really legal rights which can only be asserted through the law, and the law changes from time to time, according to fashions of thinking. Only what is supposed to be God's laws remain the same, as any attentive reading of the Bible and Koran would reveal that they both promote the same moral values. Even feminists do not deny that all the Abrahamic faiths promote marriage and forbid extramarital sex whose purpose is to maintain the patriarchy. It is of course the patriarchy that it is their intention to destroy, because they hate men and want to trash all male achievements out of sheer malice and ignorance and then substitute our advanced civilisation with their matriarchal shit of a pornocracy.

Who is a feminist?


  1. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to repeal the Equality Act 2010
  2. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to abolish no fault divorce
  3. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to acknowledge that the practice of respecting the institution of marriage must necessarily and logically mean forbidding extramarital sex
  4. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to even discuss the moral imperative of forbidding extramarital sex
  5. Anyone - male or female - who does not wish the law to support marriage through making it advantageous for people to be married
  6. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to contemplate slut-shaming as a means of bringing irresponsible and immoral women to order
  7. Anyone - male or female - who refuses to condemn SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts
  8. Anyone - male or female - who cannot agree with http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/how-to-score-womans-morals-from-perfect.html 


"If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."

In other words, the superior man (and woman) must be capable of rational thought and not be fearful of challenging current orthodoxy by arguing his case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/british-values-and-what-i-would-like.html
British values are not an ideal, merely the status quo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSVYYiv_clU&list=UUqnbu3dpuqx7O3KRgZQarnA#t=80
Is Britain a Christian country?  

No comments: