this sounds like "your digital strawman" LOL peoples God given rights
no longer matters.... all that is respected is your "digital strawman"

sorry to push the tread even further away.... but im sick of all the
b0llox about im leaving n900 and all the rest of it. i thought this new
conversation is looking way better than the original one

anyway sorry for the off topic push but i guess he didn't have no
rights too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uftbIpgiN0

CN

Depends entirely on the country. I'm guessing based on comments and the video itself that it's in the USA.

But if you go to a country in that's not part of the UN and/or if the government does not have laws or rights, or even a stable government (such as Somalia) rights don't exist. It sucks, but it's reality.

This doesn't look like a good joke.

Anyway, I'm glad you like N900.

Have you noticed you have been called a liar several times?

Next time you want to make such a joke, make sure it is April The First.

Please, type capital letters, or next time I might reply with CAPS LOCK turned on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All is well that ends well.

In all seriousness, shaad, this is bad comedy.

It would be very hard to believe that you're not conveniently, sheepishly claiming that in an epic attempt to save your tattered reputation. You've earned yourself the title of being untrustworthy. Welcome to the Andy Kaufman Club--where you're unwelcome everywhere, practice misogyny and nobody can ever tell the difference between your lies and your joking around. Perhaps you can brush up on your skills and try again one day when the people here have forgotten who you are--or perhaps repeat the same mistake and never quite fit in again.

As I said before, you claim to be educated. Let's see if you can also be civil. Your move.

shaad: overclocks N900, tries to install Nitroid, lives in Canada, likes N900 and doesn't like symbian.

The most likely reason for posting this thread and then telling it's a joke is a volatile temper, I suppose. He likes Android, he tries Nitroid, he possibly cannot install it, he likes MeeGo, he wants it, but there is no MeeGo device around, etc.

Don't accuse shaad of malevolence.

Good wishes to everybody.

OBJECTION! Irrelevant argument! Go back to the penalty box until we're ready to let you back into the game.

I apologize for the formatting of this post.

#71 (Benny1976)

Unfortunately, you should probably ask for your money back from whatever school taught you law. Humans were born into a natural state of absolute freedom. The only thing that constricts us is the
law. And where does the law come from. Lets see shall we.

When we moved from a natural state of absolute freedom to the more conventional civilizations and societies that we see today, we entered into what many call the social contract. That is WE gave over to certain groups or individuals (throughout history these have been tribal leaders, Kings, parliaments, etc.) a portion of OUR sovereignty and power IN EXCHANGE FOR certain benefits (protection, order, etc.)

WE gave to THEM the power and the authority to govern us, not the other way around. And when they abused it, we, in many cases, took that power and authority back and rewrote the contract. Human rights were there long before the enlightenment. I learned in my classical political philosophy course that the ancient Greeks understood the concept of rights inherent to the individual by virtue of their existence, not subject to the whims and petulence of a Ceasar or any other man. The concept may not have been totally expounded upon, but the writings of Plato and Socrates are there for you to read for yourself.

The fact that that the UN or any other organization had to set those concepts down in writing doesn't mean that that was the moment in time in which those concepts came into being. That's terribly illogical logic. When the founders of this country (the US) wrote the Bill of Rights, they weren't saying that these are the rights the government is allowing to you the citizens, they were saying "These are some of the rights inherent to you as human beings, and we are setting them down here to let the government know that violations of these rights will result in the same ***-kicking we gave to King George" (more or less).

#74 (Geneven)

You can't walk into my house because that would be trespassing you dope. You can stand outside my house if you want as long as you're not on my property.

But beyond that, lets look at your premise (using your example), in which the government gransts us our rights. So what would happen without the government?

(So government does not exist and by your logic, no rights exist because there is no government, and we as individuals have no inherent inalienable rights.)

- So you walk into my house uninvited. There is no government to protect me or you, so basically one of us is going to die. I will kill you for coming into my house, or you will kill me for trying to kill you. Would I be justified in trying to kill you? Absolutely. Why? You tell me. Could it be because I have a RIGHT to self-preservation and the fruits of my labor (which you probably came to steal). If you don't think so, please explain.

#77 (Anthonie)

I'm gonna ignore your baby argument cause its just idiotic on so many levels.

"Yes it is. Some nations have more, some have less. Hell.. Even within nations some people seem to have more of it than others..."

Yeah, and some nations slaughter their people by the thousands. What do you say to those people? "Um...Sorry, but you have no right to life because this particular government just isn't feeling like
letting you live today. Sorry and thanks for playing."?

Could you be any more daft?

"There is no "inherent right" to labor, housing or getting food in your belly. If there is in the place where you live, than brace yourself for it, for your government chose to grant you those rights (FWIW). You do know that in some parts of the world
they have a different set of the "universal" human rights?"

first, when I say "labor" I am not talking about a job. I am talking about the right to, if I wanted to, go out and kill a deer, or take the skin from that deer and make a coat and sell it. I am talking about the act of labor, something that I don't dependon anyone else for, it is inherent to my person by virtue of my will (i.e. desire) and ability.

Second, I have no right to housing. That is one of those made-up rights that I was talking about in my first post. I have a right to build shelter for myself, but I don't have a right to demand that someone else build it for me. I have a right to get food for myself, I don't have a right to demand that someone else provide it for me. both of these things fall under "labor" (i.e. those things that I can and must do do for myself to survive).

So in this respect, you are right. When you talk about welfare, public housing, etc, those things aren't rights, because at any time the government can take those things away from you arbitrarily. Those things should more properly be called "conveniences"
because they are legal creations that the government feels are beneficial to the society overall, but they are not
inherent to you as a human being. Social Security and Medicaid ARE NOT RIGHTS, they are a convenience, better yet, they
are CONTRACTS, which the government at any time could discontinue (for those who haven't paid into the system probably). So whats the lesson here? IF IT DEPENDS ON SOMEONE ELSES BENEVOLENCE, THEN ITS NOT A RIGHT!

As far as understanding the subject, my level of understanding in these matters far surpasses yours, most of your arguments (e.g. "what?") highlight your lack of...how should I put this gently... intellectual capacity.

#78 (Wikiwide)

Wikiwide, thank you for your post, this was partly the distincion I was trying to make with my last point about "real" rights. Natural rights are the rights that I am talking about, whereas the legal rights are things that have been created (i.e right to the internet in Sweden) and (at least in my opinion) falsely labeled as "rights".

---------

And just for the record, even though I also have a law degree, my knowledge of these matters didn't come from those studies. I learned these things long before I went to law school because it was important to me to understand the relationship between citizens and the government. I shudder when I see people saying that we have no rights but what the government (or the UN) gives us. And if you get shot in the street in Iran while protesting a stolen election, it's your fault. You should have known better. It's the antitheses of everyting I beleive about the role we play in society.

These guys writing those farewell letters here all the time should open a bloody facebook account and announce their intentions there instead. That's the place where knumbskulls write utterly mundane stuff about their boring noob-life which noone has any interest in.
Goodbye, go to android and their slow java-apps or whatever crap you prefer about them. Good riddance!

you probably want to brush up on your historical knowledge, the greeks had no "universal" human rights as we understand it today. slavery was commonplace (and actually "sanctioned") in ancient greece.

the way you put it, it sounds like governments somehow took away people's inherent human rights, when actually it has been the other way round - societies fought long and hard (and bloody) so that human rights could come into existence in the first place, and only after the "contracts" in form of constitutions were written down and agreed upon, this concept became more than just an intangible ideal.
many people were (and today still are) born into slavery. yes, they are humans too and are entitled to human rights - from _our_ point of view.
human rights mean nothing if they are not respected, and the only way to at least try to assure that respect is to make them into law.

the US are a good example that even that isn't enough. if you're powerful enough, you can still do what the f*ck you want and get away with it. i'm still waiting for the war trials against bush & co.