₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
No. There has never been any right of immigration
You erroneously believe that because Abraham migrated, it makes migration a right while it is not so. Even God told Abraham that he's a stranger in the land and he'll give the land to his children. Guess how that happened? By conquest!! So where's the right there?
Just as DeepSight is arguing, if there was right of migration, the European settlers would have been welcomed by the natives in America and there shouldn't have been a need for the bloodshed that trailed their attempt to settle there.
My point is you can't have rights without a party recognising the existence of those rights and allowing you to freely exercise it. If the right to live was universal, twins wouldn't be butchered at birth in Calabar, the Arabs wouldn't be immolating unwanted females at birth. Same with if there's right if migration, conquest by bloodshed will not be required in both Israel and America's case

+
You are basically saying that if there was such a thing as the right to life, people would not commit murderous atrocities.
Make that make sense when people STILL do so today.

Go to school, no, I know it all.

Kukutente23:
Have you given any definition of liberty?
You brought it into this discourse

Everyone here knows what liberty is and means and you see none opposes it only you, so, you need to show us your definition and understanding of liberty.

So give us your definition of liberty so that we can see whether it is one that says it is restricted only to your house borders or at best, your village border

Kukutente23:
I already gave a valid response
You don't seem to follow my train is the problem here

No you did not.

So, clearly the records show that you refused to answer whether in 1960, the people of Benin were not citizens since they needed to wait till 1999 before they become citizens.

Dtruthspeaker:
Everyone here knows what liberty is and means and you see none opposes it only you, so, you need to show us your definition and understanding of liberty.

So give us your definition of liberty so that we can see whether it is one that says it is restricted only to your house borders or at best, your village border

Liberty as used in the declaration of independence means freedom from extra-territorial control and freedom to chose how they are governed. Go and read it in full. It does not even remotely allude to migration in any of the offences listed against the king

Dtruthspeaker:
No you did not.

So, clearly the records show that you refused to answer whether in 1960, the people of Benin were not citizens since they needed to wait till 1999 before they become citizens.

I did
Go back and read
You're not making any sense here I regret to inform you

DeepSight:
+
You are basically saying that if there was such a thing as the right to life, people would not commit murderous atrocities.
Make that make sense when people STILL do so today.

Go to school, no, I know it all.

No. You've mixed it up. For murder to be established, the murderer had no RIGHT to take life.
What is the difference between court sanctioned killing and what is called extra-judicial killing. Are they both murders in your estimation?

Kukutente23:
I did
Go back and read
You're not making any sense here I regret to inform you

The records show you never answered the question whether in 1960, the people of Benin were not citizens since they needed to wait till 1999 before they become citizens.

Kukutente23:
No. You've mixed it up. For murder to be established, the murderer had no RIGHT to take life.
What is the difference between court sanctioned killing and what is called extra-judicial killing. Are they both murders in your estimation?

+
Again you are basically saying that until the advent of written laws, everyone had the right to take life as they pleased.

That it happened did not mean they had such a right. Or that it was right so to do.

You really cannot engage this matter until you understand what natural law is all about as opposed to positive law.

DeepSight:
+
When it is said that human rights are -
1. Inalienable and
2. Fundamental'

What is your understanding of these two words as applied.

Pride.
Its a sin. The first sin.

Inalienable means no one SHOULD be denied those rights without just cause

Fundamental means they form the basis of a free and just society

1 shows that the rights have to be recognised before they can be exercised

2 shows that you can only have a recognition of those rights in a free society like democracy offers

Kukutente23:
Inalienable means no one SHOULD be denied those rights without just cause

Fundamental means they form the basis of a free and just society

1 shows that the rights have to be recognised before they can be exercised

2 shows that you can only have a recognition of those rights in a free society like democracy offers

+
Rubbish.

Inalienable means cannot be taken away from you. Cannot be alienated from your being.

Fundamental means it is as intrinsic to you and your nature as your existence is.

DeepSight:
+
Again you are basically saying that until the advent of written laws, everyone had the right to take life as they pleased.

That it happened did not mean they had such a right. Or that it was right so to do.

You really cannot engage this matter until you understand what natural law is all about as opposed to positive law.

You are now beginning to understand me.
The codifying of natural laws is a consequence of the need to have a just and free society. It is not a self-effacing law like the law of gravitation. Like I explained previously, everything on earth obeys the law of gravitation regardless of whether you regard or recognise its existence or not. If a law has to be recognised before it takes effect, then I submit it cannot be a naturally occurring law in its strict sense

DeepSight:
+
Rubbish.

Inalienable means cannot be taken away from you. Cannot be alienated from your being.

Fundamental means it is as intrinsic to you and your nature as your existence is.

Well, that's your definition. I find fault in it
If you say the right to life cannot be taken from you, why do people die when they are killed?

If the right to movement and freedom is intrinsic, how did slavery exist for thousands of years?

Kukutente23:
You are now beginning to understand me.
The codifying of natural laws is a consequence of the need to have a just and free society. It is not a self-effacing law like the law of gravitation. Like I explained previously, everything on earth obeys the law of gravitation regardless of whether you regard or recognise its existence or not. If a law has to be recognised before it takes effect, then I submit it cannot be a naturally occurring law in its strict sense

+
The existence of natural rights require no wtitten law to be valid. That is the very distinction between natural rights / natural law and positive law.

Natural law in this sense is not to be conflated with the natural physical laws of the universe which is what you are trying to do.

Kukutente23:
Well, that's your definition. I find fault in it
If you say the right to life cannot be taken from you, why do people die when they are killed?

If the right to movement and freedom is intrinsic, how did slavery exist for thousands of years?

+
Your interpretation would mean that so long as these evils are done then no such right exists.

That is wrong.

That such are recognized as natural means we recognize their unjust violation as always wrong irrespective of time or season.

Kukutente23:
Well, that's your definition. I find fault in it
If you say the right to life cannot be taken from you, why do people die when they are killed?

If the right to movement and freedom is intrinsic, how did slavery exist for thousands of years?

+
And oh, it's not just my definition. That's the literal meaning of those words.

DeepSight:
+
Your interpretation would mean that so long as these evils are done then no such right exists.

That is wrong.

That such are recognized as natural means we recognize their unjust violation as always wrong irrespective of time or season.

No. My interpretation is that those evils are evident only when such rights are defined. In the absence of the definition of such rights, such actions do not constitute evil. Cain killed Abel. But it was not the killing God took issue with as much as the cause of the killing.
That you have to recognise a killing as unjust before it can be labelled such already defeats the notion of it being a natural construct of the sanctity of life. Even God had to teach the Israelites about the sanctity of life as opposed to the worldview of the pagans that surrounded them. But God did not need to tell the Israelites before they knew that they can't fly

DeepSight:
+
And oh, it's not just my definition. That's the literal meaning of those words.

I still find fault in them as you intend ti apply them
Remember I told you in the beginning that human rights do not have universal application. They do not hold through for all of human existence and interaction. They are actually obtained from Christian edicts and form the basis of a democratic and free society. I'm sure you know that Christianity is not as old as man

Kukutente23:
I still find fault in them as you intend ti apply them
Remember I told you in the beginning that human rights do not have universal application. They do not hold through for all of human existence and interaction. They are actually obtained from Christian edicts and form the basis of a democratic and free society. I'm sure you know that Christianity is not as old as man

+

Kukutente23, go and study and enlighten yourself please.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law

https://lawbhoomi.com/natural-law-school-theories/

DeepSight:
+
The existence of natural rights require no wtitten law to be valid. That is the very distinction between natural rights / natural law and positive law.

Natural law in this sense is not to be conflated with the natural physical laws of the universe which is what you are trying to do.

Well I don't see why you will employ the use of the word "Natural" for a phenomenon you know is not natural
That seems like an intent to enforce your worldview as supreme in terms of how humans should interact on earth

Kukutente23:
Well I don't see why you will employ the use of the word "Natural" for a phenomenon you know is not natural
That seems like an intent to enforce your worldview as supreme in terms of how humans should interact on earth

+
It has nothing whatsoever to do with my worldview.

It is an ancient area of human study you are taking for granted and making absurd assumptions about.

DeepSight:
+
When it is said that human rights are -
1. Inalienable and
2. Fundamental'

What is your understanding of these two words as applied.

Pride.
Its a sin. The first sin.

He does not understand liberty or he pretends not to, therefore he cannot know what inalienable means. He does not know anything only bits and pieces. Never met anyone with patch patch education.

Kukutente23:
I still find fault in them as you intend ti apply them
Remember I told you in the beginning that human rights do not have universal application. They do not hold through for all of human existence and interaction. They are actually obtained from Christian edicts and form the basis of a democratic and free society. I'm sure you know that Christianity is not as old as man

Are you that dense? In which part of the world do the people not clamour for human rights?

Kukuntete23

So what law is Bashir using to say he has rights against US?

"You are free to oppose Sharia in your own country, but you have no jurisdiction to dictate the laws of ours. We will defend our sovereignty and our right to determine our own legal and affairs."

Which law is he using against US? And which law is US using against Nigerian Christian murderers?

I dont know what already reach people looking for in US, canada and europe. I can understand hustlers but the celebrities and the rich I dont get it.
I was to spend 45 days in General electric facilities in Kansas city, USA as sent by my company. I finished all my task there in 15 days. Came back to New York and spent 5 more days to 'enjoy" myself. By day 20 I was already tired of seeing the skyscrapers etc. I refused to go to Chicago to visit a friend who invited me. By this time, I already spent half of my allowance given to me. I couldnt see any further 'enjoyment' there. The real enjoyment in in naija if you have money. I calculated with about $9000 remaining I would enjoy myself in Nigeria for weeks. On day 23 I was off to Naija to start proper enjoyment. My 2 years visa has since expired, I never went back and dont intend to. My UK and shengen visa all expired without touching the place. My workplace got them for me and it happened the trip didnt happen. I prefer to be given the money and kemme flex here.
I dont just know what the rich are doing there

DeepSight:
+
go and study and enlighten yourself please.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law

https://lawbhoomi.com/natural-law-school-theories/

Thank you for your links
I have read them and my arguments are valid. Natural law as you call it is a theory as attestd by both links. In science, a theory must be proven before it can be accepted as law. What was established from both links is that it is an ongoing debate older than modern civilisation. Some accept the existence of the divine rights while others contend its universality and applicability just as I have done.
But more importantly, one of the cardinal concept is the right to self-preservation which is where the right to life is derived from. In effect, it is erroneous to interpret right to life as prohibition of murder as you initially posited in this discourse. Rather, it is the right to keep oneself alive and away from harm. Hobbes was a foremost thinker in this regard. The 19th century thinkers however disagreed with the force of morality in natural law theories. So you see, it is still a subject of debate and not a universal law as you posited.

Dtruthspeaker:
Are you that dense? In which part of the world do the people not clamour for human rights?

You did not need to descend into insults. Only the weak indulge in insults in an intellectual debate. Be guided henceforth
If you read his links, you will realize that the modern view is that human rights is a progressive form of positive law as against natural law. In other words, when you use the word "human rights" you are already de-legitimizing the concept of natural rights.

Dtruthspeaker:
So what law is Bashir using to say he has rights against US?

"You are free to oppose Sharia in your own country, but you have no jurisdiction to dictate the laws of ours. We will defend our sovereignty and our right to determine our own legal and affairs."

Which law is he using against US? And which law is US using against Nigerian Christian murderers?

Unfortunately, Bashir is using international law which fall under democratic norms here. And he's using it as a bedrock to defend his preference for sharia law. Ironically, the big question is if sharia law itself recognises natural law or democratic rights? Can you answer that question on behalf of Bashir? If it does not, how logical is it to build your argument for sharia law on a concept which it does not recognise nor align with?
Same goes for the murder of Christians. US law is using its own laws on human rights to demand protection for Christians. Does Sharia law recognize such protection for Christians and indeed people of other faiths in its domain? If it does not, is the US not going to be in conflict with Bashir? How then does Bashir intend to fight this cause?

Kukutente23:
Thank you for your links
I have read them and my arguments are valid. Natural law as you call it is a theory as attestd by both links. In science, a theory must be proven before it can be accepted as law. What was established from both links is that it is an ongoing debate older than modern civilisation. Some accept the existence of the divine rights while others contend its universality and applicability just as I have done.
But more importantly, one of the cardinal concept is the right to self-preservation which is where the right to life is derived from. In effect, it is erroneous to interpret right to life as prohibition of murder as you initially posited in this discourse. Rather, it is the right to keep oneself alive and away from harm. Hobbes was a foremost thinker in this regard. The 19th century thinkers however disagreed with the force of morality in natural law theories. So you see, it is still a subject of debate and not a universal law as you posited.

+.
Good. You are getting better.
Do you at least accept that there is natural law before positive law?