Posted on 07/29/2008 3:47:10 AM PDT by marktwain
No, I don't accept that there is such a thing as "world opinion" - since there is no political community known as "the world".
Therefore, there is no need to tell the nonexistent "world opinion" to KMA.
Coulda sworn Obamessiah said he was a citizen thereof.....LOL
btt for later.
Whoa Nellie! The abortion thing aside, I'm so evil I am probably possesed.
My position is to protect the unborn and well as the born.
The trouble with the liberal Continentals is the have no concept of what it is to be an American and how unique that is. I would like to have them meet some of my naturalized American friends who were born in other places like Korea, Poland, Russia, Great Britain and India. They would quickly tell them to keep their stupid ideas at home. As for those Americans who have forgotten the uniqueness of America I'm sure there people other lands that would gladly swap counties with them.
The Euros are on the path to suicide, through apathy and low birth rates.
Why listen to doomed lemmings?
Europe will be Muslim in 50 years.
I have high hopes that it will some day live up to its name...
Basing legitimacy upon claims of so-called “consensus” is a widely practiced mode of leftist agit-prop. Note the bandwagon fawning of media elites and Hollywood types for Obama’s nondescript “change”. Another example is the “consensus” of scientists hyping human causation of global warming. Because “most people” accepted a flat earth, geocentric universe never made it so. European abandonment of natural rights will only serve to eradicate Western culture in Europe, not natural rights themselves.
btt
Certain types of legitimacy are based on consensus. Prohibition I failed in significant measure because it had nowhere near consensus support. Since juries back then weren't rigged as they are today, the lack of consensus support among the populace translated into a lack of consensus support among juries. That's part of why we have the jury system.
That having been said, the recent Kennedy decision shows what liberals really think about consensus. That twelve jurors thought rapist Kennedy should die for his crime is to me a pretty clear indication that public attitudes have not evolved nearly as much as Justice Kennedy would claim. If the petitioners had argued that the jury was unfairly stacked against Kennedy, it might have been reasonable to remand the case to an unstacked jury; I see no basis whatever for throwing out the verdict entirely, especially on the given rationale.
Juries do not function on the vague “consensus” referred to in this post’s reference to “moral consensus”. A jury’s decision stems from a formal count of votes for a clear majority, or in some cases, unanimity. That is a far cry from the claims of societal consensus claimed as moral high ground by those who would erode natural rights. By definition, such rights as self-defense are not for judges, juries, or any governmental bodies to grant or deny. The rub is that there is no real way to dispute general claims of consensus because no numbers ever enter the discussion. Moralistic assertion replaces discourse and unsubstantiated claims of legitimacy trump actual voting. That is the reason for referring to this ersatz majority as “so-called” consensus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.