Right versus Priviledge

[Mark@Sea]

OK, so you "feel" you have rights and that's good enough. You don't need to explain them to anyone, to mention how and why you have these things, where they came from, what they consist of.

I can't argue with that. I can't prove your feelings wrong. I am certain you feel this way.

But going through life with the introspection of a potato just isn't an attractive option to me.

Rabbi, like faith, rights are an intangible. Try starting with the assumption that you have no rights beyond those granted by other men, and if that makes you feel better, fabulous.

Personally, I'd rather be called a potato* than place my faith in men rather than the Almighty, and I'd rather be denigrated than defenestrated.**

'Tis better to be a potato than a french fry.

* Wasn't someone just being criticized for "Name calling in place of reasoned argument"?

** I guess that makes it official, I'm another "Bitter Clinger".

Edited June 3, 2008 by Mark@Sea
removed gratuitous sarcasm

[The Rabbi]

It makes me feel better to know that I know something and can defend it rather than putting political philosophy on the same basis as religion, where everyone has an opinion and no one's opinion is more or less valuable than anyone else's.

Maybe we should just quit arguing with the anti's and all agree to get along. We have our ideas and they have theirs. We aren't any more right than they are.

[Guest nraforlife]

To quote the right Reverend Rodney King 'Can't we all get along?'

[Mark@Sea]

Rabbi, why on earth would you think that political philosophy is more valid than religious philosophy? Can we not demonstrate that socialism is bad? Are there not those who hold an almost rabid belief that socialism is good? I'm sure they have some very logical arguments (for given values of logic).

If you want to get along with the anti-gunners, feel free to give up that which you have no proof for (rights). If you want to get along with socialists, feel free to give up that which you have no proof for (religion). Whatever twirls your spinner, really.

Introspection - looking within yourself for answers - is useful only if you have the answers, or if you enjoy blue funks where you are led to doubt your own existence. Again, whatever floats your boat. I wasn't born with answers, don't expect others were either, and don't figure I'll take their word for it.

My philosophy in that regard is closer to "Why can't we all get a long gun"? Just not willing to compromise myself in order to make someone else happy. I notice the anti-gunners feel the same way, regardless of the fact that all 'real-world' experience shows that guns do far more good than harm.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Mark@Sea

[The Rabbi]

Mark, on your view we cannot demonstrate that socialism is bad. Socialism is merely a preference. Similarly on your view you cannot demonstrate where rights come from, what they consist of, or what their parameters are. Your views are merely your preference. They cannot be subjected to vigorous examination (or any examination) and so are mere statements of belief or preference. As such they are not superior to anyone else's statements or preferences.

On my view I can demonstrate where the right comes from, what it's parameters are, and what other similar rights consist of.

I would take something that can be demonstrated over something that depends on your word for it any day of the week. So would most people who aren't you.

Edited June 3, 2008 by The Rabbi

[Guest slothful1]

If you believe there is such a thing please (my third request here and you keep dodging it) spell out how you know there is such a thing, what the parameters of it are, and where it came from.

A similarly interesting question is: where do you get the following standard for what constitutes a "right"?

Yes, I do not believe in a "right to self defense" that isn't spelled out somewhere, either by common law, court decisions, or statute or some combination of all three.

There you have it.

[The Rabbi]

It's purely practical. Society recognizes the right and enforces it generally. That right stems from one (or more) of the three sources I mentioned.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

After umpteen pages we're getting somewhere.

Yes, I do not believe in a "right to self defense" that isn't spelled out somewhere, either by common law, court decisions, or statute or some combination of all three.

There you have it.

If you believe there is such a thing please (my third request here and you keep dodging it) spell out how you know there is such a thing, what the parameters of it are, and where it came from.

I've never dodged a thing. Simply because you can't wrap your mind around something doesn't mean it's not there. I've laid out my position several times. I just did it in the post where I lifted your skirt tails and spanked your bottom.

The proclivity for self-defense is innate and natural. It is a product of the life force and inherently good. It is fair, just, honest, and edifying. It needs no recognition from any government to be any of these things nor does a government need to acknowledge it for it to exist.

"My problem with this is that morality, at least a few basic tenets thereof, is not at all relative." -Abominable_Hillbilly

Once you say "a few basic tenets," then you get into "relativism." If, for example, it is morally wrong for some to eat meat and not for others, then there is relativity to it. It is no wonder that the Rabbi (whose beliefs exclude the eating of certain foods but allow that gentiles who eat such foods may, by keeping the commandments, gain Heaven) would also be arguing against the existence of universally "true" rights.

Simply because someone may posit an argument against a moral concept does not mean that the concept in question is realtive. Not at all. There is the very real possibility that one person is wrong and the other person is right. Black and white do exist. It's not all shades of gray.

As for personal beliefs, I also believe there are some moral lines which one should never cross, but of course there are people who would disagree with my list as, I'm sure, I would disagree with theirs. As to "rights," they are human constructs. God, as I know Him, has never conferred rights to anyone, just ask Job. Heck, God doesn't give rights, He gives commandments. He also gives free will, with which we are allowed to demand rights for ourselves and confer rights to others. Thankfully, our nation's founders demanded that other nations and future leaders respect certain rights which they claimed for us as, in their opinions, inalienable and God-given. May we have the strength to maintain these rights.

Job had all sorts of rights. Among them was the right to act like the other animals and not wallow in self-pity or clench his fist in anger at the universe.

Do you not see how "god" giving free will would certainly imply tremendous liberty? or............wait for it.............RIGHTS.

It makes me feel better to know that I know something and can defend it rather than putting political philosophy on the same basis as religion, where everyone has an opinion and no one's opinion is more or less valuable than anyone else's.

You have offered some words as a defense for several of your views. You have, however, failed to defend those views.

Maybe we should just quit arguing with the anti's and all agree to get along. We have our ideas and they have theirs. We aren't any more right than they are.

That's essentially what you're saying!!

It's purely practical. Society recognizes the right and enforces it generally. That right stems from one (or more) of the three sources I mentioned.

So, it's a right that exists independent of society's recognition?

[Guest Mugster]

Mark, on your view we cannot demonstrate that socialism is bad. Socialism is merely a preference. Similarly on your view you cannot demonstrate where rights come from, what they consist of, or what their parameters are. Your views are merely your preference. They cannot be subjected to vigorous examination (or any examination) and so are mere statements of belief or preference. As such they are not superior to anyone else's statements or preferences.

On my view I can demonstrate where the right comes from, what it's parameters are, and what other similar rights consist of.

I would take something that can be demonstrated over something that depends on your word for it any day of the week. So would most people who aren't you.

I said I wouldn't post again, but this sucked me back in.

Exactly right. US Military warfighting policy at the strategic level is based on a systematic method of changing a society's morality, which must be defined. A military action is the managed use of force to achieve some type of goal, or have some type of cultural effect, or change a culture's behavior.

In theory, if you pound a culture hard enough and then help them up and buy them a beer (massive rebuilding subsidy), you can convince them to adopt your belief system. It worked with Japan and Germany. It didn't work so good in Vietnam, where they named part of it "the hearts and minds" program. We're trying it again in Iraq. We'll see how it goes. Some might say that we didn't pound hard enough in the begining (me).

The expression "might makes right" is an oversimplification. Think of might like the US Army Corps of Engineers trying to keep the mississippi (the morality part) in its banks...works pretty good until a flood comes along. You can use might to influence things, but sometimes it's effectiveness is pretty limited.

[The Rabbi]

I've never dodged a thing. Simply because you can't wrap your mind around something doesn't mean it's not there. I've laid out my position several times. I just did it in the post where I lifted your skirt tails and spanked your bottom.

The proclivity for self-defense is innate and natural. It is a product of the life force and inherently good. It is fair, just, honest, and edifying. It needs no recognition from any government to be any of these things nor does a government need to acknowledge it for it to exist.

So, it's a right that exists independent of society's recognition?

I never saw a post where you lifted my skirt tails. You must be fantasizing again.

Similarly you are fantasizing if you think you have answered my question. You have described an instinct, not a right. A proclivity, as you call it, is not the same thing as a right. I have a proclivity to procreate. All animals do. That doesn't translate into a right, anymore than the tendency towards self-preservation.

Your last line tells me you still don't understand my position. A right does not exist independent of society's recognition. That is the key here. You seem to think there exists some abstract right that people buy into. Bosh. There isn't. Observing animals is not a proof. Observing children playing is not a proof. If anything those are counter-proofs.

The proof is what happens in the legal system generally and characteristically in any given country. The Soviet constitution guaranteed a bunch of rights. No Soviet citizen ever got to enjoy them because they were not recognized by that society. Ergo the Soviet citizen did not have rights, even though there was a constitution that theoretically guaranteed them.

Similarly so was the constitution of Weimar Germany. It also guaranteed rights but the Nazis, with the acquiescence of the German legal profession and society at large, gutted those rights so they did not exist anymore.

[Mark@Sea]

on your view we cannot demonstrate that socialism is bad. Socialism is merely a preference.

How many of its' own people has socialism killed in the last 100 years or so? How many Americans have died at the hands of their government? Pretty clear that socialism is the worse system, yet there are a whole lot of socialists just aching to try it again. Should I infer that they have the right to murder their own citizens? Who decides that question - me or the mob? And does this confer a 'right' to the mob, or simply legal authority? Wait, you claim legal authority and right are the same thing. You assert that the only rights are those that 'society' recognizes and grants.

So much for "We hold these truths to be self evident".

Your views are merely your preference. They cannot be subjected to vigorous examination (or any examination) and so are mere statements of belief or preference. As such they are not superior to anyone else's statements or preferences.

Perhaps not, but I am willing to back my beliefs with my rifle, and my life. You're gonna need a full house to take that pot, amigo. Ante up.

I would take something that can be demonstrated over something that depends on your word for it any day of the week. So would most people who aren't you.

Rabbi, I claim that right and legal authority are not the same thing. You claim they are. Which view led to genocide? If most people who aren't me agree with you, then most people are wrong.

[The Rabbi]

Mark, socialism doesn't kill people. People kill people. Socialism is an idea, like rights. Christians have killed more people than than anyone else. But I don't think that's definitive in deciding whether Christianity is good or bad. Killing people isn't a criterion for deciding whether an idea is right or wrong.

Perhaps not, but I am willing to back my beliefs with my rifle, and my life. You're gonna need a full house to take that pot, amigo. Ante up

Let's just stipulate that I could kill you and you wouldn't know about it until the next morning when you missed breakfast.

As for backing up your beliefs with a rifle, I guess that's easier than defending them with words. 'Cause you sure haven't done that.

Rabbi, I claim that right and legal authority are not the same thing. You claim they are. Which view led to genocide? If most people who aren't me agree with you, then most people are wrong.

I claim no such thing. You haven't been paying attention.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I never saw a post where you lifted my skirt tails. You must be fantasizing again.

I have a feeling you've spent a significant portion of your life ignoring the instances where people have intellectually spanked you.

Similarly you are fantasizing if you think you have answered my question. You have described an instinct, not a right. A proclivity, as you call it, is not the same thing as a right.

I described an instinct that is JUST. MORALLY PROPER. The fact that self-defense naturally springs from the will to life is its inherent justification. Unless you think that life should affirm the attributes of self-destruction in an attempt to further itself.

You leave out qualifiers as they suit you or as you fail to recognize them. I'm not sure whether you're unintelligent or dishonest.

I have a proclivity to procreate. All animals do. That doesn't translate into a right, anymore than the tendency towards self-preservation.

You don't feel as though you have the right to procreate? Hmh. That's at least one right that I wish the government would heavily regulate.

Your last line tells me you still don't understand my position. A right does not exist independent of society's recognition. That is the key here. You seem to think there exists some abstract right that people buy into. Bosh. There isn't. Observing animals is not a proof. Observing children playing is not a proof. If anything those are counter-proofs.

The proof is what happens in the legal system generally and characteristically in any given country. The Soviet constitution guaranteed a bunch of rights. No Soviet citizen ever got to enjoy them because they were not recognized by that society. Ergo the Soviet citizen did not have rights, even though there was a constitution that theoretically guaranteed them.

This is hopeless. You can't master one basic concept: the fact that a right is denied, for whatever purpose and by whomever, does not negate the right. What you're essentially arguing is that the gypsies and jews had no right to avoid the gas chambers because the Nazis didn't recognize such a right. You're saying that the holocaust was just. If you counter that you believe that holocaust was unjust, then at some point you will have to argue why you believe that the Nazis were wrong. Inevitably, you will be forced to argue that the jews and gypsies had a RIGHT to live their lives without being persecuted for religious or cultural qualities. Will you then attempt to argue that they only had that right after the Nazis were defeated and their victims liberated? Will that be your position? Or will you be forced to relent and admit that the jews and gypsies were never without a right to live their lives free of persecution, and that the Nazis simply didn't recognize that right during the holocaust?

Similarly so was the constitution of Weimar Germany. It also guaranteed rights but the Nazis, with the acquiescence of the German legal profession and society at large, gutted those rights so they did not exist anymore.

The rights plainly existed. They simply weren't recognized.

People like you are dangerous. You will be the first ones who are fluent in Newspeak. You have but to wait for the government to dictate the lexicon to you.

[The Rabbi]

No people like you are dangerous. You talk about rights but you don't have a clue what you mean. You can't even define what they are. You can't explain your positions, much less defend them. You have not and cannot distinguish between "right" as a legal concept and "right" as a correct course of action. I am surprised it took you this long to drag out the Jews under Hitler.

Let me be unequivocal: Jews had no rights. You can't do those things to people who do have them. If you want to argue their rights were violated, let me ask what difference there was. The answer is none. Rights unrecognized and unenforced cease to be rights.

Your arguments (and I hesitate to dignify your posts with the term) consist of obfuscations, accusations, and muddle.

Your argument is that self defense is "just moral and proper." That is merely begging the question. Even if I were to concede those things, that does not translate into a right. Lots of things are just moral and proper and fail to achieve the level of rights.

I present reasons and arguments and to you it reads like "Newspeak." That should tell you something right there about your ability to comprehend this discussion.

[saintsfanbrian]

Unfortunately, rights are determined by society.

They always have been and always will be.

Our founding fathers were members of a society that determined that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were some of the biggies. They wrote a document declaring the rest. Obviously they also knew enough to know that they were not all powerful and did not know everything so they left a way to change the constitution and the bill of rights.

Unfortunately our current system of Government has found a way to usurp this by creating legislation from the bench. They are letting the courts determine what the laws should be instead of the people. They are allowing SCOTUS to create laws when they can't get them passed on capital hill. SCOTUS is only supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law, not create new law. The decision coming later this month should go our way due to the wording of the constitution but I won't hold my breath. It should also be tightly restricted to DC, but again I won't hold my breath.

You can argue this until the cows come home but society as a whole determines what is a right and what is a privilege. As for traveling freely - ever notice a no trespassing sign? That means you don't have a RIGHT to go on that property.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

No people like you are dangerous. You talk about rights but you don't have a clue what you mean.

You don't understand me, so I don't know what I mean?

You can't even define what they are. You can't explain your positions, much less defend them.

I have defined and explained them. My arrow has failed to strike a non-existent target.

You have not and cannot distinguish between "right" as a legal concept and "right" as a correct course of action.

Actually, that's about all I've done. Make that very distinction, and, additionally, I've shown how the two operate together.

I am surprised it took you this long to drag out the Jews under Hitler.

I didn't "drag out" the jews under Hitler. It wasn't meant to be provocative or to needle you because of your religious views. I've used the example of African slaves here in this nation similarly. You aren't black, are you?

Let me be unequivocal: Jews had no rights. You can't do those things to people who do have them. If you want to argue their rights were violated, let me ask what difference there was. The answer is none. Rights unrecognized and unenforced cease to be rights.

For you to believe otherwise, that rights trampled upon are nonetheless rights, would mean that you would become angry and have to FIGHT. You prefer to stand at the fence and stare hopelessly toward freedom. Someone else will have to take care of you and your rights.

Your arguments (and I hesitate to dignify your posts with the term) consist of obfuscations, accusations, and muddle.

Your moral confusion, failure of conviction, and lack of erudition are not problems borne of my arguments. They are yours and yours alone. They existed before my arguments, and they will exist after.

Your argument is that self defense is "just moral and proper." That is merely begging the question. Even if I were to concede those things, that does not translate into a right. Lots of things are just moral and proper and fail to achieve the level of rights.

Hmh. I wonder why?????????????? Because not enough people are willing to fight for them, maybe?

I present reasons and arguments and to you it reads like "Newspeak." That should tell you something right there about your ability to comprehend this discussion.

The arguments and reasons you've presented have all failed in the breech. My reference to Newspeak was directed at your inability to think for yourself, independent of the government's pronouncements.

What are you going to do when the government finally declares that you have no right to own a firearm? The die is cast. What will you do?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Our founding fathers were members of a society that determined that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were some of the biggies.

They also held that these rights were self-evident truths. What does that mean?

[Mark@Sea]

Rights unrecognized and unenforced cease to be rights

Rights unasserted cease to be rights.

You've made some interesting claims, here. For instance

"Christians have killed more people than than anyone else."

Prove it. Numbers, dates, locations, sources.

"socialism doesn't kill people"

Oh, Really? So the problem with every socialist government tried yet was they were just the wrong people? I think I've heard this tune before...

Let's just stipulate that I could kill you and you wouldn't know about it until the next morning when you missed breakfast.

Hey, this is fun. Lets' stipulate that your hobby is trying to prove really, really dumb arguments by refusing to see the nose on your face. Okay, your turn.

As for backing up your beliefs with a rifle, I guess that's easier than defending them with words. 'Cause you sure haven't done that.

Well, then. Guess that settles that. You've convinced me, through the unassailable logic of your argument. The state (society) grants rights, the founding fathers of this country were wrong about the whole thing, and religion is merely the opiate of the masses.

[Mark@Sea]

What are you going to do when the government finally declares that you have no right to own a firearm? The die is cast. What will you do?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

.... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

[The Rabbi]

Abominable: you have not defined or explained them. You have pointed to animals' instinct for self preservation as a proof of the existence of natural rights, you have pointed to children playing as a proof for the existence of natural rights, you have quoted the Declaration of Independence as proof, and you have made a bunch of baseless assertions about my beliefs, of which you are completely mistaken.

But nowhere have you explained where these rights come from, what they consist of, or what their parameters are.

I have challenged you repeatedly and you have failed to deliver, preferring to believe that I am some kind of agent of the government or a shirker or whatever. You have made this statement:

Actually, that's about all I've done. Make that very distinction, and, additionally, I've shown how the two operate together

I truly think you are clueless here. Rights as a legal construct and right as a preferred course of action have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. They do not, cannot, "operate together," Any more than duty operates with doody.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

Guys, the founding fathers, in their wisdom, decided that we should have a free society. They felt this was the thing we humans should do, because it was what they determined that God would want us to do. I believe they were right (meaning correct). So they, and others after them, outlined things in the Constitution that they felt and believed to be "rights" (meaning things a government should stay the hell out of). However, they needed force to back it up. Without that force, there would be no "rights." That's what the fight today is. That's why there are many who would want to disarm the American people.

I believe God gave us free will. There are many religions, even Christian ones, that do not believe we have free will. Free will is the freedom God gave us. We are free...free to be wrong...free to go to hell...free to be right...free to go to Heaven. We have no "right" to Heaven given to us by God...we must earn it (depending on what you believe, either by obedience, faith, or grace).

I believe Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Adams, Madison and their crew determined to have "rights." Now, the word meaning areas of life upon which others must not infringe. They determined that these "rights" should extend to the citizens of their new country, so they wrote them down. Others after them changed some of these "rights." Added some, took some away, God notwithstanding.

There are folks who believe God or nature gives us rights. Some of those folks think they have the God or nature given right to stop us from owning guns, and they'll try. I believe God gave us brains, strength and love of each other which allows us to decide which rights are right, and which rights are wrong. None are permanent, we must continually work to keep them. But I don't believe God gave us rights...only free will and commandments. With those, we design and maintain our rights.

[Guest Mugster]

Prove it. Numbers, dates, locations, sources.

I'll help.

11-13th century, 9 million dead (estimated). Only half or 4.5 million were muslim. Those were christians doing most of the heinous war crime stuff like packing mosques full of townspeople and burning them down.

Its difficult to argue with you guys, because your frame of reference gives you a very naive view of the world. When you see and interact with people that have no rights its an eye opener.

You can tell people they have a natural right to self defense all day long...but when there's a guy with an AK guarding the rice and the only way to get it is let him have sex with your daughter...that is a no-rights situation. If you want to call it a denied right, go ahead. Don't let me stop you. I find this view of the world to be incredibly naive.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Abominable: you have not defined or explained them. You have pointed to animals' instinct for self preservation as a proof of the existence of natural rights, you have pointed to children playing as a proof for the existence of natural rights, you have quoted the Declaration of Independence as proof, and you have made a bunch of baseless assertions about my beliefs, of which you are completely mistaken.

In all of the examples above I pointed to the fact that one principle is being vindicated here, and that it is being vindicated by observance of animal instinct: life, and the defense and pursuit thereof, is inherently good. If each being were to act with a wish for death, or self-destruction, life would, obviously, take a serious blow. The urge to life and it's defense is natural and good, unless you'd care to argue that the urge toward self-destruction is good.

I've now explained this in about three basic ways, and I've backed it up each time. You simply can't muster the intellect to see it. Plain and simple. The abstraction is too complex. You can't master it.

But nowhere have you explained where these rights come from, what they consist of, or what their parameters are.

Yes I have.

I have challenged you repeatedly and you have failed to deliver, preferring to believe that I am some kind of agent of the government or a shirker or whatever.

By your intellectual sloth or ignorance, you are an agent of the state. You pay them money, but you don't hold them to account. That makes you their lackey.

I truly think you are clueless here. Rights as a legal construct and right as a preferred course of action have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. They do not, cannot, "operate together," Any more than duty operates with doody.

"Right" as a legal construct, and right (versus "wrong") as a morally acceptable course of action have everything to do with one another. One often follows the other--at least in an ideal structure of government. You really don't believe that? Why not? You really don't believe that morality often guides the law, and vice versa??????????

.

[The Rabbi]

I'll help.

11-13th century, 9 million dead (estimated). Only half or 4.5 million were muslim. Those were christians doing most of the heinous war crime stuff like packing mosques full of townspeople and burning them down.

1860-65: American civil war (360,000)

1886-1908: Belgium-Congo Free State (3 million)

1899-02: British-Boer war (100,000)

1899-03: Colombian civil war (120,000)

1899-02: Philippines vs USA (20,000)

1900-01: Boxer rebels against Russia, Britain, France, Japan, USA against rebels (35,000)

1903: Ottomans vs Macedonian rebels (20,000)

1904: Germany vs Namibia (65,000)

1910-20: Mexican revolution (250,000)

1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war (20,000)

1912-13: Balkan wars (150,000)

1914-18: World War I (20 million)

1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia (120,000)

1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)

1917-19: Greece vs Turkey (45,000)

1919-21: Poland vs Soviet Union (27,000)

1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (10 million)

1936: Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (200,000)

1936-37: Stalin's purges (13 million)

1936-39: Spanish civil war (600,000)

1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution

1946-49: Greek civil war (50,000)

1946-54: France-Vietnam war (600,000)

1948-1958: Colombian civil war (250,000)

1950-53: Korean war (4 million)

1954-62: French-Algerian war (368,000)

1960-90: South Africa vs Africa National Congress (?)

1960-96: Guatemala's civil war (200,000)

1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo vs Portugal (?)

1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million)

1966-: Colombia's civil war (31,000)

1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war (?)

1969-: Philippines vs New People's Army (40,000)

1969-02: IRA - Norther Ireland's civil war (2,000)

1972-: Philippines vs Muslim separatists (120,000)

1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war (30,000)

1975-90: civil war in Lebanon (40,000)

1976-83: Argentina's military regime (20,000)

1977-92: El Salvador's civil war (75,000)

1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)

1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war (69,000)

1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras (60,000)

Toss up between Christians and Chinese.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

If you want to call it a denied right, go ahead. Don't let me stop you. I find this view of the world to be incredibly naive.

That's what it is. A right denied. But why is that view "naive"?