(th)ink by Keith Knight

(th)inkNo Zoom

Comments (10) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. 38lowell

    38lowell said, 15 days ago

    A man for others!

  2. philnuffer

    philnuffer said, 14 days ago

    So, I’m diminished if I deny the right to freedom to a criminal that robbed or murdered?

  3. iangoodson

    iangoodson said, 14 days ago

    @philnuffer

    Apparently, but maybe he hadn’t thought of that. No-one is perfect.

  4. legaleagle48

    legaleagle48 said, 14 days ago

    @philnuffer

    That is not what he had in mind, and you know it. You know very well that he was talking about discrimination, not the punishment of criminals. Shame on you and iangoodson for twisting his words like that!

  5. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, 14 days ago

    @philnuffer

    Of course not, silly man. That wasn’t what he was talking about at all.
    Why did that even occur to you?

  6. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, 13 days ago

    Oh, thought for a sec it was Jimmy Carter.

  7. iangoodson

    iangoodson said, 11 days ago

    @legaleagle48

    I was pointing out that the statement is too loosely worded and capable of philnuffer’s interpretation. It may not be what he meant, but it is what he said. The words haven’t been twisted; they just lacked precision.

  8. agrestic

    agrestic said, 11 days ago

    @iangoodson

    But they did contain context—context that you ignored. As much as some folks might want it to be so, language is not mathematics.

  9. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 16 hours ago

    Again you don’t get it.

    A criminal has no rights. That person has forfeited any rights by their own acts. Yeah, I know it’s all shades of grey and the courts are supposed to sort it out. LOL.

    So the only rights you have are the right to life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness. Really. That’s it. All the little extras written down are just extrapolations of these axioms.

    I agree with the statement. You love who you love so go for it in your pursuit of happiness. You are free to do so. Just don’t force me to be a part of it if I have a different opinion. PLUS, NO ONE (couple) should be advantaged because they hook up on a permanent basis. So one citizen one tax rate. And so on.

    BUT that would do away with affirmative action and we can’t have that…..

  10. agrestic

    agrestic said, about 9 hours ago

    @Bruce4671

    A criminal has no rights.


    Um, actually, that’s false on so many fronts as to be laughable. First, in this country, everyone (including the guilty) has a right to a trial before their peers. They also have rights against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. Convictions have been tossed on strict technicalities around violations of such rights even though it’s obvious someone is guilty of a crime. Even once someone is convicted and held in prison or jail, they still retain many legal and moral rights—rights which are routinely violated, but which exist nonetheless.


    So the only rights you have are the right to life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness. Really. That’s it. All the little extras written down are just extrapolations of these axioms.


    Hopefully you know that the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” actually not codified in US law, but rather comes from the Declaration of Independence.


    Just don’t force me to be a part of it if I have a different opinion.


    Nobody’s dragging you away to be a forced witness at someone’s same-sex wedding. So what’s the problem? If you’re one who would defend Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses, I’ll ask you this: if your claimed religion forbids you to drive a motorized vehicle, should you realistically expect to be hired as a truck driver? If your morals forbid you from carrying out a clear and fundamental task of your office, then you should move on from that job rather than holding up everyone’s shipments.


    PLUS, NO ONE (couple) should be advantaged because they hook up on a permanent basis. So one citizen one tax rate.


    Have you been consistently arguing this position since long before same-sex marriage became a public issue?


    BUT that would do away with affirmative action and we can’t have that….


    How does the one follow the other? You’ve made a logical leap that’s missing a few steps. What are those steps?

  11. Refresh Comments.
Calvin and Hobbes 30th Anniversary