CNN Anchor: ‘Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

[Contumacious]

Rights come from human intellect, and consensus.

rights come from tradition, God, and nature. what comes from human intellect is Hitler Stalin Mao Obama. It took human intellect 1 million years to discover that slavery was wrong so we don't want to rely on it.

Rights from nature? I'd love to see that list. Nature neither knows that you exist, or gives a damn either way.

Nature has no 'rights'. It has strong and weak. We create rights. We defend rights. They exist because we do both.

Toeing the party line:


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini

Many humans don't value other humans. On the other hand Nature, doesn't value humans at all. Now you know.

And you are one of those humans.

I was hoping that you would have leave MY country by now and moved to that paradise where humans value other humans: Venezuela.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

rights come from tradition, God, and nature. what comes from human intellect is Hitler Stalin Mao Obama. It took human intellect 1 million years to discover that slavery was wrong so we don't want to rely on it.

Rights from nature? I'd love to see that list. Nature neither knows that you exist, or gives a damn either way.

Nature has no 'rights'. It has strong and weak. We create rights. We defend rights. They exist because we do both.

Toeing the party line:


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini

Many humans don't value other humans. On the other hand Nature, doesn't value humans at all. Now you know.

And you are one of those humans.

I was hoping that you would have leave MY country by now and moved to that paradise where humans value other humans: Venezuela.

and Cuba where there are no boats or toilet paper.

 

[Contumacious]

Rights from nature? I'd love to see that list. Nature neither knows that you exist, or gives a damn either way.

Nature has no 'rights'. It has strong and weak. We create rights. We defend rights. They exist because we do both.

Toeing the party line:


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini

Many humans don't value other humans. On the other hand Nature, doesn't value humans at all. Now you know.

And you are one of those humans.

I was hoping that you would have leave MY country by now and moved to that paradise where humans value other humans: Venezuela.

and Cuba where there are no boats or toilet paper.

That is not true.

There are corn cobs and inner tubes.

LOL

.

 

[Skylar]

Hun, I don't give a fuck what Aristole said.

as a typical lib Nazi the smartest man to have ever lived would be irrelevant to you. You are the God like HItler Stalin and Mao were. These were not men of great learning but rather men, like you, who knew without learning that they were right!!

Is Aristotle the source of our rights? If no, then what does it matter what he thinks? He's not the authority on the topic. If you want to prove that God is the source of our rights, you're going to need to provide evidence. Not opinion.

And you have no evidence. You have subjective belief. And I don't care what you believe.

Without my acceptance of your conception of God, you've got nothing. And I don't accept you as any authority on the divine, nor do I accept that you speak for God.

So what else have you got?

 

[Contumacious]

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

John F. Kennedy

 

[Skylar]

as they are our invention. And they exist as long as we agree they do and protect them.

dear, the great liberals HItler Stalin and Mao felt very free to invent rights as they saw fit. Conservative intellectuals like Aristotle Cicero Jesus Locke Jefferson and Friedman felt rights came from God or nature and as such would serve us better.

Do you have the IQ to catch on?

I haven't cited Hitler, Stalin or Mao once. Nor have I cited Aristotle, Cicero, Locke or Jefferson. As they are not the source of our rights.

We are. Our conception of rights is an intellectual technology that we invented and we define. My proof? The lack of our conception of rights before their invention.

If they were eternal, unchanging and God given, then they would be the same at all times, from all sources. Yet they're not. They change as we change. And before we invented them, they didn't exist.

You claim that God is the source of our rights. But you can't factually establish God exists. Or existing gives a shit. Or giving a shit, has any power. Or having any power, has goodness. Or having goodness, is the originator of rights.

You assume it all. Er....'because'. Because you want to believe that. But your subjective beliefs aren't evidence of anything?

 

[Contumacious]

as they are our invention. And they exist as long as we agree they do and protect them.

dear, the great liberals HItler Stalin and Mao felt very free to invent rights as they saw fit. Conservative intellectuals like Aristotle Cicero Jesus Locke Jefferson and Friedman felt rights came from God or nature and as such would serve us better.

Do you have the IQ to catch on?

I haven't cited Hitler, Stalin or Mao once. Nor have I cited Aristotle, Cicero, Locke or Jefferson. As they are not the source of our rights.

We are. Our conception of rights is an intellectual technology that we invented and we define. My proof? The lack of our conception of rights before their invention.

If they were eternal, unchanging and God given, then they would be the same at all times, from all sources. Yet they're not. They change as we change. And before we invented them, they didn't exist.

You claim that God is the source of our rights. But you can't factually establish God exists. Or existing gives a shit. Or giving a shit, has any power. Or having any power, has goodness. Or having goodness, is the originator of rights.

You assume it all. Er....'because'. Because you want to believe that. But your subjective beliefs aren't evidence of anything?

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

John F. Kennedy


Since I do not have a NATURAL RIGHT to property then it necessarily follows that YOU have a right to steal it or expropriate it whenever you feel is convenient. Which based on the arguments that you used to support the "income"tax , you believe that I must use force to defend it otherwise I waive my rights.

Is it an ideal state of affairs to be in a constant state of war?


.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If they were eternal, unchanging and God given, then they would be the same at all times, from all sources.

dear, they seem to be eternal, changing, and God given. Your assunptions are completely arbitrary indicating you can't follow the discussion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. My proof? The lack of our conception of rights before their invention.

dear Aristotle observed nature to discern natural law. He, for example, noticed that a sheep would object to another sheep trying to take his sleeping spot. He saw largely similar behavior among human beings and then merely recorded what he saw as natural, wide spread behavior . I assume sheep didn't invent natural rights at a point in time as you imply but that rights were put in place by God or nature and not invented by liberal Nazis like HItler Stalin and Mao.

 

[Skylar]

Since I do not have a NATURAL RIGHT to property then it necessarily follows that YOU have a right to steal it or expropriate it whenever you feel is convenient.

Says who?

Which based on the arguments that you used to support the "income"tax , you believe that I must use force to defend it otherwise I waive my rights.

Income tax is just a tax.

Wait....is this where you start your little anarchist screed again?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But you can't factually establish God exists.

dear, I usually say God, nature, or tradition( tradition to include Edmund Burke).

 

[Skylar]

. My proof? The lack of our conception of rights before their invention.

dear Aristotle observed nature to discern natural law.

Hun, Aristotle isn't the source of our rights. We are.

And sweetie.....you've provided exactly jack shit to back up your claims that God is the source of our rights.

If even you're gonna treat your claims like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why I don't really give a shit what you say.

 

[Skylar]

But you can't factually establish God exists.

dear, I usually say God, nature, or tradition( tradition to include Edmund Burke).

Laughing,....because tradition and God are the same thing.

Make your argument that our rights are based in anything other than our agreement. You've got nothing for God but your subjective belief. So you might as well leave that Appeal to Authority on the shelf.

Why would tradition be any more or less authoritative than our current conceptions? And whose tradition? If any tradition is as valid as any other, then how do you account for the radical differences in tradition?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hun, Aristotle isn't the source of our rights. We are.

very stupid, illiterate and very typical of a liberal . the lineage of our Declaration and Constitution is clear to those who are literate, not to those who are stupid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Laughing,....because tradition and God are the same thing.

100% stupid since people who don't believe in god have traditions, and traditions can have many sources

 

[Skylar]

Hun, Aristotle isn't the source of our rights. We are.

very stupid, illiterate and very typical of a liberal liberal. the lineage of out Declaration and Constitution is clear to those who are literate.

Oh, the words I can read. I just don't accept the premise that anything other than our common consent is the basis of rights.

And you can't present a reasoned, logical argument to refute or even address that rejection of your beliefs. All you can do is offer various Appeals to Authority. It must be so because 'locke' said so. Or aristotle said so. Or jefferson said so.

Um, no. There's no such mandate. If you'd like to present an argument that our rights are based in another other than common consent, you'll need to do the old fashioned way: with a reasoned argument.

Make your case, sweetie.

 

[Contumacious]

Since I do not have a NATURAL RIGHT to property then it necessarily follows that YOU have a right to steal it or expropriate it whenever you feel is convenient.

Says who?

Which based on the arguments that you used to support the "income"tax , you believe that I must use force to defend it otherwise I waive my rights.

Income tax is just a tax.

Wait....is this where you start your little anarchist screed again?

Says you and your ilk.

If I don't have a NATURAL RIGHT to property.

Then My rights depend of BUREAUCRATIC DISCRETION.

But if those bureaucrats belong to the fascistic faction then producers and taxpayers have no rights.

So , in that case VIOLENCE is the only solution.

Don't give me the "says who" bullshit.

That is what you are saying.

Either I have a NATURAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY or I don't.


.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing,....because tradition and God are the same thing.

100% stupid since people who don't believe in god have traditions, and traditions can have many sources

Then present your argument. You're using insults INSTEAD of reason. Try again, this time actually rubbing two brain cells together and trying to use logic and reason:

Why would tradition be any more or less authoritative than our current conceptions? And whose tradition? If any tradition is as valid as any other, then how do you account for the radical differences in tradition?

 

[Skylar]

Since I do not have a NATURAL RIGHT to property then it necessarily follows that YOU have a right to steal it or expropriate it whenever you feel is convenient.

Says who?

Which based on the arguments that you used to support the "income"tax , you believe that I must use force to defend it otherwise I waive my rights.

Income tax is just a tax.

Wait....is this where you start your little anarchist screed again?

Says you and your ilk.

If I don't have a NATURAL RIGHT to property.

Then My rights depend of BUREAUCRATIC DISCRETION.

But if those bureaucrats belong to the fascistic faction then producers and taxpayers have no rights.

So , in that case VIOLENCE is the only solution.

Don't give me the "says who" bullshit.

That is what you are saying.

Either I have a NATURAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY or I don't.

So....your typical anarchy schtick.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Make your argument that our rights are based in anything other than our agreement. ?

our agreement??. We didn't right the Declaration!! Aristotle Cicero Jesus Locke Jefferson Burke and Friedman did. We merely agree to their ingenious findings but would never discover them ourselves.