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

[Skylar]

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.

Says who? Again, you didn't actually answer my question. You simply offered us another Appeal to Authority fallacy.

But you never logically or rationally established that our rights are based on anything other than our agreement.

Jefferson for example believed in slavery. Would being able to hold slaves be part of your 'natural rights'? if not, why not? Remember, if rights are objective and intrinsic.....they can't change based on circumstance or source.

But if rights are circumstantial and our invention, then they must change based on circumstance or source.

And sweetie pie, the conception of rights changes as we do.

 

[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

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?

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

[/QUOTE]

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

 

[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?

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[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I'm not asking about the EXISTENCE of traditions. I'm asking for why traditions would be more valid than our current conceptions rights.

You can't make your argument based on God, as you can't prove anything about God. All you can do is offer us your beliefs. And I don't give a shit what you believe. I care what you can prove using reason, logic and evidence.

So.....make your argument.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Says who? Again, you didn't actually answer my question. You simply offered us another Appeal to Authority fallacy.

But you never logically or rationally established that our rights are based on anything other than our agreement.

Jefferson for example believed in slavery. Would being able to hold slaves be part of your 'natural rights'? if not, why not? Remember, if rights are objective and intrinsic.....they can't change based on circumstance or source.

But if rights are circumstantial and our invention, then they must change based on circumstance or source.

And sweetie pie, the conception of rights changes as we do.

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Remember, if rights are objective and intrinsic....

too stupid nobody said our rights were objective and intrinsic

 

[Skylar]

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.

Says who? Again, you didn't actually answer my question. You simply offered us another Appeal to Authority fallacy.

But you never logically or rationally established that our rights are based on anything other than our agreement.

Jefferson for example believed in slavery. Would being able to hold slaves be part of your 'natural rights'? if not, why not? Remember, if rights are objective and intrinsic.....they can't change based on circumstance or source.

But if rights are circumstantial and our invention, then they must change based on circumstance or source.

And sweetie pie, the conception of rights changes as we do.

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life

As demonstrated so elegantly by all his slaves.

 

[Skylar]

Remember, if rights are objective and intrinsic....

too stupid nobody said our rights were objective and intrinsic

Then make your fucking argument. The door is open. The table is set. Make your case for the basis of rights.

.....you can't, can you? I've invited you at least 5 times to make your case. And all you do is spew insults. There's really nothing more to you than Appeals to Authority and name calling, is there?

If that's the case, then you bore me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm asking for why traditions would be more valid than our current conceptions rights.

1) write good enough english, the above makes no sense.
2) ask one question at a time you idiot you are confused by one and yet you ask 3 at a time on unrelated subjects.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

t. Make your case for the basis of rights.

our rights are in the Declaration and they came from Aristotle

 

[Skylar]

I'm asking for why traditions would be more valid than our current conceptions rights.

1) write good enough english, the above makes no sense.
2) ask one question at a time you idiot you are confused by one and yet you ask 3 at a time on unrelated subjects.

And insults instead of reason, evidence or argument. Again.

There's nothing else to you.

I'm kinda disappointed. I was hoping you were better and more rational than you turned out to be.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As demonstrated so elegantly by all his slaves.

who could not be freed legally

 

[Skylar]

t. Make your case for the basis of rights.

our rights are in the Declaration and they came from Aristotle

I'm not asking what they're in. I'm not asking where they're from. I'm asking what the BASIS of rights is.

I say common agreement. Rights are what we agree they are. What do you say the basis of rights are?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I'm asking what the BASIS of rights is.

Aristotle's scientific observations of life on the planet

 

[Skylar]

As demonstrated so elegantly by all his slaves.

who could not be freed legally

Says who? Jefferson chose to build on his estate. He chose to live a lavish lifestyle. THAT is why he had debts.

He used his slaves as collateral for debts to fuel the expansion of his mansion and to keep himself living the life of luxury. And this is 'opposition to slavery'?

If it is, it raises hypocrisy to an art form.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I say common agreement.

thats stupid and liberal and democratic. We all all taught to love and accept the founding documents not to seriously start over again. Thats why the basic rights in the documents still exist .

 

[Skylar]

. I'm asking what the BASIS of rights is.

Aristotle's scientific observations of life on the planet

So is it nature that is basis of our rights? Or Aristotle's observations on nature that is the basis of our rights?

 

[ogibillm]

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.


.

and if you do, but those around you do not agree and prevent you from owning property, what good is your so called 'natural' right?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As demonstrated so elegantly by all his slaves.

who could not be freed legally

Says who? Jefferson chose to build on his estate. He chose to live a lavish lifestyle. THAT is why he had debts.

He used his slaves as collateral for debts to fuel the expansion of his mansion and to keep himself living the life of luxury. And this is 'opposition to slavery'?

If it is, it raises hypocrisy to an art form.

it was illegal to have freed slaves running around Virginia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I'm asking what the BASIS of rights is.

Aristotle's scientific observations of life on the planet

So is it nature that is basis of our rights? Or Aristotle's observations on nature that is the basis of our rights?

as I said Aristotle was the first major contributor to our concept of natural rights.

 

[Skylar]

I say common agreement.

thats stupid and liberal and democratic. We all all taught to love and accept the founding documents not to seriously start over again. Thats why the basic rights in the documents still exist .

We agree they exist. That's why they do. We protect them. That's why they exist.