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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Did Aristotle's observations change? Or did our conception of rights change?

dear after Aristotle died Cicero Jesus Locke Jefferson Burke Friedman contributed to our understanding God's or natures rights.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hun, I'm the person telling you what a fucking hypocrite Jefferson was.

dear, whether Jefferson was a hypocrite or not is not our subject is it?

It is if his beliefs are the basis of our rights. And he didn't believe in what he said.

why say that??? a smoker can lead an anti smoking campaign and beleive it while not being able to overcome his own addiction. Is that really over your head? See why we say the liberal is slow??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can any of us similarly discard any of Aristotle's idiocy....or are you the only one that has that priveledge?

too 100% stupid as always I never said I determned rights I said Aristotle Cicero Jesus....100 times now. Do you see the way you lie to yourself to keep squirming like a jelly fish?

 

[Skylar]

Hun, I'm the person telling you what a fucking hypocrite Jefferson was.

dear, whether Jefferson was a hypocrite or not is not our subject is it?

It is if his beliefs are the basis of our rights. And he didn't believe in what he said.

why say that??? a smoker can lead an anti smoking campaign and beleive it while not being able to overcome his own addiction. Is that really over your head? See why we say the liberal is slow??

Jefferson demonstrated that he didn't actually believe in the ideals he espoused. He believed in the strong dominating the weak for their own luxury, wealth, and lavish lifestyle.

How do we know? He lived it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And if WE decide what our rights are, and not Aristotle's observations, well hunny........you just made my argument for me.

too stupid I never said we decide I said Aristotle Cicero..... 1000 times

 

[Skylar]

Can any of us similarly discard any of Aristotle's idiocy....or are you the only one that has that priveledge?

too 100% stupid as always I never said I determned rights I said Aristotle Cicero Jesus....100 times now. Do you see the way you lie to yourself to keep squirming like a jelly fish?

You're randomly dismissing Aristotle whenever he's inconvenient to your argument. So its clearly not Aristotle's observations that are the basis that are your conception of rights. You'll gladly wipe your ass with anything from Aristotle you don't like.

Guess what, hunny bunny? We can too! As its our consent and our agreement one what to pick and choose that determines our rights. Not Aristotle's idiotic belief in 'natural slavery' or 'natural kingship' or 'natural aristocracy'.

But us. We make that determination. As we are the basis of our own rights.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hun, I'm the person telling you what a fucking hypocrite Jefferson was.

dear, whether Jefferson was a hypocrite or not is not our subject is it?

It is if his beliefs are the basis of our rights. And he didn't believe in what he said.

why say that??? a smoker can lead an anti smoking campaign and beleive it while not being able to overcome his own addiction. Is that really over your head? See why we say the liberal is slow??

Jefferson demonstrated that he didn't actually believe in the ideals he espoused. He believed in the strong dominating the weak for their own luxury, wealth, and lavish lifestyle.

How do we know? He lived it.

dear you are trying to change the subject to Jeffersons alleged hypocrisy but that is not our subject is it? Start another thread if you want to lose another argument.

 

[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.

So....your typical anarchy schtick.

Your typical incoherent schtick you use when you lose an argument .

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're randomly dismissing Aristotle whenever he's inconvenient to your argument.

too stupid if Aristotle understood perfectly we would not have needed Cicero Jesus...etcetc as I have said 100 times..

Still over your head?? See why we say the liberal will be slow?.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Can any of us similarly discard any of Aristotle's idiocy....or are you the only one that has that priveledge?

too 100% stupid as always I never said I determned rights I said Aristotle Cicero Jesus....100 times now. Do you see the way you lie to yourself to keep squirming like a jelly fish?

Isn't it marvelous how those who demand that the culture recognize that which irrefutably deviates from normal human reasoning, must be considered 'normal'... are in here calling Aristotle an idiot?

ROFLMNAO! You can NOT make this crap up... .

 

[sealybobo]

Many people are offende

. 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.

And I'm asking you if its Aristotle himself that is the basis of our rights. Or if it is nature itself that is the basis of our rights?

You've spoken of Aristotle as the 'smartest man that ever lived'. So is it his judgment that is the basis of our rights. Or did he discover something about nature that already existed? Newton for example didn't invent gravity. He discovered it. So newton wouldn't be the basis of gravity. Mass would.

Similarly, what is the basis of your conception of rights? Aristotle's judgment and skill in observation? Or nature itself?

As somewhat intelligent animals we came up with human rights. We discussed and decided what every mans basic rights should be. Mind you they didn't include women or people who werent like them but you know. Those were different times back then.

 

[Skylar]

And if WE decide what our rights are, and not Aristotle's observations, well hunny........you just made my argument for me.

too stupid I never said we decide I said Aristotle Cicero..... 1000 times

And you are ignoring anything from Aristotle you don't like. Aristotle can't be your basis.....when you can choose to ignore anything he says. When YOU get to decide what to pick and choose what your rights are, YOU are the basis of your rights.

And you are ignoring Aristotle whenever you want. I can too. So can everyone else. Which is why WE are the supreme authority on our rights. Not Aristotle.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As we are the basis of our own rights.

if so we would not rely on the founding documents we'd go it alone like the great liberal inventors Hitler Stalin and Mao did.

Do you understand now?

 

[sealybobo]

Oh, and since we're delving into Aristotle....do you believe in his conception of a 'natural aristocracy'. One deemed worthy by natural law?

Aristotle believed in kingship. Is there a 'natural right' to be king?

Aristotle believed in Timocracy, where only property owners could vote. Is that too a 'natural right'?

Plato too thought advanced knowledge wasn't for the masses. This was the beginnings of christianity. Before christianity. Religion helped keep the masses uneducated.

 

[Skylar]

Hun, I'm the person telling you what a fucking hypocrite Jefferson was.

dear, whether Jefferson was a hypocrite or not is not our subject is it?

It is if his beliefs are the basis of our rights. And he didn't believe in what he said.

why say that??? a smoker can lead an anti smoking campaign and beleive it while not being able to overcome his own addiction. Is that really over your head? See why we say the liberal is slow??

Jefferson demonstrated that he didn't actually believe in the ideals he espoused. He believed in the strong dominating the weak for their own luxury, wealth, and lavish lifestyle.

How do we know? He lived it.

dear you are trying to change the subject to Jeffersons alleged hypocrisy but that is not our subject is it? Start another thread if you want to lose another argument.

Me citing jefferson is just as relevant as you citing him. He doesn't suddenly become irrelevant because you're losing.

His hypocrisy demonstrates he didn't believe his own bullshit on 'natural rights'. That he believed in the strong dominating the weak, the strong OWNING the weak, and doing whatever they wished with the weak......for the benefit of the strong, for the luxury of the strong, for the lavish lifestyle of the strong.

He demonstrated this by how he lived. And we don't believe in the strong owning the weak. So Jefferson clearly isn't the basis of our rights anymore than Aristotle and his 'natural slavery'.

We decide. Not Jefferson. Not Aristotle. We do. We define our rights. We protect our rights.

 

[Skylar]

As we are the basis of our own rights.

if so we would not rely on the founding documents we'd go it alone like the great liberal inventors Hitler Stalin and Mao did.

Do you understand now?

We AGREE to rely on the founding document. With the founding document meaning what we agree it does. The founders had strict laws against say, interracial marriage. We agree that its not only legal, its a right.

The founders executed homosexuals. We agree that gays have every right to live.

Rights aren't static. They are very dynamic. And they change as we change. Because they are our inventions. And they reflect us. Not the other way around.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

As somewhat intelligent animals we came up with human rights. ...

We observed that humanity was endowed with life from the creator of the universe and reasoned that because we were given this life that the creator of the universe intended that we should pursue the fulfillment of such and that as a result of that gift, that such represents that the supreme authority of the universe authorizes us to do just that... and given that all human beings are created by the same source, that no human being is favored above another, thus the right to fulfill our life is indistinguishable from our being, and that no human power stands above our divine authorization.

A truth which is vastly distinct from 'coming up with human rights'.

With your inability to recognize that, notwithstanding.

 

[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.

Your typical incoherent schtick you use when you lose an argument .

.

We've already had the 'anarchy' discussion. You lost. Do you have anything new to add to it, or is it the same schtick that you offered last time?

If you've got nothing new, then why do expect the outcome to be any different this time?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We AGREE to rely on the founding document.

no we don't!! to hold office we take an oath to protect and defend the genius of Aristotle Cicero and Jesus precisely because we don't want to be killed by liberals like you HItler Stalin and Mao.

Notice how exactly like HItler Stalin and Mao you are a total illiterate who wants to jump up and down saying I may be an illiterate dope but I know my rights and I'm qualified to assert them just like our Founders!! Why not get an education if you can learn at all or stay out of the discussion for the good of humanity?

 

[Skylar]

As somewhat intelligent animals we came up with human rights. ...

We observed that humanity was endowed with life from the creator of the universe and reasoned that because we were given this life that the creator of the universe intended that we should pursue the fulfillment of such and that as a result of that gift, that such represents that the supreme authority of the universe authorizes us to do just that... and given that all human beings are created by the same source, that no human being is favored above another, thus the right to fulfill our life is indistinguishable from our being, and that no human power stands above our divine authorization.

That's all personal assumption and subjective opinion. Its the same thing you always do. You imagine that anything you believe must be objective truth. And then offer your subjective beliefs as objective truth.

And they're not. Your argument always breaks at the exact same spot: it requires that we accept you as an infallible arbiter of any topic you choose to discuss. And no one is willing to do that.

Without that acceptance, you're just another schmuck with an opinion.