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

[ogibillm]

that's just retarded on its face.
.

Dear, firstly, Aristotle, Locke and Jefferson were geniuses, not retarded at all. Are you a typical liberal illiterate? The laws of a physics, for example, came from learning to understanding what was natural and has existed forever. Human rights are very similar.

Do you understand now?

you misunderstand. what was retarded was claiming that because someone disagrees with the concept of natural rights they become akin to hitler. that's retarded.

however, i do find that the belief in natural rights is lazy. it passes off responsibility for defining and even defending rights to a supernatural power, when the reality is that what we call natural rights exist not because god divined it but because men like jefferson made impassioned, logical arguments for them to the point that we accept them without question.

but don't fool yourself, they only exist as long as we accept them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you misunderstand. what was retarded was claiming that because someone disagrees with the concept of natural rights they become akin to hitler. that's retarded.

dear, its not retarded the whole point of natural law is to discourage liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao from thinking they can be the source of rights rather than god nature or tradition.

Do you understand now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

but don't fool yourself, they only exist as long as we accept them.

spoken like the true lib Nazi you are. That's just what we want Hitler Stalin and Mao to hear!! Lets find a way to empower more psycho lib killers.

 

[ogibillm]

but don't fool yourself, they only exist as long as we accept them.

spoken like the true lib Nazi you are. That's just what we want Hitler Stalin and Mao to hear!! Lets find a way to empower more psycho lib killers.

so you find disagreement with you on a philosophical point dangerous? doesn't that make you like a dictator?

anyhow what makes you think that rights, if natural or god given, are less likely to be violated than if they are agreements among men?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so you find disagreement with you on a philosophical point dangerous? doesn't that make you like a dictator?

1) a dictator controls govt, I don't
2) disagreement is one thing pure lib commie ignorance does not rise to the level of disagreement

 

[ogibillm]

so you find disagreement with you on a philosophical point dangerous? doesn't that make you like a dictator?

1) a dictator controls govt, I don't
2) disagreement is one thing pure lib commie ignorance does not rise to the level of disagreement

you neglected to tell me how a right, once deemed natural by man, is less likely to be infringed by man

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

anyhow what makes you think that rights, if natural or god given, are less likely to be violated than if they are agreements among men?

because if they are natural like rocks or oceans they are not for man to move and certainly not easily moved.

A child could see this just not a liberal who wants to be free to be a nazi.

 

[ogibillm]

anyhow what makes you think that rights, if natural or god given, are less likely to be violated than if they are agreements among men?

because if they are natural like rocks or oceans they are not for man to move and certainly not easily moved.

A child could see this just not a liberal who wants to be free to be a nazi.

and yet you give great examples of men who have done just that.

how about slavery? it's existed since the beginning of time - are we to assume then that since slavery has been a right for so long, and not easily moved, it is a natural right?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

anyhow what makes you think that rights, if natural or god given, are less likely to be violated than if they are agreements among men?

because if they are natural like rocks or oceans they are not for man to move and certainly not easily moved.

A child could see this just not a liberal who wants to be free to be a nazi.

and yet you give great examples of men who have done just that.

how about slavery? it's existed since the beginning of time - are we to assume then that since slavery has been a right for so long, and not easily moved, it is a natural right?

dear, we made lots of incorrect assumptions about the laws of physics but the laws waited for us to understand them.

Simple enough even for a liberal??

 

[ogibillm]

anyhow what makes you think that rights, if natural or god given, are less likely to be violated than if they are agreements among men?

because if they are natural like rocks or oceans they are not for man to move and certainly not easily moved.

A child could see this just not a liberal who wants to be free to be a nazi.

and yet you give great examples of men who have done just that.

how about slavery? it's existed since the beginning of time - are we to assume then that since slavery has been a right for so long, and not easily moved, it is a natural right?

dear, we made lots of incorrect assumptions about the laws of physics but the laws waited for us to understand them.

Simple enough even for a liberal??

that's different though, isn't it? we can prove physical laws

can you prove a right is a natural right? again, looking at slavery, it's been around forever. does that make it a natural right?
if it's not, how were all those societies that embraced slavery from the beginning of time able to do so in defiance of nature?

why did slavery only come to an end (mostly) when men decided it was no longer acceptable?

 

[paulitician]

Typical Communist wanker. But it is CNN (Communist News Network), so go figure? Probably believes our rights come only from the Gubmint. I like how our Founding Fathers viewed it... 'They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.' I'm goin with them, rather than with some smug petty Communist wanka no one cares about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

can you prove a right is a natural right? again, looking at slavery, it's been around forever. does that make it a natural right?

dear, man made mistakes about physics and slavery forever but discovered the natural laws and the laws of physics at about the same time. Think before you post please

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why did slavery only come to an end (mostly) when men decided it was no longer acceptable?

Dear, Aristotle Jefferson and Einstein decided mistakes in physics and natural law were no longer acceptable when they were recognized that they were mistakes in their understanding of the natural universe.

 

[ogibillm]

can you prove a right is a natural right? again, looking at slavery, it's been around forever. does that make it a natural right?

dear, man made mistakes about physics and slavery forever but discovered the natural laws and the laws of physics at about the same time. Think before you post please

and you believe that now that we've discovered natural rights, they are somehow supernaturally protected?

why are they any more difficult to infringe upon as natural rights than as man-made creations?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and you believe that now that we've discovered natural rights, they are somehow supernaturally protected?

dear, I did not mention the supernatural???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why are they any more difficult to infringe upon as natural rights than as man-made creations?

dear, OMG!! God or nature are harder to argue with than another man. If they are man-made then HIlter stalin and mao ( man ) can easily unmake them to kill 200 million people.

So are you a nazi or communist or still deciding?

 

[Contumacious]

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?
.

1) we agree that there is a court system to settle disagreements because we can see it and touch it eveyday

2) having a welfare/warfare police state is not related to the existence of a court system.

Bullshit,

a Kangaroo Court is not a court system

The Court system was supposed to act a a bulwark of liberty thereby protecting us from a welfare/warfare police state.

.

Well the court was given very little power in the Constitution. Even after judical review (Marbury Madison) it did not occur to anyone for 100 years that the court should decide if a law was Constitutional. Jefferson did not want the court to decide anything even then becuase he thought it was too liberal.

The sad fact is the Constitution was too vague to prevent liberals, the very cancer they feared most.

Judicial Review merely allows the Court the authority to declare the law in a dispute. It does NOT authorize the Court to either amend the document nor substitute the same.

It does so because , as pointed out by Jonathan Gruber, Americans are stupid.

.

 

[ogibillm]

and you believe that now that we've discovered natural rights, they are somehow supernaturally protected?

dear, I did not mention the supernatural???

no, you didn't.
so if you don't believe that natural rights receive any sort of supernatural protection, it can safely be assumed that it is up to mankind to protect and defend those rights.

which, of course, brings us right back to the fact that what you call natural rights only exist so long as society agrees they do.

 

[ogibillm]

why are they any more difficult to infringe upon as natural rights than as man-made creations?

dear, OMG!! God or nature are harder to argue with than another man. If they are man-made then HIlter stalin and mao ( man ) can easily unmake them to kill 200 million people.

So are you a nazi or communist or still deciding?

well... it would seem that hitler, stalin, and mao did not have problems killing people or depriving them of their natural rights.
did you just kabob your own argument?

 

[Kosh]

My favorite word the far left uses (that they do not understand) is equality, as equality does not exist in nature..