Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Asclepias]

This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc. Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown. They seek continuity in every aspect of life. Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.

And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.

Funny. That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either. Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought. Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition. Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world. On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.

Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls. Got to respect that.

There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.

I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality. Something's missing.

But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism. Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity. Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed. The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness. That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.

But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world. So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.

Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind? The way I see it of course they do. But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept. And oh well.

Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things. The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven. However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work. Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.

 

[Foxfyre]

And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.

Funny. That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either. Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought. Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition. Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world. On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.

Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls. Got to respect that.

There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.

I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality. Something's missing.

But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism. Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity. Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed. The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness. That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.

But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world. So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.

Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind? The way I see it of course they do. But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept. And oh well.

Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things. The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven. However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work. Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.

What is it exactly that man constructs? Can he construct good? Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it? Can he construct evil or harmful? Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it? Can he construct captivity or freedom? Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?

Of course humankind confers legal rights. But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights. Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.

The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth. But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people. And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.

The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights. These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.

The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.

 

[Asclepias]

But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism. Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity. Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed. The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness. That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.

But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world. So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.

Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind? The way I see it of course they do. But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept. And oh well.

Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things. The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven. However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work. Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.

What is it exactly that man constructs? Can he construct good? Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it? Can he construct evil or harmful? Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it? Can he construct captivity or freedom? Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?

Of course humankind confers legal rights. But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights. Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.

The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth. But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people. And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.

The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights. These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.

The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.

Mans constructs can be both beneficial and non-beneficial. A construct however is not based on empirical evidence. It is subjective.

A natural state does not magically turn into a natural right until man says it does. This is man simply labeling an action and calling it a right. A word that only is relevant in the view of man. The one common denominator in all rights is that man decided that is what he wanted to call the concept. That does not make it natural or IOW "not man made" by the very definition.

Again you are getting into the benefits of this construct. That doesn't prove it exists in a natural state. It only proves it has positive benefits. The fact that man created it makes it not natural. Using this concept of natural rights makes the person/government responsible for its implementation the grantor of these rights. Nature has nada to do with it. If the government/person granting these rights wants to change their mind the designation of these rights being natural or inalienable makes it more difficult to take back. Note I said more difficult and not impossible. The concept of natural or inalienable rights is a sales job and nothing based in provable fact.

 

[dilloduck]

But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism. Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity. Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed. The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness. That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.

But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world. So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.

Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind? The way I see it of course they do. But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept. And oh well.

Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things. The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven. However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work. Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.

What is it exactly that man constructs? Can he construct good? Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it? Can he construct evil or harmful? Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it? Can he construct captivity or freedom? Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?

Of course humankind confers legal rights. But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights. Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.

The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth. But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people. And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.

The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights. These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.

The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.

Morals are what man decides them to be

 

[RKMBrown]

There are plenty of things that exist without man. Natural rights just isn't one of them

ROFL please stop...
THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION. And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist. ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes. ROFLLLLFLFLFL

 

[Bgallo28]

It is all about certain morals people have.

 

[dblack]

The definition is wrong.

That's all they've been doing the whole thread. It's just a strawman.

 

[RKMBrown]

The definition is wrong.

That's all they've been doing the whole thread. It's just a strawman.

Ayup... typical lib obfuscation.

No means yes.

Yes means no.

Is means isn't.

Protecting means destroying.

Liberty means liberty to steal, murder...

Natural rights means unnatural rights.

Improving means making worse.

Progressive means a-progressive.

Patriotic means unpatriotic.

Freedom of religion means no religion.

Public means private.

Privacy means no privacy.

Security means defenseless.

 

[Asclepias]

There are plenty of things that exist without man. Natural rights just isn't one of them

ROFL please stop...
THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION. And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist. ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes. ROFLLLLFLFLFL

I thought you were better than this Brown? ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural? Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist? If you can explain that I would be impressed. I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are plenty of things that exist without man. Natural rights just isn't one of them

ROFL please stop...
THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION. And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist. ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes. ROFLLLLFLFLFL

I thought you were better than this Brown? ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural? Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist? If you can explain that I would be impressed. I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes? Where did I accuse you of being a rapist? Lie much?

 

[Foxfyre]

Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things. The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven. However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work. Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.

What is it exactly that man constructs? Can he construct good? Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it? Can he construct evil or harmful? Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it? Can he construct captivity or freedom? Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?

Of course humankind confers legal rights. But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights. Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.

The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth. But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people. And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.

The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights. These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.

The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.

Morals are what man decides them to be

I wouldn't have a huge argument about that.

But the discussion isn't about morals. It is about natural rights.

Try to keep up okay?

 

[dblack]

ROFL please stop...
THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION. And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist. ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes. ROFLLLLFLFLFL

I thought you were better than this Brown? ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural? Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist? If you can explain that I would be impressed. I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?

RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.

 

[RKMBrown]

I thought you were better than this Brown? ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural? Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist? If you can explain that I would be impressed. I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?

RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.

Paid political consultants...

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought you were better than this Brown? ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural? Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist? If you can explain that I would be impressed. I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?

RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.

It does indeed. And boring. I think intelligent people can cope with the 'is too - is not" kindergarten style of debate for only so long, and then you are almost desperate for adult conversation to reassure you that your brain isn't pickled.

It is difficult to respect the argument that 'we can't prove' our point of view when they refuse to even try to 'prove' theirs or when they ignore answers to the same questions they keep repeating but won't respond to competent arguments made.

Oh well. Such is life on a message board, yes?

 

[dblack]

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?

RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.

Paid political consultants...

Maybe. But trolling appeals to some. It might just be a hobby.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it. My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue. People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?

Funny.

Asclepias writes: "People grant rights. The proof is that they do it. Where is the proof nature or god does?"

You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

Congratulations. You've just proven that natural rights exist.

Got Natural Sentience? Got the very Essence of Man?

You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!

If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?

You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks. There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck. What is it?

dblack, are you paying attention? I know you're not a sociopath. I know the signs.

It's only the very rare psychopath that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone. It goes no deeper than that. The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist? Once again, it's not possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

That's the nature of axiomatic propositions. That's why they're axiomatic. That's why they're self-evident.

Obviously, natural rights exist.

I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.

MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier. You just proved natural rights are a construct of man. Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real. Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made. What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?

Of course, I'm saying the same thing: that's the axiom. That's the proof. That's the premise. That's the essence. That's the whole of it. What other entity in nature would apprehend them, grant them or have them?

You keep demanding that we point to something else? What would the sentient being point to in nature besides the sentient being in nature? Are you daft?

You proved they exist again!

Your blather about "man-made" is just a contrivance. The only thing around here that has no substantive ground in reality is your contrivance, a mental delusion of illogic, which exists nowhere else in reality but in your mind.

Question: What do we mean when we say reality?

Answer: We mean that which exists both within and without our minds.

Question: What do we mean when we say delusion/fantasy?

Answer: We mean imaginary things.

Question: Why are they imaginary things?

Answer: Because such things only exist in the mind, not without.

Question: What does your contrivance mean?

Answer: That Man himself, a natural and sentient being does not actually exist outside our minds.

*crickets chirping*

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.

 

[Asclepias]

ROFL please stop...
THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION. And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist. ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes. ROFLLLLFLFLFL

I thought you were better than this Brown? ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural? Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist? If you can explain that I would be impressed. I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes? Where did I accuse you of being a rapist? Lie much?

I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct. if it is not where did it come from? The authors of the english language said no means no. That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition. I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.

 

[Asclepias]

I thought you were better than this Brown? ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural? Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist? If you can explain that I would be impressed. I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?

RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.

I get my definitions out of a dictionary. Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions. Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?

RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.

I get my definitions out of a dictionary. Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions. Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.

Been proven to you dozens of times. In response each time you moved the goal post a couple times and /or rejected the proof out of hand because it did not fit your definition that they don't exist.

ROFL Yeah the definition of natural rights is... there are no natural rights. ROFL

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I thought you were better than this Brown? ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural? Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist? If you can explain that I would be impressed. I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.

Who said they were a man made construct besides, YOU? Who said no means, no? Man? If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes? Where did I accuse you of being a rapist? Lie much?

I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct. if it is not where did it come from? The authors of the english language said no means no. That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition. I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.

False. Man-made construct implies that natural rights do not exist beyond man's mind; essentially, it means that man does not actually exist outside man's mind. That's absurd!

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . in nature. Only sentient beings grant rights . . . in nature. One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution. Only sentient beings have rights . . . in nature.