Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.
I dont get the feeling MD, Brown, and Foxfyre agree with that statement. What does that mean to you?
I can't agree or disagree with dblacks first statements here, they lack scope and absolute clarity. I suspect he meant the scope of his statements to be more generalizations than certain facts.
However, I completely disagree with the statement that "the core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree."
IMO the point was more to the opposite. That the federal government has no authority over said natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To say it's to establish rationale for said human rights is to give credence to the thought that they can be taken away when one of the natural rights fails some test of rationality. Remember that the modern liberal idea of rationality is upside down. For example, you currently have the right to life and liberty unless the president says you don't. The liberal rationale here was to forgo our natural rights to gain some measure of security.
Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.
Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right. But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process. Thx for your concession. And about time.
I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing. I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
And again, you choose to LIE and make up shit about natural rights, which can't be granted because they are innate, as being granted rights or abilities. I wish you'd pick your deflection, either all natural rights are complete bull shit because you say the can't exist without first being un-natural human granted rights, or there is no such thing as a right unless it's a granted right and all rights are actually abilities some of which are granted and some not granted.Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right. But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process. Thx for your concession. And about time.
I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing. I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
Which terms are you trying to redefine? ungranted as meaning granted? Or that there are not actual rights and only abilites some of with have been granted and others not? Granted abilities and natural abilities? Is that your problem you can deal with the difference between natural right (ungranted) and natural ability (ungranted)?
A plants natural right to life includes the process of seeding and growing new plants to naturally replenish more plants of the same species.
The plant's ability to seed is a part of the process.
Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right. But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process. Thx for your concession. And about time.
I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing. I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
You prove it again. And this is the last time I will demonstrate your sociopathy.
Only human (sentient) beings can apprehend rights in nature, declare their existence in nature or grant them in nature.
What is this mysterious entity in nature other than Man, a sentient being, that can do these things? And how could Man possibly do these things if the Right to do them were not in fact the very composition or essence of his being?
You simply are not capable of making out the distinction between the consequent abilities of humanity and the essence of humanity that makes these abilities possible.
You are refuted.
Dilloduck is refuted.
Rabbi' nonsense that the mutual obligations of natural morality are not the imperatives of natural law is refuted.
G.T.'s unwitting assertion of a metaphysical argument as an empirical argument is refuted.
RKMBrown's nonsense that natural law is not natural morality is refuted.
dcraelin's silliness about the most simplest kind of proposition is refuted.
Refuted. Refuted. Refuted.
Game over.
End of discussion.
Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right. But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process. Thx for your concession. And about time.
I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing. I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
You prove it again. And this is the last time I will demonstrate your sociopathy.
Only human (sentient) beings can apprehend rights in nature, declare their existence in nature or grant them in nature.
What is this mysterious entity in nature other than Man, a sentient being, that can do these things? And how could Man possibly do these things if the Right to do them were not in fact the very composition or essence of his being?
You simply are not capable of making out the distinction between the consequent abilities of humanity and the essence of humanity that makes these abilities possible.
You are refuted.
Dilloduck is refuted.
Rabbi' nonsense that the mutual obligations of natural morality are not the imperatives of natural law is refuted.
G.T.'s unwitting assertion of a metaphysical argument as an empirical argument is refuted.
RKMBrown's nonsense that natural law is not natural morality is refuted.
dcraelin's silliness about the most simplest kind of proposition is refuted.
Refuted. Refuted. Refuted.
Game over.
End of discussion.
A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
I dont get the feeling MD, Brown, and Foxfyre agree with that statement. What does that mean to you?
I can't agree or disagree with dblacks first statements here, they lack scope and absolute clarity. I suspect he meant the scope of his statements to be more generalizations than certain facts.
However, I completely disagree with the statement that "the core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree."
IMO the point was more to the opposite. That the federal government has no authority over said natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To say it's to establish rationale for said human rights is to give credence to the thought that they can be taken away when one of the natural rights fails some test of rationality. Remember that the modern liberal idea of rationality is upside down. For example, you currently have the right to life and liberty unless the president says you don't. The liberal rationale here was to forgo our natural rights to gain some measure of security.
I think your point is true in theory but entirely false in reality. Maybe thats the distinction here. You have rights in theory but all of them can be taken away in reality. In the case we are looking at this realistically rights simply don't exist unless man defines them and gives them to others. There is no way around that as evidenced over and over in history.
Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right. But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process. Thx for your concession. And about time.
I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing. I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
You prove it again. And this is the last time I will demonstrate your sociopathy.
Only human (sentient) beings can apprehend rights in nature, declare their existence in nature or grant them in nature.
What is this mysterious entity in nature other than Man, a sentient being, that can do these things? And how could Man possibly do these things if the Right to do them were not in fact the very composition or essence of his being?
You simply are not capable of making out the distinction between the consequent abilities of humanity and the essence of humanity that makes these abilities possible.
You are refuted.
Dilloduck is refuted.
Rabbi' nonsense that the mutual obligations of natural morality are not the imperatives of natural law is refuted.
G.T.'s unwitting assertion of a metaphysical argument as an empirical argument is refuted.
RKMBrown's nonsense that natural law is not natural morality is refuted.
dcraelin's silliness about the most simplest kind of proposition is refuted.
Refuted. Refuted. Refuted.
Game over.
End of discussion.
A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
By that logic the Bill of Rights should be removed from the Constitution.
I'll make it possibly easier for you.
If a right is only a granted right then what happens with to the right when it becomes ungranted? Does it vanish into thin air? Or perhaps become an anti-right? Are you trying to redraft the constitution to exclude all natural rights and replace them with your preferred list of anti-rights where we don't have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, because they were never actually granted?
So, to the natural rights crowd...
Is marriage a natural right?
And again, you choose to LIE and make up shit about natural rights, which can't be granted because they are innate, as being granted rights or abilities. I wish you'd pick your deflection, either all natural rights are complete bull shit because you say the can't exist without first being un-natural human granted rights, or there is no such thing as a right unless it's a granted right and all rights are actually abilities some of which are granted and some not granted.I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing. I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
Which terms are you trying to redefine? ungranted as meaning granted? Or that there are not actual rights and only abilites some of with have been granted and others not? Granted abilities and natural abilities? Is that your problem you can deal with the difference between natural right (ungranted) and natural ability (ungranted)?
A plants natural right to life includes the process of seeding and growing new plants to naturally replenish more plants of the same species.
The plant's ability to seed is a part of the process.
Please point out my lie and please point out what terms i am redefining. You just said it when you said a natural right cannot be granted. How did it turn into a right if it cant be granted? Inherent in the definition of a right is that it is something that is givein. A plants ability to seed is not a right. Its what I just called it. An ability. To further prove my point are you saying that plants that produce seedless grapes dont have the natural right to reproduce?
I can't agree or disagree with dblacks first statements here, they lack scope and absolute clarity. I suspect he meant the scope of his statements to be more generalizations than certain facts.
However, I completely disagree with the statement that "the core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree."
IMO the point was more to the opposite. That the federal government has no authority over said natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To say it's to establish rationale for said human rights is to give credence to the thought that they can be taken away when one of the natural rights fails some test of rationality. Remember that the modern liberal idea of rationality is upside down. For example, you currently have the right to life and liberty unless the president says you don't. The liberal rationale here was to forgo our natural rights to gain some measure of security.
I think your point is true in theory but entirely false in reality. Maybe thats the distinction here. You have rights in theory but all of them can be taken away in reality. In the case we are looking at this realistically rights simply don't exist unless man defines them and gives them to others. There is no way around that as evidenced over and over in history.
How did you miss my earlier discussion about the right to life liberty and property being taken away by the 14th amendment due process clause?
I believe the point of discussion was what was meant by the framers of this nation. The Northern states took away our natural rights after the civil war. From the realist perspective, we don't really have any rights left that can't be taken away "constitutionally" as long as it's deemed important to our Emperor.
I think your point is true in theory but entirely false in reality. Maybe thats the distinction here. You have rights in theory but all of them can be taken away in reality. In the case we are looking at this realistically rights simply don't exist unless man defines them and gives them to others. There is no way around that as evidenced over and over in history.
How did you miss my earlier discussion about the right to life liberty and property being taken away by the 14th amendment due process clause?
I believe the point of discussion was what was meant by the framers of this nation. The Northern states took away our natural rights after the civil war. From the realist perspective, we don't really have any rights left that can't be taken away "constitutionally" as long as it's deemed important to our Emperor.
I probably missed it because I was not aware it existed. However you seem to have missed your own news flash with that bit of information. How did the 14th amendment take away our inalienable rights if they are inalienable or natural?
And again, you choose to LIE and make up shit about natural rights, which can't be granted because they are innate, as being granted rights or abilities. I wish you'd pick your deflection, either all natural rights are complete bull shit because you say the can't exist without first being un-natural human granted rights, or there is no such thing as a right unless it's a granted right and all rights are actually abilities some of which are granted and some not granted.
Which terms are you trying to redefine? ungranted as meaning granted? Or that there are not actual rights and only abilites some of with have been granted and others not? Granted abilities and natural abilities? Is that your problem you can deal with the difference between natural right (ungranted) and natural ability (ungranted)?
A plants natural right to life includes the process of seeding and growing new plants to naturally replenish more plants of the same species.
The plant's ability to seed is a part of the process.
Please point out my lie and please point out what terms i am redefining. You just said it when you said a natural right cannot be granted. How did it turn into a right if it cant be granted? Inherent in the definition of a right is that it is something that is givein. A plants ability to seed is not a right. Its what I just called it. An ability. To further prove my point are you saying that plants that produce seedless grapes dont have the natural right to reproduce?
I already pointed out your lie.
What a load of dog poo.
THE WHOLE DAMN POINT OF A NATURAL RIGHT IS THAT IS NOT A GRANTED RIGHT. YOU TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY BUT ALL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED SO THERE ARE NO NATURAL RIGHTS. COMPLETE BULL SHIT. UTTER LIE.
I'll make it possibly easier for you.
If a right is only a granted right then what happens with to the right when it becomes ungranted? Does it vanish into thin air? Or perhaps become an anti-right? Are you trying to redraft the constitution to exclude all natural rights and replace them with your preferred list of anti-rights where we don't have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, because they were never actually granted?
A revoked right goes to the same place that inalienable/natural rights seem to dwell. The air. What makes you think I am trying to redraft the constitution? Is that the source of you being so emotional and calling names? Thats actually funny because I dont have one ounce of power to rewrite the constitution. If I did want to rewrite the constitution to include a list of untouchable rights why would you be against that or would you?
