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.
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?
Sigh. How can you not understand the difference between a natural right to life, and some ass hole shooting your and your family? How can you be so obtuse?
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?
Troll.
Unicorns have one horn--everyone knows that right ? I mean I've seen paintings and drawings of them everywhere. They even look the same from one country to the next thereby proving the universality of unicorns. Only a sociopath wouldn't have the compassion to admit that there is such a creature.
As to seedless grapes.. Yeah the natural right to life of those plants has been destroyed by man. Again as has been explained to you a hundred times, destroying a thing does not eliminate the fact that the grape plant has a natural right to life afforded by it's own inherent ability to grow seeded grapes.
That seedless grape plants require man perform manual functions to maintain the life of the plant outside the natural process is merely proof that man has the natural ability to come up with ways to destroy life.
Unicorns have one horn--everyone knows that right ? I mean I've seen paintings and drawings of them everywhere. They even look the same from one country to the next thereby proving the universality of unicorns. Only a sociopath wouldn't have the compassion to admit that there is such a creature.
No. Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense: the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion. Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.
You are refuted.
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 dont care what the point is. I want you to prove to me I have a right without someone granting it to me natural or otherwise. You dont have to be emotional about this Brown. Settle down and prove your point.
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 dont care what the point is. I want you to prove to me I have a right without someone granting it to me natural or otherwise. You dont have to be emotional about this Brown. Settle down and prove your point.
The point's been proven.
You have been found wanting. You are incapable of understanding even basic concepts such as "natural rights" by definition do NOT require a grant. Without puking up your repeated lies that natural rights are one of abilities, inalienable rights that have been taken away, or granted rights.
Your three pronged attack on natural rights being 1) but it can be taken away so it's not inalienable, 2) it's a ability not a right, and 3) it's a granted right therefore not a natural right, really just makes you out to be a lying POS, a joke, an ass, a TROLL, perhaps satan worshiper. Every one of your statements is filled with bile. But you may take joy, as I suspect you do, in companionship with your fellow authoritarians who like you, don't believe anyone should have the natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness without first getting authorization from you and your ilk.
As to seedless grapes.. Yeah the natural right to life of those plants has been destroyed by man. Again as has been explained to you a hundred times, destroying a thing does not eliminate the fact that the grape plant has a natural right to life afforded by it's own inherent ability to grow seeded grapes.
That seedless grape plants require man perform manual functions to maintain the life of the plant outside the natural process is merely proof that man has the natural ability to come up with ways to destroy life.
Let me get this straight. You can destroy a natural or inalienable right and it still be there? You further admit that the right came from the plants ability to reproduce? So if the plant cant reproduce anymore how is the right still there especially since it has been destroyed? All you are doing is claiming the effect of the ability has moral ramifications and calling them natural rights. Moral is a manmade construct.
I dont care what the point is. I want you to prove to me I have a right without someone granting it to me natural or otherwise. You dont have to be emotional about this Brown. Settle down and prove your point.
The point's been proven.
You have been found wanting. You are incapable of understanding even basic concepts such as "natural rights" by definition do NOT require a grant. Without puking up your repeated lies that natural rights are one of abilities, inalienable rights that have been taken away, or granted rights.
Your three pronged attack on natural rights being 1) but it can be taken away so it's not inalienable, 2) it's a ability not a right, and 3) it's a granted right therefore not a natural right, really just makes you out to be a lying POS, a joke, an ass, a TROLL, perhaps satan worshiper. Every one of your statements is filled with bile. But you may take joy, as I suspect you do, in companionship with your fellow authoritarians who like you, don't believe anyone should have the natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness without first getting authorization from you and your ilk.
No the point hasnt been proven. Thats why I am asking for proof. You have yet to provide it.
I'm pretty sure I have been found by you to be wanting since I dont agree with the smokescreen you call natural or inalienable rights. Its not that I dont want people to have natural rights, I want people to realize they need to protect their rights and not think some sky fairy is going bestow these rights upon them. The moment people relax and think their rights (all of them) cant be taken away is the day your point of view will be proven incredibly naive and foolish.
Unicorns have one horn--everyone knows that right ? I mean I've seen paintings and drawings of them everywhere. They even look the same from one country to the next thereby proving the universality of unicorns. Only a sociopath wouldn't have the compassion to admit that there is such a creature.
No. Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense: the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion. Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.
You are refuted.
I thought you had left to start on your next book?
As to seedless grapes.. Yeah the natural right to life of those plants has been destroyed by man. Again as has been explained to you a hundred times, destroying a thing does not eliminate the fact that the grape plant has a natural right to life afforded by it's own inherent ability to grow seeded grapes.
That seedless grape plants require man perform manual functions to maintain the life of the plant outside the natural process is merely proof that man has the natural ability to come up with ways to destroy life.
Let me get this straight. You can destroy a natural or inalienable right and it still be there? You further admit that the right came from the plants ability to reproduce? So if the plant cant reproduce anymore how is the right still there especially since it has been destroyed? All you are doing is claiming the effect of the ability has moral ramifications and calling them natural rights. Moral is a manmade construct.
NO, NO, NO!
You can destroy a thing, you can't destroy it's natural rights. The natural rights can't be touched or destroyed, only the physical body is destroyed when you burn it to death. The right to life that that body had still exists.
For example, if you murder someone, the reason we put you on trial for your murder is because the person you killed has a right to life, you took that person's life you violated his right to life. Killing him did not take his right to life, it took his life.
I just can't believe anyone could be so ignorant as to not understand this fundamental difference. I suppose if you are a sociopath, that might explain the lack of understanding.
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.
The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.
I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.
Your grasp of what I am doing is way off base if you are referring to me as a troll simply because I disagree with you. That is the weakest and flimsiest of excuses in your inability to prove your point. In case you missed it the government has always been the final authority regarding any of your rights. You simply have no argument when you say natural rights exist because men said they do and call them natural. They must be able to exist without the presence of man separate and alone.
No. Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense: the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion. Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.
You are refuted.
I thought you had left to start on your next book?
Not quite, dilloduck showed up, the other who exhibits all the signs of sociopathy, even more obviously than you. But, yes, now I'm done with this thread.
P.S.
Someone please explain to dcraelin that Jefferson could have written: "We hold these truths to be [axiomatic] . . ." and not changed the meaning of the thought one bit. An axiomatic thing and a self-evident thing are the very same kind of thing. The terms are synonymously interchangeable. An axiom is a maxim, i.e., a self-evident truth.
Jesus. Joseph! Mary!
The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.
I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.
Your grasp of what I am doing is way off base if you are referring to me as a troll simply because I disagree with you. That is the weakest and flimsiest of excuses in your inability to prove your point. In case you missed it the government has always been the final authority regarding any of your rights. You simply have no argument when you say natural rights exist because men said they do and call them natural. They must be able to exist without the presence of man separate and alone.
He is referring to you as a troll because you never actually address the points anyone else makes, and then you claim they didn't actually answer your questions.
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.
No. Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense: the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion. Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.
You are refuted.
I thought you had left to start on your next book?
Not quite, dilloduck showed up, the other who exhibits all the signs of sociopathy, even more obviously than you. But, yes, now I'm done with this thread.
P.S.
Someone please explain to dcraelin that Jefferson could have written: "We hold these truths to be [axiomatic] . . ." and not changed the meaning of the thought one bit. An axiomatic thing and a self-evident thing are the very same kind of thing. The terms are synonymously interchangeable. An axiom is a maxim, i.e., a self-evident truth.
Jesus. Joseph! Mary!
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
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
Men control the morals of animals?
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.
