Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[The Rabbi]

That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection. Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?

In what setting?

You'll always have the instinct to defend it.

Having the "right" to defend it is an abstract idea brought upon by human cohabitation.

LOL! So, you would be unable to defend your life until society grants you that right?

No. In the same way you are able to commit murder anywhere, any time. Just a question of the consequences later.

 

[G.T.]

That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection. Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?

In what setting?

You'll always have the instinct to defend it.

Having the "right" to defend it is an abstract idea brought upon by human cohabitation.

LOL! So, you would be unable to defend your life until society grants you that right?

No, you'd be able to defend your life always.

Having the "right" to do so has nothing to do with your ability to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.

So I have the right to rape an attractive woman on the bus? How cool is that??

LOL! Ah, I'm in the hyperbolic absurdity zone?

No, the absurdity is you positing that the ability to act on instincts constitute a right, when we have shown where that leads.

 

[G.T.]

Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind) originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?

Both, and the question is also irrelevant.

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Rights are a concept invented by humans.

Instincts are innate, therefore natural.

Rights are not.

 

[G.T.]

I love how an instinct and your ability to act on said instinct became the definition of a right to hunarcy, lol you kill me bro.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Both, and the question is also irrelevant.

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Rights are a concept invented by humans.

Instincts are innate, therefore natural.

Rights are not.

innate by its very definition in this context is that the rights are constructs of the constitution of intellect derived from the mind. You're just playing jigsaw with definitions now. By that standard, they are innate, which also happens to mean existing as part of the basic nature of something.

It's all a game of semantics nonsense now.

 

[G.T.]

Nah, bro. Youre just inept at the idea of logically proving an assertion.

Its always going to circle around to rights being abstract, not factual.

I have maintained that and everyone else trying to refute it logically has failed.

Pointing to instinct was the weakest attempt of them all.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Rights are a concept invented by humans.

Instincts are innate, therefore natural.

Rights are not.

innate by its very definition in this context is that the rights are constructs of the constitution of intellect derived from the mind. You're just playing jigsaw with definitions now. By that standard, they are innate, which also happens to mean existing as part of the basic nature of something.

It's all a game of semantics nonsense now.

Your position is that rights are constructs derived from the mind? On that reading anything a person chooses could be a right.
Sounds like a fail to me.

 

[dblack]

Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind) originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?

Both, and the question is also irrelevant.

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

 

[G.T.]

Both, and the question is also irrelevant.

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

I was being nice, but his comment was dumb.

It breaks down to every human idea or thought being natural. It's stupid.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Both, and the question is also irrelevant.

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

He agreed to no such thing.

 

[G.T.]

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

He agreed to no such thing.

I'm not sure I can agree that we're any longer speaking with humans.

 

[dblack]

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

The only really interesting bit is why it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

He agreed to no such thing.

Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind) originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?

Both, and the question is also irrelevant.

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Sure! Sure!

 

[G.T.]

Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

I just drew an alien with a football shaped head.

Does it prove an alien with a football head exists because my mind invented it through cognition and experience?

no, and neither does it prove natural rights exist because man invented them through cognition and experience.

that was really knuckle headed.

like, REALLY.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

The only really interesting bit is why it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.

That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.

 

[G.T.]

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

The only really interesting bit is why it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.

Since I didn't define them as such, the question is also irrelevant.

You also never answered your faulty logic about instincts and your ability to act onthem "proving" natural rights. G'luck with that one!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

I just drew an alien with a football shaped head.

Does it prove an alien with a football head exists because my mind invented it through cognition and experience?

no, and neither does it prove natural rights exist because man invented them through cognition and experience.

that was really knuckle headed.

like, REALLY.

If you want to believe that an alien with a football is innate to your existence, I have no quarrels with that.

 

[dblack]

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

The only really interesting bit is why it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.

Since I didn't define them as such, the question is also irrelevant.

You also never answered your faulty logic about instincts and your ability to act onthem "proving" natural rights. G'luck with that one!

I never mentioned instincts. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing obstinance from stupidity. Which is why I stopped arguing with you.