Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[RKMBrown]

Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?

I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.

So the first claim is false, right? They have been identify and defined, right? I identified and defined them, right?

You unwittingly conceded that when you say that, at very least, they are human rights supposedly thought of by men.

And with that you concede that fact that they exist.

The rest is your abstract semantics.

But of course, the innate rights are not derived from government.

Omg what a desperate attempt at grasping some kind of victory. There are no innate rights and I concede nothing. Thinking about unicorns doesn't make them real.

I have a natural right to grant myself the right to call you out as full of poo for your inaccurate statement that you concede nothing. For if you concede all of your natural rights, then you have conceded something. If there were no such thing as a natural right then there could be nothing for you to concede by stating your concession. Your statement that they don't exist is fallacious if only because you have conceded their existence in making your statement. Further, your accusation that even if they did exist it would only be a belief in unicorns, is a pitiful attempt at deflection. Numerous substantive natural rights have been presented to you, of which you ignored all and subsequently deflected away with insulting remarks. IOW you are a Troll.

 

[Foxfyre]

All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.

You need to brush up on using a dictionary. Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right. if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.

Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.

It all comes under the banner of "I don't want to believe it, therefore it isn't so" kind of thing. Numerous examples and definitions of 'natural rights' have now been provided on this thread and all have been summarily dismissed and ignored by the "I don't want to believe it; therefore it isn't so" crowd.

All of us do believe in gravity because it is not reasonable not to believe in gravity. And we believe because we have been taught about it and have observed for ourselves what it does. If only those who are so damned gung ho to disbelieve and deny the obvious re natural rights would use the same criteria to evaluate that.

The "is too - is not" back and forth page after page after page, and refusal to discuss the concept in any kind of comprehensive manner, is really boring. And makes people look pretty clueless.

 

[dblack]

grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)

Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted. The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.

The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.

'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.

 

[RKMBrown]

All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.

You need to brush up on using a dictionary. Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right. if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.

Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.

No, but the rate at which objects fall with respect to the mass of the objects does, and that was the point Newton made.

 

[RKMBrown]

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.

The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.

'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.

I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away. Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away. Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.

 

[Asclepias]

An easement is defined as a limited and specific right which allows the property owner to retain actual ownership of the land in question. That is the reason that educated people use easement when they talk about it, because if you actually granted them rights to the property you would be giving p your right to it.

So, tell me, are you giving them the property, or an easement?

You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right. Lets remind us both of what you said.

That is an easement, not a right, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God

Why are you contradicting yourself? Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.

I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.

Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.

You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right. You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.

I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written. Can you do that? As I said before, I grant you the right to breath. See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.

BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?

 

[RKMBrown]

You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right. Lets remind us both of what you said.



Why are you contradicting yourself? Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.

I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.

Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.

You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right. You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.

I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written. Can you do that? As I said before, I grant you the right to breath. See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.

BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?

I think he was trying to argue that the definition of natural rights is god provided rights, thus only god could possible grant them, however since he thinks god is a fairy tale all discussions of natural rights are equivalent to unicorns.

IOW he was also using the wrong definition of "natural rights."

 

[Asclepias]

grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)

Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted. The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You need to brush up on using a dictionary. Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right. if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.

Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.

No, but the rate at which objects fall with respect to the mass of the objects does, and that was the point Newton made.

Actually, all it proves is that there is a common force acting on each object. If you are in a ship accelerating toward the center of the earth at 2Gs and drop an object it will fall in a line that is directly opposite the force acting on it, which is away from the center of the Earth. Einstein is the one that proved that.

 

[Foxfyre]

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.

The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.

'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.

I don't have strong objection to your making that distinction but for me God-given, natural, or unalienable rights are all the same thing. All are what we are and do if there was nothing or nobody to say that we cannot--who and what we are regardless of any other influences in our lives. It is the ability to do, without any interference, that which requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not interfere with anybody else's unalienable/natural/God-given rights.

When my unalienable rights are secured, and so long as I violate nobody else's unalienable rights, nobody can tell me that I cannot believe in God or alien abductions or the flying spaghetti monster or that I must believe in such things. I can express my opinion that the king or the President or the pope or my neighbor is an idiot with impunity and I can also praise whomever I wish without fear of retaliation. I can use my property as I see fit, conduct my business as I want, and live my life as I choose and I don't have to conform to anybody else's opinion about what is right and wrong, just or unjust, correct or improper, honorable or racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted/prejudiced etc. etc. etc.

 

[Asclepias]

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.

The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.

'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.

Maybe we are finally getting somewhere. Where did you find that definition of inalienable rights? The one I have is an oxymoron.

 

[dblack]

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.

The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.

'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.

I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away. Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away. Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.

That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means there's no way to do it. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just designate a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.

I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited natural rights (life, liberty, etc...) after claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

[Asclepias]

Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.

No, but the rate at which objects fall with respect to the mass of the objects does, and that was the point Newton made.

Actually, all it proves is that there is a common force acting on each object. If you are in a ship accelerating toward the center of the earth at 2Gs and drop an object it will fall in a line that is directly opposite the force acting on it, which is away from the center of the Earth. Einstein is the one that proved that.

It is utterly amazing how unaware you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right. Lets remind us both of what you said.



Why are you contradicting yourself? Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.

I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.

Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.

You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right. You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.

I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written. Can you do that? As I said before, I grant you the right to breath. See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.

BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?

I said that because, in the context of this thread, it isn't. Neither is voting. They are entitlements granted by other people, and can be taken away. They only exist when there is both a framework in place to make them real, and an actual grant from someone.

Natural rights, on the other hand, exist regardless of whether a frame exist to make them real, and no one to grant them. The proof of that is that, despite the fact that I have personally challenged you, among others, multiple times to provide a single example of any government in history granting anyone a natural right, or taking it away from them, all you have dome is deflect by insisting that rights means entitlements.

 

[Asclepias]

Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.

The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.

'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.

I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away. Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away. Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.

That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means there's no way to do it. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just designate a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.

I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited natural rights (life, liberty, etc...) after claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Here is where the problem comes in. What proof do we have that a conscious creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.

Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.

You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right. You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.

I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written. Can you do that? As I said before, I grant you the right to breath. See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.

BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?

I think he was trying to argue that the definition of natural rights is god provided rights, thus only god could possible grant them, however since he thinks god is a fairy tale all discussions of natural rights are equivalent to unicorns.

IOW he was also using the wrong definition of "natural rights."

No, I am talking to an idiot who thinks he can grant rights like God. That does not in any way indicate that I believe that rights come from God. In fact, I specifically pointed out earlier that my belief in God is irrelevant to the discussion about rights, but no one ever actually reads the thread.

 

[Asclepias]

I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.

Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.

You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right. You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.

I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written. Can you do that? As I said before, I grant you the right to breath. See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.

BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?

I said that because, in the context of this thread, it isn't. Neither is voting. They are entitlements granted by other people, and can be taken away. They only exist when there is both a framework in place to make them real, and an actual grant from someone.

Natural rights, on the other hand, exist regardless of whether a frame exist to make them real, and no one to grant them. The proof of that is that, despite the fact that I have personally challenged you, among others, multiple times to provide a single example of any government in history granting anyone a natural right, or taking it away from them, all you have dome is deflect by insisting that rights means entitlements.

You are going to fall down if you back pedal any faster.

Lets try this again.

You objected to me saying I could grant you the right to step on my lawn.

You said that was not a right but an easement.

You were wrong. An easement is a right.

I called you on it.

You have an issue with admitting you were wrong.

Grow up and lets get back on topic.

I wish you would have expounded on your bolded statement instead of wandering off again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

The fact that you are unwilling to read in no way proves that there is no evidence, it just proves you won't read.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide actual evidence that the rights I am talking about only exist because someone granted them to another person. I find it amusing, in a sad way, that someone who can offer absolutely no evidence to support his position refuses to even examine any evidence counter to his beliefs. It reminds me of those book burning Inquisitors who burned heretics at the stake.

 

[Asclepias]

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

The fact that you are unwilling to read in no way proves that there is no evidence, it just proves you won't read.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide actual evidence that the rights I am talking about only exist because someone granted them to another person. I find it amusing, in a sad way, that someone who can offer absolutely no evidence to support his position refuses to even examine any evidence counter to his beliefs. It reminds me of those book burning Inquisitors who burned heretics at the stake.

I did read. You dont know what you are talking about and you are wrong. I dont have to prove you wrong until you have provided proof of the existence of rights in the absence of man defining them. Can you do that?

 

[RKMBrown]

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint. If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information. I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them. How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so? You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.

Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself. You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.

The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity. To deny them is ridiculous. For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly. That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.