Do our rights come from nature and God as Paul Ryan says?

[SniperFire]

You don't even know what a theocracy is, moron.

America was founded as a defacto theocracy.

With gifts from God.

Deal with it.

The only thing I need to deal with is the realization that you are very stupid.

Ok, I'm over it.

I'm not kidding. Really!

'When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.-'

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

 

[G.T.]

If you believe that there are inalienable rights that come from God and Nature you will object and perhaps fight to keep the government from taking those rights away when the government should protect those rights.

If you believe that there are no inalienable rights and everything comes from the government you won't care that the government takes your rights away. They were never really yours to begin with.

Go vote on that basis. That's what it comes down to.

The source is not even relevant to whether a person does or does not consider particular rights as inalienable.

I consider the right to "Life" as inalienable, because someone is always stronger than me, or you, and I don't believe we're any longer at the point (humanity) of "survival of the fittest," due to our ability to regulate and balance resources, invent, etc......I think that "killing because you can" is BAD, for a sentient society based on that.

I used logic and reason to conclude that, and I didn't even need to bring up the source.

That is completely illogical.

Um, no, no it's not.

that was easy, huh?

 

[Murf76]

If you believe that there are inalienable rights that come from God and Nature you will object and perhaps fight to keep the government from taking those rights away when the government should protect those rights.

If you believe that there are no inalienable rights and everything comes from the government you won't care that the government takes your rights away. They were never really yours to begin with.

Go vote on that basis. That's what it comes down to.

The source is not even relevant to whether a person does or does not consider particular rights as inalienable.

I consider the right to "Life" as inalienable, because someone is always stronger than me, or you, and I don't believe we're any longer at the point (humanity) of "survival of the fittest," due to our ability to regulate and balance resources, invent, etc......I think that "killing because you can" is BAD, for a sentient society based on that.

I used logic and reason to conclude that, and I didn't even need to bring up the source.

By that measure, you not only reject God, but science as well. We have certain observable characteristics as human beings, just like any other animal has.

 

[Pho_King]

According to the philosophy of our founding, is the bolded, and that is what I'm disagreeing with.(the source they proclaimed - endowed by their creator)

Except I never once said anything about a creator, did I?

If rights come from a piece of paper, or a social contract, they can be taken away by the same means. That means that, unless they are natural, coming to us because we exist, they are not real, they are artificial, and you really have no rights.

No, the Founders said something about a creator. Not you, I know that.


by doing that "if they come from a social contract they can be taken away,"

You're not using reason to discover their source, but using fear and consequence to DECLARE their source. And, that's not logical.

The way you choose to use logic and reason leads to the" our rights come from the social contract" bullshit favored by OWS parasites. Which logically and reasonably leads to those rights being changeable with the swipe of a pen. The belief that they come from something beyond man, however unprovable, is logically and reasonably calculated to form a more stable society. One in which your rights are not dependent on an ever hanging social contract. Both arguments are supported by logic and reason. And both arguments support very different views of society.

 

[SniperFire]

So is yours re: us being a "Theocracy," dipshit.

The Declaration of Independence is a founding document.

Read it sometime.

1st Amendment, idiot.


wow.

The First Amendment assumes we enjoy unalienable rights granted by God.

Failure.

 

[G.T.]

If you believe that there are inalienable rights that come from God and Nature you will object and perhaps fight to keep the government from taking those rights away when the government should protect those rights.

If you believe that there are no inalienable rights and everything comes from the government you won't care that the government takes your rights away. They were never really yours to begin with.

Go vote on that basis. That's what it comes down to.

The source is not even relevant to whether a person does or does not consider particular rights as inalienable.

I consider the right to "Life" as inalienable, because someone is always stronger than me, or you, and I don't believe we're any longer at the point (humanity) of "survival of the fittest," due to our ability to regulate and balance resources, invent, etc......I think that "killing because you can" is BAD, for a sentient society based on that.

I used logic and reason to conclude that, and I didn't even need to bring up the source.

By that measure, you not only reject God, but science as well. We have certain observable characteristics as human beings, just like any other animal has.

Right, and tempers and violence are amongst them.

 

[SniperFire]

If you believe that there are inalienable rights that come from God and Nature you will object and perhaps fight to keep the government from taking those rights away when the government should protect those rights.

If you believe that there are no inalienable rights and everything comes from the government you won't care that the government takes your rights away. They were never really yours to begin with.

Go vote on that basis. That's what it comes down to.

The source is not even relevant to whether a person does or does not consider particular rights as inalienable.

I consider the right to "Life" as inalienable, because someone is always stronger than me, or you, and I don't believe we're any longer at the point (humanity) of "survival of the fittest," due to our ability to regulate and balance resources, invent, etc......I think that "killing because you can" is BAD, for a sentient society based on that.

I used logic and reason to conclude that, and I didn't even need to bring up the source.

By that measure, you not only reject God, but science as well. We have certain observable characteristics as human beings, just like any other animal has.

He is struggling.

In more ways than one.


LOL

 

[G.T.]

The source is not even relevant to whether a person does or does not consider particular rights as inalienable.

I consider the right to "Life" as inalienable, because someone is always stronger than me, or you, and I don't believe we're any longer at the point (humanity) of "survival of the fittest," due to our ability to regulate and balance resources, invent, etc......I think that "killing because you can" is BAD, for a sentient society based on that.

I used logic and reason to conclude that, and I didn't even need to bring up the source.

By that measure, you not only reject God, but science as well. We have certain observable characteristics as human beings, just like any other animal has.

He is struggling.

In more ways than one.


LOL

Yes, go posit to everyone you know that USA is a Theocracy.

Go ahead. I dare ya!

Fucking clown.

 

[Murf76]

We are disagreeing, though -

I posit they come from man's reason,

You posit - from Nature and man's reason only "observes" them, eventually.

I think that you believe they're there before man declares them.

I think they're not discovered, but createdby men.

On what basis? Gravity is there, and we still don't fully understand it, but rather "observe" it. That doesn't mean that our observation "created" it.

Writing down an "unalienable right" doesn't create it. It was already there. Murder is wrong. Slavery is wrong. We might see the wrongness of them more clearly by virtue of having observed their effects, but that doesn't make the action itself wrong even as it was committed.

No, gravity wasn't "created" because gravity is not abstract. It's a physical force.

Whereas, rights are an abstract construct created in order to benefit, as cohabitative human beings.

Human nature isn't abstract. While it varies in nuance from person to person, it's still completely observable just as the characteristics of other animals are observable. It's measurable scientifically in that regard.

 

[SniperFire]

The source is not even relevant to whether a person does or does not consider particular rights as inalienable.

I consider the right to "Life" as inalienable, because someone is always stronger than me, or you, and I don't believe we're any longer at the point (humanity) of "survival of the fittest," due to our ability to regulate and balance resources, invent, etc......I think that "killing because you can" is BAD, for a sentient society based on that.

I used logic and reason to conclude that, and I didn't even need to bring up the source.

That is completely illogical.

Um, no, no it's not.

that was easy, huh?

If mankind makes up 'rights' as it goes along, as you have postulated in this thread, how can any such right be 'inalienable"?

Complete logical failure.

 

[paulitician]

Dat Ryan be an Evil Rich Christian Racist!!

Sums up all the coming Democrat smears on the dude. Hopefully Americans see these attacks for what they are...FUCKIN STUPID!

 

[dblack]

If you want to classify man's ability to reason, as "Nature," then we don't even have a disagreement.

I'm simply arguing that rights didn't exist until men observed with their brains the best possible ways to co-exist - and to me that's ALL that rights really are, in practice.

Sacrifices to Gods and such used to be acceptable.

Through reason, we realize that this isn't a practical or ideal way to co-exist. We advance another notch.

You're conflating "inalienable rights" with "rights protected by government". The former are existential and are by-products of volition. The latter are designated by government. The point of all of this is that rights aren't created and granted by government. We create government to protect rights we already have.

 

[SniperFire]

By that measure, you not only reject God, but science as well. We have certain observable characteristics as human beings, just like any other animal has.

He is struggling.

In more ways than one.


LOL

Yes, go posit to everyone you know that USA is a Theocracy.

Go ahead. I dare ya!

Fucking clown.

You deny that the core principle of American constitution is our unalienable rights granted by God?

 

[G.T.]

On what basis? Gravity is there, and we still don't fully understand it, but rather "observe" it. That doesn't mean that our observation "created" it.

Writing down an "unalienable right" doesn't create it. It was already there. Murder is wrong. Slavery is wrong. We might see the wrongness of them more clearly by virtue of having observed their effects, but that doesn't make the action itself wrong even as it was committed.

No, gravity wasn't "created" because gravity is not abstract. It's a physical force.

Whereas, rights are an abstract construct created in order to benefit, as cohabitative human beings.

Human nature isn't abstract. While it varies in nuance from person to person, it's still completely observable just as the characteristics of other animals are observable. It's measurable scientifically in that regard.

Human nature isn't abstract.

Nations are.

Societies are.

Nature is chaos.

Nature is a Lion tearing a human's head off.

A gun was not always there, it was created by man, not observed.

And so were Nations, and with Nations and the fact that we decided to coexist, came the need for the "gun" to ensure a better coexistence, and by "gun" in my analogy, I mean "rights."

 

[Ravi]

If you want to classify man's ability to reason, as "Nature," then we don't even have a disagreement.

I'm simply arguing that rights didn't exist until men observed with their brains the best possible ways to co-exist - and to me that's ALL that rights really are, in practice.

Sacrifices to Gods and such used to be acceptable.

Through reason, we realize that this isn't a practical or ideal way to co-exist. We advance another notch.

You're conflating "inalienable rights" with "rights protected by government". The former are existential and are by-products of volition. The latter are designated by government. The point of all of this is that rights aren't created and granted by government. We create government to protect rights we already have.

But WE are the government.

 

[G.T.]

He is struggling.

In more ways than one.


LOL

Yes, go posit to everyone you know that USA is a Theocracy.

Go ahead. I dare ya!

Fucking clown.

You deny that the core principle of American constitution is our unalienable rights granted by God?

I deny that you know the definition of a theocracy.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

granted by god, do you people

actually

believe that?

serious question

 

[buckeye45_73]

America was founded as a defacto theocracy based on one core principle: That we enjoy certain unalienable rights granted by God.

Nobody has to agree with that, but if you are looking for the 'source' of our unalienable rights, look no further.

You don't even know what a theocracy is, moron.

Well it's certainly not Iran....but according to liberals if public officials pray in public, it's a theocracy and cannot be tolerated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Pho_King]

If you want to classify man's ability to reason, as "Nature," then we don't even have a disagreement.

I'm simply arguing that rights didn't exist until men observed with their brains the best possible ways to co-exist - and to me that's ALL that rights really are, in practice.

Sacrifices to Gods and such used to be acceptable.

Through reason, we realize that this isn't a practical or ideal way to co-exist. We advance another notch.

You're conflating "inalienable rights" with "rights protected by government". The former are existential and are by-products of volition. The latter are designated by government. The point of all of this is that rights aren't created and granted by government. We create government to protect rights we already have.

And that is backwards, according to OWS parasites. They want government to give out pretty much everything, rights included. To them, government is god.

 

[SniperFire]

Yes, go posit to everyone you know that USA is a Theocracy.

Go ahead. I dare ya!

Fucking clown.

You deny that the core principle of American constitution is our unalienable rights granted by God?

I deny that you know the definition of a theocracy.

You have decided to duck the question in defeat, then?