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

[konradv]

Fortunately for you, no. What matters is that our system is based on them being unalienable because they are issued from God.

You don't have to believe, but go out and violate your neighbors right to life with hammer and see what happens.

Of course something happens, but is that "something" due to God or because of government or "righteous" human anger?

Why would there be "righteous" human anger if no wrong had occurred. What's wrong with attacking people with hammers? If you can get a law passed that says 'all citizens may engage in hammer attacks as they please', is that an okay law? If not, why not?

We know it's wrong, because it hurts. There's no need for God to tell us that attacking each other with hammers isn't something that should be allowed in a civil society. Absent that society, what's the downside to attacking someone with a hammer, if I've got the biggest hammer?

 

[G.T.]

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.

If rights have been alienated, how can they be inalienable?

^ that is just a demonstration of why your question is stupid.

 

[SniperFire]

granted by god, do you people

actually

believe that?

serious question

God does not like fags.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

If rights have been alienated, how can they be inalienable?

^ that is just a demonstration of why your question is stupid.

You are answering my question with a question out of defeat, then?

 

[Ravi]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, it certainly is Iran. Iran is a theocracy.

You cons get dumber by the day.

 

[konradv]

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.

Did God free the slaves or was that the product of man and government?

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

If your right to live is not inalienable then the government can kill you because you are wearing the wrong color shirt and you can't do anything about it. Not even so much as say it is wrong for them to do that. Of course, an all powerful government wouldn't be wrong if it did that.

 

[SniperFire]

What makes right to life 'inalienable' to you, GString, if in fact man can arbitrarily change the definitions?

Logic failure.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

granted by god, do you people

actually

believe that?

serious question

God does not like fags.

I guess that answers my question, your answer is there for the whole world to see, you are saying "I am full of hate and ignorance world"

and you dont even know it...

stupid ignorant soon to be extinct bigots

 

[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.

If your right to live is not inalienable then the government can kill you because you are wearing the wrong color shirt and you can't do anything about it. Not even so much as say it is wrong for them to do that. Of course, an all powerful government wouldn't be wrong if it did that.

That's why I said right in that post that the right to life, in my opinion, should be inalienable.

So, the point of your response again?

 

[Ravi]

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.

If your right to live is not inalienable then the government can kill you because you are wearing the wrong color shirt and you can't do anything about it. Not even so much as say it is wrong for them to do that. Of course, an all powerful government wouldn't be wrong if it did that.

If the government can kill you, your rights aren't inalienable.

Another buffoon that probably supports the death penalty.

 

[G.T.]

granted by god, do you people

actually

believe that?

serious question

God does not like fags.

I guess that answers my question, your answer is there for the whole world to see, you are saying "I am full of hate and ignorance world"

and you dont even know it...

stupid ignorant soon to be extinct bigots

He's getting ignored, he doesn't add anything at all to the discussion. If you do the same as Ravi and I, he'll be talking to himself at that point.

 

[Murf76]

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.

No one is saying that violence and temper isn't innate to the human condition, even as compassion and kindness are. In the context of creating law though, he is at his most dangerous when his unalienable rights are abrogated.

 

[SniperFire]

Ravi, you are about 20 IQ points shy of being able to hang in this thread.

Why not seek out a cooking or decorating discussion instead?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Paul Ryan keeps saying our rights come from nature and God not the government. Actually, they come from "we the people" and we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth. Nature dictates some of our limitiations only. But we have been able to overcome a lot of those. God? If you believe in him, I thought he gave us free will to decide things for ourselves?

Dear, Paul Ryan keeps saying that because he's quoting our Founding Fathers, most notably in this case Thomas Jefferson. You might have heard of this obscure little document where he made the same assertion: The Declaration of Independence?

The entire foundation for our nation and our way of life is the idea that rights are NOT granted by "we the people", or by any other person or human institution, because if that is true, then they aren't rights at all, but privileges, dependent totally on the whims of others, the denial of which is morally neutral.

The concept of "natural rights", rights granted by the Creator or Nature or whatever you want to subscribe to that's a higher power than humanity, is that freedom and the recognition and exercise of those rights is the ideal state in which people should live, and that, while people can, through their free will, choose to block or interfere with each other's natural rights, it is wrong and evil and a perversion of the way things should be.

 

[G.T.]

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.

No one is saying that violence and temper isn't innate to the human condition, even as compassion and kindness are. In the context of creating law though, he is at his most dangerous when his unalienable rights are abrogated.

"Creating Law" is an abstract tenant of human existence.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Ravi, you are about 20 IQ points shy of being able to hang in this thread.

Why not seek out a cooking or decorating discussion instead?

says the stupid person who hates Gays and thinks there is an invisible man in the sky who loves him but hates Iranians

 

[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.

If your right to live is not inalienable then the government can kill you because you are wearing the wrong color shirt and you can't do anything about it. Not even so much as say it is wrong for them to do that. Of course, an all powerful government wouldn't be wrong if it did that.

If the government can kill you, your rights aren't inalienable.

Another buffoon that probably supports the death penalty.

Not bright. Inalienable does not mean the same as being incapable of being violated.

But that is way over your head.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I put that forward as an example of how I think Ryan is out of touch and I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent moderate who has voted for a lot of different candidates of different parties. I'm not grasping at straws or anything else. I just wanted to hear discussion on it not one liner talking points!

I don't care what you call yourself or for whom you vote. On this subject, at least, you've been infected with leftist-think, and should seek out a cure immediately.

 

[Pho_King]

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.

Did God free the slaves or was that the product of man and government?

God motivated the father of the abolition movement. But ultimately it was men that did it. Which is wholly unrelated to the argument at hand. The movement may have been delayed or even stunted were it not for the belief that slavery removes from men those rights that come from god.