If rights, whither from?

[JBeukema]

natural rights are the actual capital which societies use to function.

Evidence?

You assist a thing exists. Where is your evidence? Assertions do not equal evidence.

 

[JBeukema]

Roman Universal and Christian are mutually exclusive.

you present new ways that you are a bumbling idiot with every post.

See: indulgences, scapulars, the history of how the Roman Universal cam into being. See: salvation through faith vs. salvation through acts.

The Roman Universal is a false church that teaches doctrines in direct opposition to the techings of Christ. It is mutually exclusive with Christianity, which is accepting and abiding by the teachings of the Christ and salvation through Him.

The Gospel warns us that many, like you, will be deceived.

 

[JBeukema]

1) Do people have rights?

2) If so, where do they come from?

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

there is no real theological argument for human rights.

since there is no god.....

let's look at this with the FACTS that we actually KNOW;


FACT: nobody knows if there is or is not a god
FACT: that means that the existance of god is NOT a fact

The existence of atoms wasn't a fact before people knew about them?

FACT: the only rights we have are the rights we have established (defined, protected and defended) via CONSENSUS/government

Those are the only ones for which evidence has been presented, anyway.

 

[antagon]

So some have more natural rights than others at different times throughout history?

How so? You assume there exists a singular social contract between all humanity, but history shows us that this simply isn't the case.


Was Rome really much more volatile than any other society? All civilizations in history have eventually ended, but Rome lasted far longer than many.

i contend that natural rights are a constant by definition. social contracts do indeed vary. the purpose of democracy is to facilitate the reciprocal exchange of rights between government and its constituents. as a republic, democracy facilitated the stability i speak of in rome's case. democracy can empower those inclusive in the social contract against those excluded. obviously in cases of slavery societies haven't felt the necessity to extend the contract to the slaves. nevertheless, were slaves in bondage under duress, or were they there on their free will, and pleased to be of service to their masters? because the former is the case, a volatility is created by virtue of trespass of natural rights.

the social contract is a promise or agreement; promises can be broken at any time. in doing so, again, there is volatility. if if this infidelity is pervasive among the constituents of government, you have anarchy - if by the government itself, you have tyranny.

And where did they come from, since you disagree with Epsilon about them coming from the social contract. And do all lifeforms have these same rights? Only intelligent life? Only humans? Only humans of your same race, nationality, socioeconomic class, or ideology?

these rights are constant. the subjects which interact with them and the basis of that interaction is not relevant. intelligent life seems to pick up on them in more sophisticated ways than simpler critters, but the instinctive fabrics of all social beings' cohabitation reflects this truth. evolutionary existentialists argue that these 'understandings' of natural rights were adapted into the psyche of animals which rely on a social structure for their survival.

humans understand these rights because of our intellect, but failing that, or in the case of a pack of wolves for example, the paradigm still exists: basic rights which determine volatility or stability of a social group. aren't ants and bacterial colonies subject to this law just as much as we are?

where did these rights come from? this is where your attribution to god or other comes in. if gravitation is another constant, but in the context of physics, from where did that come?

whither from cometh all ye laws of gaia?

It sounds like you are attesting that there are inherent rights. Under that guise I would ask what are those rights? Rights differ MASSIVELY depending on when and where you are. Even in present day there are huge differences in what are perceived rights from Americans and other nations particularly eastern nations. If there are inherent rights then they should be able to be identified. More importantly, I believe that the amount and scope of rights INCREASES as society becomes more mature and resources become more available at lesser cost.

No, rights are not inherent but subject to the grater society that creates them and those rights change as time and society pass.

first, i define those rights as the produce of freedom - leave to conduct any of the infinite actions taken by way of self-determination.

where these rights differ so massively is in the context of a social contract which recognizes some of these rights based on a massive variety of values that vary from contract to contract. whichever set of values is upheld, the contract's aim is to restrict other rights or freedoms in exchange for protections or entitlement. this restriction is an agreed forfeiture of freedoms which are taken in by the community or the government, and the forfeited values also differ. in the US, we forfeit rights along the lines of thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, in exchange for protection of our right to free speach, etc.

as to the increase in rights with societal maturity, the very proposal by thinkers in the age of enlightenment, that rights are indeed inherent, and that the social contract which conscripts government ought to be based on agreed protection and exclusion from infringement of certain natural rights is the basis of such mature societies.

i argue that there is an economy of good faith, from which societies profit or take loss, that revolves around the rights available to its constituents in the social contract. simplifying the forces, i characterize them as stability and volatility, in line with john locks righteous rebellion concept, and the decidedly more stable contracts afforded by democracy's facilitation of fluid barter of rights to and from the contract.

i challenge the idea that rights don't predate government or society, because these are the bases of societies altogether. we live in a 'mature' social contract, but i argue that the goal of such immature ones as slavery and tyranny is to seize and exploit the rights of constituent individuals at the behest of a single individual or oligarchy. whether by force or by coercion of protection and entitlement, societies recognize the value in the amassed will (the several natural rights actioned) - initself, the basis our our specie's survival

 

[antagon]

Roman Universal and Christian are mutually exclusive.

you present new ways that you are a bumbling idiot with every post.

See: indulgences, scapulars, the history of how the Roman Universal cam into being. See: salvation through faith vs. salvation through acts.

The Roman Universal is a false church that teaches doctrines in direct opposition to the techings of Christ. It is mutually exclusive with Christianity, which is accepting and abiding by the teachings of the Christ and salvation through Him.

The Gospel warns us that many, like you, will be deceived.

christians: believers in christ

catholics: believers in christ

catholics:christians

 

[JBeukema]

first, i define those rights as the produce of freedom - leave to conduct any of the infinite actions taken by way of self-determination.

So 'rights' are nothing more than will and ability? Well, that rids the term of all the philosophical meaning ever attached to it and makes any appeal to 'rights' wholly meaningless, now doesn't it?

 

[JBeukema]

you present new ways that you are a bumbling idiot with every post.

See: indulgences, scapulars, the history of how the Roman Universal cam into being. See: salvation through faith vs. salvation through acts.

The Roman Universal is a false church that teaches doctrines in direct opposition to the techings of Christ. It is mutually exclusive with Christianity, which is accepting and abiding by the teachings of the Christ and salvation through Him.

The Gospel warns us that many, like you, will be deceived.

christians: believers in christ

catholics: believers in christ

catholics:christians

Catholics: Believers in the dogma of the Roman Universal Church

Christians accept the Authority of God and the Christ, Roman Universals obey 'the god of this world' and recognize the false authority of the Pope.

Catholics neither believe nor accept Jesus' teachings, but instead Constantine's and the Popes'.

 

[G.T.]

So 'rights' are nothing more than will and ability? Well, that rids the term of all the philosophical meaning ever attached to it and makes any appeal to 'rights' wholly meaningless, now doesn't it?

Well it's really not that deep or philosophical.

 

[rikules]

you present new ways that you are a bumbling idiot with every post.

See: indulgences, scapulars, the history of how the Roman Universal cam into being. See: salvation through faith vs. salvation through acts.

The Roman Universal is a false church that teaches doctrines in direct opposition to the techings of Christ. It is mutually exclusive with Christianity, which is accepting and abiding by the teachings of the Christ and salvation through Him.

The Gospel warns us that many, like you, will be deceived.

christians: believers in christ

catholics: believers in christ

catholics:christians

pat robertson: "catholicism is a cult"

pat robertson " moderates are NOT real christians"

crunching the numbers:

if ALL dems/libruls hate god (60 million people)
and all moderate christians are NOT real christians (120 million people
and all catholics ar enot real christians (65 million people)


then that means 245 million Americans are NOT REAL christians

that means that ONLY about 60 million Americans are REAL christians

making them a DISTINCT minority

consequently
since (according to conservatives) MOST Americans are NOT REAL CHRISTIANS

then
it follows
America is NOT a christian nation

 

[antagon]

first, i define those rights as the produce of freedom - leave to conduct any of the infinite actions taken by way of self-determination.

So 'rights' are nothing more than will and ability? Well, that rids the term of all the philosophical meaning ever attached to it and makes any appeal to 'rights' wholly meaningless, now doesn't it?

you care to start again? we've been through all of that already, but your multiquote argumentation/comprehension still has you yapping about ability and meaning. there's no relevance between meaning or ability and natural rights when outside the context of a social contact. i've argued those points directly and several times, and you've ignored those arguments choosing, no doubt, to run with the next lame rebuttal, instead.

again, you have no clue how natural rights are defined, having never understood any philosophy defining them, not even my own, which is arguably the simplest definition among them. the value of your assessment of 'philosophical meaning' is commensurate with the debase value of your grasp of philosophy altogether and your failed, poorly implemented positivist approach to understanding the evidence and arguments which i've put forward. your argument here that a broad definition of natural rights is philosophically meaningless is refuted by the remainder of the post which you have extracted it from. i summarize the meaning thereafter and you've ignored it, even as you question it's qualifications.

you simply dont have what it takes to make a dialectic exploration of the topic, because you
1. have presented no argument,
2. don't address arguments which are presented you,
3. insist on unqualified metrics like mathematical proofs in the realm of philosophy
4. present no qualifications for your metrics other than the fallacy that this is some age of positivity.
5. interchange terms such as you have with meaning and a meaning/definition or self-determination for self-awareness - all as a manipulation of semantics to evade presenting a directly dissenting argument.
6. employ an ad lapidem read-quote-assert system that forfeits the dialog in dialectic debate in the first place.

i could go on with the ways your argumentation fails to have an impact on conclusions about the question you've posed, or in exploring what i have contended. in so doing, you are back at point A, demonstrating that after all of that wasted dialog, that you are back making the same conjectures already routed in discussion.

perhaps what you contend, if you have a contention, could bear some fruit, but you've got no wherewithal to sow the seeds.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

See: indulgences, scapulars, the history of how the Roman Universal cam into being. See: salvation through faith vs. salvation through acts.

The Roman Universal is a false church that teaches doctrines in direct opposition to the techings of Christ. It is mutually exclusive with Christianity, which is accepting and abiding by the teachings of the Christ and salvation through Him.

The Gospel warns us that many, like you, will be deceived.

christians: believers in christ

catholics: believers in christ

catholics:christians

pat robertson: "catholicism is a cult"

pat robertson " moderates are NOT real christians"

crunching the numbers:

if ALL dems/libruls hate god (60 million people)
and all moderate christians are NOT real christians (120 million people
and all catholics ar enot real christians (65 million people)


then that means 245 million Americans are NOT REAL christians

that means that ONLY about 60 million Americans are REAL christians

making them a DISTINCT minority

consequently
since (according to conservatives) MOST Americans are NOT REAL CHRISTIANS

then
it follows
America is NOT a christian nation

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So if it turns out the Sumerians were right and the Creator is an alien scientist who died a long time ago?

Why would that matter if he gave us rights?

IMO, we have rights simply because we say we do.

So asserting something makes it true?


I have one million dollars on my desk...


damned...

I like it.

 

[Intense]

Roman Universal and Christian are mutually exclusive.

you present new ways that you are a bumbling idiot with every post.

See: indulgences, scapulars, the history of how the Roman Universal cam into being. See: salvation through faith vs. salvation through acts.

The Roman Universal is a false church that teaches doctrines in direct opposition to the techings of Christ. It is mutually exclusive with Christianity, which is accepting and abiding by the teachings of the Christ and salvation through Him.

The Gospel warns us that many, like you, will be deceived.

JB, The Bible teaches that the Bible itself is loaded with pitfalls. Multiple meanings, hidden meanings, Red Herrings. When one puts their faith in the Creator, that trumps every thing of the physical world. It is not the club we belong to that dictates who will attain Salvation, but where we both individually and collectively stand with our Maker. Pointing fingers at any of the churches serves no purpose. We either put God first in all things or we don't. We either establish Justice by faithful account of what we encounter, or we don't. Nothing else matters when we consciously reject what we personally know to be right or true for a price. Nothing but reconciliation. That is individual and personal, yet it is still the starting line. I know many people of different persuasions that try to serve God, by what ever name they call him, and better themselves, contributing to the welfare of those around them, both spiritual and physical. The Catholic Church has many avenues for inspired people to serve. I will not knock the Church for where we disagree, nor would I follow blindly. I choose through Conscience, through reason, and take responsibility for my actions and my course. The Prophets of old pretty much were rejected by the angry mobs, anyone standing for principle against a mob pretty much faces a similar fate. You know that. Being born of the Spirit, does one stand on principle or hide from it? Tyranny is nobody's friend. Our founders put a leash on the State to protect us. Years of abuse and neglect have worn most of it away. More of the same is the problem, not the solution. Injustice, by any name, is still injustice. We are of value whether in the majority or minority, those that fail to see that, are the enemy. To knowingly do harm simply because one has the power to, to silence reason, because of offense, inconvenience, is a crime against the whole. It is a race to extinguish the light of truth and hope.

 

[JBeukema]

See: indulgences, scapulars, the history of how the Roman Universal cam into being. See: salvation through faith vs. salvation through acts.

The Roman Universal is a false church that teaches doctrines in direct opposition to the techings of Christ. It is mutually exclusive with Christianity, which is accepting and abiding by the teachings of the Christ and salvation through Him.

The Gospel warns us that many, like you, will be deceived.

christians: believers in christ

catholics: believers in christ

catholics:christians

pat robertson: "catholicism is a cult"

pat robertson " moderates are NOT real christians"

crunching the numbers:

if ALL dems/libruls hate god (60 million people)
and all moderate christians are NOT real christians (120 million people
and all catholics ar enot real christians (65 million people)


then that means 245 million Americans are NOT REAL christians

that means that ONLY about 60 million Americans are REAL christians

making them a DISTINCT minority

consequently
since (according to conservatives) MOST Americans are NOT REAL CHRISTIANS

then
it follows
America is NOT a christian nation

Not the subject of the thread

 

[JBeukema]

first, i define those rights as the produce of freedom - leave to conduct any of the infinite actions taken by way of self-determination.

So 'rights' are nothing more than will and ability? Well, that rids the term of all the philosophical meaning ever attached to it and makes any appeal to 'rights' wholly meaningless, now doesn't it?

you care to start again? we've been through all of that already, but your multiquote argumentation/comprehension still has you yapping about ability and meaning. there's no relevance between meaning or ability and natural rights when outside the context of a social contact. i've argued those points directly and several times, and you've ignored those arguments choosing, no doubt, to run with the next lame rebuttal, instead.

again, you have no clue how natural rights are defined, having never understood any philosophy defining them, not even my own, which is arguably the simplest definition among them. the value of your assessment of 'philosophical meaning' is commensurate with the debase value of your grasp of philosophy altogether and your failed, poorly implemented positivist approach to understanding the evidence and arguments which i've put forward. your argument here that a broad definition of natural rights is philosophically meaningless is refuted by the remainder of the post which you have extracted it from. i summarize the meaning thereafter and you've ignored it, even as you question it's qualifications.

you simply dont have what it takes to make a dialectic exploration of the topic, because you
1. have presented no argument,
2. don't address arguments which are presented you,
3. insist on unqualified metrics like mathematical proofs in the realm of philosophy
4. present no qualifications for your metrics other than the fallacy that this is some age of positivity.
5. interchange terms such as you have with meaning and a meaning/definition or self-determination for self-awareness - all as a manipulation of semantics to evade presenting a directly dissenting argument.
6. employ an ad lapidem read-quote-assert system that forfeits the dialog in dialectic debate in the first place.

i could go on with the ways your argumentation fails to have an impact on conclusions about the question you've posed, or in exploring what i have contended. in so doing, you are back at point A, demonstrating that after all of that wasted dialog, that you are back making the same conjectures already routed in discussion.

perhaps what you contend, if you have a contention, could bear some fruit, but you've got no wherewithal to sow the seeds.

Any evidence that x exists posted?


Nope.


Dismissed.


Join the world's religions and ufo cults and come back when you have some evidence.

 

[JBeukema]

Pointing fingers at any of the churches serves no purpose

Tell that to Jesus, who revealed himself to John and to John who recorded the Revelation.

Have you read Revelation?

 

[antagon]

Any evidence that x exists posted?


Nope.


Dismissed.


Join the world's religions and ufo cults and come back when you have some evidence.

i guess i've already joined the world's religions for what that's worth.

i have posted evidence and labeled it as such. you haven't argued against it, in fact you made a material acknowledgment of it, which i pointed out. you've just ignored that, which is not the same as it not being there or presented.

nevertheless, i'm sure you'll reiterate your call for evidence like a toddler.

you contend that positivist, reductionist metrics suffice for the exploration of concepts like rights, and have challenged me to provide a mathematical proof of their existence. i say that is absurd because math as i know it fails to measure this subject. what unit of measure should i quantify rights with? can you equate willpower with kinetic or electromagnetic forces? i don't think your math is useful here. another non-sequitur on your part.

perhaps willpower is an invalid concept because math fails to measure it. perhaps you are correct that mathematical or tangible metrics' failures indicate that these concepts don't exist. i challenge that claim because employing a protractor to measure electrical current presents the same misguided pursuit as you have undertaken. there is only one way to vindicate your claim for positivist evidence: you have to make an argument qualifying a metric and a unit for the purposes of a mathematical proof of natural rights. if you can do so, i'll come up with a proof, no problem.

that you claim such a mathematical statement will stand as evidence is another shade of ignorance on your part. does all of newton's or einstein's math function as evidence? hardly. if it were worth the time, i could term rights and their social interactions in group theory, but that would not make it any more plausible, and considerably less intelligible, certainly for yourself. it would make exploration of my argument impossible among most philosophical communities, certainly here. furthermore, it would still be an argument, but not evidence, just like E=MC^2.

 

[Intense]

Pointing fingers at any of the churches serves no purpose

Tell that to Jesus, who revealed himself to John and to John who recorded the Revelation.

Have you read Revelation?

LOL!!!

Who did Jesus come to save???

Who is without sin or fault???

 

[antagon]

consequently
since (according to conservatives) MOST Americans are NOT REAL CHRISTIANS

then
it follows
America is NOT a christian nation

Not the subject of the thread

what a hypocrite. self-awareness, ability, meaning, the age of positivity and mathematics aren't the subject of the thread, however, you have brought each of them up in your frail attempts to derail what i have argued on the subject.

rikules only points out (and effectively) the stupidity with which you abide. i think that fact informs a great deal as to the credibility of what you (passively) contend.

 

[JBeukema]

i guess i've already joined the world's religions for what that's worth.

Then you are to be taken just as seriously when you try to enter the halls of science and reason.

i have posted evidence and labeled it as such.

You've posted assertions- you assert that people have these rights and you assert that they exercise them through actions. You've demonstrated neither, only that they exercise their ability and possibly their will.

you contend that positivist, reductionist metrics suffice for the exploration of concepts like rights, and have challenged me to provide a mathematical proof of their existence. i say that is absurd because math as i know it fails to measure this subject.

So, like 'god', 'rights' exist in some vague metaphysical plain? And you wonder why we laugh at you?