What "rights" does nature give us?

[Sallow]

And then the scientists realized that a formerly held belief in the model of the universe, was wrong. Go figure. That's why things like evolution are THEORY. We can say with some confidents in observation and study that we are drawing logical, rational and observed conclusions. We can not establish them as facts.

That's part and parcel with science.

It's not a part of religion.

 

[Sallow]

There isn't a "right to force".

That help?

If there is no right to force, then the underpinning of your argument is gone.

Your entire argument relies upon the right of the biggest mob to force their will upon the smaller mob and the individual.

Your concession and capitulation is accepted.

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

 

[Jarhead]

There isn't a "right to force".

That help?

If there is no right to force, then the underpinning of your argument is gone.

Your entire argument relies upon the right of the biggest mob to force their will upon the smaller mob and the individual.

Your concession and capitulation is accepted.

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

you refuse to accept the fact that "natural rights" was never a term referring to "rights given to you by nature"....

Is it that you dont understand what I am saying or is it that you dont want to understand it?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

And that's definitely not true.

Nelson Mandela's "liberty" was taken away from him for several decades.

^^^ This kind of shit right here is why people call you and your commie lot stupid.
No one has said that the natural rights of human beings can't be trod upon. Depriving a man of his life or his liberty doesn't mean that his "right" to those things didn't exist. THAT's why those sorts of actions are crimes.

You have to look at unalienable rights in the context of keeping the peace. What does it take for human beings to live together harmoniously? When you explore the question within that context, it's easy enough to see that predictable strife occurs when our rights are abrogated. You can't go to your neighbor's house and boldly take his property without expecting some trouble to come from it, some sort of retaliation. You can't falsely imprison people or make them slaves without consequence; the end of Apartheid, the U.S. Civil War. And why is that? ...It's because human beings are naturally inclined to be free and to protect their property.

What never fails to surprise me is just how shallow the reasoning powers of so-called liberals consistently remains. It's almost inhuman... like trained monkeys, aping human behavior, but never understanding or moved by it. You never seem to really ask yourselves "why", never really apply yourselves to the question. Sure, you started a thread, but you did it thinking that you could prove the tyranny of the mob, lead by your democratically anointed King, should be allowed to prevail over the most innate rights of human beings. And you think you've got John Locke by the balls over his writings on slavery, never realizing that all he managed to do was prove that his philosophy on human nature was correct. Abrogate the natural rights of human animals, tumult and strife ensues. As this applies to governance, people cannot live in the peace and harmony they are capable of when their natural rights are ignored or abrogated.

Go stick your own head in the yoke of slavery. There are quite a number of places you can do that on this planet. Leave the rest of us alone.

Actually.

I invite you to do just that.

It's not me that wants to wage war, restrict freedom of speech and make laws allowing dolts with guns to shoot people because of a perceived threat.

That would be you folks.

And you do this while at the same time wanting to tear down democratic institutions and forever put in it's place fascism or theocracy or both.

We Americans like our government. We like our Democratic institutions.

And you Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists, Oligarchists and every other nonsensical Conservative form of government are invited to take your bull and start a new nation.

Islands for Sale Worldwide - Private Islands Online

only in the fevered empty skulls of dimwitted progressives

 

[konradv]

If you reference our Founding documents, you will quickly see that America was founded on the acknowledgement that our rights are intrinsic and granted by the Creator.

In other words a fairy tale, since in nature it's might that makes right. The Founding Fathers constructed a set of rules that are decidedly unnatural, since in nature if I'm stronger than you, I get the lion's share and you get the scraps.

Yours is the tiny minority opinion.

You are a freak, but then again you freaks are drawn in disproportion to this website

It's not an opinion, it's scientific fact that in nature the strongest take what they want and the rest wait their turn. If anyone's disproportionately drawn to the board, it's CONS that believe we'd have a better life without government.

 

[SniperFire]

If there is no right to force, then the underpinning of your argument is gone.

Your entire argument relies upon the right of the biggest mob to force their will upon the smaller mob and the individual.

Your concession and capitulation is accepted.

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

you refuse to accept the fact that "natural rights" was never a term referring to "rights given to you by nature"....

Is it that you dont understand what I am saying or is it that you dont want to understand it?

He understands it. He is just being a troll.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And then the scientists realized that a formerly held belief in the model of the universe, was wrong. Go figure. That's why things like evolution are THEORY. We can say with some confidents in observation and study that we are drawing logical, rational and observed conclusions. We can not establish them as facts.

That's part and parcel with science.

It's not a part of religion.

Actually, yes it is. And even still, random creation on earth is an opinion as i originally stated. Whether you like that one or the creator version of it. OPINION.

You're welcome.

 

[Oddball]

There isn't a "right to force".

That help?

If there is no right to force, then the underpinning of your argument is gone.

Your entire argument relies upon the right of the biggest mob to force their will upon the smaller mob and the individual.

Your concession and capitulation is accepted.

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

Your argument is that they only "rights" are those given to us by the potentate or the biggest mob, who may remove said "rights", by force if necessary, as caprice may find most expedient.

It is a philosophy based 100% upon aggression.

 

[konradv]

If there is no right to force, then the underpinning of your argument is gone.

Your entire argument relies upon the right of the biggest mob to force their will upon the smaller mob and the individual.

Your concession and capitulation is accepted.

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

you refuse to accept the fact that "natural rights" was never a term referring to "rights given to you by nature"....

Is it that you dont understand what I am saying or is it that you dont want to understand it?

If they're not given by nature, then they must be given by government, because without it they're a daydream at best.

 

[Jarhead]

In other words a fairy tale, since in nature it's might that makes right. The Founding Fathers constructed a set of rules that are decidedly unnatural, since in nature if I'm stronger than you, I get the lion's share and you get the scraps.

Yours is the tiny minority opinion.

You are a freak, but then again you freaks are drawn in disproportion to this website

It's not an opinion, it's scientific fact that in nature the strongest take what they want and the rest wait their turn. If anyone's disproportionately drawn to the board, it's CONS that believe we'd have a better life without government.

And it is that fact as the reason why animals in nature do all they can to become the strongest.

Now...if mother nature decided to make sure the weakest get as much as the strongest, then there would likely be nothing left living on the earth, for no living being would strive for anything.

 

[Sallow]

If there is no right to force, then the underpinning of your argument is gone.

Your entire argument relies upon the right of the biggest mob to force their will upon the smaller mob and the individual.

Your concession and capitulation is accepted.

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

Your argument is that they only "rights" are those given to us by the potentate or the biggest mob, who may remove said "rights", by force if necessary, as caprice may find most expedient.

It is a philosophy based 100% upon aggression.

Check your history.

Most countries are formed by aggressive actions of one "mob" against another "mob".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, the mob rule types love aggression. Fuck those who are different or do not want to go along. They can either conform, die or be used as a labor force. The majority has spoken!

That's why these people are frightening. Given the opportunity, this is the type of shit these people would have going on in this country.

 

[Jarhead]

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

you refuse to accept the fact that "natural rights" was never a term referring to "rights given to you by nature"....

Is it that you dont understand what I am saying or is it that you dont want to understand it?

If they're not given by nature, then they must be given by government, because without it they're a daydream at best.

they are not given by government. They are simply not taken away by government.

If I were to live on a secluded island, I can scream fire anytime I want.
Government took that right away from me. There are times I am not prmitted to scream fire.

 

[Murf76]

And that's definitely not true.

Nelson Mandela's "liberty" was taken away from him for several decades.

^^^ This kind of shit right here is why people call you and your commie lot stupid.
No one has said that the natural rights of human beings can't be trod upon. Depriving a man of his life or his liberty doesn't mean that his "right" to those things didn't exist. THAT's why those sorts of actions are crimes.

You have to look at unalienable rights in the context of keeping the peace. What does it take for human beings to live together harmoniously? When you explore the question within that context, it's easy enough to see that predictable strife occurs when our rights are abrogated. You can't go to your neighbor's house and boldly take his property without expecting some trouble to come from it, some sort of retaliation. You can't falsely imprison people or make them slaves without consequence; the end of Apartheid, the U.S. Civil War. And why is that? ...It's because human beings are naturally inclined to be free and to protect their property.

What never fails to surprise me is just how shallow the reasoning powers of so-called liberals consistently remains. It's almost inhuman... like trained monkeys, aping human behavior, but never understanding or moved by it. You never seem to really ask yourselves "why", never really apply yourselves to the question. Sure, you started a thread, but you did it thinking that you could prove the tyranny of the mob, lead by your democratically anointed King, should be allowed to prevail over the most innate rights of human beings. And you think you've got John Locke by the balls over his writings on slavery, never realizing that all he managed to do was prove that his philosophy on human nature was correct. Abrogate the natural rights of human animals, tumult and strife ensues. As this applies to governance, people cannot live in the peace and harmony they are capable of when their natural rights are ignored or abrogated.

Go stick your own head in the yoke of slavery. There are quite a number of places you can do that on this planet. Leave the rest of us alone.

Actually.

I invite you to do just that.

It's not me that wants to wage war, restrict freedom of speech and make laws allowing dolts with guns to shoot people because of a perceived threat.

That would be you folks.

And you do this while at the same time wanting to tear down democratic institutions and forever put in it's place fascism or theocracy or both.

We Americans like our government. We like our Democratic institutions.

And you Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists, Oligarchists and every other nonsensical Conservative form of government are invited to take your bull and start a new nation.

Islands for Sale Worldwide - Private Islands Online

Awesome. You idiots never fail to be consistent.

Note that WE are not the ones who believe that the NATURAL RIGHTS of human beings don't exist, or that the U.S. Constitution which guarantees them should be set aside. WE are not the ones who believe that Mob Rule should subordinate the inherent rights of the minority. So, who are you calling "fascist", Fascist?
The very fact that you started this particular thread is proof that you don't understand WHY people should be free. This country was founded on OUR philosophy, not yours. You don't have any right to usurp our Liberty and they claim that WE are bothering YOU. Our whole ideology is about "leaving other people alone". It's you assholes who can't manage to DO IT.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

Your argument is that they only "rights" are those given to us by the potentate or the biggest mob, who may remove said "rights", by force if necessary, as caprice may find most expedient.

It is a philosophy based 100% upon aggression.

Check your history.

Most countries are formed by aggressive actions of one "mob" against another "mob".

Wrong. "Countries" are formed by their abilities to procure resources, create things and sell/buy them to others. Aggressive actions are usually the result of some or one infringing upon the natural rights of another. This is what sparks conflict of such magnitutde.

 

[konradv]

If there is no right to force, then the underpinning of your argument is gone.

Your entire argument relies upon the right of the biggest mob to force their will upon the smaller mob and the individual.

Your concession and capitulation is accepted.

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

Your argument is that they only "rights" are those given to us by the potentate or the biggest mob, who may remove said "rights", by force if necessary, as caprice may find most expedient.

It is a philosophy based 100% upon aggression.

It's argument based on the observation of nature and how it works. Only by constructing a counter force to natural law can we have anything approximating equality. We usually call that force "government". You may see it as evil, but it's a necessary evil, if one doesn't want to have to fight on a daily basis to keep what they possess.

 

[SniperFire]

No it's not.

There aren't any "natural rights".

The argument is valid.

you refuse to accept the fact that "natural rights" was never a term referring to "rights given to you by nature"....

Is it that you dont understand what I am saying or is it that you dont want to understand it?

If they're not given by nature, then they must be given by government, because without it they're a daydream at best.

As we are Founded, out inalienable rights are granted by 'Nature's God.'

You could argue that America was founded on a lie, which is a tiny minority opinion, but which is probably what we would expect from a commie atheist.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There isn't a "right to force".

That help?

why not.....?

doesn't an animal have the right to kill to eat.....?

doesn't an animal have the right to defend itself.....?

Nope.

There are no rights in nature.

Kill or be killed.

does a bear shit in the woods....? or do you deny the natural right to that basic function....?

 

[konradv]

you refuse to accept the fact that "natural rights" was never a term referring to "rights given to you by nature"....

Is it that you dont understand what I am saying or is it that you dont want to understand it?

If they're not given by nature, then they must be given by government, because without it they're a daydream at best.

they are not given by government. They are simply not taken away by government.

If I were to live on a secluded island, I can scream fire anytime I want.
Government took that right away from me. There are times I am not prmitted to scream fire.

If you live by yourself on that island, you can do whatever you like. It's when the second person arrives that complications begin. Without rules that we usually call 'government, if you're stronger you can continue to do what you want with impunity, but if you're not without government, you're at the mercy of the other guy. That's nature.

 

[konradv]

you refuse to accept the fact that "natural rights" was never a term referring to "rights given to you by nature"....

Is it that you dont understand what I am saying or is it that you dont want to understand it?

If they're not given by nature, then they must be given by government, because without it they're a daydream at best.

As we are Founded, out inalienable rights are granted by 'Nature's God.'

You could argue that America was founded on a lie, which is a tiny minority opinion, but which is probably what we would expect from a commie atheist.

Have you stopped beating your wife?