What "rights" does nature give us?

[Sallow]

What "rights" does nature give us?

The right to breathe. Every other 'right' comes from agreements with other Monkeys.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Even the right to breathe clean air instead of pollution comes from agreements with other Monkeys that are enforced by government.

In nature, you have no right to breath, since you have no right to life.

If I'm hungry and better at killing than you are.

 

[Sallow]

There are no natural rights.

In nature your predator or prey. Almost all nature is based around killing.

inalienable rights are different.

Those don't exist either..except as a human construct.

Unless of course you believe in the supernatural.

Well since the Founders all did, I'm working with what I inherited.


plz tell me you're not one of those nutters that want to do away with the Constitution b/c it's old

Nope.

Constitution works just fine.

 

[SniperFire]

There are no natural rights.

In nature your predator or prey. Almost all nature is based around killing.

inalienable rights are different.

Those don't exist either..except as a human construct.

Unless of course you believe in the supernatural.

Well since the Founders all did, I'm working with what I inherited.


plz tell me you're not one of those nutters that want to do away with the Constitution b/c it's old

This Nation was indeed FOUNDED and thrives under the notion of our inalienable rights granted us by our Creator. They are explicitly supernatural, and America is a defacto theocracy.

 

[konradv]

Those don't exist either..except as a human construct.

Unless of course you believe in the supernatural.

Well since the Founders all did, I'm working with what I inherited.

plz tell me you're not one of those nutters that want to do away with the Constitution b/c it's old

This Nation was indeed FOUNDED and thrives under the notion of our inalienable rights granted us by our Creator. They are explicitly supernatural, and America is a defacto theocracy.

You're a de facto troll.

 

[dblack]

Still don't see what's natural about them. It's a rhetorical ploy, because without a force to back them up, they really don't exist.

Sounds like you're importing a lot with your definitions. 'Natural' in this context just means "innate". And "right" means freedom. Freedoms exist, conceptually, whether or not they are protected.

I'm using 'natural' is in "in nature". If you're using a different definition, who's doing the importing? Just saying they're "innate" doesn't mean a thing, IMO. Concepts aren't enforceable, which to me is the bottom line. It sounds good, but that's about it.

Nonetheless, that's what they were talking about. Natural rights are conceptual. It's just a classification of a type of freedom - in the context of the constitution, the type of freedom we want government to protect.

It's frustrating that we get so tripped up by grammar and time, but I think most here are doing just that. Even many of the scholarly articles on the topic seem to treat 'natural rights' as something else, but I'm convinced they are missing the point.

Jefferson wasn't calling out natural rights as some magical aspect of nature that protects our freedom, he was merely making the point that freedom is our initial condition as thinking creatures. Until, and unless, someone else comes along and violates it, we are free to think and decide for ourselves how to live. Living in a pluralistic society, however, virtually guarantees that someone will threaten to violate that basic state of freedom and we need government to protect it.

 

[SniperFire]

Well since the Founders all did, I'm working with what I inherited.

plz tell me you're not one of those nutters that want to do away with the Constitution b/c it's old

This Nation was indeed FOUNDED and thrives under the notion of our inalienable rights granted us by our Creator. They are explicitly supernatural, and America is a defacto theocracy.

You're a de facto troll.

Truth has delivered you a defacto butthurt once again.

I am only the messenger.

LOL

 

[SniperFire]

Sounds like you're importing a lot with your definitions. 'Natural' in this context just means "innate". And "right" means freedom. Freedoms exist, conceptually, whether or not they are protected.

I'm using 'natural' is in "in nature". If you're using a different definition, who's doing the importing? Just saying they're "innate" doesn't mean a thing, IMO. Concepts aren't enforceable, which to me is the bottom line. It sounds good, but that's about it.

Nonetheless, that's what they were talking about. Natural rights are conceptual. It's just a classification of a type of freedom - in the context of the constitution, the type of freedom we want government to protect.

It's frustrating that we get so tripped up by grammar and time, but I think most here are doing just that. Even many of the scholarly articles on the topic seem to treat 'natural rights' as something else, but I'm convinced they are missing the point.

Jefferson wasn't calling out natural rights as some magical aspect of nature that protects our freedom, he was merely making the point that freedom is our initial condition as thinking creatures. Until, and unless, someone else comes along and violates it, we are free to think and decide for ourselves how to live. Living in a pluralistic society, however, virtually guarantees that someone will threaten to violate that basic state of freedom and we need government to protect it.

Really?

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

 

[SniperFire]

See, heathens, there is no such thing as a 'right' in nature.

Eat or be eaten is the only rule.

[youtube]dlGuR6mxAjw[/youtube]

 

[Toro]

There are no rights in nature. It's nature.

Rights do not come from God. We cannot prove the existence of God.

All rights come from man. Rights are the highest order of laws man creates to construct a civil society. Rights are rooted in philosophy.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Even the right to breathe clean air instead of pollution comes from agreements with other Monkeys that are enforced by government.

In nature, you have no right to breath, since you have no right to life.

If I'm hungry and better at killing than you are.

'cept that air, unlike food, is actually a no-cost item.

Short of one Monkey physically removing another Monkey from access to the atmosphere, they have every right to breathe on this planet; and that would be a classic example of abridging a Monkeys one and only 'natural right'.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Those don't exist either..except as a human construct.

Unless of course you believe in the supernatural.

Well since the Founders all did, I'm working with what I inherited.


plz tell me you're not one of those nutters that want to do away with the Constitution b/c it's old

This Nation was indeed FOUNDED and thrives under the notion of our inalienable rights granted us by our Creator. They are explicitly supernatural, and America is a defacto theocracy.

Now all that's left is to properly define 'God'.

Good luck with that... I think I'll stick to promoting a dynamic Civil Law and adherence to the First Amendment.

 

[regent]

The laws of nature were not in conflict with religion except in the minds of small minded modernists.

Tell that too Galileo.

Is he the guy that upset all the enlightened scientists of his age because he insisted that the Earth moved? Or are you one of those idiots that believe the revisionist history that the church initiated the prosecution because of his attack on Aristotelian dogma?

Yes.

 

[SniperFire]

There are no rights in nature. It's nature.

Rights do not come from God. We cannot prove the existence of God.

All rights come from man. Rights are the highest order of laws man creates to construct a civil society. Rights are rooted in philosophy.

Illogical.

 

[AVG-JOE]

 

[SniperFire]

Well since the Founders all did, I'm working with what I inherited.


plz tell me you're not one of those nutters that want to do away with the Constitution b/c it's old

This Nation was indeed FOUNDED and thrives under the notion of our inalienable rights granted us by our Creator. They are explicitly supernatural, and America is a defacto theocracy.

Now all that's left is to properly define 'God'.

Good luck with that... I think I'll stick to promoting a dynamic Civil Law and adherence to the First Amendment.

No.

All you need to know is that the single most important tenet of the founding of America is the recognition of the inalienable rights granted by God.

Look it up.

 

[Toro]

There are no rights in nature. It's nature.

Rights do not come from God. We cannot prove the existence of God.

All rights come from man. Rights are the highest order of laws man creates to construct a civil society. Rights are rooted in philosophy.

Illogical.

It's illogical to suggest otherwise.

It's only illogical if God exists. Then, you have to prove rights were conferred onto us by God.

But since we cannot prove God exists and thus cannot verify His existence, we cannot know that God gave us rights. And even if He does exist, we would have to prove that He gave us these rights. We can't do either.

Man infers that God gave us rights, and uses the authority of God and religion to impose a legal structure on society. But man believing God gave us rights is not the same things as God actually giving us rights.

 

[dblack]

I'm using 'natural' is in "in nature". If you're using a different definition, who's doing the importing? Just saying they're "innate" doesn't mean a thing, IMO. Concepts aren't enforceable, which to me is the bottom line. It sounds good, but that's about it.

Nonetheless, that's what they were talking about. Natural rights are conceptual. It's just a classification of a type of freedom - in the context of the constitution, the type of freedom we want government to protect.

It's frustrating that we get so tripped up by grammar and time, but I think most here are doing just that. Even many of the scholarly articles on the topic seem to treat 'natural rights' as something else, but I'm convinced they are missing the point.

Jefferson wasn't calling out natural rights as some magical aspect of nature that protects our freedom, he was merely making the point that freedom is our initial condition as thinking creatures. Until, and unless, someone else comes along and violates it, we are free to think and decide for ourselves how to live. Living in a pluralistic society, however, virtually guarantees that someone will threaten to violate that basic state of freedom and we need government to protect it.

Really?

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yeah. Beginning to wonder whether anyone else here has.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

About the only thing useful I've seen come out of this thread was the invitation by somebody to read John Locke. I hope a few people at least took the poster up on that.

 

[dblack]

About the only thing useful I've seen come out of this thread was the invitation by somebody to read John Locke. I hope a few people at least took the poster up on that.

I guess what I find ironic is that these debates always devolve into an argument over who 'gives' us our rights - God or Government. When the entire point of the 'natural rights' perspective is that freedom isn't a gift. It's what we have as a by-product of being able to think. If we are all alone, or with people we get along with perfectly, we don't need a government to protect our rights. But since that situation is the exception rather than the rule, since even reasonable people can disagree about where your right to swing your fist ends, we create governments to preserve as much of that natural freedom as possible.