What "rights" does nature give us?

[Rocko]

I can't believe some people are taking this thread seriously. lol

We are born free, hence the government doesn't grant us freedoms. Being born is a gift from God.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is a difference between natural rights and legal rights....

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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.

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.

Truth exists independently of any burden of proof. It either is or it is not true.

For you to make the claim something does not exist, but in the same breath admit you cannot prove it, is an illogical position.

And you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

 

[Sallow]

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.

God doesn't appear in the Constitution..which is a founding and foundation document.

 

[Sallow]

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.

I've read it.

No laws are derived from it.

And King George is dead.

So..it was a one shot deal.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Then you have poor retention. Else, you are intellectually dishonest. I imagine the latter is true. Jefferson was QUITE SPECIFICALLY pointing out that our single most important tenet of the founding of America is the recognition of the MAGICAL ASPECT that inalienable rights granted by God.

Look it up.


But, godless progressives ignoring the plain language of our Founding documents because they really don't believe in America?

Let me show you my shocked face!

 

[Toro]

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.

Truth exists independently of any burden of proof. It either is or it is not true.

For you to make the claim something does not exist, but in the same breath admit you cannot prove it, is an illogical position.

And you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

I never said God doesn't exist. I said we can't prove the existence of God.

It should be an easy concept to discern. If you can't, you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Truth exists independently of any burden of proof. It either is or it is not true.

For you to make the claim something does not exist, but in the same breath admit you cannot prove it, is an illogical position.

And you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

I never said God doesn't exist. I said we can't prove the existence of God.

It should be an easy concept to discern. If you can't, you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

Wrong. Let me help you with your failing memory.

You said our rights are not granted by God, because God cannot be proven.

Which is patently illogical.

 

[Toro]

Truth exists independently of any burden of proof. It either is or it is not true.

For you to make the claim something does not exist, but in the same breath admit you cannot prove it, is an illogical position.

And you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

I never said God doesn't exist. I said we can't prove the existence of God.

It should be an easy concept to discern. If you can't, you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

Wrong. Let me help you with your failing memory.

You said our rights are not granted by God, because God cannot be proven.

Which is patently illogical.

For rights to be granted from God -->

1. God must exist and
2. God must have communicated those rights to man

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


IF God does not exist, THEN God cannot have given us rights.

IF God does exist, THEN God may have given us rights.

IF God exists and did not give us rights, THEN God did not give us rights.

IF God exists and did give us rights, THEN God gave us rights.

IF God exists and gave us rights, THEN we must be able to verify that God gave us those rights.

IF we cannot verify the existence of God, THEN we cannot verify that God communicated those rights to us.

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


Concepts of rights changed fairly dramatically over the 1700 years from the birth of Christ to The Enlightenment and The Bill of Rights. If it were self-evident that God truly did give us those rights, then why wasn't it self-evident to the hundreds of millions of people who lived over those 1700 years? And why not to all men?

I'm very happy that it became self-evident late in the 18th century that these rights were self-evident, such as it created the most noble document that shaped the greatest nation on earth. But we are just guessing that they came from God.

 

[Koios]

I never said God doesn't exist. I said we can't prove the existence of God.

It should be an easy concept to discern. If you can't, you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

Wrong. Let me help you with your failing memory.

You said our rights are not granted by God, because God cannot be proven.

Which is patently illogical.

For rights to be granted from God -->

1. God must exist and
2. God must have communicated those rights to man

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


IF God does not exist, THEN God cannot have given us rights.

IF God does exist, THEN God may have given us rights.

IF God exists and did not give us rights, THEN God did not give us rights.

IF God exists and did give us rights, THEN God gave us rights.

IF God exists and gave us rights, THEN we must be able to verify that God gave us those rights.

IF we cannot verify the existence of God, THEN we cannot verify that God communicated those rights to us.

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


Concepts of rights changed fairly dramatically over the 1700 years from the birth of Christ to The Enlightenment and The Bill of Rights. If it were self-evident that God truly did give us those rights, then why wasn't it self-evident to the hundreds of millions of people who lived over those 1700 years? And why not to all men?

I'm very happy that it became self-evident late in the 18th century that these rights were self-evident, such as it created the most noble document that shaped the greatest nation on earth. But we are just guessing that they came from God.

Or in short: ain't no god; it's made up, by the folks who also conjurred up rights and shit.

 

[deltex1]

So just guess that they came from God...live your life as though they did...be willing to die for that belief...and live happily ever after. Why twist your pecker into a knot over what is good for you whether or not you know for sure from whence it came.

 

[Toro]

So just guess that they came from God...live your life as though they did...be willing to die for that belief...and live happily ever after. Why twist your pecker into a knot over what is good for you whether or not you know for sure from whence it came.

That's perfectly fair.

Simply because rights came from man doesn't mean they're not awesome.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I never said God doesn't exist. I said we can't prove the existence of God.

It should be an easy concept to discern. If you can't, you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

Wrong. Let me help you with your failing memory.

You said our rights are not granted by God, because God cannot be proven.

Which is patently illogical.

For rights to be granted from God -->

1. God must exist and
2. God must have communicated those rights to man

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


IF God does not exist, THEN God cannot have given us rights.

IF God does exist, THEN God may have given us rights.

IF God exists and did not give us rights, THEN God did not give us rights.

IF God exists and did give us rights, THEN God gave us rights.

IF God exists and gave us rights, THEN we must be able to verify that God gave us those rights.

IF we cannot verify the existence of God, THEN we cannot verify that God communicated those rights to us.

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


Concepts of rights changed fairly dramatically over the 1700 years from the birth of Christ to The Enlightenment and The Bill of Rights. If it were self-evident that God truly did give us those rights, then why wasn't it self-evident to the hundreds of millions of people who lived over those 1700 years? And why not to all men?

I'm very happy that it became self-evident late in the 18th century that these rights were self-evident, such as it created the most noble document that shaped the greatest nation on earth. But we are just guessing that they came from God.

Those that believe CAN verify it dumb ass. Those that choice to be stupid, well we can not but give you the information and hope you use it.

 

[Toro]

Those that believe CAN verify it dumb ass. Those that choice to be stupid, well we can not but give you the information and hope you use it.

Belief is not verification. Simply because one believes in something very strongly doesn't mean its true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

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.

Let me see if I understand your position.

My dictionary tells me that inalienable means "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor."

That would mean that inalienable rights are rights that cannot be transferred from one person to another. You say these only exist as human concepts, which means you believe that they can be transferred to other people. That means I can transfer my right to life to another person. If I can transfer my right to life to someone else, does that mean I can die to bring another person back to life? Is this ability restricted to some people, but not others? Are there shamans that can transfer the right to life from person to person? Is there some sort of time limit on this process? Can you provide me examples of this happening before, because I have never come across any in all my reading.

Should I just assume that you really don't know what you are talking about then you start blathering about inalienable rights being a human construct?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Have you ever heard of the concept of thought? It concepts are not real, how can you think?

Your problem is that your education is lacking, that does not make us wrong, it just makes you ignorant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What "rights" does nature give us?

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

If you don't want me to think I can't think? How does that work?

 

[whitehall]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government may protect our rights or infringe on them but government does not bestow God given rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

You really need to stop confusing yourself. I can name quite a few things I can do even if you disagree. One of the most obvious is drugs, the government has conducted a war for decades to end them completely, gotten cooperation from every government on Earth, yet they still exist and are readily available. Consent of the masses does not automatically negate freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It really is sad how people think that the ability to kill somehow negates one's innate right to life.