TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Basically, you can not argue with sallow on this because he's going to keep after the "gotcha" of natural rights. He's more than content to lick another man's boots.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No it doesn't.
how so...?
Nature doesn't give you a "right" to live.
No, it doesn't kill my argument. The argument you're trying to construct is that the only rights anyone has are those given by a governing body. That's just not so. And even though the enlightment age came with hypocritical aspects, it was progress.
Trim your eyebrows.
No it doesn't.
how so...?
Nature doesn't give you a "right" to live.
The right to not be killed? You are mistaken. If that right doesn't exist then no rights exist.
Swallow is of course arguing that the Founding of the Nation on God granted inalienable rights is incorrect.
Few Leftists actually believe in America.
SniperFag..the nation was not founded on god granted rights. No god appears in the Constitution. And the Christian bible defines no rights. Only laws. And most of these laws do not appear in our system of justice.
Like you can be a faggot if you want too. That wouldn't be cool with Christians.
See SniperFag? Your faggotness isn't supported.
how so...?
Nature doesn't give you a "right" to live.
The problem Sallow, is that you are using a different definition of "Natural" than the proponents of Natural Rights. But I think you know that.
Swallow is of course arguing that the Founding of the Nation on God granted inalienable rights is incorrect.
Few Leftists actually believe in America.
SniperFag..the nation was not founded on god granted rights. No god appears in the Constitution. And the Christian bible defines no rights. Only laws. And most of these laws do not appear in our system of justice.
Like you can be a faggot if you want too. That wouldn't be cool with Christians.
See SniperFag? Your faggotness isn't supported.
See? LOL
He won't even admit that the Declaration of Independence is a Founding document.
Nature doesn't give you a "right" to live.
The problem Sallow, is that you are using a different definition of "Natural" than the proponents of Natural Rights. But I think you know that.
Well of course.
And people involved in this sort of ridiculous argument have divorced the meaning of "nature" from what it actually is..
SniperFag..the nation was not founded on god granted rights. No god appears in the Constitution. And the Christian bible defines no rights. Only laws. And most of these laws do not appear in our system of justice.
Like you can be a faggot if you want too. That wouldn't be cool with Christians.
See SniperFag? Your faggotness isn't supported.
See? LOL
He won't even admit that the Declaration of Independence is a Founding document.
It's not.
Nature doesn't give you a "right" to live.
The problem Sallow, is that you are using a different definition of "Natural" than the proponents of Natural Rights. But I think you know that.
Well of course.
And people involved in this sort of ridiculous argument have divorced the meaning of "nature" from what it actually is..
So then, in sallows world, the governing body can choose to say, wipe out an entire race of people based purely on a majority rule of law. Since no one has any right to exist beyond the constructs of man's governing "service".
Isn't that right?
The problem Sallow, is that you are using a different definition of "Natural" than the proponents of Natural Rights. But I think you know that.
Well of course.
And people involved in this sort of ridiculous argument have divorced the meaning of "nature" from what it actually is..
You're either bored or you're just feeling like arguing. Not a criticism, I often do that myself.
Many English words have multiple meanings you know.
Carry on.
Well of course.
And people involved in this sort of ridiculous argument have divorced the meaning of "nature" from what it actually is..
You're either bored or you're just feeling like arguing. Not a criticism, I often do that myself.
Many English words have multiple meanings you know.
Carry on.
It's a valid argument.
At the baseline for people arguing for "natural" rights, they are saying that rights are innate.
They aren't.
It's a human construct.
It's the same as arguing "religion" is "natural".
It's not..for very much the same reason.
read John Locke
I have.
He's wrong about "natural rights".
Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.
In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.
And by the animals in that group.
Sound familiar?
So then, in sallows world, the governing body can choose to say, wipe out an entire race of people based purely on a majority rule of law. Since no one has any right to exist beyond the constructs of man's governing "service".
Isn't that right?