What "rights" does nature give us?

[regent]

An interesting post in that it shows our ignorance of our own basic rights.
Do Americans still believe in the rights Jefferson put in the Declaration, the framers, and later generations, put into the constitution? Apparently most of us do not even know, or are unable to define these rights as were intended, and worse, we change the definition to fit our politics or beliefs. Perhaps historians and political scientists need to come up with the definitions as intended by the writers and Americans need to learn them. The predictable thing is probably that not all of us would approve of our rights as intended.

My mistake, I should have said interesting thread not post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

The government cannot stop people from talking. I can prove that by pointing to the fact that governments have actually tried that in the past, and failed, and that other governments are trying it now, and failing. I guess that makes free speech another natural, and inalienable, right.

Ok, I can agree with that. But my statement stands for the "right" to own a gun, and the "right" to vote, and all those other "rights".

Voting does not occur in nature, the right to self defense, however, does. The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the right to self defense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why? What's the context, here in this thread?

It is to prove that the fact that you cannot define something is not proof of anything other than the limitations of language.

With regards to the American 'System', which, save the right to breathe, is the practical source for all rights and responsibilities enjoyed by Citizens and guests alike, the definition of life is anything with a Social Security Number, Tax ID Number or foreign passport, and the rights granted and the responsibilities expected vary based on Citizen -vs- guest -vs business entity status.

Do you enjoy being stupid? The things you described are functions of the government, and can be considered effects of citizenship. The fact that they are not required to be alive is self evident, it is entirely possible to enter this country having none of those things and still be alive and enjoy all the legal protections that are afforded to a person who is alive.

 

[Koios]

It is to prove that the fact that you cannot define something is not proof of anything other than the limitations of language.

With regards to the American 'System', which, save the right to breathe, is the practical source for all rights and responsibilities enjoyed by Citizens and guests alike, the definition of life is anything with a Social Security Number, Tax ID Number or foreign passport, and the rights granted and the responsibilities expected vary based on Citizen -vs- guest -vs business entity status.

Do you enjoy being stupid? The things you described are functions of the government, and can be considered effects of citizenship. The fact that they are not required to be alive is self evident, it is entirely possible to enter this country having none of those things and still be alive and enjoy all the legal protections that are afforded to a person who is alive.

Why would you think that of anyone, unless you yourself find it enjoyable?

Noodle on that; you might just have an epiphany.

 

[bayoubill]

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

I have a natural right to not have you or anyone else do me harm... and I also have a natural right to take whatever measures may be necessary to prevent you or anyone else to do me harm...

you have those same rights, even though you may choose to deny them...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

The government cannot stop people from talking. I can prove that by pointing to the fact that governments have actually tried that in the past, and failed, and that other governments are trying it now, and failing. I guess that makes free speech another natural, and inalienable, right.

Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one and see how far your natural right to express yourself goes past the right of The People (government) to put your ass in jail for speaking your mind.

All rights, except the right to breathe, are subjective and granted by "the authorities", whatever and whoever "the authorities" may be at any given moment in history.

That has nothing to do with free speech. Even if it did, my point still stands because, even if the government throws me in jail, they can't stop me from yelling fire.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

The government cannot stop people from talking. I can prove that by pointing to the fact that governments have actually tried that in the past, and failed, and that other governments are trying it now, and failing. I guess that makes free speech another natural, and inalienable, right.

Although inalienable, the right to speak freely is not absolute.

Government may not be able to stop people from ‘talking,’ but persons can be subject to punitive measures if that speech is not considered protected, such as time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech, obscenity, and libel/defamation.

There is where you are flat out wrong. Inalienable rights cannot be restricted, that is part of what makes them inalienable. Punishing people for using their rights is not proof that those rights are not absolute, it is just proof that governments are stupid.

 

[AVG-JOE]

An interesting post in that it shows our ignorance of our own basic rights.
Do Americans still believe in the rights Jefferson put in the Declaration, the framers, and later generations, put into the constitution? Apparently most of us do not even know, or are unable to define these rights as were intended, and worse, we change the definition to fit our politics or beliefs. Perhaps historians and political scientists need to come up with the definitions as intended by the writers and Americans need to learn them. The predictable thing is probably that not all of us would approve of our rights as intended.

Doesn't matter. Beyond the breath in a Monkeys lungs, all rights are subjective - and that doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the 'legality' of a situation.

How do I know that Monkeys have a right to smoke weed in FL? Because they can. Good pot is really not that difficult to get, in spite of the billion$ we've $pent on the War on Drugs.

Sure, it's a right that's more risky and difficult to enjoy than a Monkeys right to consume a beer after work, but if you seek evidence that Monkeys have a limited right to consume cannabis, the proof is in the brownies.

Government can issue and attempt to withhold rights / The People can, with enough participation, create their own rights. All rights, sans the right to breathe, are subjective to enforcement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With regards to the American 'System', which, save the right to breathe, is the practical source for all rights and responsibilities enjoyed by Citizens and guests alike, the definition of life is anything with a Social Security Number, Tax ID Number or foreign passport, and the rights granted and the responsibilities expected vary based on Citizen -vs- guest -vs business entity status.

Do you enjoy being stupid? The things you described are functions of the government, and can be considered effects of citizenship. The fact that they are not required to be alive is self evident, it is entirely possible to enter this country having none of those things and still be alive and enjoy all the legal protections that are afforded to a person who is alive.

Why would you think that of anyone, unless you yourself find it enjoyable?

Noodle on that; you might just have an epiphany.

The poster responded to a challenge to define life by talking about Social Security numbers.

 

[Koios]

Do you enjoy being stupid? The things you described are functions of the government, and can be considered effects of citizenship. The fact that they are not required to be alive is self evident, it is entirely possible to enter this country having none of those things and still be alive and enjoy all the legal protections that are afforded to a person who is alive.

Why would you think that of anyone, unless you yourself find it enjoyable?

Noodle on that; you might just have an epiphany.

The poster responded to a challenge to define life by talking about Social Security numbers.

Not how it reads. Read again.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It is to prove that the fact that you cannot define something is not proof of anything other than the limitations of language.

With regards to the American 'System', which, save the right to breathe, is the practical source for all rights and responsibilities enjoyed by Citizens and guests alike, the definition of life is anything with a Social Security Number, Tax ID Number or foreign passport, and the rights granted and the responsibilities expected vary based on Citizen -vs- guest -vs business entity status.

Do you enjoy being stupid? The things you described are functions of the government, and can be considered effects of citizenship. The fact that they are not required to be alive is self evident, it is entirely possible to enter this country having none of those things and still be alive and enjoy all the legal protections that are afforded to a person who is alive.

And in the context of a thread that is all about what 'rights' Monkeys have, a SSN, Tax ID or foreign passport is all a Monkey needs to participate.

Even bears born in America have no 'rights' here. Neither do the pigs or cows, in spite of their involvement in industry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would you think that of anyone, unless you yourself find it enjoyable?

Noodle on that; you might just have an epiphany.

The poster responded to a challenge to define life by talking about Social Security numbers.

Not how it reads. Read again.

That was funny, thanks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With regards to the American 'System', which, save the right to breathe, is the practical source for all rights and responsibilities enjoyed by Citizens and guests alike, the definition of life is anything with a Social Security Number, Tax ID Number or foreign passport, and the rights granted and the responsibilities expected vary based on Citizen -vs- guest -vs business entity status.

Do you enjoy being stupid? The things you described are functions of the government, and can be considered effects of citizenship. The fact that they are not required to be alive is self evident, it is entirely possible to enter this country having none of those things and still be alive and enjoy all the legal protections that are afforded to a person who is alive.

And in the context of a thread that is all about what 'rights' Monkeys have, SSN, Tax ID or foreign passport is all a Monkey needs to participate.

Even bears born in America have no 'rights' here. Neither do the pigs or cows, in spite of their involvement in industry.

Stupid is a stupid does.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

In my opinion, none. I struggle with this issue as I've studied the founding fathers and what they believed in their time.

It's an interesting concept to debate.

 

[Meathead]

We have a natural right to defend what is ours, nothing more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

In my opinion, none. I struggle with this issue as I've studied the founding fathers and what they believed in their time.

It's an interesting concept to debate.

So far not a single person has actually defended the premise that natural rights do not exist. One person tried, and ended up agreeing that at least some do exist. I would ask you to try, but all you do is troll.

 

[Koios]

The poster responded to a challenge to define life by talking about Social Security numbers.

Not how it reads. Read again.

That was funny, thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[Koios]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.

Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.
Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Are men unnatural to the Earth?

 

[Koios]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.
Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Are men unnatural to the Earth?

What do you think? Can you not answer your own retarded questions? If not, tough luck, pal. Me answering them is thing of the past.