What "rights" does nature give us?

[TakeAStepBack]

Perception is not reality, bud. The sky is not blue.

It is when all sighted people see the same blue (higher frequency/low wave length light) being scattered by particles in the upper atmosphere. That there'd be the very fucking definition of reality.

Here's how: we all see / percieve it, via our sense of vision. Next, folks go find out why, by being curious and not asking a fucking cleric. Works like a charm, if knowing shit is your thing.

I'm familiar with how the sky changes color in a person without a color blinds perception. That doesn't make the sky blue. It could be orange, red, purple...I've seen lots of colors in our atmosphere.

The sky isn't actually blue. That's light you;re seeing and a mix of other variables.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

You still haven't even debated against natural rights. Coming into a discussion, stating an opinion, and declaring victory based on said opinion is not a debate, it is dogma.

Nature does not guarantee rights. How can it? What are we back to sacrificing neighbors to the Volcano god?

Rights are human constructs. Human constructs come from the mind. What was natural ages ago may not be natural now.

Nature & natural...two terms people are confusing/conflating/hiding behind?

The only thing guaranteed by "nature" is "free will" - the ability to think and act.

You could call that a "natural right" if you wanted, but it's not the terminology that I would use.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Oddly enough, I agree with you, but with the exception of the natural right to do whatever we please. Natural rights also counters that by allowing others to do the same.

Read "Crime and Punishment" for a more philosophical slant.

Never existed, not even for our antecedents who forraged. They might well have felt the right to what they forraged, and would have loved nothing more than to sit around eating it unmolested.

But no such right exists in nature, nor the human world. So in time (millions of years) we came up with rules, giving folks the relative sense they had rights ... which really are not true. They're violated frequently, in nature, including by humans, and best we can do is punish those who violated them, in hopes of mitigating violations.

Think of it this way: we decide, as a people, that all humans have right to be born free of defects. Seems fair; yeah? A loving god would do that, at a minimum, I'd think. But nature doesn't give a fuck. It just does, sometimes defectively; but if it works, it's done more often.

It should be a simple process to prove that the concept of rights is a human construct. All you have to do is take one persons right to life and transfer it to another person who is dead. Once you do that you can conclusively prove that the right to life is an entirely human construct, until then I am simply going to assume you are wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Do you understand the difference between a discussion of right and wrong and a discussion of rights? Are you confused by the fact that right and right are spelled the same and sound the same?

I think so. Let's parse:

Right and wrong (relativism)

Rights (shit folks who get caught violating are subject to penalties under law)

How'd I do?

windbag has this habit of taking things off topic, or at the least straying into sidebars that take away from the main point(s) being discussed...and it's all about attempting to insult and score cheap, sophomoric, message board points

with words, she can say absolutely nothing.

 

[Koios]

Oddly enough, I agree with you, but with the exception of the natural right to do whatever we please. Natural rights also counters that by allowing others to do the same.

Read "Crime and Punishment" for a more philosophical slant.

Never existed, not even for our antecedents who forraged. They might well have felt the right to what they forraged, and would have loved nothing more than to sit around eating it unmolested.

But no such right exists in nature, nor the human world. So in time (millions of years) we came up with rules, giving folks the relative sense they had rights ... which really are not true. They're violated frequently, in nature, including by humans, and best we can do is punish those who violated them, in hopes of mitigating violations.

Think of it this way: we decide, as a people, that all humans have right to be born free of defects. Seems fair; yeah? A loving god would do that, at a minimum, I'd think. But nature doesn't give a fuck. It just does, sometimes defectively; but if it works, it's done more often.

It should be a simple process to prove that the concept of rights is a human construct. All you have to do is take one persons right to life and transfer it to another person who is dead. Once you do that you can conclusively prove that the right to life is an entirely human construct, until then I am simply going to assume you are wrong.

Any other species you know of that have conceived the notion of "rights?" Of course it's a fucking human construct.

Assume whatever you wish. If there's one retard, more or less, I won't lose sleep.

Party on, Garth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Right and wrong are human constructs.

So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It should be a simple process to prove that the concept of rights is a human construct. All you have to do is take one persons right to life and transfer it to another person who is dead. Once you do that you can conclusively prove that the right to life is an entirely human construct, until then I am simply going to assume you are wrong.

In the womb, or once born, no life, no pre-life, nobody has a right to life, outside of the human construct that says they do. Where does this supposed right come from if not from the human mind? Nature? A god? Which god, Zeus, the Volcano god, Satan?

 

[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.

Right and wrong are human constructs.

So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.

So humans created fruitfly birth and death? Or humans in World 0.0 (forrragers) made concious decisions on having babies, ya think?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Right and wrong are human constructs.

So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.

But most people agree on what "birth" and "death" are.

Not so much with "right" and "wrong".

If asked, everyone on the planet would have a different idea as to "right" and "wrong". If we can't decide what "right" and "wrong" are, how can they exist outside of our own personal constructions?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Right and wrong are human constructs.

So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.

Birth and Death are terms we use to describe physical events that relate to the human body, but not the existence of life inside it.

 

[Koios]

Right and wrong are human constructs.

So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.

But most people agree on what "birth" and "death" are.

Not so much with "right" and "wrong".

If asked, everyone on the planet would have a different idea as to "right" and "wrong". If we can't decide what "right" and "wrong" are, how can they exist outside of our own personal constructions?

Not always. Some (nay most) like to believe they can dodge death, because Heaven, Valhalla, Rebirth, whatever, awaits; and will save them from actual death. No prob, if it works for them.

Me? One day the doc will say, "Jim, you're dying." And I'll respond, "Oh well, Doc; seems being born is not without certain drawbacks."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I could not put it more succinctly. Bravo sir.

If I can interrupt the self-congratulating for a moment, the argument for natural rights does not suggest that morality is inherent to all species. Right and wrong could be uniquely human without being artificial/unnatural. IOW, right and wrong is natural to us as humans, and our concept of what is a natural right is deeper than just a human decision or institution. For those of us who can comprehend right and wrong, anyway.

I'm not sure what to think about people who, without a set of laws to explicitly delineate it, would be oblivious to what's right and what's wrong. Maybe they missed a stage of child development?

What's right and wrong are HUMAN CONSTRUCTS, as Dante so succinctly teaches us.

And they ain't done evolving, still. Once was a time it was right to own slaves, and women were chattel, too, if you married one (and were a man). Is that right, today? Fuck no.

Today cocaine is wrong; once was a time when getting it without having to also drink the EVIL ALCOHOL, was more right than wrong. Ergo, Coca-Cola (2 parts coca; one part cola) took off and became a success.

Once was a time, even among Norman Kings of the Anglo-Saxons, that homosexuality was wrong. Now it's okay, and even marrying is become more okay by the minute.

The Bible say eye-for-an-eye is okie doke and that women who cheat should be stoned. That ain't right today. Take and eye and face due process in criminal and possibly civil court, WHERE WE HAVE MAN-MADE RIGHTS. Plus, fuck around with impunity, in no-fault divorces states.

Facts.

I love people that prove they aren't actually thinking about things that demand thought.

Slavery has always been wrong, even when it was condoned by society. The simple proof of this is the fact that slaves struggle against their oppressors even in those societies. If right and wrong were purely human concepts slaves would accept their status simply because they would have no innate inclination to rebel.

I could take the time to pick apart each of your examples and point out why they are not proof of what you think they are but the simple struggle of every individual in history to be free more than proves that there is a disconnect between your premise and reality so pointing out that your premise is not free of self contradiction would just annoy me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I could not put it more succinctly. Bravo sir.

If I can interrupt the self-congratulating for a moment, what makes "human" and "natural" mutually exclusive? The argument for natural rights does not suggest that morality is inherent to all species. Right and wrong could be uniquely human without being artificial/unnatural. IOW, right and wrong is natural to us as humans, and our concept of what is a natural right is deeper than just a human decision or institution. For those of us who can comprehend right and wrong, anyway.

I'm not sure what to think about people who, without a set of laws to explicitly delineate it, would be oblivious to what's right and what's wrong. Maybe they missed a stage of child development?

This must explain why they see no problem legislating damn near imposition they think will yield some desirable outcome. Because no matter how obscene it is, if it's "the law," that makes it right. There's apparently no sense of morality without the law to tell them, and so making law means defining morality. Scary.

They're not. However in the context of natural vs. man-made, THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

How?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right and wrong are human constructs.

So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.

But most people agree on what "birth" and "death" are.

Not so much with "right" and "wrong".

If asked, everyone on the planet would have a different idea as to "right" and "wrong". If we can't decide what "right" and "wrong" are, how can they exist outside of our own personal constructions?

In comparative mythology we learn similar concepts with differing realities/outcomes/definitions of right and wrong do exist in different place and at different times.

Right and wrong are moral concepts that it is easy to prove evolve with mankind. We have written and oral history as well as archeological data as proof.

Rights as human constructs also easy to prove. Rights exist in the mind of man and not in the physical world

Otto Rank, Adolf Bastian, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.

But most people agree on what "birth" and "death" are.

Not so much with "right" and "wrong".

If asked, everyone on the planet would have a different idea as to "right" and "wrong". If we can't decide what "right" and "wrong" are, how can they exist outside of our own personal constructions?

Not always. Some (nay most) like to believe they can dodge death, because Heaven, Valhalla, Rebirth, whatever, awaits; and will save them from actual death. No prob, if it works for them.

Me? One day the doc will say, "Jim, you're dying." And I'll respond, "Oh well, Doc; seems being born is not without certain drawbacks."

People are constantly arguing about what happens before birth or after death, but few argue about the physical act of being born and the physical act of death.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a very good point. Human rights ARE natural rights because humans are natural.

Thank you.

Classic! "Humans have human rights because humans are natural.

Let's examine this.

Humans "have natural rights", ok.

Human's are natuaral, again ok.

Could you tell me what rights "humans" have by right of their being natural?

At the end of the day, we are building philosophical castles in the sand. We do not command nature, neither individually nor collectively. It commands us and does not have scruples.

Life, liberty pursuing happiness, et al.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or perhaps there are absolute truths and absolute rights that humans simply choose to ignore. Relativism may be popular, but that doesn't mean it is right.

Hmmm. Points of view can have an absolute right and wrong? If so, name one.

You are human.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So are birth and death, that does not change the fact that they exist outside of our constructs.

But most people agree on what "birth" and "death" are.

Not so much with "right" and "wrong".

If asked, everyone on the planet would have a different idea as to "right" and "wrong". If we can't decide what "right" and "wrong" are, how can they exist outside of our own personal constructions?

In comparative mythology we learn similar concepts with differing realities/outcomes/definitions of right and wrong do exist in different place and at different times.

Similar, but not identical.

I would go so far as to say that each individual on the planet has a slightly different understanding of "right" and "wrong".

Right and wrong are moral concepts that it is easy to prove evolve with mankind. We have written and oral history as well as archeological data as proof.

Not to mention, I'm fairly certain that every single person's personal morality has evolved in their own lifetimes.

I know that I don't have the same "moral" values now that I did when I was 5 years old.

Rights as human constructs also easy to prove. Rights exist in the mind of man and not in the physical world

Agreed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And many agreed. When enough did, the law was revised.

And no, there is no right to life. It just happens, and has happened, due to random events. But try not to think about it that way, or you'll see that you're merely a tool of evolution, and prisioner to the life cycle that evolved by chance on this planet, which is true by the way, but uncomfortable to think about.

An opinion is not truth, dude. FAIL.

evolution is scientific theory and fact. facts can change with evidence. you can have the opinion that science is junk.

truth is a different thing. saying something is true can be different than stating something is a truth. language, it's something you have to learn...it's not natural for people like you

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Evolution is a scientific theory to explain observed data and phenomena. The simple fact that evolution is an explanation of something does not make it true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An opinion is not truth, dude. FAIL.

evolution is scientific theory and fact. facts can change with evidence. you can have the opinion that science is junk.

truth is a different thing. saying something is true can be different than stating something is a truth. language, it's something you have to learn...it's not natural for people like you

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

It's a fact, and the only thing that remains a theory is the mechanisms, albeit not of animals, plants and this planet, but the events leading up to the Big Bang, which is still anyone's guess, but they're working overtime trying to figure it out, and we may, one day.

Evolution and the Big Bang have nothing to do with each other.