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.
Classic! "Humans have human rights because humans are natural.Thank you.
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.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
how very odd
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.
Our nature has evolved and with it our concepts. With our concepts of right and wrong we invented natural rights.
Exactly.
You only have those privileges the government grants.
Benito Mussolini
.
Rights are recognized by people. You can say you have a fright, but unless others agree try exercising it.
Governments like Italy under Mussolini do not resemble representative republics like the USA.
Why do you hate the USA?
"Rights" - or at least "legal rights" - are a figment of the imagination.
Or, more accurately, a figment of the collective imagination of society.
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.
"Rights" - or at least "legal rights" - are a figment of the imagination.
Yes and no. While facing a would-be killer or rapist, overtures about your rights are unlikely to deter them.
But by endeavoring to protect a woman's right, we make rape severly punishable by law, fewer women are raped, by many multiples. So the "legal right" can have very measurable impact on fewer women having their rights violated.
Similar, but not identical.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.
I would go so far as to say that each individual on the planet has a slightly different understanding of "right" and "wrong".
Not to mention, I'm fairly certain that every single person's personal morality has evolved in their own lifetimes.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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
"Rights" - or at least "legal rights" - are a figment of the imagination.
Yes and no. While facing a would-be killer or rapist, overtures about your rights are unlikely to deter them.
But by endeavoring to protect a woman's right, we make rape severly punishable by law, fewer women are raped, by many multiples. So the "legal right" can have very measurable impact on fewer women having their rights violated.
Want to explain how one loses rights simply because someone else is around that might have a problem with them? Does me being upset by the bullshit you type somehow affect your ability to type?
Thats about it,other than someday you will be feeding a tree someplace.
Exactly.
You only have those privileges the government grants.
Benito Mussolini
.
Rights are recognized by people. You can say you have a fright, but unless others agree try exercising it.
Governments like Italy under Mussolini do not resemble representative republics like the USA.
Why do you hate the USA?
Damn, you are incredibly dense.
The only rights we have to exercise are our legal rights, natural rights exist even if we ignore them.
Thats about it,other than someday you will be feeding a tree someplace.
Not true. The morticians union have used their power to bribe politicians so that all people must be embalmed (even if cremated) so that we don't decompose naturally. You'll poison the tree with the formaldehyde your pumped full of.
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?
I suggest you get a dictionary and read because that is a fail.
Similar, but not identical.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.
I would go so far as to say that each individual on the planet has a slightly different understanding of "right" and "wrong".
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.
To clarify: people know what right and wrong are. Where they differ is on exactly what is right and wrongs...and that is what changes, not the concept itself.
Individual morality is separate from the morality of the groups we exist in that form our worlds.
Otto Rank, Adolf Bastian, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell
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.
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?
That is strange, I don't recall saying that nature guarantees rights. Care to point out where I did, or am I just supposed to fall apart because you put up a scarecrow?
