What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

The physical world versus the abstract world where human constructs exist. Now if you want to go sidebar and argue philosophically about the existence of the universe in the mind, the physical world not really existing...go for it, but....

You claim abstract ideas like rights exist outside of the human mind? Either rights are human constructs or they are not. People say rights are human constructs and you ask them to prove they are human constructs, all while no one denies they exist in the mind. The thing is do they come from outside the mind? What do you say? Outside the mind or from the mind?

So what are you arguing? You play games. It is the classic definition of a troll.

not that that's a bad thing

There is your problem, you think rights are abstract.

So you say rights are not abstract things? If so what are they?

No more abstract than life is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The physical world versus the abstract world where human constructs exist. Now if you want to go sidebar and argue philosophically about the existence of the universe in the mind, the physical world not really existing...go for it, but....

You claim abstract ideas like rights exist outside of the human mind? Either rights are human constructs or they are not. People say rights are human constructs and you ask them to prove they are human constructs, all while no one denies they exist in the mind. The thing is do they come from outside the mind? What do you say? Outside the mind or from the mind?

So what are you arguing? You play games. It is the classic definition of a troll.

not that that's a bad thing

There is your problem, you think rights are abstract.

They are.

They are not tangible. And they are not universal or innate with the species. They aren't even part of what we call instinct.

What difference does it make if you can touch them? We can't touch molecules, that doesn't seem to bother you. Is that because you really don't understand the concepts we are discussing here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Theory of Evolution applies to biological lifeforms, not planets.

and when Koios mentioned the evolution of the universe it was not in the sense of it being a biological entity explained by the theory of evolution. a complex sentence or thought seems to throw you into bizzaro land
\
you have a history of a difficult time with reading and comprehension skills

When Koi mentioned evolution it was in response to your idiotic claim that the Theory of Evolution is fact. He then tried to tie the Theory of Evolution in with the Big Bang by saying that progress is evolution, which is absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Theory of Evolution applies to biological lifeforms, not planets.

and when Koios mentioned the evolution of the universe it was not in the sense of it being a biological entity explained by the theory of evolution. a complex sentence or thought seems to throw you into bizzaro land
\
you have a history of a difficult time with reading and comprehension skills

Darwin's On the origin of species, which we call often call "the evolution." (which of course is not the ony one, nor did CD understand genetic mutation's mechnisms, nor the vital importance of a planet with liquid water and organic molecules, which derive from suns exploding and forming new suns, with more complex molecules ...)

In short, whether planets or us, it's all part of the same evolutionary process of the Cosmos.

The Cosmos, whatever you think that is, does not evolve because the fundamental changes in reality are not based on inheritable properties.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. It's a "theory" because it's comprised of all the facts we have on it. And NO! No doubt evolution is a fucking fact, even if we still can better understand its mechanisms.

Says the guy that thinks planets evolve.

How do you think they form? Pop into existence?

They form through collisions in a protoplanetary disk, why?

 

[Koios]

Says the guy that thinks planets evolve.

How do you think they form? Pop into existence?

They form through collisions in a protoplanetary disk, why?

I haven't a clue, unless gravity has something to do with it.

But beings I have a new new years resolution, I defer to you on that. You're bright as a super nova, and I'm learning so much.

 

[Koios]

and when Koios mentioned the evolution of the universe it was not in the sense of it being a biological entity explained by the theory of evolution. a complex sentence or thought seems to throw you into bizzaro land
\
you have a history of a difficult time with reading and comprehension skills

Darwin's On the origin of species, which we call often call "the evolution." (which of course is not the ony one, nor did CD understand genetic mutation's mechnisms, nor the vital importance of a planet with liquid water and organic molecules, which derive from suns exploding and forming new suns, with more complex molecules ...)

In short, whether planets or us, it's all part of the same evolutionary process of the Cosmos.

The Cosmos, whatever you think that is, does not evolve because the fundamental changes in reality are not based on inheritable properties.

Gotcha. Good to know since I don't handle change well.

 

[Coyote]

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

The right to survive by whatever means possible.

And, when you die, you die. That's it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you think they form? Pop into existence?

They form through collisions in a protoplanetary disk, why?

I haven't a clue, unless gravity has something to do with it.

But beings I have a new new years resolution, I defer to you on that. You're bright as a super nova, and I'm learning so much.

Gravity is a factor, but heredity is not.

 

[Koios]

The Theory of Evolution applies to biological lifeforms, not planets.

and when Koios mentioned the evolution of the universe it was not in the sense of it being a biological entity explained by the theory of evolution. a complex sentence or thought seems to throw you into bizzaro land
\
you have a history of a difficult time with reading and comprehension skills

When Koi mentioned evolution it was in response to your idiotic claim that the Theory of Evolution is fact. He then tried to tie the Theory of Evolution in with the Big Bang by saying that progress is evolution, which is absurd.

Progression. Not progress. My apologies for not clarifying, which I should since you're so far above me, intellectually.

 

[Koios]

and when Koios mentioned the evolution of the universe it was not in the sense of it being a biological entity explained by the theory of evolution. a complex sentence or thought seems to throw you into bizzaro land
\
you have a history of a difficult time with reading and comprehension skills

Darwin's On the origin of species, which we call often call "the evolution." (which of course is not the ony one, nor did CD understand genetic mutation's mechnisms, nor the vital importance of a planet with liquid water and organic molecules, which derive from suns exploding and forming new suns, with more complex molecules ...)

In short, whether planets or us, it's all part of the same evolutionary process of the Cosmos.

The Cosmos, whatever you think that is, does not evolve because the fundamental changes in reality are not based on inheritable properties.

Cosmos. Shit, its all Greek to me. Maybe it means everything, as in the universe and everything in it?

Again, I gotta defer to you on that. You're the bright one.

 

[Coyote]

To a liberal, "natural" rights include, but are not limited to, the following:

* the right to free shit at the expense of others who work hard for their money

Survival of the fittest: consider the critters that confiscate chickens from the henhouse, scavenge roadkill before the poor guy who ran over it can scrape it up for breakfast, not to mention all the mice, rats, squirrels, deer, bunnies and other assorted "natural rights" abusers who prune your vegetable garden. Working hard doesn't necessarily entitle you to anything in terms of natural rights: working smart (or prolific breeding) does.

* the right to take away other people's rights

You're a tad confused. That's not a liberal right. That's a natural right. Law of the jungle you know ... as practiced by assorted species, out of control capitalism, corrupt political systems that claim to adhere to social engineering, and the garden variety dictator.

* the right to do whatever it takes to get your way. The end always justifies the means

That one's the Law of Kindergarten - sad but true, even conservatives go to kindergarten

* the right to be an open, complete hypocrite and never be called out for it by your peers.

That sounds like you....but you're not a liberal, right? You sure?

 

[Coyote]

My point is that liberals don't usually believe in such things as natural rights. Most of them would not survive in a world of "natural" rights.

<edit> that's why I said "natural" rights, in quotes. </edit>

"Natural Rights" rewards innovative strategies, cooperative efforts for survival, cross-species symbiosis, parisitism, prolific breeding, generalists, specialists...in fact - if you hate liberals or love liberals - there's something there for everyone. You think "conservatives" would do much better?

Liberals "believe in" natural rights - they exist, they are a fact of life. The question is - does it end there? Is it the best we can be?

I don't think so.

 

[Sallow]

My point is that liberals don't usually believe in such things as natural rights. Most of them would not survive in a world of "natural" rights.

<edit> that's why I said "natural" rights, in quotes. </edit>

"Natural Rights" rewards innovative strategies, cooperative efforts for survival, cross-species symbiosis, parisitism, prolific breeding, generalists, specialists...in fact - if you hate liberals or love liberals - there's something there for everyone. You think "conservatives" would do much better?

Liberals "believe in" natural rights - they exist, they are a fact of life. The question is - does it end there? Is it the best we can be?

I don't think so.

Some do..some don't. Count me in as one who doesn't.

But that's part and parcel with liberalism. Tolerance of other people's ideas.

Even the batshit crazy ones.

 

[Coyote]

My point is that liberals don't usually believe in such things as natural rights. Most of them would not survive in a world of "natural" rights.

<edit> that's why I said "natural" rights, in quotes. </edit>

"Natural Rights" rewards innovative strategies, cooperative efforts for survival, cross-species symbiosis, parisitism, prolific breeding, generalists, specialists...in fact - if you hate liberals or love liberals - there's something there for everyone. You think "conservatives" would do much better?

Liberals "believe in" natural rights - they exist, they are a fact of life. The question is - does it end there? Is it the best we can be?

I don't think so.

Some do..some don't. Count me in as one who doesn't.

But that's part and parcel with liberalism. Tolerance of other people's ideas.

Even the batshit crazy ones.

Good point

Unfortunately, as the Alpha B in a pack of dogs, I'm all to aware of "natural rights"

 

[Coyote]

I know natural rights exist, but most liberals do not believe that.

How do you know "most" liberals don't believe in them?

That's just another way of saying God-given rights.

How so?

According to Wikipedia:

Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.​

Nothing to do with God unless you believe it so. Kant derived natural rights through reason alone. Other's through a higher power.

Natural rights typically include: civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, right to private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery.

Many of those line up with liberal beliefs.

My whole point was that they don't believe in them. Just because they exists does not mean that everyone believes in them.

I don't think you've made a point. You've just thrown out a bunch of monkey poo designed to inflame liberals.

People and nations do not have equal rights either. The world has been ruled by brute force since the dawn of time.

Brute force ...cunning....strength ...cooperation.

Brute force doesn't always win.

 

[Sallow]

I know natural rights exist, but most liberals do not believe that. That's just another way of saying God-given rights.

My whole point was that they don't believe in them. Just because they exists does not mean that everyone believes in them. (just like bigfoot)

People and nations do not have equal rights either. The world has been ruled by brute force since the dawn of time.

Seriously?

Who do you think came up with the term?

John Locke.

Father of Liberalism.

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism
Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a gander.

Learn sumptin'

 

[sobi]

A natural right is one that you can enforce against those who would take it away. That is why is is very significant that you hang on tightly to your guns. Those are the tool the will permit them to be removed and permit them to be retained.

The argument is one of force. Do not intellectualize them.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Our rights come from smart folk like obamie and the rest of his regressive cabal. Honest, they do. lol U

 

[Sallow]

Rights come from government.

It's a pretty simple concept.