What "rights" does nature give us?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Regardless, prohibition is an example of what happens when people forget -or plain old ignore- the proper role of de jure governance to protect their rights, rather than restrict them.

How the right of self-ownership was transgressed is irrelevant to the fact that it has been and continues to be.

Your opinions are noted. The court will take them under consideration.

Please, 'the people' will always fuck up, it's why the framers debated so fiercely on how to slow down the populist urge. We do not have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy with a government structure that has checks and balances built in.

The right of self-ownership is an ideological concept that is not self evident to many people around the world. I don't see those words in the Declaration or the Constitution. I do believe in it on some level, but not being an ideological purist...

That you've misused a tool/concept does not invalidate it.

But it's quite instructive that such a useful idiot toady for the corporate oligarchy as yourself, would cower behind them for cover when it suits him.

Way ta go, comrade.

:cuckoo" so everyone is a comrade now, GOP, Dems, anyone who doesn't kowtow to your ideological purity? imbecile

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can we now sum up this thread.

All 'rights' are a creation of organized Government.

They can be given, and they can be taken away.

We are a government of the people, by the people. If the PEOPLE decide they want less guns. Then that is how it will be.

God is only a means to align our moral compass. If we, as a society believe on a spiritual level that violence and murder are wrong, then we as a society must act to diminish murder and violence.

Less guns. Period.

To the extent a paranoid and fearful minority of NRA nuts get in our way, well, it might get ugly for a minute or two, but in the long run, we will be a more peaceful society with them gone or in prison.

People keep telling me that government gives me rights, I keep asking for a simple demonstration of this, all anyone has to do is show a single example of government transferring the right to life from one person to another, yet not a single person has come up with one. This clearly demonstrates that government is not the source of rights despite your dogmatic insistence otherwise.

 

[Dreamy]

Okay; let's play along, Dreamy. What answers have you for problems facing our people which does not involve government?

More competition in the private sector beats out government both in cost and quality.

US Education. Could improve in quality with less government involvement and more private sector competition. If I choose to send my child to a private school instead of a public school the monies normally allotted to the public school should follow my child to the school of our choice.

So government should pay for your child's private schooling? That's more government, not less.

No. Read slowly. The government has some of my money(all our money) and they send some of that money to public education. I want the freedom to educate my child free of government waste and sub par teachings found in the public school system. That is not more government. That is the same amount of government being fired from educating my child and offering me choice of education instead. You do understand choice, yes?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Regardless, prohibition is an example of what happens when people forget -or plain old ignore- the proper role of de jure governance to protect their rights, rather than restrict them.

How the right of self-ownership was transgressed is irrelevant to the fact that it has been and continues to be.

Your opinions are noted. The court will take them under consideration.

Please, 'the people' will always fuck up, it's why the framers debated so fiercely on how to slow down the populist urge. We do not have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy with a government structure that has checks and balances built in.

The right of self-ownership is an ideological concept that is not self evident to many people around the world. I don't see those words in the Declaration or the Constitution. I do believe in it on some level, but not being an ideological purist...

The law of gravity isn't evidence to the large mass of numskulls the compromise the American electorate. Does that make it a matter of opinion?

Nope.

The so-called "checks and balances" in our system are mostly illusions. When the same party controls all three branches of government, their power is virtually unlimited.

We have an representative form of democracy where our ('the people'), elected representatives, govern in our name.

Party politics is another thing. It is our founders who gave us the two party system.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Abstract like our "creator" what a shit stirrer that guy was.

The American Taliban believes our creator has a plan for us.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

... all anyone has to do is show a single example of government transferring the right to life from one person to another, yet not a single person has come up with one. This clearly demonstrates that government is not the source of rights...

Dante has not claimed government is the source of our rights and he did address your imbecilic test, just not in the way you desire.

rights are abstract concepts

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Progress/ progression is change in a direction that is considered forward.

Evolution is change,

Forward,
Backward,
Sideways,
Doesn't matter, all that matters is the change.

Is English your first language? Maybe I'm being too hard on you.

Progress generally means improvement, and forward movement. I think most would agree that that would be the common perception when hearing / reading "progress."

Progression is merely an ordered set of steps / circumstances toward an outcome. Some might think it's only in a positive direction, but it is not. Example: What was the progression in Meth use, in America? (Tip: began in Portland, OR, and is progressing Eastwardly. It that a positive thing? Of course not.)

Or simply google "downward progression." You'll likely get millions of hits.

You forgot a key word in your definition of progression, sequence. Evolution is not sequential, it is random. If we reverse entropy and start over with the exact same parameters life on Earth will end up looking different because mutations are random.

On the other hand, if we rewind entropy and rerun the Solar System from the beginning we will end up with the exact same thing because planetary formation is sequential, or, if you prefer, progressive.

Maybe if you weren't trying to debate English on the assumption that your public school education actually taught you the language you might not end up feeling as dumb as you do reading this.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

circles...

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"God" is a man-made concept. A finite mind trying to define the infinite.

Our laws, codes, traditions, and 'RIGHTS' may be inspired by a universal creative force. But they are written down by men.

Agreed.

And the rights we give ourselves should benefit the majority and protect the minority.

Mititary stype weapons do neither.

You writer like a 4th grader.

Is freedom your birthright?



What kind of double speak gobbledygook is the above?

You writer like a 4th grader.

^^ Says he

Depends on which country you're born in.

That explains why Rome never had to deal with slave revolts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Progress/ progression is change in a direction that is considered forward.

Evolution is change,

Forward,
Backward,
Sideways,
Doesn't matter, all that matters is the change.

Is English your first language? Maybe I'm being too hard on you.

Progress generally means improvement, and forward movement. I think most would agree that that would be the common perception when hearing / reading "progress."

Progression is merely an ordered set of steps / circumstances toward an outcome. Some might think it's only in a positive direction, but it is not. Example: What was the progression in Meth use, in America? (Tip: began in Portland, OR, and is progressing Eastwardly. It that a positive thing? Of course not.)

Or simply google "downward progression." You'll likely get millions of hits.

You forgot a key word in your definition of progression, sequence. Evolution is not sequential, it is random. If we reverse entropy and start over with the exact same parameters life on Earth will end up looking different because mutations are random.

On the other hand, if we rewind entropy and rerun the Solar System from the beginning we will end up with the exact same thing because planetary formation is sequential, or, if you prefer, progressive.

Maybe if you weren't trying to debate English on the assumption that your public school education actually taught you the language you might not end up feeling as dumb as you do reading this.

here we go again....from natural rights to..........................

drum roll please.............................................
.............................................................
..........................................................
.........................................................
.......................................................
................................................

one word: Galileo

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is freedom your birthright?



What kind of double speak gobbledygook is the above?

^^ Says he

Depends on which country you're born in.

So you believe that if you are born into slavery then your natural birthright to be free does not exist?

Actually, he doesn't, but he can't admit it because his ideology prohibits him from denying that government is not all powerful.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

one word: Galileo

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

natural rights ... human construct

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is freedom your birthright?



What kind of double speak gobbledygook is the above?

^^ Says he

Depends on which country you're born in.

So you believe that if you are born into slavery then your natural birthright to be free does not exist?

Depends on where you are born, in what time period/age, and in what country, and what the societal norms/laws/philosophy said...unless of course you believe their exists a birthright of freedom that comes from outside the human mind?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is freedom your birthright?

If I am born in the U.S.

But that wasn't always the case for blacks born in the U.S.

That explains why there was never a slave revolt in the entire history of the US, slaves knew they had no right to freedom.

Wait, I forgot about this one, and at least 240 others.

1811 German Coast Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

The left does have that belief, but most liberals do not. Imagine that, a distinction with a difference

Leftism and liberalism are diametrically opposite positions, Dainty.

I am a liberal, you are a leftist. I support liberty, individual rights, the recognition of natural rights and the constitutional mandate that government at all levels respect natural rights.

You are a leftist. You support the rule of the state as supreme and seek the conformity of individuals to the collective will. You deny civil rights and view only privilege granted by the ruling elite, which can be granted or revoked at will. You seek the removal of any restraint on the power of the state.

The moralistic right also has the belief that government needs to step in.

Rarely, mostly this is a blatant lie by you little Goebbels of the left. Failure to create laws that grant special privilege to preferred groups of the left, such as federalizing marriage laws as payment to homosexuals for support of the DNC, is not seeking the government to "step in." Quite the opposite.

In short, we liberal seek to constrain the government so the people may enjoy liberty. You leftist seek to constrain the people so the government may enjoy power.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Depends on which country you're born in.

So you believe that if you are born into slavery then your natural birthright to be free does not exist?

No. I think freedom is a construct of polities, and that it varies by country.

That is because you think government is God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Depends on which country you're born in.

Do humans born in North Korea desire dictatorship the way Americans desire freedom?

Obviously your don't believe the bullshit you post, you merely are convinced that revocation of civil rights will empower you to impose your will on others, using the implied or actual violence of the state.

What if you are wrong? What if your rulers decide that a entitled and pampered, petty bourgeoisie child like you is better suited to the mines that to a plush office lording over others?

Liberty allows each to rise or fall on our own. Yes, you have no actual talent and live off the wealth of your parents, but the world you seek may not believe you are owed the position, title and comforts you have simply because you are an overgrown child.

I have no fucking idea. Some do, some don't. But, and knock me over with a fucking feather, you missed the point, entirely, which is: folks born here have more freedom than those born in North Korea.

The point is that people born there have the exact same right to freedom as the ones born here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nah; I'm having fun, pissing you off.

No doubt, but like a monkey masturbating, you are of little interest to the rest of us.

 

[Koios]

Is English your first language? Maybe I'm being too hard on you.

Progress generally means improvement, and forward movement. I think most would agree that that would be the common perception when hearing / reading "progress."

Progression is merely an ordered set of steps / circumstances toward an outcome. Some might think it's only in a positive direction, but it is not. Example: What was the progression in Meth use, in America? (Tip: began in Portland, OR, and is progressing Eastwardly. It that a positive thing? Of course not.)

Or simply google "downward progression." You'll likely get millions of hits.

You forgot a key word in your definition of progression, sequence. Evolution is not sequential, it is random. If we reverse entropy and start over with the exact same parameters life on Earth will end up looking different because mutations are random.

On the other hand, if we rewind entropy and rerun the Solar System from the beginning we will end up with the exact same thing because planetary formation is sequential, or, if you prefer, progressive.

Maybe if you weren't trying to debate English on the assumption that your public school education actually taught you the language you might not end up feeling as dumb as you do reading this.

here we go again....from natural rights to..........................

drum roll please.............................................
.............................................................
..........................................................
.........................................................
.......................................................
................................................

one word: Galileo

"Seqeunce" and "ordered set of steps" are synonymous.

Meanwhile, GG invents the telescope, which is cool because he can then track the movement of near-in planets, the moon and our sun, and from that determine, in contrast to astrological beliefs of the Catholic Chrich of the day, that the earth and planets revolve around the sun. Cool!!! Astrology be damned, we just created astronomy!!!

But due to distortion at the edges of the lenses, the maginfication was lame and distorted. Plus the scope had to get pretty fucking long for any decent magnification.

Then along comes a guy named Ike Newton, and bingo! Distortion be gone, and a short scope has gobs more magnification than GG's novel design, even long ones (reflector telescopes, still in use today).

The only mystery left, then, is WHAT IN THE FUCK DID GALILEO GALILEI have to do with what you quoted of mine?