What "rights" does nature give us?

[Uncensored2008]

Sure. And thanks so much for caring. I'm touched.

(read: what an imbecile. I'm in fucking disbelief. No shit.)

Serious question, do you consider yourself part of the "brain trust" of the left?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The people that are confused are the idiots that think intangible means unreal.

Magnetic fields are not tangible. Nevertheless, they are clearly real. Nuetrinoes are also not tangible. They are also very real. Evolution isn't tangle, and it's also very real.

Yes they (Mag-fields) are indeed, TANGIBLE!! That's how we know Earth has a magnetic field, but Mars, for example, does not. (we measured it and can quantify it, which cannot be done with love, freedom, happiness, etc, which are INTANGIBLES!!)

Plus, even retards (Righties) can feel its pull, since it's the strong force (electro-magnitism), which easily overcomes the weak force (gravity) in case you're baffled as to why magnets don't fall off your fridge.

Fucking astonishing.

Capable of being measured. I have to guess that you are confusing the second definition below, which uses grief as an example, with your attempt to describe magnetic fields as tangible. Since you like that particular definition, I will point out that you have already told us that some people have less freedom than others, that means that you define freedom as tangible, and you just destroyed your own argument that it is not real.

1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

 

[Koios]

Sure. And thanks so much for caring. I'm touched.

(read: what an imbecile. I'm in fucking disbelief. No shit.)

Serious question, do you consider yourself part of the "brain trust" of the left?

No. I'm not keen on mental lock-down of any kind, even while describing myself as a Liberal Democrat (candidates I most support financially and vote for.)

For example: I think Walmart is perfectly entitled to, and even wise to, play by the rules we set. But I want the rules changed, making it both fairer for workers, but also level for Walmart in the face of their competition. I'd prefer we fix problems and not leave it willy-nilly for unions to fix, with exception of we shirking our duty, in which case unions are needed to pick up our slack.

I think green energy, if viable, will prove itself without government support. Playing venture capitalist in the political realm (biased) is rank foolishness. We need nuke power, more and pronto, if we wish to have a significant impact on mitigating gas emissions affecting global warming.

I think businesses should be greedy; it's their fucking job. We have to protect the markets from greed that might implode under the weight of its own success, with regulation.

Obamacare is a band-aid solution at best and the polar fucking opposite of affordable health care in America. Thus I support single-payer, since it's the only model on the plant that's proven to lower costs, while exapnding access and improving quality.

I contributed to Obama multiple times and voted for him twice. Still, I think he's been at best a mediocre president, and has lead weakly on issues he espouses, while caving to special interest as much or more than GW Bush.

I think Reagan was wrong on economic issues, but a wonderful American who loved this country like none other, and was a truly wonderful president that restored our belief in ourselves, which needs improving once again. So I'd vote for Reagan today, given the choice, even though I think supply-side is utter nonsense.

That help?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have a Blue Heeler with some red accents on paws and snout, which derive from the cross with Dingos.

And mine yearns to follow me or the GF, wherever we go. Thus, we, the governing body of that and 3 other dogs, determine its rights and freedoms.

Out in the "free" animal world, they can go where they wish, but being killed and eaten is a violent / frightening way to die. I think my dogs prefer the couch, bed, raw-food diet and frequent treats and ball-throwing, compared to the freedom enjoyed by coyotes who occassionally come onto the property in search of minimal survival eating of rabbits, and such.

But I merely speculate. They don't speak English, Portuguese nor Deutsche. So I have to project my thoughts onto them and hope they're their thoughts.

It's how it works in the human-animal contract.

Freedom is fraught with danger. The reason that most surrender freedom is in exchange for the illusion or reality of safety.

Humans form societies in which we trade some of our freedom for safety. Dogs form packs with the same result.

Freedom is relative, but the documents imply everyone was equal back then and had rights , this was not true.


Let's just be honest about it.

It is what it is.

They didn't have rights? Can you explain why, if they did not have rights, you are upset by the fact that some of them were slaves? That only makes sense if they actually had rights and they were being oppressed.

 

[Koios]

Magnetic fields are not tangible. Nevertheless, they are clearly real. Nuetrinoes are also not tangible. They are also very real. Evolution isn't tangle, and it's also very real.

Yes they (Mag-fields) are indeed, TANGIBLE!! That's how we know Earth has a magnetic field, but Mars, for example, does not. (we measured it and can quantify it, which cannot be done with love, freedom, happiness, etc, which are INTANGIBLES!!)

Plus, even retards (Righties) can feel its pull, since it's the strong force (electro-magnitism), which easily overcomes the weak force (gravity) in case you're baffled as to why magnets don't fall off your fridge.

Fucking astonishing.

Capable of being measured. I have to guess that you are confusing the second definition below, which uses grief as an example, with your attempt to describe magnetic fields as tangible. Since you like that particular definition, I will point out that you have already told us that some people have less freedom than others, that means that you define freedom as tangible, and you just destroyed your own argument that it is not real.

1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

Let it go QM. EM is very fucking real. Love is perception, and unmeasurable.

Get a clue. Jesus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Freedom is fraught with danger. The reason that most surrender freedom is in exchange for the illusion or reality of safety.

Humans form societies in which we trade some of our freedom for safety. Dogs form packs with the same result.

Freedom is relative, but the documents imply everyone was equal back then and had rights , this was not true.


Let's just be honest about it.

It is what it is.

They didn't have rights? Can you explain why, if they did not have rights, you are upset by the fact that some of them were slaves? That only makes sense if they actually had rights and they were being oppressed.

Can't imagine why, if there's no such thing as human rights beyond what the government chooses to give you via the law, leftists think slavery is a bad thing at all. On what basis is it "bad", precisely?

 

[zeke]

To me, the only "natural right" that man/women have been given is the right to make a choice. Life's all about choices. That's what you have a right to expect, that you be able choose or to not choose, and that is also a choice, grasshopper.

Make your choice, live with the consequences. Good and bad. It is your right to make good and bad decisions for yourself. IMO.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a farce clearly many groups of people were left out of those unalienable rights.

Your burning racism does not alter reality nor history.

The DoI was the founding document of this nation.

Tell me sparky, what nation do you think has a better constitution and form of government?

I didn't write the document those old white men who wrote it are dead.

Do you understand what social construction is?

People treat these documents the same way they do the bible.

I know it is upsetting to purists when inconsistencies are pointed out, but look past that initial fear and face it there's room for improvement.

The difference between the Bible and the Constitution should be clear, even to you. The Bible is a historical document about the nation of Israel interspersed with the writings of poets and the religious and political leaders of the country.

The Constitution was written with the intent to restrict the ability of humans oppress others through government force. The people that wrote it understood everything you think they got wrong, and provided us with a way to change it as we learned from experience and benefited from wisdom.

I know there are idiots that worship the Constitution, but most of us actually have a better grasp of its intent and purpose than you do. We know it was not perfect, and that it will never be so. You think you are smarter than the people that wrote it simply because you were born after they were.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correct. Only women and sub-humans (African slaves) were left out. Thankfully we fixed that oversight.

Women were not "left out," fucktard.

The 19th US Constitutional Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in the US, was ratified on August 18, 1920

prior to that they had no choice in the matter.

Don't tell that to the women in Wyoming and Colorado, they will laugh at your ignorance.

On top of that, voting is not a natural right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone winning this debate?

The debate has been won, all that left is the idiots that cannot admit that they lost even though they admit that rights do not come from government, society, or people.

 

[Koios]

Anyone winning this debate?

The debate has been won, all that left is the idiots that cannot admit that they lost even though they admit that rights do not come from government, society, or people.

If that works for you, QM, it gives me wood the size of North Dakota. Party on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes they (Mag-fields) are indeed, TANGIBLE!! That's how we know Earth has a magnetic field, but Mars, for example, does not. (we measured it and can quantify it, which cannot be done with love, freedom, happiness, etc, which are INTANGIBLES!!)

Plus, even retards (Righties) can feel its pull, since it's the strong force (electro-magnitism), which easily overcomes the weak force (gravity) in case you're baffled as to why magnets don't fall off your fridge.

Fucking astonishing.

Capable of being measured. I have to guess that you are confusing the second definition below, which uses grief as an example, with your attempt to describe magnetic fields as tangible. Since you like that particular definition, I will point out that you have already told us that some people have less freedom than others, that means that you define freedom as tangible, and you just destroyed your own argument that it is not real.

1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

Let it go QM. EM is very fucking real. Love is perception, and unmeasurable.

Get a clue. Jesus.

Not according to the dictionary you insist proves you are right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes they (Mag-fields) are indeed, TANGIBLE!! That's how we know Earth has a magnetic field, but Mars, for example, does not. (we measured it and can quantify it, which cannot be done with love, freedom, happiness, etc, which are INTANGIBLES!!)

Plus, even retards (Righties) can feel its pull, since it's the strong force (electro-magnitism), which easily overcomes the weak force (gravity) in case you're baffled as to why magnets don't fall off your fridge.

Fucking astonishing.

Missed this earlier.

My but you are a fount of misinformation. It's good that you know as much about physics as you do about economics - which is to say nothing at all.

No Bonzo, the weak force is not gravity. The weak force is measured on the Planck scale (1.22 × 1019 GeV ) - an infinitesimal distance. If gravity exerted the weak force, then we all would fly off into space. (In addition, Einstein demonstrated that gravity is an effect of warping the fabric of space, rather than an independent force.) Weak is associated with radioactivity. The sub-atomic or nuclear forces of strong and weak determine the behavior of atoms and particles. The interaction of quarks with leptons and bosons generate the weak charge, which is distinct from electromagnetism and can be measured by the interaction of other particles.

 

[Koios]

Capable of being measured. I have to guess that you are confusing the second definition below, which uses grief as an example, with your attempt to describe magnetic fields as tangible. Since you like that particular definition, I will point out that you have already told us that some people have less freedom than others, that means that you define freedom as tangible, and you just destroyed your own argument that it is not real.

Let it go QM. EM is very fucking real. Love is perception, and unmeasurable.

Get a clue. Jesus.

Not according to the dictionary you insist proves you are right.

Gotcha. We need a primmer on how to read a dictionary, which, and sorry to say, is based on language (how it's used by speakers of; none chronicals it better than Oxford English Dictionary.)

For example:

1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable (material, which we can feel)
b : substantially real : material (actual tangible item)
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible> (perceptible, to her; saying she could sense the intangible to an extent that SEEMS tangible)
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets> (measurable)

In the realm of real and percieved, you need to know shit. Dictionaries are no help.

That help?

 

[Koios]

Yes they (Mag-fields) are indeed, TANGIBLE!! That's how we know Earth has a magnetic field, but Mars, for example, does not. (we measured it and can quantify it, which cannot be done with love, freedom, happiness, etc, which are INTANGIBLES!!)

Plus, even retards (Righties) can feel its pull, since it's the strong force (electro-magnitism), which easily overcomes the weak force (gravity) in case you're baffled as to why magnets don't fall off your fridge.

Fucking astonishing.

Missed this earlier.

My but you are a fount of misinformation. It's good that you know as much about physics as you do about economics - which is to say nothing at all.

No Bonzo, the weak force is not gravity. The weak force is measured on the Planck scale (1.22 × 1019 GeV ) - an infinitesimal distance. If gravity exerted the weak force, then we all would fly off into space. (In addition, Einstein demonstrated that gravity is an effect of warping the fabric of space, rather than an independent force.) Weak is associated with radioactivity. The sub-atomic or nuclear forces of strong and weak determine the behavior of atoms and particles. The interaction of quarks with leptons and bosons generate the weak charge, which is distinct from electromagnetism and can be measured by the interaction of other particles.

Thanks Einstein. BTW, in your context, neither is EM the stong force. However, when dicussing a unified theory that accounts for both the WEAK and STRONG forces, they'd be EM and G. No shit, and since Al seems to be a guy you're interested in, he spent a lifetime, unsuccessfully, pursuing a unified theory of EM and G, which eluded him, despite his remarkable success early in life with E=MC^2.

But to Al's defense, none is yet to find one either, and attemps at it have become pretty wacky, i.e. string theory (theories, actually. At last count, four maybe? Six? I do not have that committed to memory.)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Anyone winning this debate?

The debate has been won, all that left is the idiots that cannot admit that they lost even though they admit that rights do not come from government, society, or people.

Dante and others were not arguing whether government, society, or people gave out rights...QW was off on another sidebar with herself as usual.

Dante and others have successfully argued that the concept of natural rights...gulp...is a human construct -- not something that exists in nature itself

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let it go QM. EM is very fucking real. Love is perception, and unmeasurable.

Get a clue. Jesus.

Not according to the dictionary you insist proves you are right.

Gotcha. We need a primmer on how to read a dictionary, which, and sorry to say, is based on language (how it's used by speakers of; none chronicals it better than Oxford English Dictionary.)

For example:

1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable (material, which we can feel)
b : substantially real : material (actual tangible item)
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible> (perceptible, to her; saying she could sense the intangible to an extent that SEEMS tangible)
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets> (measurable)

In the realm of real and percieved, you need to know shit. Dictionaries are no help.

That help?

You aren't using the second definition of tangible? Are you aware that tangible assets is an accounting term, and that it has nothing to do with quantifying magnetic fields?

Science defines both electromagnetic fields and gravity as being intangible.

The intangible Universe - Electromagnetism and fields - part 1 of 4

Seriously dude, you lost this one before you began simply because you refuse to accept that tangible and real are not synonymous.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

wait, something got lost on the way here...

Anyone winning this debate?

of course.

making the kooks @ USMB jump through hoops and watching them struggling to come to grips with contextual based reasoning...


human concept: natural rights

 

[Koios]

Not according to the dictionary you insist proves you are right.

Gotcha. We need a primmer on how to read a dictionary, which, and sorry to say, is based on language (how it's used by speakers of; none chronicals it better than Oxford English Dictionary.)

For example:

1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable (material, which we can feel)
b : substantially real : material (actual tangible item)
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible> (perceptible, to her; saying she could sense the intangible to an extent that SEEMS tangible)
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets> (measurable)

In the realm of real and percieved, you need to know shit. Dictionaries are no help.

That help?

You aren't using the second definition of tangible? Are you aware that tangible assets is an accounting term, and that it has nothing to do with quantifying magnetic fields?

Science defines both electromagnetic fields and gravity as being intangible.

The intangible Universe - Electromagnetism and fields - part 1 of 4

Seriously dude, you lost this one before you began simply because you refuse to accept that tangible and real are not synonymous.

Okay; primmer done, now into some of the minutia of how to read a dictionary ...

No; 1 = what the word means (ego a) and b))

Then other USES!!!! follow and are enumerated 2, 3, and so on.

That help?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It takes quite a godless freak 'progressive' to pretend the Declaration of Independence is not the founding document which marks the birth of this great Nation.

LOL @ you sick, sick fucks.

[IMGhttp://cdn.funcheap.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/4th-of-July-Children-at-a-Parade1.jpg[/IMG]

moron...

Our Most Important Founding Documents

Recognizing the difficulty in defining a single list of Founding Documents, the U.S. National Archives addressed the issue in a unique way. First, it recognized that there were actually hundreds of Founding Documents. Second, it recognized that the real issue at hand was not one of determining the size of the list but one of ranking the documents in order to determine those of greatest importance.

FOUNDING DOCUMENTS: US Historical Documents

Now go down to the Post Office and salute the flag willya wilma?

You are flaling pathetically, oh doomed one!

LOL

Ask any person in America the date of America's FOUNDING, and what that founding DOCUMENT was!

http://www.cardcow.com/images/set348/card00859_fr.jpg/IMG]

And while you will now embark on a weak semantic game to tell us the Declaration of Independence was not our [B][I]only[/I][/B] founding document, you have no choice but to admit it as the one which SPECIFIES the EXACT source of the unalienable rights enjoyed by man .

Shit, even John Locke knew what that source is.

'from Locke&#8217;s treatise, there exists a clearly identifiable conception of the rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke openly maintained that these rights were basic and fundamental rights of man, given by God the Creator. They are inalienable because they are established as part of the God&#8211;given law of nature, and thus are bound up in very existence itself. '

[url\http://www.avantrex.com/essay/freetalk.html[/url]

Loser.[/QUOTE]

ask any person in America who the Secretary of Agriculture is, or who the Vice President is, and you will be ashamed at how pathetic you look thinking the American public's views on any subject is bankable.

I'll stick with the professionals on this one. I bet you go to church when you have questions about science?

[quote]Our Most Important Founding Documents

Recognizing the difficulty in defining a single list of Founding Documents, the U.S. National Archives addressed the issue in a unique way. [B]First, it recognized that there were actually hundreds of Founding Documents. [/B]Second, it recognized that the real issue at hand was not one of determining the size of the list but one of ranking the documents in order to determine those of greatest importance. [/quote]

[url=http://www.usdeclarationofindependence.com/id20.html]FOUNDING DOCUMENTS: US Historical Documents[/url]