What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Nothing you can argue is going to change the fact that magnetic fields are, by definition, intangible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We have Doctors Frankenstein and Doolittle posting at USMB. Who knew?

According to the two esteemed Quacks, animals are capable of constructing and understanding human concepts such as freedom and rights.

I am not doing anything of the sort.

What I am pointing out is that the desire for freedom is not a human construct, it exists outside humanity.

In the context of natural rights being freedom, it is a human construct.

As far as yearning and instincts to roam wild, what a social animal wants (not all animals as some are loners) is to be wild and follow it's instincts...that is not the same thing as the human concept of freedom...and you know better

If that were true no other species would exhibit a desire for life, liberty, or happiness.

stop being an idiot

are you watching Planet of the Apes again?

stop being an idiot

are you watching Planet of the Apes again?

You've never had a Dingo, Dainty. This dog was born free and will be free or dead. No fence can contain her, she comes and goes as she pleases.

The yearning to be free is undeniable in her. She will do anything for me, and the rest of her pack - by choice. But I don't put a leash on her and she laughs at fences. Her (and no doubt all Dingos) natural state is to be free.

 

[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.

Oops; that. Yes. (Been in biz 30+ years, and know accounting from that experience, mostly, and not so much merely having studied it in college.)

"Tangible assets" is something folks in the accountancy game might say when speaking about what's on the GL, etc. What it alludes to is cash or stuff quickly convertible to the same. I.E., you got a lot of assets, some real in a practical sense (money or could be money, quickly) and others that are not so tangible, and even some that are patently intangible (customer/market good will, for example).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is there any point in asking what ANY of this bullshit has to do with the topic of natural rights?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...that tangible assets is an accounting term, and that it has nothing to do with quantifying magnetic fields?...

<tangible assets> (measurable)

 

[Koios]

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?

Nothing you can argue is going to change the fact that magnetic fields are, by definition, intangible.

In your mind? Undoubtedly.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is there any point in asking what ANY of this bullshit has to do with the topic of natural rights?

one word: Galileo

QW channels Galileo. She turns almost every thread touching on science into a sidebar on something she read about Galileo.

I think she may be from another dimension .. another place in time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Nothing you can argue is going to change the fact that magnetic fields are, by definition, intangible.

In your mind? Undoubtedly.

tan·gi·ble (tnj-bl)
adj.
1.
a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
b. Possible to touch.
c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.

2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.

3. Law That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

---
n.
1. Something palpable or concrete.
2. tangibles Material assets.

---

warned you about QW. She's a real tool

 

[SniperFire]

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

LOL

You just had your ass kicked across three pages trying to argue that very point.

Now, when it comes to the notion of 'natural' right, that is of course a complete joke.

In nature, one only has the right to eat or be eaten.

[youtube]dlGuR6mxAjw[/youtube]

 

[Koios]

Nothing you can argue is going to change the fact that magnetic fields are, by definition, intangible.

In your mind? Undoubtedly.

tan·gi·ble (tnj-bl)
adj.
1.
a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
b. Possible to touch.
c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.

2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.

3. Law That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

---
n.
1. Something palpable or concrete.
2. tangibles Material assets.

---

warned you about QW. She's a real tool

LOL.

In re: bolded. In court: material evidence / witness.

 

[Koios]

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

LOL

You just had your ass kicked across three pages trying to argue that very point.

Now, when it comes to the notion of 'natural' right, that is of course a complete joke.

In nature, one only has the right to eat or be eaten.

[youtube]dlGuR6mxAjw[/youtube]

Right. When you have to say that's what happened, then it REALLY DID!!!!

I'm rolling. No shit. Ahhhhhh. Righties. What would we do without ya'll?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

LOL

You just had your ass kicked across three pages trying to argue that very point.

Now, when it comes to the notion of 'natural' right, that is of course a complete joke.

In nature, one only has the right to eat or be eaten.

[youtube]dlGuR6mxAjw[/youtube]

And you're going to cling to that ignorant misinterpretation of the term until your dying breath, no matter HOW big an idiot it makes you look, aren't you?

Never let it be said that only one side of the political spectrum is taking our nation on its swirling trip down the crapper all by itself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Duuuhhh. Nature. That means outdoors, and animals, 'n' shit, right?"

And that's when America started its inexorable slide back into the Dark Ages.

 

[SniperFire]

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

LOL

You just had your ass kicked across three pages trying to argue that very point.

Now, when it comes to the notion of 'natural' right, that is of course a complete joke.

In nature, one only has the right to eat or be eaten.

[youtube]dlGuR6mxAjw[/youtube]

And you're going to cling to that ignorant misinterpretation of the term until your dying breath, no matter HOW big an idiot it makes you look, aren't you?

Never let it be said that only one side of the political spectrum is taking our nation on its swirling trip down the crapper all by itself.

Yawn.

But it is interesting you consider the ridiculous notion that there are 'rights' in the natural world to be a political thing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks Einstein. BTW, in your context, neither is EM the stong force.

Nor did I say it was.

However, strong is an EM force.

However, when dicussing a unified theory that accounts for both the WEAK and STRONG forces, they'd be EM and G.

You discuss fantasies?

While there are those who seek a unified theory, there is no actual TOE. String theory with branes and contained is a fascinating foray into some unification of various forces, but falls far short of unifying cosmological reality with quantum mechanics. Why is gravity so weak? (but not the weak force) Large bodies don't act like particles.

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.

He made remarkable discoveries, as have many before and after him. To the best of my knowledge, the work on gravity in the ToR remains the best one available.

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.)

String theory does not contradict relativity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Duuuhhh. Nature. That means outdoors, and animals, 'n' shit, right?"

And that's when America started its inexorable slide back into the Dark Ages.

nope. Dante and a few others put forth the distinction between 'nature' and man's nature.

Distinctions with differences is a lesson not taught on the right wing noise machine. Granted the left wing propaganda machine also drops the ball there, but we are dealing mostly with people who get there news from the noise machine of USMB alone.

It may be in man's nature to form concepts like freedom, liberty, and rights...but those things do not come from nature.

Dante

dD

 

[Koios]

Thanks Einstein. BTW, in your context, neither is EM the stong force.

Nor did I say it was.

However, strong is an EM force.

However, when dicussing a unified theory that accounts for both the WEAK and STRONG forces, they'd be EM and G.

You discuss fantasies?

While there are those who seek a unified theory, there is no actual TOE. String theory with branes and contained is a fascinating foray into some unification of various forces, but falls far short of unifying cosmological reality with quantum mechanics. Why is gravity so weak? (but not the weak force) Large bodies don't act like particles.

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.

He made remarkable discoveries, as have many before and after him. To the best of my knowledge, the work on gravity in the ToR remains the best one available.

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.)

String theory does not contradict relativity.

Yeah; but then insofar as you pointed out (techically) that G ain't the weak force, neither then is EM the strong force. In that context, the strong force would be the shit holding atoms together, which gets released in nuke bombings and shit. Quite a big deal, which we call: Nuclear Force.

No shit. So while googling in hopes of some lame fucking comeback to the shit right off the top of my head (pure comedy), check it out. You'll see I'm dead fucking on again, and then bygod, them panties up your crack will move up so quickly they'll reach escape velocity.

Then I'll be the real asshole. Hulk Hogan pickin on some little wimp, figuratively speaking. (intellectually)

 

[SniperFire]

"Duuuhhh. Nature. That means outdoors, and animals, 'n' shit, right?"

And that's when America started its inexorable slide back into the Dark Ages.

nope. Dante and a few others put forth the distinction between 'nature' and man's nature.

Distinctions with differences is a lesson not taught on the right wing noise machine. Granted the left wing propaganda machine also drops the ball there, but we are dealing mostly with people who get there news from the noise machine of USMB alone.

It may be in man's nature to form concepts like freedom, liberty, and rights...but those things do not come from nature.

Dante

dD

Agreed. It is all pretend.

Unalienable rights as acknowledged in our founding document, however, is a completely different matter.

 

[SniperFire]

"Duuuhhh. Nature. That means outdoors, and animals, 'n' shit, right?"

And that's when America started its inexorable slide back into the Dark Ages.

Here was the OP:

What "rights" does nature give us?

As everyone seems to agree excepting perhaps you, nature gives nobody and nothing 'rights.'

Hope that helps.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Duuuhhh. Nature. That means outdoors, and animals, 'n' shit, right?"

And that's when America started its inexorable slide back into the Dark Ages.

nope. Dante and a few others put forth the distinction between 'nature' and man's nature.

Distinctions with differences is a lesson not taught on the right wing noise machine. Granted the left wing propaganda machine also drops the ball there, but we are dealing mostly with people who get there news from the noise machine of USMB alone.

It may be in man's nature to form concepts like freedom, liberty, and rights...but those things do not come from nature.

Dante

dD

Agreed. It is all pretend.

Unalienable rights as acknowledged in our founding document, however, is a completely different matter.

the unalienable/inalienable(in the drafts and final) rights in our founding document(S) are manmade constructs that some believed and continue to believe, come from some magical creator or nature itself. that is cute symbolism and myth, but reality bites.

now, do we all mostly agree in these rights and having them protected? On some levels yes...in principle supposedly