What "rights" does nature give us?

[Sallow]

Not surprising that, even though the op was

What "rights" does nature give us?

rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

That's because the question is incoherent*, so we can only guess what meaning was intended. We're assuming the OP is referring to the concept of natural (inalienable, god-given, etc...) rights that is referenced in the Constitution. That seems like a realistic assumption given the context of a political message board.

*(Nature doesn't 'give' us rights'. To ask such a question reveals a basic misunderstanding of the concept.)

God isn't referenced in the Constitution.

Ever.

 

[Some Guy]

If by popular vote - the majority passed law and decided that all hot latino women ages 14-29 should be sex slaves to the rest of us, and then be our domestic property until we felt like disposing on them - this would be no particular violation of any intrinsic right, correct?

Depends on your perspective. If Guatemala passed that law, you might see that as a violation of "natural" rights because it's not in line with the morals that you (we) as Americans collectively adhere to. In their society though, obviously their morals aren't the same. So, Latina women ages 14-29, as part of that society, indeed wouldn't have a natural right to to not be sex slaves because the society they reside in doesn't hold those same morals.

Edit to add: people are pretty caught up on the term "natural" or "innate" or "intrinsic" or "inalienable" before the word "right." Focus on the meaning of the word "right." By definition, a "right" is basically assigned by the consensus of a society.

 

[Wry Catcher]

typical liberal question...usually used as a diversion.

Learn to understand context. Liberals love to ignore context and simply take the words spoken and apply it to whatever "definition" meets their agenda.

Learn to apply context. It will make you a more pleasant person.

It's a simple question.

Which, by the way, you couldn't answer.

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

Well then, the murder of any animal or plant is a violation of the natural rights of each individual in their respective sets, is it not? Of course 'happiness' is a human construct and defies measurement, so who is to know if that weed you pull is deprived of a happiness as well as it's life and liberty?

Someone once asked me of my image of God; I told him a large deer who guarded the gates of heaven (he was a deer hunter); I like to think that wife beaters will meet a large women with a booming voice guarding the gate to heaven too.

 

[syrenn]

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?

not all animals band together.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't think we're going to get the OP or his Luddly following to understand the concept.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Not surprising that, even though the op was

What "rights" does nature give us?

rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

Again, you idiot troll

A right attributed to man and government can be just as easily taken away by man or government... A right attributed to 'nature' or 'god' or 'the creator' is portrayed to be above man or government, hence the recognition of this in the document empowering the government does not empower the government to take it away without dissolving the government

Either keep up or shout up.

Read my response, or don't. Doesn't matter to me. But if you don't know what I wrote, you make an asssss of yourself with this idiotic post.

 

[syrenn]

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

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

where have you been man? ..dont you know anything about the animal kingdom?

They have the right to TRY and live. They have the right to TRY and kill. They have the right to TRY to not be killed.

 

[SniperFire]

Bingo.

(watch this)

Is the Declaration of Independence a Founding Document?

Q:If you want to talk about something that has NO relationship to the OP, why don't you start a new thread?

A: Because you don't understand the OP. Just to refresh your memory, here it is again:

What "rights" does nature give us?

If you do start a new thread concerning the nature of the Constitution of the US, I would just love to join that discussion. Until then, however, I plan to discuss only the OP of THIS thread.

Hope this isn't tooooo complicated for you.

LOL

Did you forget you are posting in the political section of the website?

You ducked the question, coward.

 

[regent]

In the age of enlightenment, then the age of reason, educated men came to the conclusion that nature had laws, and these laws ruled the physical universe. The question then came up did nature have laws for man, and indeed nature did, but those laws could and were broken by man. Natural law as applied to man was how nature meant for man to live and govern, they were laws of intent. Locke and others then worked out what they thought nature's laws for man were, and the Declaration and natural laws came together in 1776.

 

[Jarhead]

50% of new businesses close.

Check it out.

And I am doing fine.

Got a new car, new job, I own a manhattan coop which I rent and I rent a huge apartment in Brooklyn.

but you blamed your failure on others.

That is one who has iussues with society as it is.

And you prefer to change it.

All of the rest? Irrelevant.

However, I am glad to see you got a new job. I know it was a long haul for you.....and I hope it gives you some peace of mind. Seriously.

Yeah..true.

I paid for power to be available all the time, yet the power would black out almost weekly.

That's part of the reason for the failure. As were other things, like a "by the drink" tax.

By the way..alot of other bars in the area..had that exact same problems..and closed shop.

And I don't get your bringing in personal shit into the thread.

it is "personal shit" you used to debate me in another thread....making it usable in other debates. If you told me that in a private message, I would not have used it.

But you used it in an effort to refute a post of mine....so why cant I use it in an effort to refute a post of yours?

As for the power to black out weekly......I know very few restilers...including food establishments...that do not have back up generators.....maybe you erred by not spending the extra 3500 in start up costs?

A bar does well during a blackout.....people have no where else to go and nothing else to do. It allows you to increase your customer base as people who do not normally frequent youyr bar will come in..and you can capture them with your above normal service.

It would have been on my list of items for start up. Thats for sure.

 

[syrenn]

It's a simple question.

Which, by the way, you couldn't answer.

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

 

[Oddball]

Not surprising that, even though the op was

What "rights" does nature give us?

rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

That's because the question is incoherent*, so we can only guess what meaning was intended. We're assuming the OP is referring to the concept of natural (inalienable, god-given, etc...) rights that is referenced in the Constitution. That seems like a realistic assumption given the context of a political message board.

*(Nature doesn't 'give' us rights'. To ask such a question reveals a basic misunderstanding of the concept.)

QFT

 

[Newby]

Not surprising that, even though the op was

What "rights" does nature give us?

rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

That's because the question is incoherent*, so we can only guess what meaning was intended. We're assuming the OP is referring to the concept of natural (inalienable, god-given, etc...) rights that is referenced in the Constitution. That seems like a realistic assumption given the context of a political message board.

*(Nature doesn't 'give' us rights'. To ask such a question reveals a basic misunderstanding of the concept.)

Yep.

 

[akelch]

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

The only "natural right" I know of is God given free will.

Which we all have and it can not be taken from us.

 

[Jarhead]

Not surprising that, even though the op was



rw's are yammering about the Constitution and Hitler.

That's because the question is incoherent*, so we can only guess what meaning was intended. We're assuming the OP is referring to the concept of natural (inalienable, god-given, etc...) rights that is referenced in the Constitution. That seems like a realistic assumption given the context of a political message board.

*(Nature doesn't 'give' us rights'. To ask such a question reveals a basic misunderstanding of the concept.)

Yep.

Just as nature doesnt give us a golf swing.

But to swing off the plnae created by the axis of ones spine is deemed as an unatural golf swing.

And for many it works anyway...such as Fred Funk.

 

[Jarhead]

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

The only "natural right" I know of is God given free will.

Which we all have and it can not be taken from us.

Tell that to the people in Cuba.

 

[Sallow]

That's because the question is incoherent*, so we can only guess what meaning was intended. We're assuming the OP is referring to the concept of natural (inalienable, god-given, etc...) rights that is referenced in the Constitution. That seems like a realistic assumption given the context of a political message board.

*(Nature doesn't 'give' us rights'. To ask such a question reveals a basic misunderstanding of the concept.)

Yep.

Just as nature doesnt give us a golf swing.

But to swing off the plnae created by the axis of ones spine is deemed as an unatural golf swing.

And for many it works anyway...such as Fred Funk.

So um..

There aren't "natural rights"?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I like the term natural rights - it denotes something that preexists any form of government and is not granted by a government. Such rights are the birth right of every human, even if the society in which he is born violates them.

Inalienable rights cannot be separated from the individual. They are possessed by the mere act of being a human being not to be given or taken away by government or society

And that's definitely not true.

Nelson Mandela's "liberty" was taken away from him for several decades.

Unjustly by an unjust government that does not mean he did not have the right just that it was forcibly denied him.

Inalienable rights exist but that does not mean they are inviolable by others.

The only true reason for government is to protect our ideal of inalienable rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Natural rights are rights that some believe should be protected by law.

Civil rights are rights that are protected by law.

 

[SniperFire]

Yep.

Just as nature doesnt give us a golf swing.

But to swing off the plnae created by the axis of ones spine is deemed as an unatural golf swing.

And for many it works anyway...such as Fred Funk.

So um..

There aren't "natural rights"?

Of course not. You have been told that several times. The law of nature is eat or be eaten.

Are you just trolling for a swallow now?