What "rights" does nature give us?

[Oddball]

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

Civil rights are rights that are protected by law.

No, "civil rights" are special rights, extended to favored political pressure groups by preening politicians.

 

[Jarhead]

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"?

when people speak of natural rights, they are not referring to rights given to them by nature.
Just as when peoplke speak of a natuiral golf swing, they are not referring to a golf swing given to therm by nature.
I have made that quite clear several times in this thread. The fact that you wish to ignore it is not my problem.

You are exhibiting an issue with the way people use the English language....a way that has been used for many years.....and either you can not grasp it, or you want to change it.

And as I have shown you, I believe you are one that preferrs to change things as opposed to adapt to them....even if those things are widely accepted by the majority.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The flaw in the OP is assuming that if a right can be violated that it does not exist

 

[Jarhead]

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

Civil rights are rights that are protected by law.

No, "civil rights" are special rights, extended to favored political pressure groups by preening politicians.

This is true.

The argument was that all people deserve the same rights...and they do.

But that has metamorphed into certain groups being given SPECIAL rights.

Women being allowed to take an "easier" pracitcal exam to be a fire fighter is an example of this.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

None, if forces of nature are at play. If anything, we are merely prisoners in the life cycle that evolved on this planet, randomly.

But as humans formed social networks, rules developed in hopes of keeping order, while not pissing off individuals to an extent that they'd revolt or leave the group.

Thus all rights are the creation of humans, exclusively.

of course two lefties would embrace the idea of randomness......which seems rather hypocritical when you look at the amazing order of the universe that man is discovering.....but then they might have to look at what created such Order and that could lead to a belief in God.....

even Einstein came to believe in God....

human rights are based in natural rights (inalienable rights, God-given rights) which are based in the natural laws of the Universe...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

There is nothing ambivalent in the question

What "rights" does nature give us?

Nature is not "god", not founding fathers, not the Industrial Revolution, not Hitler, slavery, not any of the other long and winding roads the rw's have wandered down.

Its NATURE.

Whats so hard about that?

 

[DiamondDave]

Not surprising that, even though the op was



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.

YOU calling someone else an idiot.. that is RICH.... you idiot troll

I have read your inane responses, which dance around but do not address this at all... you are simply pwned and refuse to admit it

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

There is nothing ambivalent in the question

What "rights" does nature give us?

Nature is not "god", not founding fathers, not the Industrial Revolution, not Hitler, slavery, not any of the other long and winding roads the rw's have wandered down.

Its NATURE.

Whats so hard about that?

You know exactly what this is about.. rights that government cannot take away without dissolving the government itself... but you want to play some little wording game... what next?? Creator does not imply god?? Or the term god does not mean God because of the lowercase letter??

Crawl back under your rock

 

[Luddly Neddite]

None, if forces of nature are at play. If anything, we are merely prisoners in the life cycle that evolved on this planet, randomly.

But as humans formed social networks, rules developed in hopes of keeping order, while not pissing off individuals to an extent that they'd revolt or leave the group.

Thus all rights are the creation of humans, exclusively.

of course two lefties would embrace the idea of randomness......which seems rather hypocritical when you look at the amazing order of the universe that man is discovering.....but then they might have to look at what created such Order and that could lead to a belief in God.....

even Einstein came to believe in God....

human rights are based in natural rights (inalienable rights, God-given rights) which are based in the natural laws of the Universe...

Wow.

Nature is "random".
"God" is a human construct.

BTW, Darwin never uttered the words, "survival of the fittest", AND, the phrase itself is nonsense. Its a tautology and as such, means absolutely nothing. The phrase has no meaning.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Civil rights are rights that are protected by law.

No, "civil rights" are special rights, extended to favored political pressure groups by preening politicians.

You have a civil right to express that opinion.

 

[Oddball]

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

Civil rights are rights that are protected by law.

No, "civil rights" are special rights, extended to favored political pressure groups by preening politicians.

You have a civil right to express that opinion.

No, I have the privilege extended to my by the owners of USMB to state that fact.

You really aren't that sharp, areya?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's quite entertaining to see conservatives who couldn't figure out by the first of November that Romney was losing the election now becoming experts on the meaning of life.

 

[SniperFire]

of course two lefties would embrace the idea of randomness......which seems rather hypocritical when you look at the amazing order of the universe that man is discovering.....but then they might have to look at what created such Order and that could lead to a belief in God.....

even Einstein came to believe in God....

human rights are based in natural rights (inalienable rights, God-given rights) which are based in the natural laws of the Universe...

Wow.

Nature is "random".
"God" is a human construct.

BTW, Darwin never uttered the words, "survival of the fittest", AND, the phrase itself is nonsense. Its a tautology and as such, means absolutely nothing. The phrase has no meaning.

And you are a freak, as proven by your answer (or duck) of this most simple question.

Is the Declaration of Independence one of our Founding document?


(and the follow up)

If not, what percentage Americans would agree with you?

 

[Sallow]

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.

It was the government that threw Mandela into jail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, "civil rights" are special rights, extended to favored political pressure groups by preening politicians.

You have a civil right to express that opinion.

No, I have the privilege extended to my by the owners of USMB to express that opinion.

You really aren't that sharp, areya?

Nobody said anything about 'here'.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

It was the government that threw Mandela into jail.

So you are assuming that if a right can be violated that it does not exist.

And the actions of a corrupt government cannot be equated with the actions of all governments can it?

 

[Sallow]

It's quite entertaining to see conservatives who couldn't figure out by the first of November that Romney was losing the election now becoming experts on the meaning of life.

Very same folks, too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Abortion is a natural right, but a government not in compliance with the laws of nature might well deny that natural right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's quite entertaining to see conservatives who couldn't figure out by the first of November that Romney was losing the election now becoming experts on the meaning of life.

Very same folks, too.

What Romney has to do with the OP is beyond me.

 

[Oddball]

You have a civil right to express that opinion.

No, I have the privilege extended to my by the owners of USMB to express that opinion.

You really aren't that sharp, areya?

Nobody said anything about 'here'.

Regardless, my freedom of speech doesn't hinge upon the assent of dour, petty little looters like you...It is mine as a product of my independent mind.