Are rights objectively real?

[William Rea]

you are asking me to put forward an theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; .....for my position......why is the h#ll would i do that, and go against what i have said thru this whole thread?

Do you understand the sentence I posted?

I said, 'You might have put forward a hypothesis...' so, what did you read there?

 

[Master PO]

Do you understand the sentence I posted?

I said, 'You might have put forward a hypothesis...' so, what did you read there?

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More

iam not assuming anything..dont you understand

 

[William Rea]

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More

iam not assuming anything..dont you understand

You read, 'You might have put forward a hypothesis...' as, 'I want you to put forward a hypothesis...'?

Since you provided no reasonable basis or evidence for your assertion, it is a hypothesis. I called it right, you put forward a hypothesis on the first point.

 

[Master PO]

You read, 'You might have put forward a hypothesis...' as, 'I want you to put forward a hypothesis...'?

Since you provided no reasonable basis or evidence for your assertion, it is a hypothesis. I called it right, you put forward a hypothesis on the first point.

:roll: how about you understand, i am not putting forth a theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption, for my argument on this thread and because my position is not a theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption, ....


to do so would undo all of my post.......:doh

 

[Quag]

it was answered but you didn't read it properly

I WILL HELP YOU - there is no natural right to vote

Since there is no such thing as natural rights that is a non answer
Ill ask again
Did women always have the right to vote?

 

[Mr Person]

See, that's what I feared: Master PO would ruin the thread by repeatedly insisting that so-called "natural rights" are objectively real because a piece of paper says certain things should and should not be done to people, while simultaneously denying that the only way that paper has force is if people act like it has force.

Things that are objectively real exist independent of any observer, let alone human beings or piece of paper. The Sun would exist whether or not humans were there to look at it. "The right to due process" would not exist without humans agreeing to set up courts to define and protect said right.




I'm starting to think that the central problem in this thread is that most posts overlook the preliminary issue: what is the meaning of the terms "objective" and "real".

 

[Mr Person]

fine .....prove it, show it to me where you are granted rights

fine .....prove it, show it to me where "natural rights" existed in the universe before homo sapiens evolved and started talking about them. Show me a natural right detecting machine and explain its principles of operation, so that I may reproduce your experiment.

Show me where a "natural right" is predicted or allowed for by the laws of physics. Tell me whether it is made of matter or energy. Literally give me the equations.




You cannot and will not for the simple reason that natural rights are not "objectively real." You will instead likely copy/paste some portion of the constitution, and you will do it because you haven't the slightest clue of what "objectively real" actually means.

 

[Master PO]

Since there is no such thing as natural rights that is a non answer
Ill ask again
Did women always have the right to vote?

did you read 1169, no, because the answer is there

 

[Master PO]

fine .....prove it, show it to me where "natural rights" existed in the universe before homo sapiens evolved and started talking about them. Show me a natural right detecting machine and explain its principles of operation, so that I may reproduce your experiment.

Show me where a "natural right" is predicted or allowed for by the laws of physics. Tell me whether it is made of matter or energy. Literally give me the equations.




You cannot and will not for the simple reason that natural rights are not "objectively real." You will instead likely copy/paste some portion of the constitution, and you will do it because you haven't the slightest clue of what "objectively real" actually means.

Again a person who does not read what has been posted over the last month, and makes remarks and has no idea what is going on

 

[Quag]

did you read 1169, no, because the answer is there

No it isnt

 

[Quag]

Again a person who does not read what has been posted over the last month, and makes remarks and has no idea what is going on

We have all read what you have posted and you have failed to make your case
I have asked you repeatedly 3 questions.

1 If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
2. How do we know what they are?
3. Why do you claim they are objective?

You have occasionally attempted to answer the first question with a non answer, basically saying some people said natural rights exist therefore they do.
That is not an answer, it is a claim without anything to back it up.

So please try to make an actual case for your position and try to answer the 3 questions you NEED to answer to actually defend your claims

 

[Master PO]

No it isnt

yes it is, and if you understand the the constitution , article 1, you would see your answer

but you don't understand the constitution , rights, or our laws.

 

[Master PO]

We have all read what you have posted and you have failed to make your case
I have asked you repeatedly 3 questions.

1 If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
2. How do we know what they are?
3. Why do you claim they are objective?

You have occasionally attempted to answer the first question with a non answer, basically saying some people said natural rights exist therefore they do.
That is not an answer, it is a claim without anything to back it up.

So please try to make an actual case for your position and try to answer the 3 questions you NEED to answer to actually defend your claims

you have failed to make your case i have made mine!

my case,

1 rights come ones own humanity

2 they are ones own gifts his natural abilities,

3 and they exist because i exercise them everyday.

they are un-written law


your case.

nothing!

because you have claimed society/ government creates rights.....ok fine,

1 what year did this happen?

2 what day?

3 who was there?

4 where is the parchment of paper they used to create rights? since society/ government creates things on paper.

since they would have to be written law.

at no time have you provided answers to those questions 1-4

i have provided my answers , now instead of telling me i am wrong, answer the questions 1-4 to make your case.

 

[Master PO]

See, that's what I feared: Master PO would ruin the thread by repeatedly insisting that so-called "natural rights" are objectively real because a piece of paper says certain things should and should not be done to people, while simultaneously denying that the only way that paper has force is if people act like it has force.

Things that are objectively real exist independent of any observer, let alone human beings or piece of paper. The Sun would exist whether or not humans were there to look at it. "The right to due process" would not exist without humans agreeing to set up courts to define and protect said right.




I'm starting to think that the central problem in this thread is that most posts overlook the preliminary issue: what is the meaning of the terms "objective" and "real".

i see you don't want to quote me..

after you took a beating on income tax in another thread

 

[Quag]

---

yes it is, and if you understand the the constitution , article 1, you would see your answer

but you don't understand the constitution , rights, or our laws.

I am afraid it is you who do not understand

Now will you answer the question?
Did women always have the right to vote?

 

[Quag]

you have failed to make your case i have made mine!

my case,

1 rights come ones own humanity

2 they are ones own gifts his natural abilities,

3 and they exist because i exercise them everyday.

they are un-written law


your case.

nothing!

because you have claimed society/ government creates rights.....ok fine,

1 what year did this happen?

2 what day?

3 who was there?

4 where is the parchment of paper they used to create rights? since society/ government creates things on paper.

since they would have to be written law.

at no time have you provided answers to those questions 1-4

i have provided my answers , now instead of telling me i am wrong, answer the questions 1-4 to make your case.

Rights are NOT abilities. That is a rather pathetic attempt to pretend to answer the first question and absoutley no attemnot to answer the other 2.

1 If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
2. How do we know what they are?
3. Why do you claim they are objective?

 

[Master PO]

Rights are NOT abilities. That is a rather pathetic attempt to pretend to answer the first question and absoutley no attemnot to answer the other 2.

1 If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
2. How do we know what they are?
3. Why do you claim they are objective?

1 what year did this happen?

2 what day?

3 who was there?

4 where is the parchment of paper they used to create rights? since society/ government creates things on paper.

since they would have to be written law.

at no time have you provided answers to those questions 1-4

i have provided my answers , now instead of telling me i am wrong, answer the questions 1-4 to make your case.[/quote]


:lamo

no answers to question 1-4...

 

[Master PO]

---

I am afraid it is you who do not understand

Now will you answer the question?
Did women always have the right to vote?

:lamo you do not even understand the laws we live under, how embarrassing for you

Article. I.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

 

[Quag]

1 what year did this happen?

2 what day?

3 who was there?

4 where is the parchment of paper they used to create rights? since society/ government creates things on paper.

since they would have to be written law.

at no time have you provided answers to those questions 1-4

i have provided my answers , now instead of telling me i am wrong, answer the questions 1-4 to make your case.

:lamo

no answers to question 1-4...[/QUOTE]

You havent answered the questions
1 If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
2. How do we know what they are?
3. Why do you claim they are objective?

 

[Quag]

:lamo you do not even understand the laws we live under, how embarrassing for you

Article. I.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

I am afraid it is you who do not understand

Now will you answer the question?
Did women always have the right to vote?

 

[Quag]

Po, heres an idea try answering an actual question it shouldnt be that hard if your claims are correct.

 

[Master PO]

:lamo

no answers to question 1-4...

havent answered the questions
1 If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
2. How do we know what they are?
3. Why do you claim they are objective?

:lamo i answered your questions, but since you JUST dont like the answers, you have deemed them as not answered...how convenient you.

 

[Quag]

:lamo i answered your questions, but since you JUST dont like the answers, you have deemed them as not answered...how convenient you.

If I ask you what the weather is like outside and you reply that you like bananas that isnt answering the question.
So try actually answering the questions rather than posting nonsense
1 If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
2. How do we know what they are?
3. Why do you claim they are objective?

 

[Master PO]

Po, heres an idea try answering an actual question it shouldnt be that hard if your claims are correct.

:lamo

you are caught because its not possible for you to answer any of my questions, because your answer would have to be written law, and there is no written law supporting you.

 

[Master PO]

If I ask you what the weather is like outside and you reply that you like bananas that isnt answering the question.
So try actually answering the questions rather than posting nonsense
1 If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
2. How do we know what they are?
3. Why do you claim they are objective?

my case,

1 rights come ones own humanity

2 they are ones own gifts his natural abilities,

3 and they exist because i exercise them everyday.

they are un-written law


these are my answers...dont like them?.....to bad, they are answered, now counter them!