Are rights objectively real?

[Master PO]

Your info was merely claims made by other people that you repeated. That is still a claim, even if it dates back to the 1700s.

its dates back more then 2000 years ago.

you on the other hand only seek to deny, and that is not argument.

 

[William Rea]

its dates back more then 2000 years ago.

you on the other hand only seek to deny, and that is not argument.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I actually gave an 'alternative' hypothesis with evidence in an exchange which you ignored. I don't have to but, I found it interesting.

Hearsay and claims don't become any more valid by adding a further 1700 years onto them.

 

[RAMOSS]

its dates back more then 2000 years ago.

you on the other hand only seek to deny, and that is not argument.

Yet, for all that, you are unable to show that it is more than 'what people think about it', and 'how people think things ought to be'. How about that.

 

[Master PO]

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I actually gave an 'alternative' hypothesis with evidence in an exchange which you ignored. I don't have to but, I found it interesting.

Hearsay and claims don't become any more valid by adding a further 1700 years onto them.

then you have nothing, because you produced noting but a denial of what i said, because i did produce.

 

[Master PO]

Yet, for all that, you are unable to show that it is more than 'what people think about it', and 'how people think things ought to be'. How about that.

i produced much, you and William, all you did was deny....you never produce anything because you never had anything,

 

[William Rea]

then you have nothing, because you produced noting but a denial of what i said, because i did produce.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter because you have failed to support the assertion that rights are objectively real.

The fact is that it wasn't up to me to provide an alternative hypothesis but, I did.

If you know it, then show it.

 

[Master PO]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter because you have failed to support the assertion that rights are objectively real.

The fact is that it wasn't up to me to provide an alternative hypothesis but, I did.

If you know it, then show it.

:lamo you produced nothing to counter my argument

i already showed rights are not created by government.

ancient history, founders history, and laws be they federal or constitutional speak of natural law and rights

now again..... what do you have, but just a denial of this

 

[William Rea]

:lamo you produced nothing to counter my argument

i already showed rights are not created by government.

ancient history, founders history, and laws be they federal or constitutional speak of natural law and rights

now again..... what do you have, but just a denial of this

Like I said, you don't know it, if you can't show it.

Produce an objectively real right and explain why it is objective and real.

I will predict what you will produce...

1. A list of human abilities.
2. Documents where someone asserts that they exist, without showing that they do.
3. You will point at something and say, 'that' without showing that it it is.

 

[Master PO]

Like I said, you don't know it, if you can't show it.

Produce an objectively real right and explain why it is objective and real.

I will predict what you will produce...

1. A list of human abilities.
2. Documents where someone asserts that they exist, without showing that they do.
3. You will point at something and say, 'that' without showing that it it is.

again... you not going to make YOUR argument , but just deny what i said and posted from links.

 

[RAMOSS]

i produced much, you and William, all you did was deny....you never produce anything because you never had anything,

Actually, you have not produced the one that that was requested.. and that is to show that 'rights exist no matter what people think of it'. You distort the term 'right' to such an extent it has no meaning, and then you produce opinions of people.. but, you have not shown that it is more than an opinion. That is the issue, and that is what you are unable to understand or acknowledge.

 

[Master PO]

Actually, you have not produced the one that that was requested.. and that is to show that 'rights exist no matter what people think of it'. You distort the term 'right' to such an extent it has no meaning, and then you produce opinions of people.. but, you have not shown that it is more than an opinion. That is the issue, and that is what you are unable to understand or acknowledge.

requested?...you and Haymarket seem to think i must serve you and what you want, and thats not how its works.

i provided info, and while i did that, all i got in return was denial of that info, and nothing in return.

 

[RAMOSS]

requested?...you and Haymarket seem to think i must serve you and what you want, and thats not how its works.

i provided info, and while i did that, all i got in return was denial of that info, and nothing in return.

First of all, it wasn't haymarket. Second of all, it wasn't what was asked for you to present. Do you understand the differnce between a dump of links, and having those links actually address the point/points being addressed???

 

[William Rea]

requested?...you and Haymarket seem to think i must serve you and what you want, and thats not how its works.

i provided info, and while i did that, all i got in return was denial of that info, and nothing in return.

No.

We all seem to think that when you make an assertion you support it with something more than hearsay and, 'well it's obvious'. You seem to think that claiming something makes it so, it doesn't in this forum section.

 

[Master PO]

First of all, it wasn't haymarket. Second of all, it wasn't what was asked for you to present. Do you understand the differnce between a dump of links, and having those links actually address the point/points being addressed???

first of all you and haymarket requested from me as if i am to serve you....so get that correct.

your position is to deny what i have said, and nothing more, you have nothing at all.

 

[Master PO]

No.

We all seem to think that when you make an assertion you support it with something more than hearsay and, 'well it's obvious'. You seem to think that claiming something makes it so, it doesn't in this forum section.

and as i said you and ramoss are here just deny what i have said, and present nothing yourself.

you have nothing to post, and you have not thru this whole exchange.

so thats where we are

 

[RAMOSS]

first of all you and haymarket requested from me as if i am to see you....so get that correct.

your position is to deny what i have said, and nothing more, you have nothing at all.

Funny, I find your inability to even address what the points are is the denial. You aren't even addressing the points, but instead are going off on a tangent and answering something that is not even being discussed by others. You show instead what people thought, but that is not the subject of the OP.

 

[Master PO]

Funny, I find your inability to even address what the points are is the denial. You aren't even addressing the points, but instead are going off on a tangent and answering something that is not even being discussed by others. You show instead what people thought, but that is not the subject of the OP.

i have addressed many , and you have denied the whole time.... because thats all you have.

i have history, i have law constitutional and federal, and i have LIFE meaning what i said is what we live by.

 

[RAMOSS]

i have addressed many , and you have denied the whole time.... because thats all you have.

i have history, i have law constitutional and federal, and i have LIFE meaning what i said is what we live by.

Thank you for proving my point, because your last point shows that you do not understand what the OP is about at all.

 

[Master PO]

Thank you for proving my point, because your last point shows that you do not understand what the OP is about at all.

you have no point, and thats your problem.

you see you and the others only seek to deny what i have said and posted, yet you produce nothing for an argument.

an old tactic used on the form:- tell your opponent to produce something to prove you wrong, while you do nothing but just deny.

 

[William Rea]

and as i said you and ramoss are here just deny what i have said, and present nothing yourself.

you have nothing to post, and you have not thru this whole exchange.

so thats where we are

Like I said.

We all seem to think that when you make an assertion you support it with something more than hearsay and, 'well it's obvious'. You seem to think that claiming something makes it so, it doesn't in this forum section.

You can't show it, you don't know it. If you don't like it then don't make positive assertions for things that you cannot demonstrate.

 

[Master PO]

Like I said.

We all seem to think that when you make an assertion you support it with something more than hearsay and, 'well it's obvious'. You seem to think that claiming something makes it so, it doesn't in this forum section.

You can't show it, you don't know it. If you don't like it then don't make positive assertions for things that you cannot demonstrate.

like i said, you just denying history, federal and constitutional law, i will show what i have again, and you can deny it because you have nothing.


constitutional -Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


cases of equity are ajudicated by natural law.


federal law- just 1 of the many enabling acts (Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:


one of the principles of the Declaration of Independence is natural law.

History- CICERO and the NATURAL LAW

Cicero | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism




what will be your response to these postings ,to just deny them, but post nothing to counter it, because you have nothing.

 

[Quag]

like i said, you just denying history, federal and constitutional law, i will show what i have again, and you can deny it because you have nothing.


constitutional -Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


cases of equity are ajudicated by natural law.


federal law- just 1 of the many enabling acts (Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:


one of the principles of the Declaration of Independence is natural law.

History- CICERO and the NATURAL LAW

Cicero | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism




what will be your response to these postings ,to just deny them, but post nothing to counter it, because you have nothing.

You cannot use the law to show that rights do not come from the law. By attempting to do so you are doing the exact opposite

 

[Master PO]

You cannot use the law to show that rights do not come from the law. By attempting to do so you are doing the exact opposite

yes i can.... because the law recognizes RIGHTS, which i have said all along!...it does not grant rights


federal law- just 1 of the many enabling acts (Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

 

[Quag]

yes i can.... because the law recognizes RIGHTS, which i have said all along!...it does not grant rights


federal law- just 1 of the many enabling acts (Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence

The constitution IS law
Doesn't matter what they claim they used to derive those laws from there are no rights without some form of govt be that as simple a form of govt as a village council of elders.

 

[William Rea]

like i said, ... have nothing.

I've told you before, I am not interested in your constitution, federal law or history, these are literally all just claims that you claim. I don't know how to make you understand that unless you can demonstrate anything more than a claim made by someone then you have nothing.

You ignored it but, in previous posts I have already created a hypothesis for the origins of 'rights' based upon biology and evolution. I put forward evidence of our altruistic nature and our social instincts leading to the formation of laws that created what we acknowledge to be rights under certain circumstances. You have produced no rationale, no reason; All you have done is point and say, 'that'. I didn't have to put forward any hypothesis but, your constant assertion of claims as proof is dull so, I figured it might make a better conversation to talk about why laws come first and then rights.