- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You can be alienated from your life, that means you have no inalienable right to life.
You can be alienated from your life, that means you have no inalienable right to life.Nope. They can only prevent me from exercising it. They cannot take my life and then have a life they can use. They cannot take away my ability to think and then have an extra ability to use. They cannot take away my capacity to pursue happiness and have more happiness themselves. Nor can I sell or give any of those things to anybody else. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people so that they, for the first time in the history of the world, would be able to live in liberty and exercise those rights without interference.
To me that is such a simple concept. But for so many, it seems to be almost impossible to understand and appreciate.
You don't get to define words. We have dictionaries.Sorry but the way I define words...
So you're just going to ignore the crime of murder and keep living in fantasy land.
You don't get to define words. We have dictionaries.
You can be alienated from your life, that means you have no inalienable right to life.
Right back at ya.Maybe if you actually consulted some of those dictionaries you would understand how silly this statement actually is?
Maybe if you actually consulted some of those dictionaries you would understand how silly this statement actually is?
Bad analogy.
You can be alienated from your life, that means you have no inalienable right to life.
Recognizing that someone's rights can be abused or repressed does not make them any less a right, and doesn't make the usurpation of it "right" either.
I don't particularly care what we call them, as along as we call them something that sounds absolute and not-to-be-infringed-upon. "Rights" worked for the Founders. We could also call them "Liberties the Oppression of Which Justify Instantly Killing Your Ass" and I'd be fine with that too, though it is a bit cumbersome.
Other things we could name them, instead of "rights"...
"**** I will ****ing Kill You Over."
"Ways that Nobody Including Government Should Ever **** With You."
"The Absolute Minimum Respect For Your Humanity That Everyone Should Always Show, On Pain Of Possible Death or Dismemberment."
Or the classic...
"Man I Wouldn't Do That **** If I Was You..."
Then you ought to be able to present a solid argument in proper logical form to explain it and demonstrate that it's real. Go ahead. We'll wait.
I have that book on Audible, so much better than the movie, but I was thinking of Man's Serch For Meaning. Maybe if you read some non-fiction once in a while you would have a better understanding of the world.Again, you are continuing to confuse the right to the thing with the thing itself.
I realize Heinlein made this argument in Starship Troopers, which was an excellent book, and it sounded really smart when we were 14.... but we're not 14 anymore, and he was wrong.
You equate an inanimate tangible object with an intangible philosophical concept? Seriously?It's perfectly valid. According to you, because my neighbor can't exercise his right to keep his nickel his right doesn't exist.
I have that book on Audible, so much better than the movie, but I was thinking of Man's Serch For Meaning. Maybe if you read some non-fiction once in a while you would have a better understanding of the world.
Turtle - for many of us who do not believe in natural rights it has nothing at all to do with any attitude about religion. What it has to do with is a couple of very undeniable historical facts:
1- natural rights came about as a theory because the political philosophers were searching for a counter weapon to the divine right of kings. It was simply a way of offering a trump card to divine right.
2- when Jefferson used it in the Declaration of Independence it was used merely as justification for the very real actions they were taking as a direct slap in the face of the British throne and their authority. Even Jefferson did not believe the actual words he wrote as he lived a life completely opposite of his pompous statements.
3- the Constitution and state constitutions create rights that may have been partly inspired by some peoples beliefs - but those beliefs do nothing in and of themselves as it is people acting through their created government that create the rights we have.
4 - If not one person in the world or our nation today even remembered the term natural rights - we would still have the same rights we have because of the national and state constitutions. So they are irrelevant.
People can go to church all day and night for all I care. It matters not to me . This is NOT about hatred of religion.
2. Dude. I am halfway done with a second masters degree. I have walls of non-fiction. Literally half of my job is to read non-fiction, and the other half is to understand the world and be able to explain it. Fiction is my escape from non-fiction.
But you're the one differentiating "natural" rights from other kinds of rights. If there is no difference, if you cannot demonstrate that they're real, then just drop the "natural" part. You cannot justify it, why should anyone take it seriously?
Your posts don't show that.
Natural Rights can't be given by the state, so if the state gave you a given right, that right is not a Natural Right. More likely it's a Civil Right.
You equate an inanimate tangible object with an intangible philosophical concept? Seriously?
I tell you what. Let me just admit that I can't prove God's "real" from an objective or empirical standpoint, just like I can't prove little green men with ray guns occupy the cosmos even though I think we're not alone in the universe. Now, if you're going to insist that what we call "God," or what philosophers envision as some sort of constant "force" in the universe that we're incapable of measuring or understanding, doesn't exist, then show your hand now, please. I'm betting you can't. So instead of us wasting everyone's time on this point let me just call my god the "God of Reason" who tells me killing millions of people is wrong.
you don't seem to understand why I find natural rights to be so important. they are part of a philosophy that exists. trying to impose one concept of existence on "things" that are not defined that way is stupid. Does say "roman catholicism" exist? or angry atheism? sure they do-but not the same way say Iron ore or helium gas exists. same with Natural rights vs. a concrete block
No, I don't understand why you think natural rights exist at all. What you've got there is what we call wishful thinking. It's a fantasy. It's something that appeals to you on a purely emotional level, not on an intellectual one. You have no rational justification for these claims you make but it makes you feel good to keep making them. That's why the whole concept is laughable and why nobody is taking you seriously.
It doesn't matter how you frame your definition of gods or natural rights, if you cannot demonstrate that either of them exist in any meaningful way in the real world, then they are just illusions. That is what we're pointing out to you. It rests entirely on your shoulders to demonstrate such things are real. If you cannot, and in both cases, you freely admit that you cannot, then nobody is obligated in any way, shape or form to take you seriously. I don't care what you call it. I care what you can demonstrate. You've got nothing. Just be honest about it already.
You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to.You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?