nah, i'm not gonna try again.. .you're far too invested in ignoring recorded history and philosophy... that's a wall nobody is going to be able to pierce.
Because it's all a conspiracy not to pay attention to libertarian stupidity. Gotcha. :roll:
You're conflating "natural rights" with rights dictated by society.
I'm not a believer in natural rights either, hence the quotation marks around them. I generally support most of the application of the theory because I believe in a more equal society, but I don't see any epistemological reasoning for supporting the theory.There are no such thing as 'natural rights.' All are something that are determined and then recognized by man.
If you want to engage in faulty reasoning by poisoning the well, thus ignoring the merits of their argument, be my guest. And since when does treason not place one at personal risk of losing everything, including one's life?
There are no such thing as 'natural rights.' All are something that are determined and then recognized by man.
I'm not a believer in natural rights either, hence the quotation marks around them. I generally support most of the application of the theory because I believe in a more equal society, but I don't see any epistemological reasoning for supporting the theory.
That response makes no sense to the post from me that you produced as its lead in.
The same way I can support "Thou shalt not kill" even if I don't attribute it to any divine being proclaiming it.wait a minute..... how can one support the application of something that does not exist?.... and can something that does not exist even be applied?
Redistributing liberties in a society makes them more equal. That's what "natural rights" do. They proclaim everyone is entitled to certain basic liberties and redistributes them from those who would take them to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to claim them.additionally... why do you believe in a "more equal society"?.. what drives this particular belief?
So you admit that you have blind faith in natural rights. Gotcha. :roll:
we aren't talking about attribution....we're talking existence.The same way I can support "Thou shalt not kill" even if I don't attribute it to any divine being proclaiming it.
what the holy ****?... redistributing liberties?Redistributing liberties in a society makes them more equal. That's what "natural rights" do. They proclaim everyone is entitled to certain basic liberties and redistributes them from those who would take them to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to claim them.
The same way I can support "Thou shalt not kill" even if I don't attribute it to any divine being proclaiming it.
Enlightened self-interest. There's your reasoning.
There is advantage to peace. It's prudent to discourage killing, even if it's not provided by supernatural decree.we aren't talking about attribution....we're talking existence.
why on earth would you even support such a notion of "thou shalt not kill"... if there is no right to live, there is no duty not to kill.
This is fundamental political theory stuff. All men are not created equal, their collective capabilities are pooled together in society and divided by society, according to the liberties that society grants. Without such redistribution, we'd be all subject to the single Goliath of a society. Instead, the Goliath relinquishes some of his might, and the David is given access to it.what the holy ****?... redistributing liberties?
where are you coming up with this stuff?... i'm curious to read your sources, if only so i can figure out just what you are talking about.
It's prudent to have a peaceful society. Killing doesn't increase productivity or peace.What way is that? Enlighten us to why you think you can support "Thou shalt not kill" but others shouldn't (since there is, in your view, no universal, natural right to life).
It's prudent to have a peaceful society. Killing doesn't increase productivity or peace.
General mayhem doesn't increase productivity of desirable resources.Sometimes, eh? Not always? There are times in which general mayhem promotes increased productivity and it's imprudent to have a peaceful society? When might that be?
You said, "Actions speak louder than words." The way I took that was "Don't listen to these guys because what they did goes way beyond being hypocrites" or something to that effect. So, if you're not attempting to poison the well, what's your point as it relates to natural rights? Some of these guys held slaves. So what? I mean, even Mao was right once in a while. He certainly knew how to kick the Kuomintang's ass.
Firstly, it's "murder", not kill. The prohibition is against unjust killing, not killing per-se.we aren't talking about attribution....we're talking existence.
why on earth would you even support such a notion of "thou shalt not kill"... if there is no right to live, there is no duty not to kill.
what the holy ****?... redistributing liberties?
where are you coming up with this stuff?... i'm curious to read your sources, if only so i can figure out just what you are talking about.
The "so what" your refer to is central and key in any determination as to IF the Founders truly believed in natural rights as stated in the Declaration.
Let me stop you there. ANY right can be "taken away" in the sense that a person can be deprived of it. The issue, though, is whether someone who isn't the grantor of the right can "take it away" in the ethical or legal sense. In the case of natural rights, we're talking about a moral or ethical state of affairs. Perhaps you don't believe in morality; you just assume that life exists and there's no point to it. Whatever rights you get come only from a beneficial human. If that's the case, then our discussion is over, because no amount of moral proselytizing on my part will sway you. But from a legal standpoint if the state says, for example, that you have a right to be repaid for a debt and I just say, "Screw it. I'm not repaying you," according to your logic your right to repayment ends there. I mean, if you're going to argue that someone other than the grantor of a right can "take it away" then, well, I just took your right away.
so your of the mind that man simply created these rights out of thin air, absent reasoning or premise?
Reasoning is involved in how our rights came about. It is not because they are "natural" rights. It is what is seen as best and fair for the majority people, at least when speaking about those rights that many view as "natural". Although our ability to reason is "natural", that does not make those rights that people view as important or ones "everyone" has or should have as "natural".
Humans are pretty intelligent and create a lot of things "out of thin air", especially abstract concepts such as rights. These things also seem to change, hence "abstract".
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?