If rights, whither from?

[JBeukema]

What're babbling about now? More metaphysical superstition?

 

[Intense]

What're babbling about now? More metaphysical superstition?

So what's your poison? Irish or Scotch whiskey??? Start out with a double on the rocks. Me and the wife found this German Restaurant Friday, Spaten Oktoberfest on tap.... And you say there is no God.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[antagon]

as i've said before, you're too stupid to lay a credible attribution of meaning to anything.

Name-calling only highlights your inability to make a coherent argument, especially in light of your ever-changing definitions.

that's not name calling. i am charactarizing your wits as you have demonstrated:

i point out that because will is free and determined by individuals, there is a quality or attribute which arises from that circumstance that requires that the actions determined by that free will must appeal to the senses of the individual. rather than ants reacting on instinct to pheromones, humans act on intuition and consideration of inputs. we will choose if and how to act.

to get us to comply with desired actions in the way which ants do instinctively, humans must be coerced or cajoled into action. even if by threat of force, we choose to act. natural rights is a term related to this contrast from actions arising from instinct or autonomously independent from thought, like the beating of our heart. it is related specifically to actions of free will or self-detemined action.

Very comforting to the slave. Now that you've once again rendered your 'rights' meaningless and now shown that appealing to them means absolutely nothing, since you've no 'right' to be in a state of liberty, only to wish (will) to be in a state of liberty, I wonder why it took you 17 pages to finally settle on this crap.

thats what i mean by stupid. to take an argument and understand the exact opposite of what is presented.

you are too ignorant to note that regardless of comfort, slaves still act of their will

Right, which explains why I've explained that very fact time and again here on USMB in repeated discussions regarding the social contract.

Now, you were supposed to be sticking to one definition of these 'natural rights' and producing some evidence of their existence.

dummy, the quality or attribute - the virtue - of free will which defines natural rights is the fact that willful (non-autonomous) actions are always determined by the actor. this is not the will itself. this is no different than ive argued this entire time. natural rights exist whether or not there is a social context. they inform the social contract, rather than the inverse. they are completely independent from the actor's ability. it won't matter if you or i ascribe meaning to the fact. it wont matter if we emplace physical barriers to the actions. did i miss any of your failed arguments? oh, mathematics cant prove they exist or not.

hence, 'time and again here on USMB' you've argued the existence of natural rights, then rolled out 18 pages of obstinacy on the topic, betraying your ignorance of the centuries old concept and inept command of the english in which its presented.

 

[JBeukema]

The attribute of free will that defines 'natural rights' is free will?

 

[Intense]

A thought, an idea, a concept, born in the spiritual realm, comes into being. Discovery, invention, reason, applied to the physical realm. A person, a group, finds itself in a dilemma, through Vision, Epiphany, Imagination, Reason, a solution to the dilemma is recognized, through achievement, through construction, or what ever, a concept from the Spirit realm, comes into being. How cool.

Thank God for Unalienable Rights, without them, the wheel, the use of fire, toilet paper, would have been taxed out of existence, before we ever got started, as a Race. Funny that the control freaks just can't get past being offended by what they can't tax or control.

 

[rikules]

Thus far no one has come even remotely close to proving the existence of unalienaable rights, folks.

We've swerves all over the place even attempting to define what these rights are (or even if they exist) and thus far we failed miserably to do that, too.

What is a RIGHT?

Merely asserting that something exists, doesn't make it so.

Appealing to some supposed authority on the subject that something exists doesn't rise to the leve of proof, either.

Show me a RIGHT in this world.

Define it IN THIS WORLD.

Appeals to one's deeply held religious believes are worthless in this discussion.

This discussion is reality based, not otherworld based.

Yes, there IS a difference, even if one is a believer.

there are NO unalienable rights.

there are ONLY the rights we have agreed upon.

 

[JBeukema]

A thought, an idea, a concept, born in the spiritual realm, comes into being.

Discovery, invention, reason, applied to the physical realm.

So an idea is spiritual but thought is physical?

Thank God for Unalienable Rights, without them, the wheel, the use of fire, toilet paper, would have been taxed out of existence, before we ever got started, as a Race

 

[Intense]

Thus far no one has come even remotely close to proving the existence of unalienaable rights, folks.

We've swerves all over the place even attempting to define what these rights are (or even if they exist) and thus far we failed miserably to do that, too.

What is a RIGHT?

Merely asserting that something exists, doesn't make it so.

Appealing to some supposed authority on the subject that something exists doesn't rise to the leve of proof, either.

Show me a RIGHT in this world.

Define it IN THIS WORLD.

Appeals to one's deeply held religious believes are worthless in this discussion.

This discussion is reality based, not otherworld based.

Yes, there IS a difference, even if one is a believer.

there are NO unalienable rights.

there are ONLY the rights we have agreed upon.

You may need the consent of others to exist, but don't include me in your delusion.

... So if you had $350.00 in your wallet, neither the wallet or money are yours, unless we agree??? Really??? The Statist control freaks must really love you. You make Totalitarianism fun!!! Don't forget to not use that toilet paper without first obtaining permission.

 

[Intense]

A thought, an idea, a concept, born in the spiritual realm, comes into being.

Discovery, invention, reason, applied to the physical realm.

So an idea is spiritual but thought is physical?

Thank God for Unalienable Rights, without them, the wheel, the use of fire, toilet paper, would have been taxed out of existence, before we ever got started, as a Race

Wrong assumption, that is up tp par for you though.



Applied reason, as in works, are physical.

Keep trying to make that square peg fit in the round hole.

 

[editec]

Thus far no one has come even remotely close to proving the existence of unalienaable rights, folks.

We've swerves all over the place even attempting to define what these rights are (or even if they exist) and thus far we failed miserably to do that, too.

What is a RIGHT?

Merely asserting that something exists, doesn't make it so.

Appealing to some supposed authority on the subject that something exists doesn't rise to the leve of proof, either.

Show me a RIGHT in this world.

Define it IN THIS WORLD.

Appeals to one's deeply held religious believes are worthless in this discussion.

This discussion is reality based, not otherworld based.

Yes, there IS a difference, even if one is a believer.

Wow, the free expression of Ideas, Thought, Reason, in your case, lack of reason, ability, justification, none of that really exists at all. You are a figment of the dark side of my imagination. Thats it! Nobody has any natural right to anything either because we do not exist, or because the government doesn't recognize us at all, is that it? All good originates from the Party, outside of the Party is the great void. If it can't be explained or taxed, or controlled it will be denied. There is party7 think where all is arbitrary to it's relation to the bug up the leader's ass, and all else we will refuse to recognize!!!

Or... There is that which we think, imagine, dream, say, do, that bears consequence, both good and bad, to what ever variable and degree, from, God, Nature, Society, and Government. Hmmm....

I'll go with the second view. Should your head ever find it's way out of your ass, give it some thought.

Translation: 'I cannot meet ed's challange and I'm not honest enough to simply admit that'.

Translation, either we accept or reject Conscience.

Why is it so important for the Totalitarian Statist to accept that there are forces and powers beyond the authority of the State?

It not important to any "Totalitarian Statist", Intense, it's important to me.

You have stated that something exists.

To date that is all you have done.

You failed to prove it exists by showing us an example of it.

Show me any right you have that cannot be taken from you.

Otherwise just admit that you are operating -- not on logic of this world -- but on your faith.

Nothing wrong with faith, of course, until you confuse faith for fact.

Then you just end up looking like a person of faith who cannot differentiate between your FAITH and FACT.

And really?

What that means is that your FAITH isn't very strong.

If you think that Faith NEEDS to have the same logical grounding as facts, then you're missing the whole idea of faith.

But when you enter into social scientific discussion, FAITH has no place in the discussion.

Facts are all that matters.

 

[antagon]

dummy, the quality or attribute - the virtue - of free will which defines natural rights is the fact that willful (non-autonomous) actions are always determined by the actor. this is not the will itself.

The attribute of free will that defines 'natural rights' is free will?

you're just too stupid. you just lack the comprehension.

 

[JBeukema]

Thus far no one has come even remotely close to proving the existence of unalienaable rights, folks.

We've swerves all over the place even attempting to define what these rights are (or even if they exist) and thus far we failed miserably to do that, too.

What is a RIGHT?

Merely asserting that something exists, doesn't make it so.

Appealing to some supposed authority on the subject that something exists doesn't rise to the leve of proof, either.

Show me a RIGHT in this world.

Define it IN THIS WORLD.

Appeals to one's deeply held religious believes are worthless in this discussion.

This discussion is reality based, not otherworld based.

Yes, there IS a difference, even if one is a believer.

there are NO unalienable rights.

there are ONLY the rights we have agreed upon.

You may need the consent of others to exist, but don't include me in your delusion.

... So if you had $350.00 in your wallet, neither the wallet or money are yours, unless we agree??? Really??? The Statist control freaks must really love you. You make Totalitarianism fun!!! Don't forget to not use that toilet paper without first obtaining permission.

I get the distinct impression the subject of this thread is over your head

 

[JBeukema]

dummy, the quality or attribute - the virtue - of free will which defines natural rights is the fact that willful (non-autonomous) actions are always determined by the actor. this is not the will itself.

The attribute of free will that defines 'natural rights' is free will?

you're just too stupid. you just lack the comprehension.

The determination of one's own acts according to one's own will is free will.
You're arguing that 'a line which is straight' isn't a straight line.

 

[Intense]

there are NO unalienable rights.

there are ONLY the rights we have agreed upon.

You may need the consent of others to exist, but don't include me in your delusion.

... So if you had $350.00 in your wallet, neither the wallet or money are yours, unless we agree??? Really??? The Statist control freaks must really love you. You make Totalitarianism fun!!! Don't forget to not use that toilet paper without first obtaining permission.

I get the distinct impression the subject of this thread is over your head

Not exactly. What's over my head is why anyone would sell out or sacrifice their Birthright for any price. As a Christian, I recognize my first obligation is to my Maker, that precedes my obligation to society or government in importance. That will is not only an Unalienable Right, but a Duty, JB. There is Righteousness and there is the consent of the governed. there is the establishing of Justice and there is most alway's the angry manipulative mob, though the latter does not alway's have to be.

When you deny Individual Right, where does that put you in relation to Tyranny, JB. You are more than the wounds and scars that life inflicts on you. The Statist argument is no more than an argument to detach you from your self, and hijack your energy. Break on through to the other side JB, you can do it. At the least, do no intentional harm to others.

What I or anyone else attains righteously, is individual property, not the property of the society or state. End the self destruction process by living within your means, instead of making excuses for the scamming and scheming.

The only thing over my head here is the depths others sometimes go to defraud and steal and corrupt. Why go there?

 

[Intense]

Translation: 'I cannot meet ed's challange and I'm not honest enough to simply admit that'.

Translation, either we accept or reject Conscience.

Why is it so important for the Totalitarian Statist to accept that there are forces and powers beyond the authority of the State?

It not important to any "Totalitarian Statist", Intense, it's important to me.

You have stated that something exists.

To date that is all you have done.

You failed to prove it exists by showing us an example of it.

Show me any right you have that cannot be taken from you.

Otherwise just admit that you are operating -- not on logic of this world -- but on your faith.

Nothing wrong with faith, of course, until you confuse faith for fact.

Then you just end up looking like a person of faith who cannot differentiate between your FAITH and FACT.

And really?

What that means is that your FAITH isn't very strong.

If you think that Faith NEEDS to have the same logical grounding as facts, then you're missing the whole idea of faith.

But when you enter into social scientific discussion, FAITH has no place in the discussion.

Facts are all that matters.

Show me any right you have that cannot be taken from you.

My point is that there are Rights we all have that cannot be taken without consequence. You need to recognize plain speech or stop wasting my time. There is no guaranteed outcome and you very well know that, having lived, experiencing both gain and loss.

From a Faith perspective, Spirit and Soul are above your jurisdiction, the body, the flesh, you may have power to do with, but not without consequence. When your action violates the forces of creation, there is a price. That is my whole point. There is no excuse, your conscience serves a function, work with it.

 

[JBeukema]

When you deny Individual Right, where does that put you in relation to Tyranny, JB.

IDK.. where does laughing at the 'divine right of kings' put me?

You babble on about metaphysics; I focus on liberty and a good society.

 

[JBeukema]

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

I'll take that as a 'no' from Intense.

 

[Smartt33]

I know this will not fly here, but I am going to toss it into the air anyway:

I would say that our rights are very personal, and actually have nothing to do with anyone else, but rather is all about the individual (well, there is another person but I'll let you identify that one)

Here are our unalienable rights (along with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) which are only mentioned in the DOI.

The rights are:
1. Love: We have the right to love. The object(s) of that love we determine ourselves.
2. Joy: We have the right to hold any amount of joy within us that we want to. It is not something that can be controlled by anyone else unless we giove them the controls. We can have joy in the hardest of times as well as in the best of times. It is not the same as happiness.

3. Peace: This peace is a peace within, not peace that involves what is around us. Peace can be present in the toughest of times, and in the best of times.

4. Patience: Patience is totally in our control. No one can make us impatient but us. It is something within us.

5. Kindness: We can have kindness even to our enemies. No one can controll the kindness within us, or that we express. They may controll the way we express it, but we can express it and deliver it freely.

6. Goodness: The goodness that is in us, which may include morality, is not controlled by anyone but us.

7. Faithfulness: Our intergity, and our strength to have faith are within us, and we can be faithful in the worst of times and in the best of times.

8. Gentleness: (meekness) How we present ourselves is within us to control.

9. Self-control: This is also ours and cannot be adjusted by the world around us. In the hardest of times and the best of times we can have self-control.

Along with the above is the fact that "against these there is no law."
That makes them rights, and if we have the Spirit of God these are in a package and belong to us. I believe this is what was being addressed in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[JBeukema]

Interesting assertions.


Any evidence to support your claims? PLease define these 'unalienable rights' and show how we can test for and detect them.