What "rights" does nature give us?

[Sallow]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

 

[slackjawed]

read John Locke

 

[TNHarley]

To be on top of the food chain

 

[Sallow]

read John Locke

I have.

He's wrong about "natural rights".

Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.

In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.

And by the animals in that group.

Sound familiar?

 

[chikenwing]

To be on top of the food chain

Thats about it,other than someday you will be feeding a tree someplace.

 

[Jarhead]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

typical liberal question...usually used as a diversion.

Learn to understand context. Liberals love to ignore context and simply take the words spoken and apply it to whatever "definition" meets their agenda.

Learn to apply context. It will make you a more pleasant person.

 

[Sallow]

To be on top of the food chain

Thats about it,other than someday you will be feeding a tree someplace.

Not really.

Unless he's cremated or buried without embalming.

 

[PredFan]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

 

[slackjawed]

read John Locke

I have.

He's wrong about "natural rights".

Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.

In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.

And by the animals in that group.

Sound familiar?

aside from personal opinion, you asked where this idea came from and what it was, I simply pointed you in the direction of John Locke and his writings.

agree, or disagree it matters not, as that is not what you asked in the op.

 

[Sallow]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

typical liberal question...usually used as a diversion.

Learn to understand context. Liberals love to ignore context and simply take the words spoken and apply it to whatever "definition" meets their agenda.

Learn to apply context. It will make you a more pleasant person.

It's a simple question.

Which, by the way, you couldn't answer.

 

[Sallow]

read John Locke

I have.

He's wrong about "natural rights".

Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.

In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.

And by the animals in that group.

Sound familiar?

aside from personal opinion, you asked where this idea came from and what it was, I simply pointed you in the direction of John Locke and his writings.

agree, or disagree it matters not, as that is not what you asked in the op.

No I didn't.

Read the OP.

By the way..Locke was a hypocrite.

He invested in the slave trade. So much for his concept of "Natural Rights".

 

[Sallow]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

That right doesn't exist.

 

[SniperFire]

Sadly, swallow has the right to consume valuable oxygen.

 

[Mr Natural]

To be on top of the food chain

Most of the time.

 

[PredFan]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

That right doesn't exist.

The right to not be killed? You are mistaken. If that right doesn't exist then no rights exist.

 

[slackjawed]

because it appears you are headed down another track than the one laid out in the op, the basic tenets of Locke's writing is that humans have a responsibility to preserve and continue the human race. This is used as the justification to say that because of that humans have individual rights that are needed to preserve the species as a whole. those rights as described by Locke are "Life, Liberty and property"

I am just guessing that his inclusion of the statement "granted by our creator" kinda turns you off the idea based on a hatred of religion and G_D.

Consider that statement does not change if our maker is G_D or if our maker is the forces of nature.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

typical liberal question...usually used as a diversion.

Learn to understand context. Liberals love to ignore context and simply take the words spoken and apply it to whatever "definition" meets their agenda.

Learn to apply context. It will make you a more pleasant person.

It's a simple question.

Which, by the way, you couldn't answer.

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

 

[Sallow]

Sadly, swallow has the right to consume valuable oxygen.

And you keep trying to consume my jiz, SniperFag, by your incessant whines to swallow my shlong.

No dice.

 

[Sallow]

typical liberal question...usually used as a diversion.

Learn to understand context. Liberals love to ignore context and simply take the words spoken and apply it to whatever "definition" meets their agenda.

Learn to apply context. It will make you a more pleasant person.

It's a simple question.

Which, by the way, you couldn't answer.

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

 

[slackjawed]

Sadly, swallow has the right to consume valuable oxygen.

Yeah, it appears so.

He posted a misleading OP. when He was looking for a different type of discussion.

When given the information, he claims it is invalid based on his superior intelect and opinion.

What a tool........damn sad that most of our young Americans think this is actually a valid method of debate.

Insult and belittle is not debate, or discussion, it is simply a means to advance suppression of competing opinion.