Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're either bored or you're just feeling like arguing. Not a criticism, I often do that myself.
Many English words have multiple meanings you know.
Carry on.
It's a valid argument.
At the baseline for people arguing for "natural" rights, they are saying that rights are innate.
They aren't.
It's a human construct.
It's the same as arguing "religion" is "natural".
It's not..for very much the same reason.
Yours is a tiny minority opinion, of course.
You are a freak, swallow.
Well of course.
And people involved in this sort of ridiculous argument have divorced the meaning of "nature" from what it actually is..
You're either bored or you're just feeling like arguing. Not a criticism, I often do that myself.
Many English words have multiple meanings you know.
Carry on.
It's a valid argument.
At the baseline for people arguing for "natural" rights, they are saying that rights are innate.
They aren't.
It's a human construct.
It's the same as arguing "religion" is "natural".
It's not..for very much the same reason.
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?
No, but feel free to subject yourself to bondage. I'll stick with individualism and freedom.
Well of course.
And people involved in this sort of ridiculous argument have divorced the meaning of "nature" from what it actually is..
You're either bored or you're just feeling like arguing. Not a criticism, I often do that myself.
Many English words have multiple meanings you know.
Carry on.
It's a valid argument.
At the baseline for people arguing for "natural" rights, they are saying that rights are innate.
They aren't.
It's a human construct.
It's the same as arguing "religion" is "natural".
It's not..for very much the same reason.
So then, in sallows world, the governing body can choose to say, wipe out an entire race of people based purely on a majority rule of law. Since no one has any right to exist beyond the constructs of man's governing "service".
Isn't that right?
That's true.
And here's something that's going to rock your world.
It's happened.
None. We have NO "natural" rights.
We are not at the top of the food chain. If you don't know or believe that, leave your gun, shoes, clothes and go live in the woods. Leave those things because they are not "natural". Just you and NATURE. The joke says "... you're crunchy and taste good with ketchup" but it wouldn't be funny if it really was just you, in your "natural" state, against "nature". You'd be dead a few days.
"... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ..." Hardly.
I'll also add the phrase we hear, "god-given rights". There are no such things. The rights we enjoy and take for granted are hard won by our soldiers. To say that they are "given" to us is an insult to those who have given their lives so we have the right to sit here and call our political leaders names without fear of reprisal.
No one, real or imagined, gives us rights of any kind. We fight for them, in nature or not.
Interesting question, Sallow.
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?
No, but feel free to subject yourself to bondage. I'll stick with individualism and freedom.
There aren't many that "subject" themselves to bondage.
Including the many people that this country has tried or successfully enslaved.
Well of course.
And people involved in this sort of ridiculous argument have divorced the meaning of "nature" from what it actually is..
You're either bored or you're just feeling like arguing. Not a criticism, I often do that myself.
Many English words have multiple meanings you know.
Carry on.
It's a valid argument.
At the baseline for people arguing for "natural" rights, they are saying that rights are innate.
They aren't.
It's a human construct.
It's the same as arguing "religion" is "natural".
It's not..for very much the same reason.
None. We have NO "natural" rights.
We are not at the top of the food chain. If you don't know or believe that, leave your gun, shoes, clothes and go live in the woods. Leave those things because they are not "natural". Just you and NATURE. The joke says "... you're crunchy and taste good with ketchup" but it wouldn't be funny if it really was just you, in your "natural" state, against "nature". You'd be dead a few days.
"... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ..." Hardly.
I'll also add the phrase we hear, "god-given rights". There are no such things. The rights we enjoy and take for granted are hard won by our soldiers.
No one, real or imagined, gives us rights of any kind. We fight for them, in nature or not.
Interesting question, Sallow.
None. We have NO "natural" rights.
We are not at the top of the food chain. If you don't know or believe that, leave your gun, shoes, clothes and go live in the woods. Leave those things because they are not "natural". Just you and NATURE. The joke says "... you're crunchy and taste good with ketchup" but it wouldn't be funny if it really was just you, in your "natural" state, against "nature". You'd be dead a few days.
"... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ..." Hardly.
I'll also add the phrase we hear, "god-given rights". There are no such things. The rights we enjoy and take for granted are hard won by our soldiers. To say that they are "given" to us is an insult to those who have given their lives so we have the right to sit here and call our political leaders names without fear of reprisal.
No one, real or imagined, gives us rights of any kind. We fight for them, in nature or not.
Interesting question, Sallow.
None. We have NO "natural" rights.
We are not at the top of the food chain. If you don't know or believe that, leave your gun, shoes, clothes and go live in the woods. Leave those things because they are not "natural". Just you and NATURE. The joke says "... you're crunchy and taste good with ketchup" but it wouldn't be funny if it really was just you, in your "natural" state, against "nature". You'd be dead a few days.
"... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ..." Hardly.
I'll also add the phrase we hear, "god-given rights". There are no such things. The rights we enjoy and take for granted are hard won by our soldiers. To say that they are "given" to us is an insult to those who have given their lives so we have the right to sit here and call our political leaders names without fear of reprisal.
No one, real or imagined, gives us rights of any kind. We fight for them, in nature or not.
Interesting question, Sallow.
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?
No, but feel free to subject yourself to bondage. I'll stick with individualism and freedom.
There aren't many that "subject" themselves to bondage.
Including the many people that this country has tried or successfully enslaved.
Well of course.
And people involved in this sort of ridiculous argument have divorced the meaning of "nature" from what it actually is..
You're either bored or you're just feeling like arguing. Not a criticism, I often do that myself.
Many English words have multiple meanings you know.
Carry on.
It's a valid argument.
At the baseline for people arguing for "natural" rights, they are saying that rights are innate.
They aren't.
It's a human construct.
It's the same as arguing "religion" is "natural".
It's not..for very much the same reason.
a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
You're either bored or you're just feeling like arguing. Not a criticism, I often do that myself.
Many English words have multiple meanings you know.
Carry on.
It's a valid argument.
At the baseline for people arguing for "natural" rights, they are saying that rights are innate.
They aren't.
It's a human construct.
It's the same as arguing "religion" is "natural".
It's not..for very much the same reason.
Their definition of natural comes from (mostly) God. You are using it in the most strict and secular definition. It's their definition of "natural". Your argument is valid, but it is still semantics.
the 1600-1700s called and wants its controversy returned. It's 2013, dude.
Unbelievable.
No, but feel free to subject yourself to bondage. I'll stick with individualism and freedom.
There aren't many that "subject" themselves to bondage.
Including the many people that this country has tried or successfully enslaved.
Why would you have a problem with slavery when you don't believe rights actually exist?
No, but feel free to subject yourself to bondage. I'll stick with individualism and freedom.
There aren't many that "subject" themselves to bondage.
Including the many people that this country has tried or successfully enslaved.
You're talking about physical bondage but people do it everyday by agreeing to be led by certain ideologies which entraps and limits choices.
