Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[M.D. Rawlings]

My dog is sentient. He figured out how to get into my house all by himself.

Yep. To a degree. And dogs have inalienable rights.

Thats what the law calls them I agree.

So the idea here is that mere animals apprehend rights and grant rights?

Oops. Wait a minute. That isn't true is it?

So to make your argument work, you disregard the kind of sentience imbued with natural rights?

Oops. Wait a minute. That doesn't work, does it?

Obviously, only humans have the pertinent kind of sentience.

Mere animals are the natural resources of Man or the property of Man.

 

[Asclepias]

Yep. To a degree. And dogs have inalienable rights.

Thats what the law calls them I agree.

So the idea here is that mere animals apprehend rights and grant rights?

Oops. Wait a minute. That isn't true is it?

So to make your argument work, you disregard the kind of sentience imbued with natural rights?

Oops. Wait a minute. That doesn't work, does it?

Obviously, only humans have the pertinent kind of sentience.

Mere animals are the natural resources of Man or the property of Man.

No. The idea is that man makes up things then tries to say its natural because they say so. I have yet to see a dog proclaim it had inalienable rights despite being able to display sentience. Have you?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me. Why is that?

And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too. Why is that?

I can still tell you why.

Sociopathy/Psychopathy

Only the sociopath/psychopath typically cannot comprehend the ultimate essence of Mankind, though he is, nevertheless, bound by the imperatives of natural law/morality, but only as one who appreciates their cogency in the purely instinctual terms of self-interest and self-preservation. Hence, he's not insane (psychotic), technically or legally. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He just doesn't care insofar as this dichotomy pertains to the life or to the liberty or to the property of others. He cannot feel shame or empathize, and at present, there is no cure for this condition. You can propound the essence of human beings and the inherent attributes thereof until you're blue in the face: he will never grasp what you and I take for granted at a glance and/or grant these things to have any significance relative to the fact of his condition.

It is only the very rare psychopath who can grasp the essence of humanity in all of its dimensional facets . . . though only as a matter of sheer logic. He still cannot feel shame or empathize. He is such a creature congenitally, not as a rule due to being a victim of any severe neglect or abuse as a child. Though he is a criminal by nature, as one who may engage in criminal behavior without compunction should it serve his purpose, he typically does not. He doesn't have to. This kind of psychopath is highly intelligent and successful. The psychopaths who can grasp the essence of humanity is rarely violent or sexually deranged in any criminal sense by compulsion, though he is pathologically narcissistic and manipulative.

(In fact, I actually don't know of any case in which this capacity has been demonstrated by a psychopath who is compulsively violent or sexually deranged. As far as I know, Hannibal Lectors only exist in fiction.)

Keep in mind the key factor that separates him from other congenital psychopaths, who may in fact be intelligent and successful as well: he can comprehensively grasp the essence of humanity. He is of the first order of his breed. He is very rare, and the least dangerous to the rest of us; though never make any mistake about it, he can kill, oppress and rob without any moral or emotional compunctions.

The most interesting thing about the top dog of psychopaths and the substance by which we distinguish him from the others: while he can comprehensibly grasp the essence of humanity, he does not grant it to be of any significance to the fact of his condition, just a mere curiosity in terms of ethics that other human beings are hung up on. He partitions this apprehension in a remote part of his mind, particularly while he is actively engaged in the psychopathic arts of manipulation and domination. In other words, this rare bird is not merely aware of the fact that he is different from other human beings; he's aware of the fact that he's not normal, i.e., that he's missing something he should have. He's aware of the fact that his condition is pathological. But what can he do or feel about it? Nothing! However, his awareness of these things does give him a very real and practical advantage over the common sociopath and his fellow psychopaths with regard to the art of avoiding detection.

The rest of the pack do not think there's anything wrong with them.

These are among the distinctions that go to the only discernible differences between sociopathy and the levels of psychopathy we find in humans. These distinctions are very fine lines; indeed, the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, for all intents and purposes, is a very fine line. Aside from the distinction between normal human beings and these creatures, these distinctions are universally held, albeit, not without some controversy over the exact details.

In any event, the point remains: when you are talking to someone who cannot grasp the nuts and bolts of humanity's essence, you are talking to a sociopath or to a psychopath of the lower order. The only other possibilities is that you're talking to someone who is playing the devil's advocate, merely trolling or is a relativist proper, who, strictly as a matter of pride, will not concede the obvious facts of this matter after having so vociferously argued the opposite initially. The mere relativist sees his error once it is shown to him. Trust me. Most all of the latter have left this thread. The relativists/merely confused who remain are those still grappling with ideas and arguments they've simply never considered before at any level beyond the slogans of our time.

That leaves who or what?

All sociopaths/psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are sociopaths/psychopaths. There is one or perhaps two persons still on this thread who are at the very least narcissists in the clinical sense, and they appear to be sociopaths as well.

__________________________________________________________________


Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?

Dilloduck: What Kind of Creature Are You?

Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.

Indeed, essence is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing. Check? No. Of course you don't check. You can't. I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level of logic. You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.

Permission, did you say?! Wow! Permission from whom? People like you?

I think you are so busy reveling in your ability to write dissertations in each and every one of your posts that you fail to realize I merely did not see the request and have since responded. Remember what I told you earlier about being concise and not so long winded?

Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck? I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.

The games sociopaths play.

Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.

Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.

Which is it?

Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession. And I'm neither a sociopath nor a psychopath.

What am I by profession?

I see you and know you for what you are. I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you. It's not that you guys are especially stupid. You're something else.

Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?

____________________________________________________

Edit: wrote neither . . . or first time.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Thats what the law calls them I agree.

So the idea here is that mere animals apprehend rights and grant rights?

Oops. Wait a minute. That isn't true is it?

So to make your argument work, you disregard the kind of sentience imbued with natural rights?

Oops. Wait a minute. That doesn't work, does it?

Obviously, only humans have the pertinent kind of sentience.

Mere animals are the natural resources of Man or the property of Man.

No. The idea is that man makes up things then tries to say its natural because they say so. I have yet to see a dog proclaim it had inalienable rights despite being able to display sentience. Have you?

You prove the fact of natural rights in humans again.

Disconnectedness. Glib. Superficial. Not normal. Deficient in a certain area of extrapolation.

Humans are objects, like any other kind of objects--sentient or inanimate. Right, Asclepias?

Since you can't grasp the reality of humanness, since you can't actually grasp the matter even at the level of sheer logic, since the obvious is lost on you: let's talk about you.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be a sociopath?

No, of course not, you're version of this breed doesn't know or think there's anything wrong with him.

Either that or you're trolling.

Which is it?

 

[Asclepias]

I can still tell you why.

Sociopathy/Psychopathy

Only the sociopath/psychopath typically cannot comprehend the ultimate essence of Mankind, though he is, nevertheless, bound by the imperatives of natural law/morality, but only as one who appreciates their cogency in the purely instinctual terms of self-interest and self-preservation. Hence, he's not insane (psychotic), technically or legally. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He just doesn't care insofar as this dichotomy pertains to the life or to the liberty or to the property of others. He cannot feel shame or empathize, and at present, there is no cure for this condition. You can propound the essence of human beings and the inherent attributes thereof until you're blue in the face: he will never grasp what you and I take for granted at a glance and/or grant these things to have any significance relative to the fact of his condition.

It is only the very rare psychopath who can grasp the essence of humanity in all of its dimensional facets . . . though only as a matter of sheer logic. He still cannot feel shame or empathize. He is such a creature congenitally, not as a rule due to being a victim of any severe neglect or abuse as a child. Though he is a criminal by nature, as one who may engage in criminal behavior without compunction should it serve his purpose, he typically does not. He doesn't have to. This kind of psychopath is highly intelligent and successful. The psychopaths who can grasp the essence of humanity is rarely violent or sexually deranged in any criminal sense by compulsion, though he is pathologically narcissistic and manipulative.

(In fact, I actually don't know of any case in which this capacity has been demonstrated by a psychopath who is compulsively violent or sexually deranged. As far as I know, Hannibal Lectors only exist in fiction.)

Keep in mind the key factor that separates him from other congenital psychopaths, who may in fact be intelligent and successful as well: he can comprehensively grasp the essence of humanity. He is of the first order of his breed. He is very rare, and the least dangerous to the rest of us; though never make any mistake about it, he can kill, oppress and rob without any moral or emotional compunctions.

The most interesting thing about the top dog of psychopaths and the substance by which we distinguish him from the others: while he can comprehensibly grasp the essence of humanity, he does not grant it to be of any significance to the fact of his condition, just a mere curiosity in terms of ethics that other human beings are hung up on. He partitions this apprehension in a remote part of his mind, particularly while he is actively engaged in the psychopathic arts of manipulation and domination. In other words, this rare bird is not merely aware of the fact that he is different from other human beings; he's aware of the fact that he's not normal, i.e., that he's missing something he should have. He's aware of the fact that his condition is pathological. But what can he do or feel about it? Nothing! However, his awareness of these things does give him a very real and practical advantage over the common sociopath and his fellow psychopaths with regard to the art of avoiding detection.

The rest of the pack do not think there's anything wrong with them.

These are among the distinctions that go to the only discernible differences between sociopathy and the levels of psychopathy we find in humans. These distinctions are very fine lines; indeed, the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, for all intents and purposes, is a very fine line. Aside from the distinction between normal human beings and these creatures, these distinctions are universally held, albeit, not without some controversy over the exact details.

In any event, the point remains: when you are talking to someone who cannot grasp the nuts and bolts of humanity's essence, you are talking to a sociopath or to a psychopath of the lower order. The only other possibilities is that you're talking to someone who is playing the devil's advocate, merely trolling or is a relativist proper, who, strictly as a matter of pride, will not concede the obvious facts of this matter after having so vociferously argued the opposite initially. The mere relativist sees his error once it is shown to him. Trust me. Most all of the latter have left this thread. The relativists/merely confused who remain are those still grappling with ideas and arguments they've simply never considered before at any level beyond the slogans of our time.

That leaves who or what?

All sociopaths/psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are sociopaths/psychopaths. There is one or perhaps two persons still on this thread who are at the very least narcissists in the clinical sense, and they appear to be sociopaths as well.

__________________________________________________________________


Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?

Dilloduck: What Kind of Creature Are You?



Indeed, essence is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing. Check? No. Of course you don't check. You can't. I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level of logic. You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.

Permission, did you say?! Wow! Permission from whom? People like you?

I think you are so busy reveling in your ability to write dissertations in each and every one of your posts that you fail to realize I merely did not see the request and have since responded. Remember what I told you earlier about being concise and not so long winded?

Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck? I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.

The games sociopaths play.

Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.

Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.

Which is it?

Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession. And I'm neither a sociopath or a psychopath.

What am I by profession?

I see you and know you for what you are. I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you. It's not that you guys are especially stupid. You're something else.

Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?

I dimly remember seeing your question about essence but it did not apply to the debate so I probably stopped reading your post.

What makes you think Dillo is a troll or a sociopath. He seems to have more of a grasp on how to communicate with humans than you do and just because his opinon is different that doesn't make him a troll.

If it makes your ego feel better to believe that I am a troll or sociopath then have at it. That still wont explain your lack of proof inalienable rights are not merely the construct of man.

I dont care what your profession is but if I had to take a guess I would say you are a author.

No you dont see me because your nose is too high in the air to see anything but the sky. You obviously dont know me if you think i am trolling or a sociopath. I applaud you alerting others but like most humans you forgot you are prone to making mistakes. You could simply be wrong in your ideas. I bet you never considered that alternative did you? I can admit that about myself. I could possibly be wrong. Just who is the troll here?

 

[Asclepias]

So the idea here is that mere animals apprehend rights and grant rights?

Oops. Wait a minute. That isn't true is it?

So to make your argument work, you disregard the kind of sentience imbued with natural rights?

Oops. Wait a minute. That doesn't work, does it?

Obviously, only humans have the pertinent kind of sentience.

Mere animals are the natural resources of Man or the property of Man.

No. The idea is that man makes up things then tries to say its natural because they say so. I have yet to see a dog proclaim it had inalienable rights despite being able to display sentience. Have you?

You prove the fact of natural rights in humans again.

Disconnectedness. Glib. Superficial. Not normal. Deficient in a certain area of extrapolation.

Humans are objects, like any other kind of objects--sentient or inanimate. Right, Asclepias?

Since you can't grasp the reality of humanness, since you can't actually grasp the matter even at the level of sheer logic, since the obvious is lost on you: let's talk about you.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be a sociopath?

No, of course not, you're version of this breed doesn't know or think there's anything wrong with him.

Either that or you're trolling.

Which is it?

The only thing I have proved is that humans make up stuff to make themselves feel a little more secure.

What makes you think I cant grasp the reality of humanness? Its all around me and very apparent.

Yes I have considered the possibility that I was a sociopath before. However, understanding what it means I was able to disregard the notion it was possible. All humans have faults and can be wrong. I cant count how many times I have been wrong and probably will be in the future. Have you ever considered the possibility that you are delusional?

You dont get to limit me to just 2 choices. Here is a 3rd choice for you to consider.

You dont know what you are talking about.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think you are so busy reveling in your ability to write dissertations in each and every one of your posts that you fail to realize I merely did not see the request and have since responded. Remember what I told you earlier about being concise and not so long winded?

Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck? I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.

The games sociopaths play.

Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.

Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.

Which is it?

Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession. And I'm neither a sociopath or a psychopath.

What am I by profession?

I see you and know you for what you are. I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you. It's not that you guys are especially stupid. You're something else.

Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?

I dimly remember seeing your question about essence but it did not apply to the debate so I probably stopped reading your post.

What makes you think Dillo is a troll or a sociopath. He seems to have more of a grasp on how to communicate with humans than you do and just because his opinon is different that doesn't make him a troll.

If it makes your ego feel better to believe that I am a troll or sociopath then have at it. That still wont explain your lack of proof inalienable rights are not merely the construct of man.

I dont care what your profession is but if I had to take a guess I would say you are a author.

No you dont see me because your nose is too high in the air to see anything but the sky. You obviously dont know me if you think i am trolling or a sociopath. I applaud you alerting others but like most humans you forgot you are prone to making mistakes. You could simply be wrong in your ideas. I bet you never considered that alternative did you? I can admit that about myself. I could possibly be wrong. Just who is the troll here?

How could I be wrong in this instance, given the fact that the matter is axiomatic? I've proven they exist beyond all doubt in nature and in the consciousness of humanity in nature. Self-evident. You have proven their existence in your attempts to disprove them. But you can't grasp that. You deny the pertinence of the very essence of the matter itself.

The sociopath can say I admit I could possibly be wrong, but he will never say that he is wrong and mean it, essentially, because he can't ever put his finger on why he would be wrong. He can't do it with regard to the essence of things. He can only do it with regard to the superficial distinctions between things.

The ploys of sociopaths. Deflection. Insinuation. Pathological dishonesty.

So you two are not trolling?

 

[RKMBrown]

I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct. if it is not where did it come from? The authors of the english language said no means no. That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition. I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.

ROFL...

Just because man can conceptualize a natural right does not mean the concept is man made.

Just because I can plant, and harvest a fruit tree. Does not mean the concept of planting is mine. Pretty sure the "trees" were planting before man came around they don't even appear to be sentient.

Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.

Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right. But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process. Thx for your concession. And about time.

 

[dcraelin]

Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck? I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.

The games sociopaths play.

Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.

Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.

Which is it?

Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession. And I'm neither a sociopath or a psychopath.

What am I by profession?

I see you and know you for what you are. I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you. It's not that you guys are especially stupid. You're something else.

Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?

I dimly remember seeing your question about essence but it did not apply to the debate so I probably stopped reading your post.

What makes you think Dillo is a troll or a sociopath. He seems to have more of a grasp on how to communicate with humans than you do and just because his opinon is different that doesn't make him a troll.

If it makes your ego feel better to believe that I am a troll or sociopath then have at it. That still wont explain your lack of proof inalienable rights are not merely the construct of man.

I dont care what your profession is but if I had to take a guess I would say you are a author.

No you dont see me because your nose is too high in the air to see anything but the sky. You obviously dont know me if you think i am trolling or a sociopath. I applaud you alerting others but like most humans you forgot you are prone to making mistakes. You could simply be wrong in your ideas. I bet you never considered that alternative did you? I can admit that about myself. I could possibly be wrong. Just who is the troll here?

How could I be wrong in this instance, given the fact that the matter is axiomatic? I've proven they exist beyond all doubt in nature and in the consciousness of humanity in nature. Self-evident. You have proven their existence in your attempts to disprove them. But you can't grasp that. You deny the pertinence of the very essence of the matter itself.

The sociopath can say I admit I could possibly be wrong, but he will never say that he is wrong and mean it, essentially, because he can't ever put his finger on why he would be wrong. He can't do it with regard to the essence of things. He can only do it with regard to the superficial distinctions between things.

The ploys of sociopaths. Deflection. Insinuation. Pathological dishonesty.

So you two are not trolling?

never mind...didnt see it was the clean debate zone

 

[Asclepias]

Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck? I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.

The games sociopaths play.

Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.

Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.

Which is it?

Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession. And I'm neither a sociopath or a psychopath.

What am I by profession?

I see you and know you for what you are. I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you. It's not that you guys are especially stupid. You're something else.

Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?

I dimly remember seeing your question about essence but it did not apply to the debate so I probably stopped reading your post.

What makes you think Dillo is a troll or a sociopath. He seems to have more of a grasp on how to communicate with humans than you do and just because his opinon is different that doesn't make him a troll.

If it makes your ego feel better to believe that I am a troll or sociopath then have at it. That still wont explain your lack of proof inalienable rights are not merely the construct of man.

I dont care what your profession is but if I had to take a guess I would say you are a author.

No you dont see me because your nose is too high in the air to see anything but the sky. You obviously dont know me if you think i am trolling or a sociopath. I applaud you alerting others but like most humans you forgot you are prone to making mistakes. You could simply be wrong in your ideas. I bet you never considered that alternative did you? I can admit that about myself. I could possibly be wrong. Just who is the troll here?

How could I be wrong in this instance, given the fact that the matter is axiomatic? I've proven they exist beyond all doubt in nature and in the consciousness of humanity in nature. Self-evident. You have proven their existence in your attempts to disprove them. But you can't grasp that. You deny the pertinence of the very essence of the matter itself.

The sociopath can say I admit I could possibly be wrong, but he will never say that he is wrong and mean it, essentially, because he can't ever put his finger on why he would be wrong. He can't do it with regard to the essence of things. He can only do it with regard to the superficial distinctions between things.

The ploys of sociopaths. Deflection. Insinuation. Pathological dishonesty.

So you two are not trolling?

So you admit you haven't considered you are wrong or you don't know what axiomatic means? Figures. You haven't proven anything other than man made up rights. I dont care how many essences humans have. In case you missed it self-evident is an opinion not a fact. Its self evident to me I am not a troll. To you it is not. See how that works?

I think you missed in my post where I said I have been wrong before and will probably be wrong again. I will explain to you how I put a finger on it. I realized I did not have the knowledge of the subject my mentor was explaining to me. So far you have exhibited the traits of being a sociopath way more than I have.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No. The idea is that man makes up things then tries to say its natural because they say so. I have yet to see a dog proclaim it had inalienable rights despite being able to display sentience. Have you?

You prove the fact of natural rights in humans again.

Disconnectedness. Glib. Superficial. Not normal. Deficient in a certain area of extrapolation.

Humans are objects, like any other kind of objects--sentient or inanimate. Right, Asclepias?

Since you can't grasp the reality of humanness, since you can't actually grasp the matter even at the level of sheer logic, since the obvious is lost on you: let's talk about you.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be a sociopath?

No, of course not, you're version of this breed doesn't know or think there's anything wrong with him.

Either that or you're trolling.

Which is it?

The only thing I have proved is that humans make up stuff to make themselves feel a little more secure.

You proved this about the existence of natural rights in human (sentient) beings?

No you didn't. You proved the very opposite, but you can't grasp that fact.

Everyone knows that fear and intellectual bigotry are failings to which human beings are universally subject. There's nothing profound about that observation. That's an example of a superficial distinction between what may be held to exist as a matter of fear/ignorance and what does actually exist as a matter of fact.

But what you're actually insinuating is that other human beings hold something to be true in this instance that only You rightly understand to be . . . what exactly?

What makes you think I cant grasp the reality of humanness? Its all around me and very apparent.

A glib, superficial acknowledgment regarding the existence of an object, a category of thing, but you still don't exhibit an understanding of what I actually pointed out to you, namely, the essence of humanness, not humanity's existence, which is all you're talking about here.

Yes I have considered the possibility that I was a sociopath before. However, understanding what it means I was able to disregard the notion it was possible. All humans have faults and can be wrong. I cant count how many times I have been wrong and probably will be in the future. Have you ever considered the possibility that you are delusional?

Wrong? About what kind of things: the superficial distinctions between things as objects or the distinctions between things in terms of essence?

Am I delusional? About what?

You dont get to limit me to just 2 choices. Here is a 3rd choice for you to consider.

You dont know what you are talking about.

You proved the existence of natural rights, but you either do not grasp that fact or will not admit that fact. There's only two possibilities.

Either you don't know or think there's anything wrong with you or you're trolling.

Which is it?

 

[Asclepias]

ROFL...

Just because man can conceptualize a natural right does not mean the concept is man made.

Just because I can plant, and harvest a fruit tree. Does not mean the concept of planting is mine. Pretty sure the "trees" were planting before man came around they don't even appear to be sentient.

Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.

Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right. But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process. Thx for your concession. And about time.

I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing. I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

axiomatic? what the , why even use a word like that ...if you cant say it simpler than you've done then your probably just using a lot of big words to mask a fraudulent argument.

There is nothing simpler in human consciousness than that which is axiomatic. You don't know what an axiom is, do you? It is something that cannot be negated as any argument thrown against it actually proves it.

 

[dilloduck]

If you don't like the message shoot the messenger ? Calling people sociopaths certainly falls outside the rules of the Clean Debate Zone.

 

[dcraelin]

axiomatic? what the , why even use a word like that ...if you cant say it simpler than you've done then your probably just using a lot of big words to mask a fraudulent argument.

There is nothing simpler in human consciousness than that which is axiomatic. You don't know what an axiomatic thing is, do you? It is something that cannot be negated as any argument thrown against it actually proves it.

well I read it was something greek mathematicians used as a beginning point in a proof. a point agreed to not need a proof. Agreed to is perhaps the key.

some said .... self-evident

but imagine if Jefferson had written....WE hold these truths to be axiomatic....... good thing he didnt.

 

[Asclepias]

If you don't like the message shoot the messenger ? Calling people sociopaths certainly falls outside the rules of the Clean Debate Zone.

Its pretty much all he has left. He cant possibly be wrong so anyone that disagrees is a sociopath. I mean they must be because his argument is axiomatic. I think i have heard it all now.

 

[RKMBrown]

MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.

I dont get the feeling MD, Brown, and Foxfyre agree with that statement. What does that mean to you?

I can't agree or disagree with dblacks first statements here, they lack scope and absolute clarity. I suspect he meant the scope of his statements to be more generalizations than certain facts.

However, I completely disagree with the statement that "the core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree."

IMO the point was more to the opposite. That the federal government has no authority over said natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To say it's to establish rationale for said human rights is to give credence to the thought that they can be taken away when the natural rights fail some test of rationality. Remember that the modern liberal idea of rationality is upside down. For example, you currently have the right to life and liberty unless the president says you don't. The liberal rationale here was to forgo our natural rights to gain some measure of security.

 

[Asclepias]

axiomatic? what the , why even use a word like that ...if you cant say it simpler than you've done then your probably just using a lot of big words to mask a fraudulent argument.

There is nothing simpler in human consciousness than that which is axiomatic. You don't know what an axiomatic thing is, do you? It is something that cannot be negated as any argument thrown against it actually proves it.

well I read it was something greek mathematicians used as a beginning point in a proof. a point agreed to not need a proof. Agreed to is perhaps the key.

some said .... self-evident

but imagine if Jefferson had written....WE hold these truths to be axiomatic....... good thing he didnt.

Are you kidding!? You mean that people actually take for granted something is true and formulate entire concepts from that assumption? This is an outrage!

 

[dcraelin]

there is nothing simpler in human consciousness than that which is axiomatic. You don't know what an axiomatic thing is, do you? It is something that cannot be negated as any argument thrown against it actually proves it.

well i read it was something greek mathematicians used as a beginning point in a proof. A point agreed to not need a proof. Agreed to is perhaps the key.

Some said .... Self-evident

but imagine if jefferson had written....we hold these truths to be axiomatic....... Good thing he didnt.

are you kidding!? You mean that people actually take for granted something is true and formulate entire concepts from that assumption? This is an outrage!

lol...

 

[RKMBrown]

Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.

Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right. But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process. Thx for your concession. And about time.

I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing. I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.

And again, you choose to LIE and make up shit about natural rights, which can't be granted because they are innate, as being granted rights or abilities. I wish you'd pick your deflection, either all natural rights are complete bull shit because you say they can't exist without first being un-natural human granted rights, or there is no such thing as a right unless it's a granted right and all rights are actually abilities some of which are granted and some not granted.

Which terms are you trying to redefine? ungranted as meaning granted? Or that there are no actual rights and only abilites some of which have been granted and others not? Granted abilities and natural abilities? Is that your problem you can't deal with the difference between natural rights (ungranted) and natural abilities (ungranted)?

A plant's natural right to life includes the process of seeding and growing new plants to naturally replenish more plants of the same species.

The plant's ability to seed is a part of the process.