- I can think.
- You cannot stop me from thinking.
- Therefore I have the right to think.
The ability to do something does not equal the right to do something. Ability and right are not synonyms. That's not how logic works. "I can murder my mom. You cannot stop me from murdering my mom. Therefore I have the right to murder my mom" is just one glaring example of why this doesn't work.
Same thing.
Ability = right is all you're positing. that's a leap of logic. Unless of course the WORD right has a new definition as created by q.w.b. -->
Right = anything you have the ability to do.
Sorry, that's not what right means.
You asked for a logical proof of my position. I delivered one. If you think my premises are wrong, feel free to provide something other than your assertion that they are wrong to back up your claim.
Wait, that would actually require you to debate the issues, which is work, whereas you prefer to declare yourself the winner by acclamation, which isn't.
Except that it is. In fact logic is defined by the ability to reach a conclusion that is supported by two, or more, premises that may, or may not, be true.
But, please, keep pretending you understand logic.
What, exactly, is logical backing? I only ask because, outside of your head, I never heard of it.
How does it not?
The neat thing about logical premises is that the rules of logic require you to assume they are true. Funny how a guy that claims that I don't have a logical backing, whatever that is, for my conclusions doesn't understand that simple rule.
By the way, the above is one reason why I prefer to make arguments based on things other than logic.
And if that's so - then you're literally positing that we have the right to do anything we are able to do. Which is silly.
No, that is what you are posting. I never once said anything even remotely like that.
I will, however, admit that your conclusion is completely logical, which is another reason I rarely use logic in arguments.
Funny how the guy that insisted on seeing logic suddenly discovers that he doesn't actually like logic, isn't it?
And I'll correct you on how GT's logic works, let the man show you how it's done:
GT says that:
Natural rights are not proven
He is seeking logical proof
none has been provided
I gave you logical proof, and your brain failed to process it because it doesn't understand the terms you are using.
Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are
(I started to post this the other day, but realized that the rationale might not be readily accessible to those who do not have my background in the history of law. The post directly underneath this one drives the facts home:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-57.html#post8888602 . I've been busy with other things and haven't had the time to complete the standard apology for natural law.)
Please carefully consider the following. I know what I'm talking about.
Quantum, I really wish you hadn't made the
Ability = Rights argument. While inalienable natural rights would necessarily be things that are at the very least embedded in nature, not afforded by government:
abilities, even those as seemingly fundamental as the ability to think and speak, are not synonymous to rights.
G.T. is right. No matter how you configure your syllogism or express its respective constituents, you're not going to make that work. The expressions of any given innate ability must be related to/weighted against their effects on others.
Notwithstanding, innate abilities and free will
are the pertinent constituents residing within the sphere of the dichotomies (light and transient transgressions-existential transgressions
and initial force-defensive force) that govern the apprehension of what inalienable natural rights are, as opposed to what they are not. Though one need not appeal to God to demonstrate what these rights are, one cannot do so outside the context of the consequences of moral decision in terms of action and reaction.
1. Under the rule of law in the state of civil government,
how does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?
2. In the state of nature,
how does one distinguish the difference between innate rights and innate freedoms?
3. In either the state of nature or the state of civil government,
how does one distinguish the difference between the light and transient transgressions of rights and the existential transgressions of the same?
4. How does one discern where one's rights end and where another's rights begin?
5. What is the inherently contradictory and self-negating, metaphysical presupposition underlying the claim that
all rights are mere social constructs or the political rights afforded by government?
The answers to these questions readily divulge the identity of the inalienable natural rights of man and utterly destroy
Rabbi's and
G.T. et. al.'s claptrap, but their wont is to go on forever arguing against straw men rather than answer these questions and grapple with the self-evident imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision.
The only ones here going on and on about stuff that is purely abstract are the relativists. The abstractions of social constructs. Esoteric blather about what rights aren't sans any discernible indication as to what they are. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. The abstractions of political science in terms of the respective institutional powers and formulations of civil government, which, by the way, the exigencies of nature and the aspirations of sentience inarguably precede in order and command. It's not the other way around.
In the meantime, natural law deals with the concrete realities and material outcomes of everyday life.
By the way,
dblack, that's why it's called natural law; natural rights are not mere abstractions, and are not anything less than absolute.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Hint: natural, innate, things that would necessarily be foundationally concrete; of the first order rationally, and readily apparent empirically.
tell us more about how god is just a concept and not an entity bro
