Do our rights come from nature and God as Paul Ryan says?

[Pho_King]

I'm not questioning or debating what America, how America was founded. That's historical fact.

I'm questioning the philosophy itself. My god you're a dense ******* dweeb.

Why question it? What does questioning the foundation of our country get you, aside from an ability to undercut that philosophy in favor of an "inalienable rights are a fiction of man and are really only given by the big government that I love" philosophy?

I'm not undercutting the rights themselves, as I believe that sentient men were wise enough to declare them inalienable.

I'm questioning the source:

Reason, man's brain

vs.

Nature.



It's a good discussion when the opposite point of view discusses with honesty, instead of hurling insults at everyone and arguing with points that WERENT EVEN THERE, i.e. the thread mostly up to this point.

Of course you are undercutting the rights, by stating that rather than descending from god, they are made up by man.

 

[G.T.]

Why question it? What does questioning the foundation of our country get you, aside from an ability to undercut that philosophy in favor of an "inalienable rights are a fiction of man and are really only given by the big government that I love" philosophy?

I'm not undercutting the rights themselves, as I believe that sentient men were wise enough to declare them inalienable.

I'm questioning the source:

Reason, man's brain

vs.

Nature.



It's a good discussion when the opposite point of view discusses with honesty, instead of hurling insults at everyone and arguing with points that WERENT EVEN THERE, i.e. the thread mostly up to this point.

Of course you are undercutting the rights, by stating that rather than descending from god, they are made up by man.

Truth doesn't hide because of consequence.

 

[Murf76]

You could not be more wrong. The ENTIRE idea behind the founding of America, which is codified in the Constitution, is that no government nor any person can grant or take certain rights without due process. You and everyone is born with these rights. It matters not if you believe in God, you get the rights no matter what.

That is what differentiated the USA from previous societies in which some rights could be granted by government and others taken without due process (it's good the be the King!). America was the first to say your rights are yours at birth. Nobody need grant them. And, if a right is to be taken away, it must be through due process (warrants, trial by peers, etc).

Read up on history. You're missing the idea behind the American experiment...the very heart of it.

You entire argument is dashed apart by history.

Native Americans and Africans were not protected by any "godly" rights. Neither were women or people without land.

That is true. And life is a domino effect. We learn from our progress and mistakes of the past and we take the proper road to go down. Many of those changes came from people who saw what the effect was and we made them better. It didn't happen over night but those changes were made. And of those people were either for or against God and made their decisions on what way to go. It was their right to believe or not to believe and that right is going to stay with us no matter what. And downing someone for their beliefs is not going to change that.

Your presumption is that a given action can't be innately wrong until after it has happened and is then judged as wrong. Is it innately wrong for a King to send his men into a village to rape and slaughter in retribution for some sort of perceived offense? Certainly, within his purview the law would be on his side. By your math, it would only be wrong after the fact... not while all the raping and slaughtering is going on.

 

[Pho_King]

I think our rights come from our sentience, we became smart enough to realize the most practical or i.e. self evident if you wish - rights, that come with the freest possible society (to date, in theory).

God doesn't need to be a factor, as the only ones declaring where said rights came from, are men themselves - therefore, the source can be forever scrutinized.

You just said in your last post that you are only just debating the 'philosophy' of where our rights come from, instead of your first declaration here in this thread which belies that claim.

dance monkey dance

You have gotten your head handed to you.

No, it doesn't bely it you jackass. My god you're dumb.

Didn't you just, in your previous post, state that this was a good discussion when the opposite view approaches it with honesty, instead of hurling insults? Fuckin moron.

 

[G.T.]

You just said in your last post that you are only just debating the 'philosophy' of where our rights come from, instead of your first declaration here in this thread which belies that claim.

dance monkey dance

You have gotten your head handed to you.

No, it doesn't bely it you jackass. My god you're dumb.

Didn't you just, in your previous post, state that this was a good discussion when the opposite view approaches it with honesty, instead of hurling insults? Fuckin moron.

I responded in kind, to an ass-hole.

 

[Pho_King]

I'm not undercutting the rights themselves, as I believe that sentient men were wise enough to declare them inalienable.

I'm questioning the source:

Reason, man's brain

vs.

Nature.



It's a good discussion when the opposite point of view discusses with honesty, instead of hurling insults at everyone and arguing with points that WERENT EVEN THERE, i.e. the thread mostly up to this point.

Of course you are undercutting the rights, by stating that rather than descending from god, they are made up by man.

Truth doesn't hide because of consequence.

So you agree, then, that you indeed are undercutting those rights.

 

[dblack]

Possibly the dumbest argument in politics, in so far as the clarity and understanding applied by both "sides".

 

[Murf76]

Not dumb at all, this was an immature assholish answer, though.

If rights are "self evident," that is a subjective statement thus open for discussion.

If they are self evident they are not subjective. Either we have rights because we are humans, or we only have rights if others give them to us. Do you really want to rely on the good will of others to be able to walk down the street?

The term "self evident" in and of itself is subjective.

"Self," who?

"Evident," based on what?

That's why it's subjective.

Self-evident means it's observable.

 

[SniperFire]

No, it doesn't bely it you jackass. My god you're dumb.

Sure it does, asshole.

You said our rights in America come from 'sentence.' I proved it by quoting you again.

But as you have painfully learned, our rights as constituted in America are God given and innate.

And you were forced to acknowledge that the 'sentence' was just our acknowledgement of said unalienable rights.

LOL

Sentience.

I didn't say that our sentience "Was just our acknowledgement," of the rights, I declared our sentience the SOURCE. Learn how to read.

My opinion of the SOURCE, outlines my disagreement with the wording of the founding documents.

Are you this stupid in real life?

And as you have been shown over and over again, our sentience is not considered the source of rights in America, because they are ABOVE the whims of man.


We have a simple multiple choice for you to test your capacity to learn:

Is the 'source' or our unalienable rights in America considered to be:

A) from 'sentience' of man

B) from God


Don't blow it.

 

[Pho_King]

No, it doesn't bely it you jackass. My god you're dumb.

Didn't you just, in your previous post, state that this was a good discussion when the opposite view approaches it with honesty, instead of hurling insults? Fuckin moron.

I responded in kind, to an ass-hole.

So why engage in undercutting our god given rights with your belief that they are actually created by men, if your main point is to flame? Have you no principles? Wait a minute. You are an OWS parasite. Question answered.

 

[G.T.]

Sure it does, asshole.

You said our rights in America come from 'sentence.' I proved it by quoting you again.

But as you have painfully learned, our rights as constituted in America are God given and innate.

And you were forced to acknowledge that the 'sentence' was just our acknowledgement of said unalienable rights.

LOL

Sentience.

I didn't say that our sentience "Was just our acknowledgement," of the rights, I declared our sentience the SOURCE. Learn how to read.

My opinion of the SOURCE, outlines my disagreement with the wording of the founding documents.

Are you this stupid in real life?

And as you have been shown over and over again, our sentience is not considered the source of rights in America, because then are ABOVE the whims of man.


We have a simple multiple choice for you to test your capacity to learn:

Is the 'source' or our unalienable rights in America considered to be:

A) from 'sentience' of man

B) from God


Don't blow it.

I'm disagreeing with what our documents consider the source to be you dumb ****, jesus christ.

 

[G.T.]

Didn't you just, in your previous post, state that this was a good discussion when the opposite view approaches it with honesty, instead of hurling insults? Fuckin moron.

I responded in kind, to an ass-hole.

So why engage in undercutting our god given rights with your belief that they are actually created by men, if your main point is to flame? Have you no principles? Wait a minute. You are an OWS parasite. Question answered.

My main point was to have a discussion.

It was met with flame and misunderstanding based on knee-jerk responses and insults.

I flamed back.

Tissue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sad as it seems our right come from the law of the land we are in at the time. When in Spain, do as the Spanish do. Simple as that. Some of our rights are taken from GOD's laws. We are not yet living in the Kingdom of GOD so his rights do not yet apply. Man is governing himself at the time.

How is it that you guys don't get this? Unalienable rights exist even when they're not recognized and even when they're violated. It's what made slavery WRONG, what made it a predictable cause of faction and tumult, and why we had war instead of peace in those days.

Ask yourself... just because history is full of examples of people being enslaved, are there some people who simply deserved it? Or... were human beings meant to be free? Call it God, call it nature, the issue isn't so much about how we came to be human but rather an observance that we ARE.

What don't you get, about the question of the source of the rights themselves as being debatable, as men are fallable, and Religion is not proven? It's an abstract concept to begin with and has no defined "source," except a definition provided by some men in our founding documents. Is it that profound of a thought that it flies this far way the **** over your head?

Do you know the difference between religion and philosophy?

It does not matter if people are fallible, they still have rights. It does not matter if governments go out of their way to take away people's rights, they still exist. It doesn't even matter if you believe in God, you still have rights.

 

[G.T.]

If they are self evident they are not subjective. Either we have rights because we are humans, or we only have rights if others give them to us. Do you really want to rely on the good will of others to be able to walk down the street?

The term "self evident" in and of itself is subjective.

"Self," who?

"Evident," based on what?

That's why it's subjective.

Self-evident means it's observable.

That it's observable is not indicative of a source.

 

[Goodoledays]

Paul Ryan keeps saying our rights come from nature and God not the government.

Nope, they don't...

Got any proof?

 

[G.T.]

How is it that you guys don't get this? Unalienable rights exist even when they're not recognized and even when they're violated. It's what made slavery WRONG, what made it a predictable cause of faction and tumult, and why we had war instead of peace in those days.

Ask yourself... just because history is full of examples of people being enslaved, are there some people who simply deserved it? Or... were human beings meant to be free? Call it God, call it nature, the issue isn't so much about how we came to be human but rather an observance that we ARE.

What don't you get, about the question of the source of the rights themselves as being debatable, as men are fallable, and Religion is not proven? It's an abstract concept to begin with and has no defined "source," except a definition provided by some men in our founding documents. Is it that profound of a thought that it flies this far way the **** over your head?

Do you know the difference between religion and philosophy?

It does not matter if people are fallible, they still have rights. It does not matter if governments go out of their way to take away people's rights, they still exist. It doesn't even matter if you believe in God, you still have rights.

According to the philosophy of our founding, is the bolded, and that is what I'm disagreeing with.(the source they proclaimed - endowed by their creator)

 

[Pho_King]

I responded in kind, to an ass-hole.

So why engage in undercutting our god given rights with your belief that they are actually created by men, if your main point is to flame? Have you no principles? Wait a minute. You are an OWS parasite. Question answered.

My main point was to have a discussion.

It was met with flame and misunderstanding based on knee-jerk responses and insults.

I flamed back.

Tissue?

You need a tissue? Quit whining and keep up with your attempts to undercut our inalienable rights. It fits with your OWS parasite desire to fundamentally transform America.

 

[Ravi]

Civil rights should be decided by society, through referendums mainly.

Not in this country. No offense, but that is almost as stupid a statement as the guy made that claimed we are a theocracy.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Paul Ryan keeps saying our rights come from nature and God not the government. Actually, they come from "we the people" and we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth. Nature dictates some of our limitiations only. But we have been able to overcome a lot of those. God? If you believe in him, I thought he gave us free will to decide things for ourselves?

He says that because conservatives for some inexplicable reason like to say it, and like to hear it.

The question they won't answer is which rights came from God.

Paul Ryan is a very ignorant, immature and spoiled/born to privilege little man.

 

[Erand7899]

"'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So there would be no problem for a state to apply any form of social/political system it liked.

Not quite. The U.S. Constitution also guarantees a Republican form of government in the states, and each has its own constitution to govern its actions.