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

[ConzHateUSA]

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.

Your constant puking up of rightwing talking points is pathetic

You are completely brainless, dude, really.

Get help, and soon!

 

[G.T.]

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.

I'm not looking to transform because I believe certain rights should be inalienable. You're doing more of the "arguing with what I'm not saying" thing.

I'm not attempting to do anything but have a logical discussion.

You're scared to back things up with logic and reason, because of what you call the consequence. All you do is hurl insults and are devoid of any type of reason. Good job, hope it enhances your day.

 

[Pho_King]

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.

Your constant puking up of rightwing talking points is pathetic

You are completely brainless, dude, really.

Get help, and soon!

Another OWS parasite joins the fray....

Hey, I'm glad you are expending your energy here. It's not as good as seeking gainful employment, but it beats the hell out of shitting on cop cars.

 

[Murf76]

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.

The source is Nature. And as I pointed out earlier, believers in God also believe God created Nature. So these concepts are intertwined for them. Note as well that in our Founders day, the use of such verbiage was commonplace and conventional. Atheism, while not unheard of, was not socially embraced. And yet, the freedom to practice it, along with every other belief system, was protected from the "establishment" of a national religion.

Unless you're willing to deny Nature exists, the source of Nature is immaterial.

 

[Goodoledays]

And yet Ryan is a huge fan of Ayn Rand ... lifelong atheist.

Just goes to show Ryan respects the right of another to the way they believe. If that were stronger now we wouldn't even need posts like this.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

LOL

You made the argument that since 'sentience' was the source, then man could change it with more 'sentience.'

You weren't arguing that our rights as constituted are unalienable, even though you disagree with it.

Fail.

 

[G.T.]

Self-evident means it's observable.

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

The source is Nature. And as I pointed out earlier, believers in God also believe God created Nature. So these concepts are intertwined for them. Note as well that in our Founders day, the use of such verbiage was commonplace and conventional. Atheism, while not unheard of, was not socially embraced. And yet, the freedom to practice it, along with every other belief system, was protected from the "establishment" of a national religion.

Unless you're willing to deny Nature exists, the source of Nature is immaterial.

If you want to classify man's ability to reason, as "Nature," then we don't even have a disagreement.

I'm simply arguing that rights didn't exist until men observed with their brains the best possible ways to co-exist - and to me that's ALL that rights really are, in practice.

Sacrifices to Gods and such used to be acceptable.

Through reason, we realize that this isn't a practical or ideal way to co-exist. We advance another notch.

 

[G.T.]

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.

LOL

You made the argument that since 'sentience' was the source, then man could change it with more 'sentience.'

You weren't arguing that our rights as constituted are unalienable, even though you disagree with it.

Fail.

Um, no you dont get to say what you nthink I said and try to pass off some bologna argument that didn't even exist.

Nice try though.

I mean ****, you said "sentence" instead of "sentience" how many times?

Let's hope you were arguing thinking I said "Sentience" and not "sentence" the whole time, huh? Else, man - you're thicker than I thought, and even that's pretty damn amazing.

 

[Pho_King]

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.

I'm not looking to transform because I believe certain rights should be inalienable.

I'm not attempting to do anything but have a logical discussion.

You're scared to back things up with logic and reason, because of what you call the consequence. All you do is hurl insults and are devoid of any type of reason. Good job, hope it enhances your day.

Back what up with logic and reason? That our inalienable rights descend from god? That is an unprovable article of faith. And a good one at that. One that strengthens society. One that you seek to undercut. I do not care if god exists at all. That is unimportant.

By undercutting those inalienable rights, you are transforming them. From something that was given by god, to something created by man. Which makes them disposable, in a philosophic sense. Of course, in a real sense, those rights can be taken regardless where they come from. But that is not the issue. You believe those rights are manmade. Which means they can simply be taken without offense. You just need to convince other men like you to get rid of them. But you will not be able to convince men that believe those rights come from god to go along with such a plan. Now go find a cop car to defecate on.

 

[konradv]

It's demonstratively provable by simple observation. American slavery. Was it innately wrong or not?

That's not the question. Is it innately wrong because God said so or because laws were passed that said so.

You should look up the word 'innate. '

That has nothing to do with the discussion. Just because we consider slavery to be innately wrong, doesn't mean it has always been so. The Old Testament, for example, takes it as a given.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I'm not looking to transform because I believe certain rights should be inalienable.

I'm not attempting to do anything but have a logical discussion.

You're scared to back things up with logic and reason, because of what you call the consequence. All you do is hurl insults and are devoid of any type of reason. Good job, hope it enhances your day.

Back what up with logic and reason? That our inalienable rights descend from god? That is an unprovable article of faith. And a good one at that. One that strengthens society. One that you seek to undercut. I do not care if god exists at all. That is unimportant.

By undercutting those inalienable rights, you are transforming them. From something that was given by god, to something created by man. Which makes them disposable, in a philosophic sense. Of course, in a real sense, those rights can be taken regardless where they come from. But that is not the issue. You believe those rights are manmade. Which means they can simply be taken without offense. You just need to convince other men like you to get rid of them. But you will not be able to convince men that believe those rights come from god to go along with such a plan. Now go find a cop car to defecate on.

The big part is why reason escapes you.

Like I said, truth doesn't, and shouldn't "hide" because of your sensibilities.

You "accept" rights come from God without even accepting "God," and that's a pretty flat out lack of reasoning if I've ever seen one.

Have a nice night.

 

[konradv]

So these rights are something you have decided to believe in.

Fortunately for you, no. What matters is that our system is based on them being unalienable because they are issued from God.

You don't have to believe, but go out and violate your neighbors right to life with hammer and see what happens.

Of course something happens, but is that "something" due to God or because of government or "righteous" human anger?

 

[there4eyeM]

So these rights are something you have decided to believe in.

Just because you can't SEE gravity, doesn't mean there isn't any. Jump off a cliff and you'll find out fast that it's there.

Already addressed this.

Jump off a cliff and you will not discover rights.

 

[Pho_King]

I'm not looking to transform because I believe certain rights should be inalienable.

I'm not attempting to do anything but have a logical discussion.

You're scared to back things up with logic and reason, because of what you call the consequence. All you do is hurl insults and are devoid of any type of reason. Good job, hope it enhances your day.

Back what up with logic and reason? That our inalienable rights descend from god? That is an unprovable article of faith. And a good one at that. One that strengthens society. One that you seek to undercut. I do not care if god exists at all. That is unimportant.

By undercutting those inalienable rights, you are transforming them. From something that was given by god, to something created by man. Which makes them disposable, in a philosophic sense. Of course, in a real sense, those rights can be taken regardless where they come from. But that is not the issue. You believe those rights are manmade. Which means they can simply be taken without offense. You just need to convince other men like you to get rid of them. But you will not be able to convince men that believe those rights come from god to go along with such a plan. Now go find a cop car to defecate on.

The big part is why reason escapes you.

Like I said, truth doesn't, and shouldn't "hide" because of your sensibilities.

You "accept" rights come from God without even accepting "God," and that's a pretty flat out lack of reasoning if I've ever seen one.

Have a nice night.

I accept that it is best for society to believe that certain rights are not man made, but come from a higher power. Call it god if you like. I really don't care. But it beats the shit out of believing your rights come from whoever is in charge.

The fact that you cannot see the reason in such an argument, because you are so focused on undercutting our inalienable rights by making them manmade and completely alien able, bothers me not.

 

[paulitician]

Oh Gawd, now the 'Evil Religious Guy' attack. What's next, the old 'Evil Rich Racist Guy' attack? Oh wait? Seriously Dem-Bots, get some new material.

 

[Murf76]

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

The source is Nature. And as I pointed out earlier, believers in God also believe God created Nature. So these concepts are intertwined for them. Note as well that in our Founders day, the use of such verbiage was commonplace and conventional. Atheism, while not unheard of, was not socially embraced. And yet, the freedom to practice it, along with every other belief system, was protected from the "establishment" of a national religion.

Unless you're willing to deny Nature exists, the source of Nature is immaterial.

If you want to classify man's ability to reason, as "Nature," then we don't even have a disagreement.

I'm simply arguing that rights didn't exist until men observed with their brains the best possible ways to co-exist - and to me that's ALL that rights really are, in practice.

Sacrifices to Gods and such used to be acceptable.

Through reason, we realize that this isn't a practical or ideal way to co-exist. We advance another notch.

We shouldn't be having a disagreement. As I've said repeatedly, the belief in God is not necessary to an understanding of unalienable rights, no matter what verbiage was used for the sake of posterity by our Founders. They wrote in the style of the day, but when given ample opportunity to inflict their own religious beliefs upon the nation, they stayed their hands.

Human sacrifices to the gods were once socially acceptable to certain peoples throughout history. But they were still WRONG, even as they happened. Because they abrogated the innate right of a human being to exist, unmolested by other people. As I said earlier, slavery wasn't wrong, if what it required to observe that it's wrong was to try it out first and see if it worked out or not. We can see through the rearview mirror that it was certainly wrong, but it was just as wrong when it was happening as it is through the lens of history.

 

[konradv]

There's a difference between these two. The right to life, free speech, to be free to choose your own path, to believe whatever you decide to believe, every human being should have these rights and others. These rights may be denied by a gov't, but in so doing defines itself as illegitimate. Because a govt's basic function should be to protect these rights for the people it governs.

Civil rights are those that a society determines to exist for it's citizens: voting, property, etc. These may be different from one culture to another, and I think the line gets a little blurred between the two sometimes. But I'd say that civil rights can change over time, but human rights should be constant.

BTW, neither come from gov't; human rights are yours by birth. Some say at the moment of conception. Civil rights should be decided by society, through referendums mainly.

I think you're making a distinction where none really exists. Regardless of which rights you're talking about, with no government in the picture you'd have to enforce them yourself, because God isn't going to do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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)

Except I never once said anything about a creator, did I?

If rights come from a piece of paper, or a social contract, they can be taken away by the same means. That means that, unless they are natural, coming to us because we exist, they are not real, they are artificial, and you really have no rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you believe that there are inalienable rights that come from God and Nature you will object and perhaps fight to keep the government from taking those rights away when the government should protect those rights.

If you believe that there are no inalienable rights and everything comes from the government you won't care that the government takes your rights away. They were never really yours to begin with.

Go vote on that basis. That's what it comes down to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is exactly how they are decided in this country. They always have been, and always will be. That is what makes them civil rights.