Natural law theory can state anything it wants.
Not any more nor any less than the theory oif evolution can say whatever it wants.
Unalienable natural rights are a man made construct,
Is it a man made construct that you need to eat in order to live, that yo need to breathe in order to survive? When did man make up those constructs?
I say self awareness, consciousness, the ability to form abstract concepts like Unalienable natural rights.
That is part of it, freedom of conscience... the right to believe what you wish to believe. Thus, if a law was passed which required you to believe in natural rights, that wouyld violate your uaalienable right to believe what you will.
The only thing we have to do as a living being is take a breath and die.
And eat and sleep and etc etc etc... all of which are unalienable natural rights.
The brain is not fully formed when men are born. The life of man is dependent upon outside support to live beyond birth. Man is born totally dependent on other human beings
Irrelevant, even if true.
Your 'greenhouse emissions' thing is as
as is your 'the sky is lime green in color' analogies/nonsense/arguments/examples
Merely because they were extreme examples which you can not offer a counter to
A bear does NOT have a Right, natural or unnatural, to shit in the woods.
If you passed a law which made it unlawful the bear would still shit in the woods. If a law was passed that said you could not shit, you wold not and could not obey it. You have anatural right to shit. You have a natural right to breathe,... you are stuck on the conventional and/or erroneous understanding or definition of "rights".. obviously you have not read Hobbes or Locke...
A Bear shits wherever it is because of a bodily function, not because it is exercising a right.
It shits because it has to... and because it has to a law which forbids it violates an unalienable right to shit... Listen carefully... under natural law theory, unalienable rights include both biological functions and instinctual imperatives which we have no voluntary control over. Dont argue with me that that is not true, because it is a POSTULATE to natural law theory... once you understand that it can all fall into place. If you refuse to accept that then it will never make sense.
I do hope your students were much smarter than you gave them credit for.
2nd & 3rd year year law students at a major University taking a course entitled "Philosophy of the Law" are not dumb.
Did Hitler and the Nazis make it unlawful to be Jewish? No, they did not.
Yes they did.... and the penalty was death. The distinction here is with religious inquistions which allowed you to convert to save yourself.
Freedom of conscience? I like reading novels too
But reading novels is not an unalienable right, it is an auxillary right which preserves protects and enhances the underlying unalienable right of freedom of conscience.
Your rantings about what the Bill of Rights is about are frighteningly ignorant and imbecilic. And I am being kind here.
Obviously, I over estimated your intelligence and thought you might like an intellectual diversion into the basis of natural law theory.. I will refrain in the future.
