If rights, whither from?

[Intense]

You are wrong. just admit it. You assert that I have no rights, but the Law disagrees.

I would never assert that you have no rights.

Yet, you did.

The dead have no rights, sport.

Neither do convicted felons.

So, clearly, when you insist you would never do something you just did, you are lying. That, by definition, makes you a liar. How, then, you you expect to be taken seriously or respected from this point on, since you are known liar?

You are dismissed, liar.

From your perspective, you see it that way. From my perspective, I am referring to specific circumstance. The easiest example that comes to mind is employment applications. There is little or nothing you or I can do when an application is passed over because you or I don't fit the profile an employer is looking for. Look at it as a code for "Have a nice day" like when a cop gives you a ticket. We both have FBI files for different reasons JB. Yours may indeed been because of a corrupt court and poor council. It happened to my step son. My reason was intentional and political. That translates to doors being closed. True, other doors open, and we continue on in an alternate course. What equality is there for a two strike felon in a 3 strikes state? A minor infraction regardless of circumstance can put you away for life. You could be walking down the street minding your own business, get jumped, defend yourself, and end up prejudged and convicted, without even given the benefit of the doubt. Sound familiar???

Again from your perspective you caught me in a lie because you saw exception to my claim. That was not my intent. True, All of us have rights. There will always be that beyond our control, where rights get trampled, some more vulnerable than others.

 

[JBeukema]

you claim that richard ramirez didn't have a natural right to rape

Or to do anything else. You've not demonstrated that anyone has any natural rights at all.

actions for creatures capable of self-determination of those actions, constitute a seizure of advantage of a natural right.

Demonstrate this 'natural right' that is being seized. Actions by a creature demonstrate an ability to act in such a matter and, in creatures capable of being aware of their decision-making, possibly a decision to act in such a matter, although we might not consciously make those decisions, since they seem to be made before we are aware of it.

If you really intend to rob 'natural rights' of all its meaning and reduce it to a mere synonym for awareness of decision-making, go ahead. But in so doing you rob your own words and the entire concept you seek to coopt of any meaning whatsoever.

If 'natural rights' is no longer claimed to be anything more than self-awareness, then sure, self-awareness exists. But that's like redefining 'God' 'that tingly feeling you get when your foot falls asleep' and then claiming that you've proven God exists.

any choice, regardless of ability, which arises in action does equal an exercise of a natural right...

You have to demonstrate the right exists before you can claim it's been exercised. Ability is ability and action is action. At this point, it's not even entirely certain that action equals an exercise in free will in our own species, since human decision making can, it seems can, at least in some instances, be detected seven seconds before a person is becomes aware of a decision being made.

Now, demonstrate that these rights exist. Merely asserting time and again that a thing exists does not constitute evidence. You keep trying to claim that rights exists and expecting people to accept it axiomatically. That doesn't fly here. You need evidence if you want your claims that a thing exists to to stand.

it can be taken as evidence of such rights...

No, it stands of evidence of ability, action, and possibly of (sub)concious decision-making. Nothing more. It does nothing to support your vague meta-physical claims.

your recognition of 'ability' is irrelevant to the issue of rights, and is more a matter of metaphysics.

Ability is not metaphysical. Ability can be demonstrated and is the direct result of physical state and condition and knowledge of technique and method. That you spend 8 pages repeated claiming that your assertions prove the existence of vague metaphysical 'rights' handed down from the heavens and then accuse a logical positivist of metaphysics is laughable.

you've got a long way to go in terms of understanding what a rights might mean

You redefine your 'natural rights' as a mere synonym for awareness of a decision and still act as though they have any meaning, spitting on the entire concept of rights and making a a mockery of your own words and then claim In don;t understand. It's laughable, as you've shown you don';t even understand the concept you've laid claim to. It's like a Communist citing Locke and and Hume. At this point, after 8 pages of you not even trying to support your claims they only appropriate response to your absurdity and ignorance is laughter. You can sit next to the Creationists in the back row.

if you could acknowledge them in the first place. there's been further and further digression in your logic at every post.

The logic is simple. You assert something exists. Therefore you bear the burden of proof. You've presented zero evidence. Therefore, your assertions fail and your hypothesis is rejected alongside pixies, faeries, and the bogeyman.

i suggest starting with digesting some philosophy on the matter.

You present zero evidence. There's no evidence for your claims. There is no further philosophy necessary. You claim a thing exists and you have zero evidence. It's that simple.

Until you present some actual evidence and not just your own assertions, the only appropriate response is to laugh in your face. You've wasted 8 pages of this forum's bandwidth and much of my time. Assertions are not evidence. I dismissed you once before and you've still presented no evidence. Don't waste any more of my time, sad metaphysicist. Come back when you've joined the world in the age of positivity and have some actual evidence to support your claims.

 

[Intense]

the inevitable conclusion that God exists.

Not only can you not keep track of the discussion and your own assertions, now you think that the social contract proves your god exists

Which social contract???

The social contract protected by the moral absolutist court which seeks original intent and applies reason???

The moral relativist court that decrees what it wants when it wants according to the flavor of the day???

Should I just say what social contract, being that it lacks conviction???

 

[JBeukema]

i do believe that all creatures possess these natural rights.

That's nice.


Evidence?

Animals (human included) have whatever facilities (which I suppose we could mangle the meaning of into meaning "rights ") that they are naturally endowed with UNTIL events take them away.

Really? More lame attempts to redefine these 'rights' as anything else in order to claim a pathetic semantic 'victory'?

If you people have to redefine what it is you think exists over and over again, then you have clearly renounced your own assertions.

 

[JBeukema]

the inevitable conclusion that God exists.

Not only can you not keep track of the discussion and your own assertions, now you think that the social contract proves your god exists

Which social contract???

The social contract protected by the moral absolutist court which seeks original intent and applies reason???

The moral relativist court that decrees what it wants when it wants according to the flavor of the day???

Should I just say what social contract, being that it lacks conviction???

We all form these social contracts with all persons and groups with whom we interact.

To act as though there is a single overarching social contract is fallacious.

And I never claimed any given social contract was morally upright. Again, this different between is and ought.

 

[Intense]

When I assert my natural rights, it's usually with an awareness of the effect on who or what is around me, be it primary or secondary, I am responsible for my choices. What is the purpose behind what I seek to accomplish, the method, the steps. What principle motivates my actions help determine what is my right, and what is the boundary of that right. Do I have rights beyond my capability??? Yes. Do I have ability beyond my rights??? Yes. Let conscience dictate. We all have to choose sides.

 

[JBeukema]

More meaningless bullshit.


If you assert that these 'natural rights' exist, show the experiment which can detect them. You declare them to be natural, therefore they exist in the natural world if they exist at all. Show the science by which they can be detected. Show me the experiments that confirms your hypothesis.

Until then, you're nothing more than a babbling fool.

 

[Intense]

Not only can you not keep track of the discussion and your own assertions, now you think that the social contract proves your god exists

Which social contract???

The social contract protected by the moral absolutist court which seeks original intent and applies reason???

The moral relativist court that decrees what it wants when it wants according to the flavor of the day???

Should I just say what social contract, being that it lacks conviction???

We all form these social contracts with all persons and groups with whom we interact.

To act as though there is a single overarching social contract is fallacious.

And I never claimed any given social contract was morally upright. Again, this different between is and ought.

Alright. Good perspective. My implication was "Within the Law" which sometimes stretches like a rubber band to the will of the authorities that be. The social contract between two people is something different to me. I bet you are not married.

The social contract between Man and woman.

My best advice. Repeat after me, better turn this into your mantra if you don't like sleeping on the couch.

"Yes Dear"

I really don't have social contracts with friends, family, or even customers. There are implied rules and guidelines I guess. I generally know what I must or should do, through experience, through conscience. I truly have little expectation in others. I'm not being negative here. I'm just saying, cover your own bases, and be thankful when good things go on and happen around you. No expectations. Too much disappointment, in this realm. Don't confuse this realm with the next.

 

[Intense]

More meaningless bullshit.


If you assert that these 'natural rights' exist, show the experiment which can detect them. You declare them to be natural, therefore they exist in the natural world if they exist at all. Show the science by which they can be detected. Show me the experiments that confirms your hypothesis.

Until then, you're nothing more than a babbling fool.

You have the right to pee.

You have the right to seek sustenance. Method is key here.

You have the right to discover, to invent, to construct, to travel, though restrictions apply. No refunds, no returns, black out dates are non negotiable.

What you imply is that no action is possible without the consent of someone else, or some governing authority. What I imply is that we are better than that. We are more than that.

Two things.

1) You need more alone time.

2) You need to work on those people skills.

3) (Just to **** with you) You are worth more than you give yourself credit for.

 

[konradv]

And what if we say we don't. do our rights magically disappear if a majority of people say they do?

Unfortunately, they do. The rights we enjoy are a direct result of our banding together and creating something we call government. Absent that, the only right you have is to wait to eat until I've finished feasting on YOUR kill, if I'm stronger than you.

 

[JBeukema]

I really don't have social contracts with friends, family, or even customers. There are implied rules and guidelines I guess.

That's pretty much what the social contract is. Sometimes it becomes more formalized, even codified into law and written down, but usually it simply remains non-codified ethics and societal norms.

Don't confuse this realm with the next.

What is this 'next realm' of which you speak. Definition and evidence, please.

 

[JBeukema]

You have the right to pee.

Not anywhere I wish. There are laws about that.

You have the right to seek sustenance. Method is key here.

But not a right to sustenance and, hence, to life? Interesting.

What you imply is that no action is possible without the consent of someone else, or some governing authority.

Where did I say that? I said that action demonstrates the ability to act.
and perhaps the will. Nothing metaphysical about it. That is all I said.

Two things.

1) You need more alone time.

2) You need to work on those people skills.

On the face of it, that would seem contradictory.

 

[editec]

More meaningless bullshit.


If you assert that these 'natural rights' exist, show the experiment which can detect them. You declare them to be natural, therefore they exist in the natural world if they exist at all. Show the science by which they can be detected. Show me the experiments that confirms your hypothesis.

Until then, you're nothing more than a babbling fool.

You have the right to pee.

You might have the ability to pee, and you probably are at liberty to pee, too.

That is not remotely like having the unalienable RIGHT to pee.

Trying peeing in somebody's soup at a restuarant, and I suspect you'll find your unalienable right to pee is quickly alienated from you.

You have the right to seek sustenance. Method is key here.

See above, change the word "pee" to "seek sustenace"

You have the right to discover, to invent, to construct, to travel, though restrictions apply. No refunds, no returns, black out dates are non negotiable.

Meaningless filler. Pad pad pad!

What you imply is that no action is possible without the consent of someone else, or some governing authority.

Nobody implied anything of the sort.

The debate was the EXISTENCE of something you call an UNalienable right.

Your strawman argument isn't going to get a pass in this case.

What I imply is that we are better than that. We are more than that.

Nobody cares what you claim to have implied... what we respond to is what you actually write.

Two things.

1) You need more alone time.

2) You need to work on those people skills.

3) (Just to **** with you) You are worth more than you give yourself credit for.

Perhaps you'll consider taking a course or two in rhetoric.

Words and phrases have meanings. They matter.

Those meanings change subtley or drastically depending on context.

If in fact you really are failing to understand the meaning of unalienable right in the context of the document from which you quote. that indicates that you surely need some serious help with rhetorical deconstruction.

Now, unless you actually believe the senseless aguments you have been making, what you are doing isn't without consequence.

Normally such things don't matter.

But in the case of unalienable rights?

Spewing nonsense about a concept so critical to this democratic republic is essantially rhetorical VANDALISM.

It is your reponsibility as a CITIZEN to understand this sort of thing.

In this case, champ, you're either on the bus or you're not.

 

[antagon]

actions for creatures capable of self-determination of those actions, constitute a seizure of advantage of a natural right.

Demonstrate this 'natural right' that is being seized. Actions by a creature demonstrate an ability to act in such a matter and, in creatures capable of being aware of their decision-making, possibly a decision to act in such a matter, although we might not consciously make those decisions, since they seem to be made before we are aware of it.

If you really intend to rob 'natural rights' of all its meaning and reduce it to a mere synonym for awareness of decision-making, go ahead. But in so doing you rob your own words and the entire concept you seek to coopt of any meaning whatsoever.

If 'natural rights' is no longer claimed to be anything more than self-awareness, then sure, self-awareness exists. But that's like redefining 'God' 'that tingly feeling you get when your foot falls asleep' and then claiming that you've proven God exists.


You have to demonstrate the right exists before you can claim it's been exercised. Ability is ability and action is action. At this point, it's not even entirely certain that action equals an exercise in free will in our own species, since human decision making can, it seems can, at least in some instances, be detected seven seconds before a person is becomes aware of a decision being made.

firstly, your observation that decisions are made before we are aware is only an observation of the workings of the mind, but only goes so far as supporting an argument that our will has subconscious pretexts. it does not imperil the idea of will, itself.

next, your argument crosses the concepts of self-determination, which i associate as a qualifier for their being rights, and self-awareness, which you have presented despite it having no relevance to the matter at hand.

this has been a consistent trend in your argumentation, to wit: your arguments based on meaning, a meaning/definition, ability, determinism, and now self-awareness. later, i'll add your contention that the effect of a force cant be taken as evidence to this list of buffoonery.

------------------------------

as to robbing the concept of 'natural rights'. i contend that there is no singular view on the topic. while i have considered such sources as hobbes, locke and thomas paine, i find that they simply employed the concept for the purposes of social application. their arguments had the aim of social enlightenment like many other philosophers of their time. living in a society which now embraces these concepts to a greater degree, my definition focuses retrospectively on hobbes' definition in Leviathan striking the qualification of self-preservation (which is not a necessary qualification of all self-determined actions, IMHO), and leaving naked self-determination. i've expanded the implications in different directions than any of these thinkers have; some of that i've shared in this discussion. we've digressed to point A because you cant cope with the most basic precepts of natural rights.

like i said, you have a long way to go to know what you are talking about in this respect, and it is indicated in your feeling my definition is out of line with some of the earliest, classic definitions of natural rights. that you feel you've grounded arguments in the 'age of positivity' is comical. your conjectures predate the age of late antiquity.

------------------------------

while you feel that a demonstration of rights existing must precede a claim that they are in use, i digress to our earlier discussion about the parallels of gravitation and rights. in the discovery of the forces at play, with certainty, the first observations of gravity were made as to the effects of the force in use itself. these effects are what has endowed gravity it's quantification and our understanding of its nature. in the same way, my observation of how rights are employed and the consequences of their deployment in different contexts are the basis of the demonstration of their existence. your obstinacy with 'evidence', like retiredgysargeant, has put you at a loss to locate it, even as this instant you exercise a natural right to self-education.

how feebly you seize this right is not cogent, as i've argued 'ability' is irrelevant.

------------------------------

shouldn't i have expected that your incessant harping for evidence was the product of one of the many demonstrated (yet not explicitly posted) fallacies to which you dearly adhere? i guess its only a matter of time before each of your arguments divulge the stupidity at their foundation.

don't lose hope! i'm sure if you applied more brainpower in contemplating what you believe, that it would not get shot down with such ease, affording you the confidence to make an argument and defend it, rather than taking pea-pebble-pot-shots at mine.

 

[antagon]

Animals (human included) have whatever facilities (which I suppose we could mangle the meaning of into meaning "rights ") that they are naturally endowed with UNTIL events take them away.

Really? More lame attempts to redefine these 'rights' as anything else in order to claim a pathetic semantic 'victory'?

If you people have to redefine what it is you think exists over and over again, then you have clearly renounced your own assertions.

o ye lord of semantic argument so declareth o'er his domain, "'pathetic semantic 'victory'' will be mine!"

 

[Intense]

I really don't have social contracts with friends, family, or even customers. There are implied rules and guidelines I guess.

That's pretty much what the social contract is. Sometimes it becomes more formalized, even codified into law and written down, but usually it simply remains non-codified ethics and societal norms.

Don't confuse this realm with the next.

What is this 'next realm' of which you speak. Definition and evidence, please.

You have to buy a ticket first.

 

[Intense]

You have the right to pee.

Not anywhere I wish. There are laws about that.

You have the right to seek sustenance. Method is key here.

But not a right to sustenance and, hence, to life? Interesting.

What you imply is that no action is possible without the consent of someone else, or some governing authority.

Where did I say that? I said that action demonstrates the ability to act.
and perhaps the will. Nothing metaphysical about it. That is all I said.

Two things.

1) You need more alone time.

2) You need to work on those people skills.

On the face of it, that would seem contradictory.

You can have both.

 

[Avatar4321]

What government has given me life? What government can take it away?

 

[Intense]

Editic (Premature Ejaculation): You might have the ability to pee, and you probably are at liberty to pee, too.

That is not remotely like having the unalienable RIGHT to pee.

Trying peeing in somebody's soup at a restuarant, and I suspect you'll find your unalienable right to pee is quickly alienated from you.

What is alienated from you moron i9s your ability to pee in someones soup. Thats the best you can reason? That is the best example you can come up with? I don't think you should be giving advice. Why are you here? Like ants at a picnic. Why do you need so much to waste my time. ????



You have the right to discover, to invent, to construct, to travel, though restrictions apply. No refunds, no returns, black out dates are non negotiable.

Editic (Premature Ejaculation): Meaningless filler. Pad pad pad!

I can see how Life, Liberty, Property , the Pursuit of Happiness would be an obstacle to you and your kind, freak. What you can't control or tax is meaningless to you, seek help.



What you imply is that no action is possible without the consent of someone else, or some governing authority.

Editic (Premature Ejaculation):Nobody implied anything of the sort.

The debate was the EXISTENCE of something you call an UNalienable right.

Your strawman argument isn't going to get a pass in this case.

Short of the recognition of Unalienable Right, everything is the property of the Totalitarian State. Your rights are then limited to the controlling body of the State, given and taken arbitrarily. Unalienable Rights are indeed Rights Recognized by the State, that are above It's jurisdiction. The only thing you demonstrate Jerk Off, is your need to control. It is you using the straw man argument to bend otherwise free thinking people to your will, your manipulations, and your schemes. Get over yourself. There are things in life you have no control of. In cases like yours that usually results in killings and mass graves. That too is sad. You are void of purpose in life, and need to screw up the balance in achieving your power rush. The blind can't lead the blind Tonto. So how about you go your way and I'll go mine?



Quote:
What I imply is that we are better than that. We are more than that.

Editic (Premature Ejaculation): Nobody cares what you claim to have implied... what we respond to is what you actually write.
Obviously you cared enough to respond to a post that was not addressed to you Sparky. I'd explain it further, but I don't want to get too far over your head.


Two things.

1) You need more alone time.

2) You need to work on those people skills.

3) (Just to **** with you) You are worth more than you give yourself credit for.

Editic (Premature Ejaculation): Perhaps you'll consider taking a course or two in rhetoric.

Words and phrases have meanings. They matter.

Those meanings change subtley or drastically depending on context.

If in fact you really are failing to understand the meaning of unalienable right in the context of the document from which you quote. that indicates that you surely need some serious help with rhetorical deconstruction.

Now, unless you actually believe the senseless aguments you have been making, what you are doing isn't without consequence.

Normally such things don't matter.

But in the case of unalienable rights?

Spewing nonsense about a concept so critical to this democratic republic is essantially rhetorical VANDALISM.

It is your reponsibility as a CITIZEN to understand this sort of thing.

In this case, champ, you're either on the bus or you're not.

I'm supposed to take advice from someone who takes the right to pee, to the extreme extent of peeing in someone else's soup, as an argument of what is a right? Keep your advise to yourself. You talk about context??? You are not only on the wrong floor, you are in the wrong building. I find you on the wrong side of most issues freak. Thanks so much for the in depth analysis of something you know nothing about. Have a nice day.

 

[Intense]

What government has given me life? What government can take it away?

For some it's all about manipulation and control, yet in the end, past the sell, the master plan, it alway's boils down to consent.