Zone1 POLL: "Where do (your) Basic Human Rights come from? Zone1

[Hafar1014]

The problem with this is that animals mourn their dead, some engage in a ritual of sorts. elephants will visit the body of their dead, sometimes for years. Why? This is a fascinating realization. Shouldn't animals just avoid any impulse or sadness at all and move on with their lives? They are may be wired to feel grief and appreciate that death exists, is worth paying attention to rather than just pursuing their need for food and shelter etc.

Mammals only experience grief. Why is that a problem.

 

[ChristisKing]

Mammals only experience grief. Why is that a problem.

How do you know that?

 

[Leo123]

the combination of the metaphysical forces and the elements of the periodic table is what made the first living organism on planet earth. synchronized w/ earths development ... not a god, creation made by the heavens.

gravity, thermodynamics et al - the metaphysical forces, perhaps unknown in true numbers.

If that were true, we’d be able to create life but we cannot. Did you read my James Tour link?

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay. Then start acting like the bag of meat you are.

You do, right? Act like a bag of meat whose existence means nothing?

If not....why not?

It's a mindset.

I can be (and probably am) just a bag of meat and in the end, that's it.

I can still bring as much purpose and meaning to my life as I might be capable of.

Can't I?

 

[BreezeWood]

If that were true, we’d be able to create life but we cannot. Did you read my James Tour link?

the combination of the metaphysical forces and the elements of the periodic table is what made the first living organism on planet earth. synchronized w/ earths development ... not a god, creation made by the heavens.

do you ever read a post - or just like repeating yourself over and over again ...

the claim would be a heavenly creature that does command all the metaphysical forces and has access to all the elements of the periodic table for the entire universe would have the ability to create life as life on planet earth proves.

that is monotheism - all in the heavens are equal - stop worshiping what they claim, the monarchist one being over another or ... be as them and never step foot inside the pearly gates.

 

[Leo123]

do you ever read a post - or just like repeating yourself over and over again ...

the claim would be a heavenly creature that does command all the metaphysical forces and has access to all the elements of the periodic table for the entire universe would have the ability to create life as life on planet earth proves.

that is monotheism - all in the heavens are equal - stop worshiping what they claim, the monarchist one being over another or ... be as them and never step foot inside the pearly gates.

Whatever.

 

[BreezeWood]

Whatever.

whatever, whatever what ... two things to avoid - the desert and pugs. to live happily.

 

[Leo123]

whatever, whatever what ... two things to avoid - the desert and pugs. to live happily.

You say 'metaphysical forces' I say l Crfeator. These are concepts only. The fact remains, Darwin did not prove first life came from evolution. In fact, no one really knows where first life on earth came from. Our studies of single cell creatures has revealed thousands of intricate movements, motors, a membrane that blocks certain molecules and lets others in. It is an active cell going about the business its DNA tells it to do, BTW, just who or whom, or maybe what programmed that DNA? That could not have all just happen in some primordial pool, with a mix of chemicals.

We can't explain exactly what life is but, we have a feeling and an awareness of what it's like to be a unique life in this otherwise shared continuum. IMO

 

[Chuz Life]

Would that all those who voted "other" might be forthcoming and charitable enough to share with the rest of us where you believe your basic human rights come from.

Since you didn't select God, nature, or government. . .inquiring minds want to know.

Bump it up.

 

[kyzina]

Nature did

who made nature?

 

[Votto]

JoeBitch is one of those who will cry whenever anyone impinges on any of his rights.

Of course we have rights.

That they aren’t self-enforcing or even adequately protected when they sometimes get violated doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist.

Nope. Joe and the rest of his Leftist loon friends are claiming that there are no Civil Rights for Blacks apparently. They should then be changed to "Civil Privileges", all because they have a God phobia.



But, as always, we all know they are full of poo. All you can ask is that they don't blow your head off for speaking the truth about it.

 

[the watcher]

The only 'rights' as you refer to are the ones you fight for. The government can't give you rights, but they most certainly can take them away. I think you are confusing privilege with rights, a common mistake.

 

[Chuz Life]

The only 'rights' as you refer to are the ones you fight for. The government can't give you rights, but they most certainly can take them away. I think you are confusing privilege with rights, a common mistake.

Do you have a right to your life?

Where did that right come from?

 

[the watcher]

Do you have a right to your life?

Where did that right come from?

Life is a condition, not some philosophical property, like reality is. If you don't fight for it someone can take it away from you.

 

[Votto]

The only 'rights' as you refer to are the ones you fight for. The government can't give you rights, but they most certainly can take them away. I think you are confusing privilege with rights, a common mistake.

Here is the real threat here.

If there is no God, then man is just a glorified animal. Man is not a special creation made in the image of God, thus giving man natural rights that the beasts of the field don't have.

But what do we do to animals? Do we not put them in zoos for our amusement, do we not use them as beasts of burden? Do we not kill and eat them? Do we not herd them around on a whim for our own wants and needs, which incidentally that is what socialism is all about.

Charles Darwin once wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So, the question begs, what is this "Noble Nature" all about? What is scientific about that? Darwin even uses the term "evil". What is evil in science I wonder? In fact, there is no science to this statement. Noble nature is merely an abstract construct and does not really exist if you ask a scientist, yet this construct is what is supposed to stop mankind from becoming a monster like Charles Darwin warns against here. Instead, someone like Hitler would say that he will take the science of creating a master race like farmers breed cattle to get a genetically superior breed and to hell with the notions of having a noble nature or the existence of evil or the "right to breed". This noble nature is the only thing to stop someone like Hitler from taking genetically flawed patients to the basement of the hospital and disposing of them, never to be seen again, because they drag down society and his precious Third Reich. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened, and what will happen if people take over your government that don't believe in natural rights.

This is the Achilles heel of atheism and agnosticism and one for which they have no answer.

 

[Votto]

I would argue that of all the Natural Rights that the Founders gave the nation, free speech is the most unnatural of the Natural Rights.

Why? Look at the world. The only place you have freedom of speech is in the US. For example, comedians are fined for making jokes about handicapped people in places like Canada. You can even be sent to prison in England for suggesting Prince Andrew was a pedophile, even though he was caught red handed in the act via Epstein.

In this respect, there is nothing natural about free speech, even though we all crave free speech. But it is perhaps the most important of all our rights. Without it, how is one to arrive at truth since the truth offends us all to some degree at some point in our lives? And is it not good to know the truth that offends us rather than lying to us, telling us lies to shield us from the painful truth of reality?

That is why speaking the truth requires courage. Without courage, truth is an orphan.

And here is the king of free speech, getting out there despite death threat after death threat until they finally followed through with their threats.

 

[Chuz Life]

Life is a condition, not some philosophical property, like reality is. If you don't fight for it someone can take it away from you.

Does your life (the life you are living) belong to you?

 

[Votto]

This is a good example of how the Left views the issue of "natural rights"

Congressman Tim Kaine said that he was troubled that Senator Rubio believes that natural rights come from God and not man, as if Rubio was a far-right extremist religious nut. But all he has done here is demean the Founders as being MAGA right wing religious nut cases by saying this, because that is what they believed.

Then Tim goes off on a tangent explaining how rights need to come from government to protect people, like those in the LGTB community that are not recognized by governments around the world. Does anyone see the hypocrisy here? Tim has just said that rights come from government and not man but disagrees with certain governments for their treatment of minorities he deems oppressed. He then refers to the Human Rights organization as being defenders of these people who are oppressed by various governments. And here I thought rights came from government instead of what the Human Rights organizations around the world say is a human right. No, Tim only believes that he alone understands what a natural right is and what is not, as he will apparently oppose any government that disagrees with him on what those natural rights are with self-righteous disdain for anyone who dare disagree, declaring them a religious fundamentalist for suggesting that only God knows what natural rights really are.

The ignorance and hypocrisy and arrogance of these people is really awe inspiring.

 

[Votto]

 

[ChristisKing]

Amen to that. Although Charlie Kirk seemed very much like a saint.