What Constitutes a "Right?"

[bill777]

So. Things change. If they didn't, we'd still be living in caves rubbing sticks together.

OK. I have decided that the phrase "your stuff" now means my stuff.

No it doesn't, it means your stuff.

I'm glad we agree. Now gimme gimme gimme!

 

[frazzledgear]

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right.

Of course not.

Men were born to be enslaved by others who are astute.

That's certainly the view of Nietsche.
But what does it have to do with natural rights?

First of all, apparently you cannot follow the logical conclusions of your own position here even when it has been pointed out to you. Contumacious was not expressing his own personal belief that man was born to be enslaved by others -but facetiously expressing the only logical conclusion one can reach from reading your OWN words.

Secondly, it was NOT Nietzsche's view that man was born to be enslaved by others. If you believe that is what he said, you misinterpreted the entire body of his work. One of his main assertions was that all values, including religious and moral values, are manmade creations and therefore every individual is personally responsible for creating higher values and then living up to them. He discussed the master-slave mentality with regard to how individuals view morality itself -the master mentality weighs the consequences of the act to determine whether it is bad or good while the slave mentality determines the morality based on the good or bad intentions that preceded the act. When Nietzsche decided to do a natural history of western morality, he was disgusted and revolted by it. He wrote that at its very core, western morality was Jewish morality -which he deemed to be the "slave mentality" as explained above -one that should be rejected by the individual.

Nietzsche was an outspoken critic of German nationalism and militarism and denounced the view of the greater importance of the state over man. How is that possible if he really believed that man was born to be enslaved by others when others use the power of the state to enslave others in the first place? While there are more than a few internal contradictions to Nietzsche's writings, his praise of the values produced by war in no way supported warfare in support of the state -which he frequently denounced. But that still hasn't stopped some from insisting he would have been a supporter of the fascist state. I am no fan of the guy's work at all, but he was not a fascist. He argued against the belief that the state was of more importance than the individual, and strongly opposed conformity, nationalism, militarism and even uniforms. He firmly believed in individualism, asserted repeatedly that one should fight for his own individual cause, not that of the state. None of these are compatible with a belief that man was born to merely to be the slaves of others. Nietzsche believed his own work was a calling to the individual to determine, create and then live by his OWN higher values, not those imposed upon him by society, the state or religion. He sure didn't intend it to be a work that justified, encouraged or damned the majority to a futile existence as the slaves of others. And the only way to pretend he did is to take highly selective sentences entirely of out context and give it your own interpretation instead of his original one that can only be understood by reading it IN context in the first place. Since he did not write with any linear logic, you cannot fully comprehend his meaning by picking sentences out of context, but only after reading the entirety of his work.

 

[Diuretic]

Membership of any society confers rights. Being a member of a society means being aware of those socially confered rights. Any unreasonable infraction should be resisted.

Rights can't exist outside of society, therefore they aren't a prerequisite for society to be established.

The tiger doesn't have a concept of “rights”, merely instinct and learned behaviour. It acts on those. Those whom it acts against, other animals or humans, are simply being acted against, there is no violation of rights. A human defending themselves from attack from a tiger is not defending their right to stay alive and unharmed, they're actually trying to stay alive and unharmed.

I argue that real society is a result of us asserting our rights. Our difference may be irreconcilable. I don't think you're interested in convincing me (only in asserting your view without evidence and then offering limp refutation to my arguments), so I'm going to stop trying to convince you.

Yes, I agree that tigers have a more primitive reality than we do. No argument there. The person and the tiger may both be acting out of instinct, but the tiger would not seek vindication on the tiger if it survived the encounter. The person, on the other hand, feeling violated just might seek justice against the violator.

Awaiting your one sentence reply.

Okay

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course not.

Men were born to be enslaved by others who are astute.

That's certainly the view of Nietsche.
But what does it have to do with natural rights?

First of all, apparently you cannot follow the logical conclusions of your own position here even when it has been pointed out to you. Contumacious was not expressing his own personal belief that man was born to be enslaved by others -but facetiously expressing the only logical conclusion one can reach from reading your OWN words.

blahblahvlah what a tiresome individual.
There was nothing wrong with what I posted. My position is entirely logical. Sorry if you missed that. Try a different thread.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes humans understand that there is cause and effect. But you injected a moral tone when you mentioned acting "wrongly". That requires judgement of an act. In nature there is no morality - "nature red in tooth and claw". No proof of natural law in that at all.

Instinct is not about rights, it's of itself.

I deny natural law exists. I accept the physical laws of the universe but this business about natural law is nonsense.

So whether or not we have any rights depend on ......Obama?

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "


Benito Mussolini


.

Obama can't make legislation as I understand it, only approve it. So you need to look to your legislators for development and protection of your rights.

Why?


That was already done in 1787.


.

 

[Contumacious]

No, they depend on what society generally and characteristically considers them to be rights. THat will vary based on time and place..

Really?


Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.

So , Hitler, the DULY ELECTED FUHRER of the German Society was well within his rights to decimate 6,000,000 Jews. The victims had no right to life, liberty nor to pursue their happiness.

I get your drift.



NOT.

The victims obviously had no right to life liberty or pursuit of happiness. You can't do that kind of thing to people who have rights.
You've proven my point, thanks.

You are obviously insane.

The mere fact that individuals can not defend their rights against well armed and powerful thugs, does not mean that they do not have natural rights. Might is not right.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

The problem with the Jews was that they allow the government to disarm them because they trusted that the paternalistic Weimar Republic would never harm them. Little did they know that a madman was going to take over the reigns of power.


.

 

[The Rabbi]

Really?


Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.

So , Hitler, the DULY ELECTED FUHRER of the German Society was well within his rights to decimate 6,000,000 Jews. The victims had no right to life, liberty nor to pursue their happiness.

I get your drift.



NOT.

The victims obviously had no right to life liberty or pursuit of happiness. You can't do that kind of thing to people who have rights.
You've proven my point, thanks.

You are obviously insane.

The mere fact that individuals can not defend their rights against well armed and powerful thugs, does not mean that they do not have natural rights. Might is not right.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

The problem with the Jews was that they allow the government to disarm them because they trusted that the paternalistic Weimar Republic would never harm them. Little did they know that a madman was going to take over the reigns of power.


.

And you're obviously thick as a brick. And ignorant to boot.
If they had rights, the nazis could never have done that to them.
Would you care to show the differnce between a right which is denied and one which doesn't exist?
And you mean they trusted the Weimar Constitution which guaranteed those rights you seem to think come from the tooth fairy? Shows how much that was worth. Thanks for bolstering my argument.

 

[Contumacious]

Would you care to show the differnce between a right which is denied and one which doesn't exist?.

In that case Americans must place close attention to former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:


"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

 

[The Rabbi]

Would you care to show the differnce between a right which is denied and one which doesn't exist?.

In that case Americans must place close attention to former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:


"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In other words "might makes right."
That pretty much knocks out any basis of your assumption for natural rights.
We're done here I think.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

A right is certainly not someone else's want or desire .

 

[rubberhead]

Would you care to show the differnce between a right which is denied and one which doesn't exist?.

In that case Americans must place close attention to former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:


"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In other words "might makes right."
That pretty much knocks out any basis of your assumption for natural rights.
We're done here I think.

Nah, it's more like, "might protects right." There is a difference between a right denied and a right that doesn't exist. the one who denies a right would expect to have that same right themselves (do you see the hypocrisy?). A right that does not exist is one that is denied inadvertently by someone who is acting within their rights. This is the fault of the person who expected to have more rights than they actually have.

 

[The Rabbi]

Could you explain that in English please?

 

[Contumacious]

In that case Americans must place close attention to former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:


"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In other words "might makes right."
That pretty much knocks out any basis of your assumption for natural rights.
We're done here I think.

Nah, it's more like, "might protects right." There is a difference between a right denied and a right that doesn't exist. the one who denies a right would expect to have that same right themselves (do you see the hypocrisy?). A right that does not exist is one that is denied inadvertently by someone who is acting within their rights. This is the fault of the person who expected to have more rights than they actually have.

Excellent explanation.

See if you can translate it into Idiotic for the Rabbi.

 

[Intense]

I hate to say this, I wish it weren't this way. I think a right is whatever you can claim. There is some validity to the thought that political power emanates from the barrel of a gun.....our own government does it to us everyday, and the only way they will stop doing it is if someone points a bigger gun at them. It's just not a part of human nature to recognize someone else's rights unless you have to.

That is true for some, but not all.

 

[The Rabbi]

This from the man who thinks Hezbollah is a Lebanese patriotic organization.

 

[Liability]

This from the man who thinks Hezbollah is a Lebanese patriotic organization.

When a Palestinian terrorist gets injured, they take the injured terrorist by ambulance to the nearest Hezbollah.

 

[Intense]

Regarding the Gay Community, my advice is to come up with a different word of your own, come to agreement on it, and proceed from there.

I didn't realise a particular group of people owned the word "marriage"...

Your Argument holds no Moral Authority, good try though. In Our Society, that is so, You may change it, how you do that is up to you. My advice is still to Create Your own Term, Come to Agreement on it amongst Yourselves, and present it to Us. The reaction Might surprise You.

 

[The Rabbi]

This from the man who thinks Hezbollah is a Lebanese patriotic organization.

When a Palestinian terrorist gets injured, they take the injured terrorist by ambulance to the nearest Hezbollah.

They're not terrorists. They're Lebanese freedom fighters.
At least according to the chief dim bulb of ths site.

 

[Intense]

The victims obviously had no right to life liberty or pursuit of happiness. You can't do that kind of thing to people who have rights.
You've proven my point, thanks.

You are obviously insane.

The mere fact that individuals can not defend their rights against well armed and powerful thugs, does not mean that they do not have natural rights. Might is not right.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

The problem with the Jews was that they allow the government to disarm them because they trusted that the paternalistic Weimar Republic would never harm them. Little did they know that a madman was going to take over the reigns of power.


.

And you're obviously thick as a brick. And ignorant to boot.
If they had rights, the nazis could never have done that to them.
Would you care to show the differnce between a right which is denied and one which doesn't exist?
And you mean they trusted the Weimar Constitution which guaranteed those rights you seem to think come from the tooth fairy? Shows how much that was worth. Thanks for bolstering my argument.

Living in Denial Of One's Rights first must be learned, second does not mean that they don't exist. Some Exited Germany, Some chose to fight, even in Yugoslavia, Some misplaced their Trust, and suffered because of It. There is no Great Society, as You stand by and Watch Totalitarianism Rise again in our time and Kiss it's Ring, I remind You Rabbi, There is One God, and He is God not By Election or The Hand of Man. Jeremiah Chapter 23. Digest it and get up off Your Ass. Stop feeding the Beast.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nurse! Meds!

Where in the Bible does it mention anything like "natural rights"??