What Constitutes a "Right?"

[PubliusInfinitum]

See if you can prove the truth or untruth of this statement:

This statement is false.

Is it true? If it is, then it's false. But then, it's true again. Where's your absolute logic now?

The statement is neither true or false, as it represents a conclusion drawn from nothing thus there is nothing that initiates the contest. That you advance the premise that such an untethered conclusion must represent truth or falsity doesn't change the simple fact that it represents neither.

You question is the mathematical equivilent of advancing the following answer and asking for a conclusion relevant to truth: "6"



Here's another one:

Consider a universe where there are a unisex body of people who are the only people in existence. There is a barber in this body of people who provides his services only to all those who do not cut their own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair?
If he does, then he can't, but then he must.

Thus proving that the premise is false. All you're doing is demanding that the premise is truth; and relishing in the disparity... apparently in an attempt to demonstrate the inadequacy of logic; as if logic is somehow distinct from reason.

Consider quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. There are wave/particles so small that the act of observing them changes them. We will never know what they are doing, no matter how much discovering we do. This does not mean that they do not exist or that they are not doing anything. They are just beyond our reach. Just as is most of the universe.

Indeed... and I expect that there are particles that comprise that particle; and those that make those particles stand Everest by comparison to the former... but you're point is true... that we are unable to observe something in no way establishes that it does not exist...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Language is a function of reason; and reason is a function of the divine endowment of our lives. We owe our means to reason to God... even those of you who so seldom exercise it that it's nearly impossible to discern in you.

Does this even mean anything?

Yeah, it is language common to both us; wherein the intrinsic words represent unambiguous concepts... joined together, they form a line a reasoning that simply notes the incontrovertible fact that the existance of language used to discuss, or even engage in the discovery of given natural principles, does not correlate to the creation or invention of those principles.

Ok, so we were endowed with the means to reason therefore those axiomatic systems that we invent are discoveries and not inventions? Is this what your argument consists of? Pretty lack luster.

Well that's the nature of the straw dog... she just flat will not won't hunt, sis...

You claim to be a student of mathematics... Upon the satellites that humanity has sent beyond our solar system are several mathematical calculations which those who placed them believed would be readily understood by what or who ever should encounter the satellite. Is it your position that such beings would have just invented the same 'understanding' as our species?

Or isn't reason served by the simple understanding that those calculations represent immutable principles of nature, which beings that exist in such a common nature would also be subject to, thus likely have come to understand the same principles?

ROFLMNAO... That is HYSTERICAL!

I exist, therefore I am as qualified to speak as anyone else that exist... that you're unable to contest my positions... is fair evidence that my means are superior to yours, thus where means is a function of qualification; I've more than sufficiently demonstrated my that...

You claim to be a student of mathematics... I am a student of reason and have invested nearly two decades in the pursuit to understand such; specifically within the discipline of western ideologies; and as a result have mastered the understanding of that ideological farce known as Left-think.

Thus where the status of student represents qualification, I stand so qualified.

Is there anything else you'd like to add to your concession or will this suffice?

I'm glad you were entertained, but you haven't really addressed any of what I've said. I have contested your positions and you haven't responded to any of my arguments. The only thing that you've "more than sufficiently demonstrated" is that you're fraudulent claims are as unsupportable as the assertion that you're anything more than a complete moron.

Which claims are those... If such is true, then reason is served that you would readily list the discrepency... this, at a minimum to demonstrate that your assertion is true...

Yet you've opted to leave it at that...

To the best of my knowledge, I have responded to every assertion you've advanced; refuted it where such was appropriate and discredited that which required nothing else...

You have been a "student of reason" for nearly two decades? Is this your cute way of telling me that you're almost twenty years old?

Nope...

When I say I am a student of mathematics, I mean that I have actually studied things that I can later demonstrate. Do you care to demonstrate the fruits of your study?

Been doing it all day... and continue to do so even as I write this...

Or does the study of "reason" all about insulting your opponents into submission without even addressing their argument?

That you feel insulted is a problem for which I can do nothing... I've little control over what you allow to offend you. Noting that you're either clinically delusional or a pathetic liar, is, FTR: demonstrated, once again, by me addressing your assertion that I've failed to address you argument...

This is probably the 5th of 6th direct exchange between us on this thread... the substance of each being my response to your argument... so you're either truly unaware of those numerous exchanges over the last couple of hours; thus delusional; or you're desperate to distract the attention away from your failure to sustain your argument and have opted to do so, through this flaccid appeal which you feel will be popularly accepted by your comrades... through the impotent, deceitful and wholly fallacious assertion of same.

Would you care to respond to my original argument

Sure...

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

John Locke believed that an individual owned themselves and therefore they own the fruits of their own labor. It's very simple, if you believe that people are free naturally, then you must believe that the fruits of a person's labor belong to them and them alone. If you are talking about land ownership, it is more difficult to make that particular case. However, a person's life requires that they have a dwelling so if they have a right to live, then they have a right to a dwelling and a means to provide for themselves (the right to live is not guaranteed by the government, it is guaranteed by the peoples' ability to overthrow a government that attempts to deny it).

Check out Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" if this doesn't clear it up. It's a really short and easy read and was one of the major influences for the founders of the US.

For the most part, I agree... I do not however agree that property ownership is more complicated than the ownership of anything else. The principle remains the same.

I also do not agree that a person's life requires that they own a dwelling... nor does a person's life require a means to provide for themselves... many a person lives without either. A person has a right to pursue both... and where a power, in the absence of a valid moral justification, usurps the means to exercise that right; it is the duty of every free sovereign to destroy the power.

I agree that the right to live is not guaranteed... which it follows that no other right is guaranteed... thus the duty of each right bearing individual to defend the means of their neighbor to exercise their rights; as the failure to do so will inevitably result in the concession of that responsibility and in so doing the forfeiture of the right to the bearer of that responsibility.

Feel better?

 

[rubberhead]

The statement is neither true or false, as it represents a conclusion drawn from nothing thus there is nothing that initiates the contest. That you advance the premise that such an untethered conclusion must represent truth or falsity doesn't change the simple fact that it represents neither.

You question is the mathematical equivilent of advancing the following answer and asking for a conclusion relevant to truth: "6"

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. If the statement represents neither a truth nor a falsehood, then it must also represent both a truth and a falsehood. If it is not true, then it is false and therefore also true. Here's the statement again in case you still don't understand:

This statement is false.

I'm not sure if it is the mathematical equivalent of anything, since the statement rests only on the English language and the underlying principles of logic which cannot pin down the statement in any axiomatic system (except one that is inconsistent, but we're getting ahead of ourselves).

Thus proving that the premise is false. All you're doing is demanding that the premise is truth; and relishing in the disparity... apparently in an attempt to demonstrate the inadequacy of logic; as if logic is somehow distinct from reason.

Why don't we agree what the premise is, because I don't think you still remember. I'll go a step further and say that, based on how you've used it here, we should also go back and agree on what the word "premise" means. My contention is that truth only exists within a particular axiomatic system. More precisely, a statement is "true", or valid if it is satisfiable under all interpretations within the axiomatic system in which it is being examined.

I won't go into satisfiability because it has a precise definition which leads to other definitions and you've probably already started responding with some more garbage for me to sift through.

If you want to talk about Truth, well you'll need a better language than anyone mankind has yet invented, including mathematics and logic.

 

[rubberhead]

Nah, I'm ashamed for spending so much time arguing with a retard. Enjoy the rest of your night.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Language is a function of reason; and reason is a function of the divine endowment of our lives. We owe our means to reason to God... even those of you who so seldom exercise it that it's nearly impossible to discern in you.

Does this even mean anything?

Yeah, it is language common to both us; wherein the intrinsic words represent unambiguous concepts... joined together, they form a line a reasoning that simply notes the incontrovertible fact that the existance of language used to discuss, or even engage in the discovery of given natural principles, does not correlate to the creation or invention of those principles.



Well that's the nature of the straw dog... she just flat will not won't hunt, sis...

You claim to be a student of mathematics... Upon the satellites that humanity has sent beyond our solar system are several mathematical calculations which those who placed them believed would be readily understood by what or who ever should encounter the satellite. Is it your position that such beings would have just invented the same 'understanding' as our species?

Or isn't reason served by the simple understanding that those calculations represent immutable principles of nature, which beings that exist in such a common nature would also be subject to, thus likely have come to understand the same principles?




Which claims are those... If such is true, then reason is served that you would readily list the discrepency... this, at a minimum to demonstrate that your assertion is true...

Yet you've opted to leave it at that...

To the best of my knowledge, I have responded to every assertion you've advanced; refuted it where such was appropriate and discredited that which required nothing else...



Nope...



Been doing it all day... and continue to do so even as I write this...



That you feel insulted is a problem for which I can do nothing... I've little control over what you allow to offend you. Noting that you're either clinically delusional or a pathetic liar, is, FTR: demonstrated, once again, by me addressing your assertion that I've failed to address you argument...

This is probably the 5th of 6th direct exchange between us on this thread... the substance of each being my response to your argument... so you're either truly unaware of those numerous exchanges over the last couple of hours; thus delusional; or you're desperate to distract the attention away from your failure to sustain your argument and have opted to do so, through this flaccid appeal which you feel will be popularly accepted by your comrades... through the impotent, deceitful and wholly fallacious assertion of same.



Sure...

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

John Locke believed that an individual owned themselves and therefore they own the fruits of their own labor. It's very simple, if you believe that people are free naturally, then you must believe that the fruits of a person's labor belong to them and them alone. If you are talking about land ownership, it is more difficult to make that particular case. However, a person's life requires that they have a dwelling so if they have a right to live, then they have a right to a dwelling and a means to provide for themselves (the right to live is not guaranteed by the government, it is guaranteed by the peoples' ability to overthrow a government that attempts to deny it).

Check out Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" if this doesn't clear it up. It's a really short and easy read and was one of the major influences for the founders of the US.

For the most part, I agree... I do not however agree that property ownership is more complicated than the ownership of anything else. The principle remains the same.

I also do not agree that a person's life requires that they own a dwelling... nor does a person's life require a means to provide for themselves... many a person lives without either. A person has a right to pursue both... and where a power, in the absence of a valid moral justification, usurps the means to exercise that right; it is the duty of every free sovereign to destroy the power.

I agree that the right to live is not guaranteed... which it follows that no other right is guaranteed... thus the duty of each right bearing individual to defend the means of their neighbor to exercise their rights; as the failure to do so will inevitably result in the concession of that responsibility and in so doing the forfeiture of the right to the bearer of that responsibility.

Feel better?

Nah, I'm ashamed for spending so much time arguing with a retard. Enjoy the rest of your night.

Your concession is duly noted... and as always... summarily accepted.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The statement is neither true or false, as it represents a conclusion drawn from nothing thus there is nothing that initiates the contest. That you advance the premise that such an untethered conclusion must represent truth or falsity doesn't change the simple fact that it represents neither.

You question is the mathematical equivilent of advancing the following answer and asking for a conclusion relevant to truth: "6"

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here.

Color me SHOCKED!

If the statement represents neither a truth nor a falsehood, then it must also represent both a truth and a falsehood.

This position is likely a result of your inability to understand...

The Statement is neither true, nor False... As there is nothing within the scope of the calculation to establish either.

If it is not true, then it is false and therefore also true.

Absolute NONSENSE...

I'm not sure if it is the mathematical equivalent of anything, since the statement rests only on the English language and the underlying principles of logic which cannot pin down the statement in any axiomatic system (except one that is inconsistent, but we're getting ahead of ourselves).

Logic requires that a Conclusion is drawn from a reasoned basis. You've advanced a detached conclusion... you then demand that the premise inherent in the conclusion be accepted as either truth or falsity, apparently to celebrate the circular nature that the exercise represents... your detached conclusion is the mathematical equivilent of any value presented wherein the exercise requires the subject observer to judge it's truth value. That such doesn't represent a circular value is irrelevant.

Thus proving that the premise is false. All you're doing is demanding that the premise is truth; and relishing in the disparity... apparently in an attempt to demonstrate the inadequacy of logic; as if logic is somehow distinct from reason.

Why don't we agree what the premise is, because I don't think you still remember. I'll go a step further and say that, based on how you've used it here, we should also go back and agree on what the word "premise" means. My contention is that truth only exists within a particular axiomatic system. More precisely, a statement is "true", or valid if it is satisfiable under all interpretations within the axiomatic system in which it is being examined.

Well then, you've established yourself as an idiot... Congrats...

Was that what you were going for?

I won't go into satisfiability because it has a precise definition which leads to other definitions and you've probably already started responding with some more garbage for me to sift through.

Yeah... isn't it a bummer when people take the time to consider that which you've advanced for consideration? Whatta hassle...

If you want to talk about Truth, well you'll need a better language than anyone mankind has yet invented, including mathematics and logic.

Oh so truth is just an unknowable value? Wow... now that IS news...

Here's the thing about the concept truth... its the simple existance of that which is factual; the circumstances as they occured; that which is...

Nothing particularly complex about it... the long odds are that you're confusing truth with perspective... or the truth as recognized from a given point of view.

Setting all of that aside; let the record reflect that while the member appeared to be in the verge of clarifying her position relevant to 'the Barber scenario'... she opted to leave the issue on the mere appearance of a looming clarification; never getting around to define any of the relevant terms, which she implied would bring a better understanding of her PERSPECTIVE.

As failure goes RH... that was a BEAUTY

 

[NYcarbineer]

Those are not Conservative Principles. Try Again. Who does the Dept. of State Serve? Not Us. These are Statist Principles plain as day. These are those at war with Natural Rights, the Statists, mostly from the Left.

Says who? Now you're the arbiter of what is and isn't Conservative, as well as the arbiter of what is and isn't a natural right?

funny

I can't believe I was hallucinating the last 6 plus years when I heard and saw all those folks who proudly identify themselves as Conservatives supporting the invasion of Iraq, and the rebuilding of Iraq (all on borrowed money).

You are entitled to your opinion, so am I. Those are statist Principles born of the Left. Crush the Individual, All Power to the Controlling Authority. The State is Our God crowd. They, like you, are trained well, like barking seals.

The Confrontation with Jihad is Supported over Surrender, that includes Iraq. I blame Jimmy Carter, not Supporting The Shah. What a Shit Storm it caused. You blame Bush for over reacting. Rebuilding is Humanitarian, yet even that gets tainted by the New World Order.

Funding universal healthcare in Iraq is 'humanitarian', funding universal healthcare in the U.S. is what then? You make less sense every post.

I blame Bush Sr. for overreacting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm glad we don't have that "right". Because health care is a service that is provided by another human being. .

So is national defense.

Doctors don't volunteer to be doctors in general. If they do, it's of their own free will, just as those who volunteer to be soldiers. If our country's national security is threatened we hope that more people would volunteer to be soldiers. I think the draft is unconstitutional and in direct opposition to peoples' natural rights as is forcing people to be doctors, or government control over doctors' wages. This is just what would have to happen to guarantee health care to everyone as if it were a right.

The protection of your rights is funded by taxes. They are not voluntary.

 

[Diuretic]

There is justice in human nature is there not? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. We can impose such concepts on nature (ecological justice), but I agree that it's bullshit to do so.

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

The concept that we create, I mean if it survives the marketplace of ideas, has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

The tools we created were created to help us understand the natural world. But the natural world exists whether we can study it or not. Its existence doesn't require us, it's independent of us.

I'm not saying people have rights only by government. I'm saying that rights are a concept we humans invented so that we could more readily order our various forms of society. And they were recognised only for some, not all, depending on the society which contained them.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm glad we don't have that "right". Because health care is a service that is provided by another human being. .

So is national defense.

That is Statist Infiltration coming from Our Left that Influenced Iraq. It is Funny how They Accidentally left out Inalienable Rights, and Equal Justice. That should be sounding off alarms off in your head. The One World Government, New World Order wants to sweep it under the Rug.

That they could leave those rights out supports my position that humans invented rights.

 

[rubberhead]

So is national defense.

Doctors don't volunteer to be doctors in general. If they do, it's of their own free will, just as those who volunteer to be soldiers. If our country's national security is threatened we hope that more people would volunteer to be soldiers. I think the draft is unconstitutional and in direct opposition to peoples' natural rights as is forcing people to be doctors, or government control over doctors' wages. This is just what would have to happen to guarantee health care to everyone as if it were a right.

The protection of your rights is funded by taxes. They are not voluntary.

Again, in theory, the protection of my rights is my responsibility, I only consent to defer that responsibility to the government. Many militia nut jobs in the midwest don't defer that responsibility. I would never choose to defer the responsibility for my health care to the government. That would be far too much power to hand over for no good reason.

 

[Diuretic]

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

The concept that we create has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

Humans did not create Logic, or mathematics... No more than humans created Human Rights...

What Human's did was to discover Logic, Human Rights, etc...

This notion that because Humanity possessed the means to reason, leading to the discovery of these principles, that we somehow 'created it,' is simply absurd.

Discovered? You mean the tools that we use were just floating around in the ether waiting to be discovered? Tosh.

 

[rubberhead]

The tools we created were created to help us understand the natural world. But the natural world exists whether we can study it or not. Its existence doesn't require us, it's independent of us.

I'm not saying people have rights only by government. I'm saying that rights are a concept we humans invented so that we could more readily order our various forms of society. And they were recognised only for some, not all, depending on the society which contained them.

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

 

[rubberhead]

The concept that we create has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

Humans did not create Logic, or mathematics... No more than humans created Human Rights...

What Human's did was to discover Logic, Human Rights, etc...

This notion that because Humanity possessed the means to reason, leading to the discovery of these principles, that we somehow 'created it,' is simply absurd.

Discovered? You mean the tools that we use were just floating around in the ether waiting to be discovered? Tosh.

How could he be wrong? he's been a "student of reason" for almost 20 years! (He just turned 19, isn't he cute!). No, seriously I would not engage with Publius if I were you. He has no idea what he is saying or what it means to have a discussion.

 

[Diuretic]

The tools we created were created to help us understand the natural world. But the natural world exists whether we can study it or not. Its existence doesn't require us, it's independent of us.

I'm not saying people have rights only by government. I'm saying that rights are a concept we humans invented so that we could more readily order our various forms of society. And they were recognised only for some, not all, depending on the society which contained them.

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

Fair enough. I'll perhaps try to kick it off. Humans are animals. We are highly developed as opposed to other animal species but we're still animals. From what I understand our ancestors were social animals (I may have to credit Aristotle with that observation) so our ancestors, I mean before we developed into the particular form we are in today, needed to get on with one another.

I would think that instinct and learned behaviour would have combined to allow our ancestors to get along with each other. For me that's the beginning of human society, living together for mutual support and survival, cooperation on the basis of necessity. Rules worked out in the small family or tribal groupings based on a mix of instinct and learned behaviour (probably trial and error).

 

[rubberhead]

The tools we created were created to help us understand the natural world. But the natural world exists whether we can study it or not. Its existence doesn't require us, it's independent of us.

I'm not saying people have rights only by government. I'm saying that rights are a concept we humans invented so that we could more readily order our various forms of society. And they were recognised only for some, not all, depending on the society which contained them.

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

Fair enough. I'll perhaps try to kick it off. Humans are animals. We are highly developed as opposed to other animal species but we're still animals. From what I understand our ancestors were social animals (I may have to credit Aristotle with that observation) so our ancestors, I mean before we developed into the particular form we are in today, needed to get on with one another.

I would think that instinct and learned behaviour would have combined to allow our ancestors to get along with each other. For me that's the beginning of human society, living together for mutual support and survival, cooperation on the basis of necessity. Rules worked out in the small family or tribal groupings based on a mix of instinct and learned behaviour (probably trial and error).

This seems like an accurate portrayal of the relevant points. The trial and error process that you mentioned at the end there is still going on today I think. How does that process proceed? How does a society collectively decide that the rights that they have agreed to in their social contract are incorrect? What equilibrium does this process evolve toward? Is this a natural process? I mean, within the context of human activity. Sorry about all the questions, I thought I'd try leading questions instead of making my point directly.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

Fair enough. I'll perhaps try to kick it off. Humans are animals. We are highly developed as opposed to other animal species but we're still animals. From what I understand our ancestors were social animals (I may have to credit Aristotle with that observation) so our ancestors, I mean before we developed into the particular form we are in today, needed to get on with one another.

I would think that instinct and learned behaviour would have combined to allow our ancestors to get along with each other. For me that's the beginning of human society, living together for mutual support and survival, cooperation on the basis of necessity. Rules worked out in the small family or tribal groupings based on a mix of instinct and learned behaviour (probably trial and error).

This seems like an accurate portrayal of the relevant points. The trial and error process that you mentioned at the end there is still going on today I think. How does that process proceed? How does a society collectively decide that the rights that they have agreed to in their social contract are incorrect? What equilibrium does this process evolve toward? Is this a natural process? I mean, within the context of human activity. Sorry about all the questions, I thought I'd try leading questions instead of making my point directly.

Questions are good!

How does trial and error proceed? Firstly we're not the only animals who use the method. In a sense it's a sort of rudimentary experimental approach that can be observed in many species. I think humans follow the same process – let's try this, if it doesn't work, let's try something else; okay that works, let's keep doing it.

Incorrect rights. I'm not sure if a society decides rights are “incorrect” but I would think if it does happen, and you're probably thinking of some examples, then it's probably as a result of some sort of social movement. I'm thinking of another aspect in terms of distribution of rights. The right to have a say in government for one. And in particular I'm thinking of the Chartist movement in Britain which pushed for universal male suffrage.

Equilibrium? A lack of protest or some other form of social pressure I would think.

A natural process within the context of human activity. I think it's a manifestation of every maturely developed human's desire for self-actualisation in their social context.

 

[Intense]

The concept that we create has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

Humans did not create Logic, or mathematics... No more than humans created Human Rights...

What Human's did was to discover Logic, Human Rights, etc...

This notion that because Humanity possessed the means to reason, leading to the discovery of these principles, that we somehow 'created it,' is simply absurd.

Wrong. We did discover the aspects of nature that lead to the names that we give things. One of those things being logic. There are still new aspect of those discoveries being uncovered and subsequently named whereupon those names are organized into the category of human invention. We catalogue the properties of the universe and our own minds (which is the only place where logic exists), but we do not discover the knowledge, we invent it. Only an acolyte of the Church of Reason would confuse the two. Knowledge is not God. In my opinion the infinite universe, only a small corner of which are we and will we ever be aware much less understand and catalogue, is God.

There is the Creator and Creation. We are part of creation and Governed by the Creator. Your reasoning is sound, You just got off the train a few stops too soon. You give creation credit it does not deserve and deny the Source. Even Animals Reason. You also over rate Humanity.

 

[Intense]

Says who? Now you're the arbiter of what is and isn't Conservative, as well as the arbiter of what is and isn't a natural right?

funny

I can't believe I was hallucinating the last 6 plus years when I heard and saw all those folks who proudly identify themselves as Conservatives supporting the invasion of Iraq, and the rebuilding of Iraq (all on borrowed money).

You are entitled to your opinion, so am I. Those are statist Principles born of the Left. Crush the Individual, All Power to the Controlling Authority. The State is Our God crowd. They, like you, are trained well, like barking seals.

The Confrontation with Jihad is Supported over Surrender, that includes Iraq. I blame Jimmy Carter, not Supporting The Shah. What a Shit Storm it caused. You blame Bush for over reacting. Rebuilding is Humanitarian, yet even that gets tainted by the New World Order.

Funding universal healthcare in Iraq is 'humanitarian', funding universal healthcare in the U.S. is what then? You make less sense every post.

I blame Bush Sr. for overreacting.

Helping Iraq rebuild after Hostilities ended was Humanitarian. There comes a point when We either get compensated or pull out. I am against Universal Health Care because It will be abused There, Here, Anywhere. It can't be done without Bankrupting All involved. You seem younger every Post. Right now I'm figuring 3 1/2.

 

[Intense]

The tools we created were created to help us understand the natural world. But the natural world exists whether we can study it or not. Its existence doesn't require us, it's independent of us.

I'm not saying people have rights only by government. I'm saying that rights are a concept we humans invented so that we could more readily order our various forms of society. And they were recognised only for some, not all, depending on the society which contained them.

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

You still fail to recognize that Rights existed before Society. I do think that there is treatment for your condition. You need to change your diaper first.