What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

okay, I saw 'Catholic perception'

Given the total lack of internal consistency in all thing Catholic, I can guess that whatever you posted is bullshit without needing to read it

That again reinforces that You are Learning Disabled. The Posts are public and You have access to them, please know that were they for You, I would not waste the time posting them. Please ignore them. You will know when I respond to you when I Quote You or Address You by name.

 

[Contumacious]

your point?

it is flawed and it is an inheritance from Descartesian and theistic thought

Bullshit.

Theistic Dogma is fascistic.

A god whose commands individuals must obey.

theistic =/= abrahamic


they are not equivalent term


using them as such is fallacious


'natural rights' grew out of a tradition based heavily on theistic traditions, where Man's 'natural rights came from God- 'endowed by their creator' in more recent parlence

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


.

 

[JBeukema]

Bullshit.

Theistic Dogma is fascistic.

A god whose commands individuals must obey.

theistic =/= abrahamic


they are not equivalent term


using them as such is fallacious


'natural rights' grew out of a tradition based heavily on theistic traditions, where Man's 'natural rights came from God- 'endowed by their creator' in more recent parlence

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


.

read that carefully

where does it say

[

A god whose commands individuals must obey. God controls everything, and everything is predestined.

?

Oh wait, it doesn't. You're just a ******* retard

 

[Intense]

Incorrect, I am an atheist yet I believe in natural rights.


.

You're also a fool, as we've seen before.

Obviously you were directing the comment to someone else.

To say that you are an atheist and you belief in 'natural rights', therfore natural rights exist and the arguments are valid is logically fallacious.

Are you an Alzheimer's sufferer?

Didn't you make this comment?


"The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.

Posts # 1034 & # 1035 Can help you clarify and better represent your cause Contumacious.

 

[Contumacious]

theistic =/= abrahamic


they are not equivalent term


using them as such is fallacious


'natural rights' grew out of a tradition based heavily on theistic traditions, where Man's 'natural rights came from God- 'endowed by their creator' in more recent parlence

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


.

read that carefully

where does it say

[

A god whose commands individuals must obey. God controls everything, and everything is predestined.

I take it that you are a glutton for punishment ,


ruler
Noun
1. a person who rules or commands


.

 

[rubberhead]

theistic =/= abrahamic


they are not equivalent term


using them as such is fallacious


'natural rights' grew out of a tradition based heavily on theistic traditions, where Man's 'natural rights came from God- 'endowed by their creator' in more recent parlence

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


.

read that carefully

where does it say

[

A god whose commands individuals must obey. God controls everything, and everything is predestined.

?

Oh wait, it doesn't. You're just a ******* retard

Uh.... actually that's exactly what it says in bold. At least the part about God controlling everything. I get it. JPuke never learned to read. That's terrible. Blame the public school system, I guess.

 

[JBeukema]

You're also a fool, as we've seen before.

Obviously you were directing the comment to someone else.

To say that you are an atheist and you belief in 'natural rights', therfore natural rights exist and the arguments are valid is logically fallacious.

Are you an Alzheimer's sufferer?

Didn't you make this comment?


"The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.

Posts # 1034 & # 1035 Can help you clarify and better represent your cause Contumacious.

Yep... give him a theistic rant as evidence that it's not based in theistic thought

 

[JBeukema]

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


.

read that carefully

where does it say

[

A god whose commands individuals must obey. God controls everything, and everything is predestined.

I take it that you are a glutton for punishment ,


ruler
Noun
1. a person who rules or commands


.

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


where does it say everything is predestined and the deity must demand total obedience upon pain of death?


damn, you're stupid


the definition you provided proves you wrong

 

[JBeukema]

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


.

read that carefully

where does it say

[

A god whose commands individuals must obey. God controls everything, and everything is predestined.

?

Oh wait, it doesn't. You're just a ******* retard

Uh.... actually that's exactly what it says in bold. At least the part about God controlling everything. I get it. JPuke never learned to read. That's terrible. Blame the public school system, I guess.

No, it doesn'

the bolded section says nothing about predestination

the boded section begins 'especially'- not necessarily (certain forms of theism, such as deism, made no such claims of influence by deity)

clearly, you never learned how to read

 

[Intense]

Obviously you were directing the comment to someone else.

Are you an Alzheimer's sufferer?

Didn't you make this comment?


"The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.

Posts # 1034 & # 1035 Can help you clarify and better represent your cause Contumacious.

Yep... give him a theistic rant as evidence that it's not based in theistic thought

The Post is direct content from The Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent Web Site. I'm so sorry that it is not up up Your Standards, Jackass. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Right

 

[JBeukema]

Posts # 1034 & # 1035 Can help you clarify and better represent your cause Contumacious.

Yep... give him a theistic rant as evidence that it's not based in theistic thought

The Post is direct content from The Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent

Yep, that'll prove e wrong about it being inherited from theistic tradition

 

[rubberhead]

clearly, you never learned how to read

I know you are but what am I? Why don't you cry some more?

God created and rules the world => God controls everything => Obey or die. This is why I am an agnostic. If God comes to me and can demonstrate that He/She/It is god, then I can become an affirmative theist of some sort. When you were attending the "school of reason" for all those years, did they ever teach you to think about anything more deeply than the superficial, pretentious name dropping that you've posted here? I haven't seen you post a single original thought that you could actually convincingly back up with a reasonable argument. Did you get held back in the "school of reason" for 18 years? Or is the only thing they teach there how to think like a shallow twit who can't absorb new ideas and never had any in the first place? By the way, when I post Ad Hominem attacks against you, I'm only trying to speak your language. Even in committing fallacies you can't compete, JPuke. Just do the world a favor and never make your opinion known again.

 

[JBeukema]

clearly, you never learned how to read

I know you are but what am I? Why don't you cry some more?

God created and rules the world => God controls everything => Obey or die.

none of that follows logically

I created a web forum

does that mean I control what every single posts and all the outcomes of the discussions are predetermined?

creating does not lead to ruling

logic fail

ruling dfdoes not equate to or necessarily lead to 'obey or die'

logic fail

damn, you're ******* stupid

This is why I am an agnostic.

because of failed logic?

Are you always this stupid?

If God comes to me and can demonstrate that He/She/It is god, then I can become an affirmative theist of some sort.

or question whether you're sane

When you were attending the "school of reason" for all those years, did they ever teach you to think about anything more deeply than the superficial, pretentious name dropping that you've posted here?

They taught me enough to know that if you're going to say A=>B, you must be able to demonstrate it. Simply posting it doesn't make it any less false

I haven't seen you post a single original thought that you could actually convincingly back up with a reasonable argument.

see the search button?

By the way, when I post Ad Hominem attacks against you, I'm only trying to speak your language.

well, you fail, dumbass, for I never post ad homs

Of course, you don't seem to even know what an ad hom IS

 

[Intense]

Yep... give him a theistic rant as evidence that it's not based in theistic thought

The Post is direct content from The Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent

Yep, that'll prove e wrong about it being inherited from theistic tradition

Sight unseen.

 

[JBeukema]

Catholic Perception of Natural Right.

Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice.

define 'justice'

what is just?

When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing

and why should it be recognized?

, which others are obliged to recognize

demonstrate any such obligation

. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own.

demonstrate this 'moral authority'

what moral code ascribes it?

the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it;

says who?

on the contrary, his act is an injustice,

By what standard of justice?

a violation of right

you never demonstrated any right

, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner

bound by what?

. Right is called a moral or legal authority, because it emanates from a law which assigns to one the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation to respect this dominion.

that law comes from Man

hence so do these ';rights'


that's positive rights and social contract, not 'natural rights'

you just argued my case for me, so there's no reason to read any more

 

[rubberhead]

none of that follows logically

I created a web forum

does that mean I control what every single posts and all the outcomes of the discussions are predetermined?

creating does not lead to ruling

logic fail

ruling dfdoes not equate to or necessarily lead to 'obey or die'

logic fail

damn, you're ******* stupid

because of failed logic?

Are you always this stupid?



They taught me enough to know that if you're going to say A=>B, you must be able to demonstrate it. Simply posting it doesn't make it any less false

see the search button?

well, you fail, dumbass, for I never post ad homs

Of course, you don't seem to even know what an ad hom IS

Actually if you created and controlled a web forum then you technically could control every single post. You probably would, too since you're clearly a douche-tron. If God controls everything, and God gives you a rule to live by, damnation is the penalty for breaking the rule. Not exactly death, but some would argue it's worse. If you take a look at my quoting of you, you'll see that it is laced with ad hominem attacks. It's funny that you can't see how much of a fool you clearly are.

 

[JBeukema]

Once again, dumbass, you need to learn what words mean before using them

Go look up the definition of an ad hom, dumbass

 

[rubberhead]

define 'justice'

what is just?

That's what we're trying to do here. Care to join the discussion? Or would you just like to hurl ad hominem attacks and vapor thin arguments? I'm having fun making fun of you, so it's fine with me either way.

and why should it be recognized?

demonstrate any such obligation

because the person who owns it has the right, indeed the obligation to defend their rights. If the transgressor ignores their obligation, then they face the wrath of whatever force the victim can gather. Maybe this is not persuasive to the defector, but he/she forfeits their own rights to some degree. In the case of the thief, they forfeit their right to property.

demonstrate this 'moral authority'

what moral code ascribes it?

says who?

By what standard of justice?

you never demonstrated any right

, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner

bound by what?

that law comes from Man

hence so do these ';rights'


that's positive rights and social contract, not 'natural rights'

you just argued my case for me, so there's no reason to read any more

Of course all of this comes from humans. Anything that we can talk about comes from humans. The social contract is artificial. It describes the rights observed by a particular society. Natural rights are those which can be decided on from the original position. If you disagree, then why don't you actually make your case? I've read all of your posts. You're arguments are nearly nonexistent garbage. That's probably why your conclusions are false. This is the laziest Ph.d. in the "study of reason" that I have ever seen. I thought "students of reason" enjoyed actually making arguments and not just perpetually picking apart fabricated flaws in the arguments of others. You're a disgrace to your "student of reason" merit badge.

 

[rubberhead]

Once again, dumbass, you need to learn what words mean before using them

Go look up the definition of an ad hom, dumbass

No, you are!

Is your goal just to ruin what was otherwise an interesting and fruitful discussion? You're not going to succeed. Anyone who wants to earnestly discuss this will just wait until you run out of energy for this totally pointless task to which you have appointed yourself with a completely inappropriate amount of energy. You don't come across as an intelligent "student of reason", as you are clearly contriving that image so transparently that an amoeba could see through it. You come across as an arrogant prick demanding attention in the most juvenile of ways trying to mask his desperation as some sort of validity. Your opinion holds absolutely no weight in this discussion as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure there are others here who would agree with me. Keep digging your hole by all means, I'm thoroughly enjoying your intellectual suicide.

 

[JBeukema]

define 'justice'

what is just?

That's what we're trying to do here

you're going in circles

and why should it be recognized?

demonstrate any such obligation

because the person who owns it has the right[/quote]

yet to be demonstrated

. If the transgressor ignores their obligation, then they face the wrath of whatever force the victim can gather.

that's social contract and vengeance

that's positive rights and law


you just proved me correct yet again

Of course all of this comes from humans.

there ya go

as I said, there are no 'natural rights'


It's all positive rights and social contract

I
The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.


There are 'no rights'; there is only liberty(the freedom and ability to do any given thing) and the limits put upon liberty by the self and others.


No system of prescriptive ethics has ever withstood an honest examination

Anything that we can talk about comes from humans. The social contract is artificial. It describes the rights observed by a particular society.

not 'observed'

ascribed

Natural rights are those which can be decided on from the original position.

what position? What 'rights' exist in nature outside of social contract?

There is liberty/abolity

there is instinct./evolution

there is social contract

that is all

If you disagree, then why don't you actually make your case? I've read all of your posts.

evidently not

That's probably why your conclusions are false.

yet you have now twice led to the same conclusions