What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

Yes, I have. He claims that all oare equal in the "Natural State".

Turn on National Geographic or Google Alpha Males.


His picture of nature is simply not accurate in the least.

 

[rubberhead]

Again, it is impossible to prove the existence of God. Those who wish to have faith in a God may, and those who don't may not. Make no mistake, however, everyone has faith in something. Rest assured, Setarcos (JBeukema) also has faith in something. There's no reason to defend yourselves.

Here's one for ya Setarcos: Prove that logic is valid. Good luck.

 

[Intense]

If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. -James Madison

Locke followed Two great Commandments. Plain and Simple.

Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Mark 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

 

[rubberhead]

Does not exist in a state equal to

The world is far from fair and equal

You are applying an artificial criteria. Both are alive.

Do you assert that the baby in the first does not deserve to live?

Setarcos assumes that 'equal' means 'having equal means'. This seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation of Locke's vagueness. I choose to interpret equal as meaning 'having equal rights'. Just because one has the right to life does not mean that they will live, it just means that no other can rightfully deprive them of life (unless they forfeit their right by threatening to take another's life).

I guess the fact that a pugnacious twit like Setarcos is the only one left 'arguing' against natural rights, we can just declare victory. Although, it's still kind of fun to kick Setarcos around I guess.

 

[Intense]

Does not exist in a state equal to

The world is far from fair and equal

You are applying an artificial criteria. Both are alive.

Do you assert that the baby in the first does not deserve to live?

Setarcos assumes that 'equal' means 'having equal means'. This seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation of Locke's vagueness. I choose to interpret equal as meaning 'having equal rights'. Just because one has the right to life does not mean that they will live, it just means that no other can rightfully deprive them of life (unless they forfeit their right by threatening to take another's life).

I guess the fact that a pugnacious twit like Setarcos is the only one left 'arguing' against natural rights, we can just declare victory. Although, it's still kind of fun to kick Setarcos around I guess.

His argument is total bullshit. Take off on a warped tangent and run for the wrong goal.
I refuse to believe in God, Therefore Nobody can! Knee deep arguing something that woild be pointless to your average atheist. Ever wonder why the type puts so much energy into the attempt to beat down Spirit? The devouring of Souls club. What is the Quote of the Week? "Why do you click and paste", like parrots. Pathetic. "Where is your Proof", "Define it for me, wipe my ass". Waste of time.

 

[Setarcos]

Again, it is impossible to prove the existence of God.

iF YOU CHOOSE TO DEFINE A THING SUCH THAT IT CAN NEVER BE TESTED FOR, THEN IT IS A MEANINGLESS DEFINITION.

Here's one for ya Setarcos: Prove that logic is valid. Good luck.

Define:valid

 

[Setarcos]

Someone already tried your BS at another board

Before we go on you must prove logic is a tool for truth - Volconvo Debate Forums

 

[Setarcos]

If "all men are by nature equally free and independent,"

Are they?

all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions;

Really?

Define:men

Not all men are equal in skill or potential.

Didn't someone already make the comment that noone can argue for natural rights without ultimately appealing to religion?

 

[Setarcos]

Locke asserts that all are equal in nature, none possessing more than the other

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection....

(Chapter 2) (emphasis added)

You can't appeal to any "vagueness"

This falsity (in bold) is followed by Hume's Guillotine (in Italics)


Such are Locke's words.

 

[Setarcos]

Setarcos assumes that 'equal' means 'having equal means'. This seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation of Locke's vagueness.

Actually, Locke says so

I choose to interpret equal as meaning 'having equal rights'.

they have equal rights ==> they are equal==>they have equal rights?

Circular Reasoning


All you've done is go back to question 1: where do such "rights" come from, who can enumerate them, and how do you plan to demonstrate that they exist?

Begging the question

 

[Contumacious]

Didn't someone already make the comment that no one can argue for natural rights without ultimately appealing to religion?

Well Vern, I am an atheist and a supporter of Natural Rights.

.

 

[Setarcos]

Well Vern, I am an atheist and a supporter of Natural Rights.

.

Then you should be able to demonstrate their existence using logic.

Funny how you said you "support them", not that you recognize them or believe they exist.

 

[Intense]

If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.

We have freedom within Our ability. We have Self Determination. What We surrender by consent, entering into society, is Equal in Nature, so are the Rights and Privileges of being in that Society, Equal in Nature. Impartiality in Judgment, in regard to both Civil and Criminal Law is also a Promise of the Society, We have entered. In these ways we are considered Equal.

Having to choose between Liberty and Equal Distribution, I will always choose Liberty, which is a First Promise of This Society. Equal distribution, is Government playing God, which it has no right to do, a usurpation of Authority and a breach of the Public Trust.

Only a Retarded Person would Interpret or argue that Equal referred to talent, resource, or ability. To do so plainly mis characterizes Original Intent. Some have built monuments on this false foundation.
We are Individual Beings, Each One, with Our Own Life to Live. We Learn Choice Through Life, and We make them Every day, Each Responsible for Their Own Self first, and accountable. This can be interpreted Civilly or Religiously, or both.

 

[rubberhead]

Didn't someone already make the comment that no one can argue for natural rights without ultimately appealing to religion?

Well Vern, I am an atheist and a supporter of Natural Rights.

.

I'm an agnostic and a supporter of natural rights... go figure.

I mean, I support the assertion:

Natural rights exist.

 

[rubberhead]

Prove that "natural" rights exist using logic.

OK, let's put this bullshit to rest once and for all. In order to prove something logically, we need axioms. Why don't you provide a set of axioms with which to prove logically that natural rights exist? That way we don't have to work backwards to try to reverse engineer what it is you consider "logic."

 

[rubberhead]

Also be sure to include precise definitions of every term that you introduce. Examples: rights, natural, moral, etc.

 

[rubberhead]

If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.

We have freedom within Our ability. We have Self Determination. What We surrender by consent, entering into society, is Equal in Nature, so are the Rights and Privileges of being in that Society, Equal in Nature. Impartiality in Judgment, in regard to both Civil and Criminal Law is also a Promise of the Society, We have entered. In these ways we are considered Equal.

Having to choose between Liberty and Equal Distribution, I will always choose Liberty, which is a First Promise of This Society. Equal distribution, is Government playing God, which it has no right to do, a usurpation of Authority and a breach of the Public Trust.

Only a Retarded Person would Interpret or argue that Equal referred to talent, resource, or ability. To do so plainly mis characterizes Original Intent. Some have built monuments on this false foundation.
We are Individual Beings, Each One, with Our Own Life to Live. We Learn Choice Through Life, and We make them Every day, Each Responsible for Their Own Self first, and accountable. This can be interpreted Civilly or Religiously, or both.

Very well put. I'm sure that our representative from the Church of Reason will have some piddling semantic quibble to nitpick at, but that's pretty much exactly the way I see it. I wonder how there can be people who are so feeble minded that they can't grasp the concept of self-determination. Are they afraid of freedom?

I've got it! They are afraid of responsibility and trading risk for reward. If we were all socialists then we could permanently eliminate risk to the system, right? Wrong. The risk actually tends to flow downward in a socialist system. That is, risk flows away from the power. Since everyone is guaranteed things that cost money, more and more money must be dumped into the system, with the added cost of massive corruption and waste, until the system breaks and the currency hyperinflates into oblivion because all the benevolent overlords can think to do is dump more new money into the economy. It's funny how things fall apart when you try to give them more rights than they have naturally. Hmmm.... Do you think maybe this suggests an underlying reality of our existence?

Risk is unavoidable. It is the cost of growth. In economics and elsewhere. It can be managed, molded, fudged or ignored, but it cannot be eliminated. Here we have the "F" word rearing its ugly head again. How do you justify taking a risk? Faith. Period.

 

[rubberhead]

Well, there is one thing in this world that's "risk free":

Hydrolyze Skin Cream

No, seriously. If someone tells you that something is "risk free", you better think twice about what they're selling. It's probably snake-oil.

Sorry, just thought I'd make my point again.

 

[Liability]

Also be sure to include precise definitions of every term that you introduce. Examples: rights, natural, moral, etc.

Good luck.

These guys don't like to be pinned down by those "definitiona" things.

I also question why the semantics here even matter.

Let's stipulate (for the sake of the discussion, only) that there are no such things as "natural rights." That is, we agree to say (without having to actually buy into it) that "rights are a construct created by humankind -- a function of human society.

And?

No matter where they come from (God above, nature itself, or the mind of humankind in a societal setting), rights are cherished things. Some are unclear. Some are claimed where they don't really exist. And?

So what?

Many are perfectly clear to almost all of us. We know as sure as hell when somebody tries to deprive us of any of OUR rights.

So why engage in semantics about it? What's the point of demanding that I acknwledge that there are no "natural rights." Maybe there are. Maybe there aren't. But rights still exist. And lots of people cherish them enormously. We fight for them for outselves and on behalf of our fellow man. We have had our ancestors and some of our contemporaries die for them, too. In light of that, how can anybody rationally doubt their importance?

 

[Care4all]

If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.

We have freedom within Our ability. We have Self Determination. What We surrender by consent, entering into society, is Equal in Nature, so are the Rights and Privileges of being in that Society, Equal in Nature. Impartiality in Judgment, in regard to both Civil and Criminal Law is also a Promise of the Society, We have entered. In these ways we are considered Equal.

Having to choose between Liberty and Equal Distribution, I will always choose Liberty, which is a First Promise of This Society. Equal distribution, is Government playing God, which it has no right to do, a usurpation of Authority and a breach of the Public Trust.

Only a Retarded Person would Interpret or argue that Equal referred to talent, resource, or ability. To do so plainly mis characterizes Original Intent. Some have built monuments on this false foundation.
We are Individual Beings, Each One, with Our Own Life to Live. We Learn Choice Through Life, and We make them Every day, Each Responsible for Their Own Self first, and accountable. This can be interpreted Civilly or Religiously, or both.

I agree with what you said Intense, except I don't think there are all these people lined up to force everyone to share equally where no man has more than another...where there are no wealthy and there are no poor....i don't think any Democratic party people believe such either.

Other than that, ...very well said!

Care