What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

The only thing that's "innate" in humanity is free will. "Rights" are nothing more than someone else's views on what should limit that will.

Can you prove free will exists?

No, of course not.

Not everything is "provable". But with the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's the simpler choice.

Fine, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take the simple choice and assume that rights are not restrictions on my free will imposed by society.

Unless, that is,m you have evidence for your point of view.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Can you prove free will exists?

No, of course not.

Not everything is "provable". But with the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's the simpler choice.

Fine, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take the simple choice and assume that rights are not restrictions on my free will imposed by society.

Unless, that is,m you have evidence for your point of view.

What do you define a "right" as?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Those don't exist either..except as a human construct.

Unless of course you believe in the supernatural.

Well since the Founders all did, I'm working with what I inherited.


plz tell me you're not one of those nutters that want to do away with the Constitution b/c it's old

This Nation was indeed FOUNDED and thrives under the notion of our inalienable rights granted us by our Creator. They are explicitly supernatural, and America is a defacto theocracy.

That's batshitcrazy horeshit.

And that's being kind

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, of course not.

Not everything is "provable". But with the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's the simpler choice.

Fine, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take the simple choice and assume that rights are not restrictions on my free will imposed by society.

Unless, that is,m you have evidence for your point of view.

What do you define a "right" as?

We are discussing natural rights. By definition, natural rights do not come from society, culture, or law. Rights come from the very thing you say is innate in each one of us, our free will. society cannot dictate what goes on inside my head, therefore I have rights society cannot either grant, or take away.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Fine, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take the simple choice and assume that rights are not restrictions on my free will imposed by society.

Unless, that is,m you have evidence for your point of view.

What do you define a "right" as?

We are discussing natural rights. By definition, natural rights do not come from society, culture, or law. Rights come from the very thing you say is innate in each one of us, our free will. society cannot dictate what goes on inside my head, therefore I have rights society cannot either grant, or take away.

I think we're agreeing. I just don't like the term "rights".

Do I have the "right" to murder someone? I can certain have the will to do so. I'm arguing that the term "right" is generally used to refer to an application of will that is approved of by society.

I'm making no differentiation between acceptable applications of will and unacceptable ones, because we are all capable of both.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What do you define a "right" as?

We are discussing natural rights. By definition, natural rights do not come from society, culture, or law. Rights come from the very thing you say is innate in each one of us, our free will. society cannot dictate what goes on inside my head, therefore I have rights society cannot either grant, or take away.

I think we're agreeing. I just don't like the term "rights".

Do I have the "right" to murder someone? I can certain have the will to do so. I'm arguing that the term "right" is generally used to refer to an application of will that is approved of by society.

I'm making no differentiation between acceptable applications of will and unacceptable ones, because we are all capable of both.

We are about as far apart as it is possible to get, you are confusing actions with rights. I have a natural right to think, I do not have a natural right to fly simply because I can imagine flying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, of course not.

Not everything is "provable". But with the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's the simpler choice.

Fine, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take the simple choice and assume that rights are not restrictions on my free will imposed by society.

Unless, that is,m you have evidence for your point of view.

What do you define a "right" as?

That one's easy.

Right - Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

And as I keep having to point out, "nature" in this case is not a reference to the great outdoors and the law of the jungle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do you define a "right" as?

We are discussing natural rights. By definition, natural rights do not come from society, culture, or law. Rights come from the very thing you say is innate in each one of us, our free will. society cannot dictate what goes on inside my head, therefore I have rights society cannot either grant, or take away.

I think we're agreeing. I just don't like the term "rights".

Do I have the "right" to murder someone? I can certain have the will to do so. I'm arguing that the term "right" is generally used to refer to an application of will that is approved of by society.

I'm making no differentiation between acceptable applications of will and unacceptable ones, because we are all capable of both.

Why on Earth would you think you would, or could, have the right to murder someone?

And why are you bringing "will" into this at all?

 

[Cecilie1200]

We are discussing natural rights. By definition, natural rights do not come from society, culture, or law. Rights come from the very thing you say is innate in each one of us, our free will. society cannot dictate what goes on inside my head, therefore I have rights society cannot either grant, or take away.

I think we're agreeing. I just don't like the term "rights".

Do I have the "right" to murder someone? I can certain have the will to do so. I'm arguing that the term "right" is generally used to refer to an application of will that is approved of by society.

I'm making no differentiation between acceptable applications of will and unacceptable ones, because we are all capable of both.

We are about as far apart as it is possible to get, you are confusing actions with rights. I have a natural right to think, I do not have a natural right to fly simply because I can imagine flying.

Nor does a lack of will to exercise your rights invalidate the fact that you have them. If I choose not to exercise my legal right to vote, for example, that doesn't mean I no longer have the right to do so.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We are discussing natural rights. By definition, natural rights do not come from society, culture, or law. Rights come from the very thing you say is innate in each one of us, our free will. society cannot dictate what goes on inside my head, therefore I have rights society cannot either grant, or take away.

I think we're agreeing. I just don't like the term "rights".

Do I have the "right" to murder someone? I can certain have the will to do so. I'm arguing that the term "right" is generally used to refer to an application of will that is approved of by society.

I'm making no differentiation between acceptable applications of will and unacceptable ones, because we are all capable of both.

We are about as far apart as it is possible to get, you are confusing actions with rights. I have a natural right to think, I do not have a natural right to fly simply because I can imagine flying.

It's completely possible that I'm not understanding you. It's also possible that you're not understanding me.

I'll try to back it up a little and explain what I'm talking about.

Everyone is born with free will. By that I mean the ability to think, make decisions, weigh consequences and act. Nothing can take that away, so in that sense I'm connecting it to your definition of a "right". Perhaps I got that wrong.

To me, the term "right" is applied in a way that implies a limit to how one's free will can be exercised - a "consequence", as I mentioned before. For instance, most people will agree on a "right" to free speech - but I doubt any will agree on a "right" to free action. I think of speech and action as essentially the same thing - just applications of one's free will.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think we're agreeing. I just don't like the term "rights".

Do I have the "right" to murder someone? I can certain have the will to do so. I'm arguing that the term "right" is generally used to refer to an application of will that is approved of by society.

I'm making no differentiation between acceptable applications of will and unacceptable ones, because we are all capable of both.

We are about as far apart as it is possible to get, you are confusing actions with rights. I have a natural right to think, I do not have a natural right to fly simply because I can imagine flying.

Nor does a lack of will to exercise your rights invalidate the fact that you have them. If I choose not to exercise my legal right to vote, for example, that doesn't mean I no longer have the right to do so.

I'm guessing you're not understanding me, because that simply doesn't make any sense in context with my comments.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We are discussing natural rights. By definition, natural rights do not come from society, culture, or law. Rights come from the very thing you say is innate in each one of us, our free will. society cannot dictate what goes on inside my head, therefore I have rights society cannot either grant, or take away.

I think we're agreeing. I just don't like the term "rights".

Do I have the "right" to murder someone? I can certain have the will to do so. I'm arguing that the term "right" is generally used to refer to an application of will that is approved of by society.

I'm making no differentiation between acceptable applications of will and unacceptable ones, because we are all capable of both.

Why on Earth would you think you would, or could, have the right to murder someone?

And why are you bringing "will" into this at all?

We don't have a "right" to murder someone. But we are able to do so. We have the free will to do so.

Which is my point about "rights". They are restrictions on free will, as decided by society.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Fine, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take the simple choice and assume that rights are not restrictions on my free will imposed by society.

Unless, that is,m you have evidence for your point of view.

What do you define a "right" as?

That one's easy.

Right - Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

And as I keep having to point out, "nature" in this case is not a reference to the great outdoors and the law of the jungle.

That's an arbitrary non-answer. If a law was passed tomorrow legalizing murder, would that mean we had a "right" to murder?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think we're agreeing. I just don't like the term "rights".

Do I have the "right" to murder someone? I can certain have the will to do so. I'm arguing that the term "right" is generally used to refer to an application of will that is approved of by society.

I'm making no differentiation between acceptable applications of will and unacceptable ones, because we are all capable of both.

We are about as far apart as it is possible to get, you are confusing actions with rights. I have a natural right to think, I do not have a natural right to fly simply because I can imagine flying.

It's completely possible that I'm not understanding you. It's also possible that you're not understanding me.

I'll try to back it up a little and explain what I'm talking about.

Everyone is born with free will. By that I mean the ability to think, make decisions, weigh consequences and act. Nothing can take that away, so in that sense I'm connecting it to your definition of a "right". Perhaps I got that wrong.

To me, the term "right" is applied in a way that implies a limit to how one's free will can be exercised - a "consequence", as I mentioned before. For instance, most people will agree on a "right" to free speech - but I doubt any will agree on a "right" to free action. I think of speech and action as essentially the same thing - just applications of one's free will.

First, you have to understand we are talking about three different things, natural rights, legal rights, and actions. Natural rights are inherent in every living sentient creature in the universe, legal rights are given to us by law and/or custom, actions are what we do.

I have an inalienable natural right to think about killing you.

I may, or may not, have a legal right to kill you depending on the circumstances.

If I chose to follow up on my thoughts about killing you society will judge whether it condones said killing by using law and/or custom to judge my actions.

My rights have no consequences, my actions do.

 

[Clementine]

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

That right doesn't exist.

The right to not be killed? You are mistaken. If that right doesn't exist then no rights exist.

I guess our only "rights" are whatever the dictator says they are. And it seems that rights are exclusive these days.

I'd say we have the right to live our lives without someone choosing to end our life or dictate how we live. As long as a person doesn't do harm, they should be left alone. If others try to harm us, we have the right to defend ourselves. Guns make the most sense for this purpose.

Funny that a liberal claims we have no right not to be killed by another, yet others have a right to take what we earn. Maybe he was talking about abortion?? They say people have a right to demand that other people pay for their keep and their needs. Government assholes think they have a right to enslave the people by imposing a huge debt on their shoulders. We would be in prison if we disagreed and refused to be used that way. We have no right not to be oppressed in the new America.

When a liberal says we have no right not to be killed, is that the same as saying we have no right to defend ourselves by any means necessary if someone tries. It is okay to kill someone who is trying to harm you, so they have no right not to be killed if they put a person in a position where they have to defend themselves. They deserve it.

I guess everyone has their own idea of rights. Communists, Muslims who practice Sharia law and dictators say your rights are what they choose to give you, and it's usually not much. Your only freedom is choosing whether you want to obey or die.

Some clearly don't understand the principles on which this country was founded. They never will. It exists because the smartest people on earth understood freedom, rights and liberty. Those things confuse many people and that has become abundantly clear in recent years. It stems from a gross lack of understanding of human nature. Those who are delusional and narcissistic enough to see themselves as superior are unable to see past their own feelings and aren't aware that other people have the need to decide things for themselves. That is why they treat people like mindless animals and seek to dictate how they should live. Only a dangerous and crazy person would aspire to control the population.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We are about as far apart as it is possible to get, you are confusing actions with rights. I have a natural right to think, I do not have a natural right to fly simply because I can imagine flying.

It's completely possible that I'm not understanding you. It's also possible that you're not understanding me.

I'll try to back it up a little and explain what I'm talking about.

Everyone is born with free will. By that I mean the ability to think, make decisions, weigh consequences and act. Nothing can take that away, so in that sense I'm connecting it to your definition of a "right". Perhaps I got that wrong.

To me, the term "right" is applied in a way that implies a limit to how one's free will can be exercised - a "consequence", as I mentioned before. For instance, most people will agree on a "right" to free speech - but I doubt any will agree on a "right" to free action. I think of speech and action as essentially the same thing - just applications of one's free will.

First, you have to understand we are talking about three different things, natural rights, legal rights, and actions. Natural rights are inherent in every living sentient creature in the universe, legal rights are given to us by law and/or custom, actions are what we do.

I have an inalienable natural right to think about killing you.

I may, or may not, have a legal right to kill you depending on the circumstances.

If I chose to follow up on my thoughts about killing you society will judge whether it condones said killing by using law and/or custom to judge my actions.

My rights have no consequences, my actions do.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and for stake of clarity, in my previous posts I was referring to what you've described as legal rights.

Which comes directly back to my problems with the term "rights" - the inherent confusion about what the definition of the term is.

What else would include as a "natural right", aside from the ability to think?

 

[Politico]

None.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's completely possible that I'm not understanding you. It's also possible that you're not understanding me.

I'll try to back it up a little and explain what I'm talking about.

Everyone is born with free will. By that I mean the ability to think, make decisions, weigh consequences and act. Nothing can take that away, so in that sense I'm connecting it to your definition of a "right". Perhaps I got that wrong.

To me, the term "right" is applied in a way that implies a limit to how one's free will can be exercised - a "consequence", as I mentioned before. For instance, most people will agree on a "right" to free speech - but I doubt any will agree on a "right" to free action. I think of speech and action as essentially the same thing - just applications of one's free will.

First, you have to understand we are talking about three different things, natural rights, legal rights, and actions. Natural rights are inherent in every living sentient creature in the universe, legal rights are given to us by law and/or custom, actions are what we do.

I have an inalienable natural right to think about killing you.

I may, or may not, have a legal right to kill you depending on the circumstances.

If I chose to follow up on my thoughts about killing you society will judge whether it condones said killing by using law and/or custom to judge my actions.

My rights have no consequences, my actions do.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and for stake of clarity, in my previous posts I was referring to what you've described as legal rights.

Which comes directly back to my problems with the term "rights" - the inherent confusion about what the definition of the term is.

What else would include as a "natural right", aside from the ability to think?

Natural rights are things that come to us from nature, life, liberty, and pursuing happiness. I know quite a few people that argue that anything that another person can infringe upon or take by force is not a right, but I disagree. Even if we accept that definition you cannot prevent me from thinking or the pursuit of happiness. As one of my favorite charactors put it once, you can make it damn hard to actually catch happiness, but you can't actually stop people from chasing it.

By the way, anyone that argues that the pursuit of happiness is a human construct has never watched a kitten play. That is why I know that rights are real, I can see evidence of them in things other than humans.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We are about as far apart as it is possible to get, you are confusing actions with rights. I have a natural right to think, I do not have a natural right to fly simply because I can imagine flying.

Nor does a lack of will to exercise your rights invalidate the fact that you have them. If I choose not to exercise my legal right to vote, for example, that doesn't mean I no longer have the right to do so.

I'm guessing you're not understanding me, because that simply doesn't make any sense in context with my comments.

Could have something to do with your comments not making a lot of sense, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the meanings of the terms "rights" or "natural rights". You're basically just raving about something totally unrelated. Perhaps you should figure out what words mean before you discuss them.

On the other hand, MY comment quoted above related to Quantum's comment, which is why I quoted THAT.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

First, you have to understand we are talking about three different things, natural rights, legal rights, and actions. Natural rights are inherent in every living sentient creature in the universe, legal rights are given to us by law and/or custom, actions are what we do.

I have an inalienable natural right to think about killing you.

I may, or may not, have a legal right to kill you depending on the circumstances.

If I chose to follow up on my thoughts about killing you society will judge whether it condones said killing by using law and/or custom to judge my actions.

My rights have no consequences, my actions do.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and for stake of clarity, in my previous posts I was referring to what you've described as legal rights.

Which comes directly back to my problems with the term "rights" - the inherent confusion about what the definition of the term is.

What else would include as a "natural right", aside from the ability to think?

Natural rights are things that come to us from nature, life, liberty, and pursuing happiness. I know quite a few people that argue that anything that another person can infringe upon or take by force is not a right, but I disagree. Even if we accept that definition you cannot prevent me from thinking or the pursuit of happiness. As one of my favorite charactors put it once, you can make it damn hard to actually catch happiness, but you can't actually stop people from chasing it.

By the way, anyone that argues that the pursuit of happiness is a human construct has never watched a kitten play. That is why I know that rights are real, I can see evidence of them in things other than humans.

I can agree with all of this.