What "rights" does nature give us?

[Dante]

"Duuuhhh. Nature. That means outdoors, and animals, 'n' shit, right?"

And that's when America started its inexorable slide back into the Dark Ages.

Here was the OP:

What "rights" does nature give us?

As everyone seems to agree excepting perhaps you, nature gives nobody and nothing 'rights.'

Hope that helps.

welcome to the dark side

 

[SniperFire]

nope. Dante and a few others put forth the distinction between 'nature' and man's nature.

Distinctions with differences is a lesson not taught on the right wing noise machine. Granted the left wing propaganda machine also drops the ball there, but we are dealing mostly with people who get there news from the noise machine of USMB alone.

It may be in man's nature to form concepts like freedom, liberty, and rights...but those things do not come from nature.

Dante

dD

Agreed. It is all pretend.

Unalienable rights as acknowledged in our founding document, however, is a completely different matter.

the unalienable/inalienable(in the drafts and final) rights in our founding document(S) are manmade constructs that some believed and continue to believe, come from some magical creator or nature itself. that is cute symbolism and myth, but reality bites.

now, do we all mostly agree in these rights and having them protected? On some levels yes...in principle supposedly

Wrong.

They are an acknowledgement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

LOL

You just had your ass kicked across three pages trying to argue that very point.

Now, when it comes to the notion of 'natural' right, that is of course a complete joke.

In nature, one only has the right to eat or be eaten.

[youtube]dlGuR6mxAjw[/youtube]

And you're going to cling to that ignorant misinterpretation of the term until your dying breath, no matter HOW big an idiot it makes you look, aren't you?

Never let it be said that only one side of the political spectrum is taking our nation on its swirling trip down the crapper all by itself.

Yawn.

But it is interesting you consider the ridiculous notion that there are 'rights' in the natural world to be a political thing.

I wish I could say the same for your pigheaded insistence on believing that "natural rights" means "the natural world", aka the outdoors, no matter how many ******* times you've been told that it doesn't, and that you sound like a frigging moron for it. However, there is nothing interesting about a dumbass proudly waving his dumbassery like a flag and going, "Look! I don't listen to a ******* word I'm told, and I have the comprehension of a fifth-grader! Aren't I clever?! Congratulate me for expounding endlessly on my 'expert' opinion of a subject I know nothing about!"

Tapeworms in the intestines of the nation, I swear.

 

[SniperFire]

And you're going to cling to that ignorant misinterpretation of the term until your dying breath, no matter HOW big an idiot it makes you look, aren't you?

Never let it be said that only one side of the political spectrum is taking our nation on its swirling trip down the crapper all by itself.

Yawn.

But it is interesting you consider the ridiculous notion that there are 'rights' in the natural world to be a political thing.

I wish I could say the same for your pigheaded insistence on believing that "natural rights" means "the natural world", aka the outdoors, no matter how many ******* times you've been told that it doesn't, and that you sound like a frigging moron for it. However, there is nothing interesting about a dumbass proudly waving his dumbassery like a flag and going, "Look! I don't listen to a ******* word I'm told, and I have the comprehension of a fifth-grader! Aren't I clever?! Congratulate me for expounding endlessly on my 'expert' opinion of a subject I know nothing about!"

Tapeworms in the intestines of the nation, I swear.

Hey fuckstick.

Pay attention.

We know what 'Natural Rights' means. The OP asked what rights does 'nature' give us.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Nature" doesn't give us anything.

We must take from "nature" what we want.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah; but then insofar as you pointed out (techically) that G ain't the weak force, neither then is EM the strong force. In that context, the strong force would be the shit holding atoms together, which gets released in nuke bombings and shit. Quite a big deal, which we call: Nuclear Force.

No shit. So while googling in hopes of some lame ******* comeback to the shit right off the top of my head (pure comedy), check it out. You'll see I'm dead ******* on again, and then bygod, them panties up your crack will move up so quickly they'll reach escape velocity.

Then I'll be the real asshole. Hulk Hogan pickin on some little wimp, figuratively speaking. (intellectually)

Just flinging shit wildly in hopes of obfuscating your faux pas, huh?

Have fun.

 

[SniperFire]

Yeah; but then insofar as you pointed out (techically) that G ain't the weak force, neither then is EM the strong force. In that context, the strong force would be the shit holding atoms together, which gets released in nuke bombings and shit. Quite a big deal, which we call: Nuclear Force.

No shit. So while googling in hopes of some lame ******* comeback to the shit right off the top of my head (pure comedy), check it out. You'll see I'm dead ******* on again, and then bygod, them panties up your crack will move up so quickly they'll reach escape velocity.

Then I'll be the real asshole. Hulk Hogan pickin on some little wimp, figuratively speaking. (intellectually)

Just flinging shit wildly in hopes of obfuscating your faux pas, huh?

Have fun.

'Koios' is fast becoming a poster deserving of no more than a quick scan, if that.

 

[Koios]

Yeah; but then insofar as you pointed out (techically) that G ain't the weak force, neither then is EM the strong force. In that context, the strong force would be the shit holding atoms together, which gets released in nuke bombings and shit. Quite a big deal, which we call: Nuclear Force.

No shit. So while googling in hopes of some lame ******* comeback to the shit right off the top of my head (pure comedy), check it out. You'll see I'm dead ******* on again, and then bygod, them panties up your crack will move up so quickly they'll reach escape velocity.

Then I'll be the real asshole. Hulk Hogan pickin on some little wimp, figuratively speaking. (intellectually)

Just flinging shit wildly in hopes of obfuscating your faux pas, huh?

Have fun.

No, just differntiating unified theory of relativity (strong / weak = EM / G) and the four forces you touched on in your lame effort to say, essentially, "Huh uh, Koios; G ain't the weak force so you're dumb." (Something I remember vividly due to an association that improves memory dramatically: ******* belly laugh that damn near knocked me out of my chair.)

So in keeping with a little knowledge (aka googled a snippet and thought you knew shit, which you do not) is a dangerours thing (makes you appear as ******* retarded as you are), here's the 4 forces hit parade:

Nuke
EM
Gravity
Nuke decay

 

[Koios]

Yeah; but then insofar as you pointed out (techically) that G ain't the weak force, neither then is EM the strong force. In that context, the strong force would be the shit holding atoms together, which gets released in nuke bombings and shit. Quite a big deal, which we call: Nuclear Force.

No shit. So while googling in hopes of some lame ******* comeback to the shit right off the top of my head (pure comedy), check it out. You'll see I'm dead ******* on again, and then bygod, them panties up your crack will move up so quickly they'll reach escape velocity.

Then I'll be the real asshole. Hulk Hogan pickin on some little wimp, figuratively speaking. (intellectually)

Just flinging shit wildly in hopes of obfuscating your faux pas, huh?

Have fun.

'Koios' is fast becoming a poster deserving of no more than a quick scan, if that.

Then take your own ******* advice let it go at that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, just differntiating unified theory of relativity (strong / weak = EM / G) and the four forces you touched on in your lame effort to say, essentially, "Huh uh, Koios; G ain't the weak force so you're dumb." (Something I remember vividly due to an association that improves memory dramatically: ******* belly laugh that damn near knocked me out of my chair.)

So in keeping with a little knowledge (aka googled a snippet and thought you knew shit, which you do not) is a dangerours thing (makes you appear as ******* retarded as you are), here's the 4 forces hit parade:

Nuke
EM
Gravity
Nuke decay

You were getting the shit kicked out of you as you called for the revocation of basic civil rights. So you tossed out a red herring in hopes of derailing the thread. The irony was in your haughty post, you were ignorantly wrong, whilst arrogantly tsk tsking your opponent.

I pointed this out - because it was funny, and you deserved to be laughed at.

 

[Michelle420]

I see this discussion went to the crapper...looks around for a new topic

 

[Koios]

No, just differntiating unified theory of relativity (strong / weak = EM / G) and the four forces you touched on in your lame effort to say, essentially, "Huh uh, Koios; G ain't the weak force so you're dumb." (Something I remember vividly due to an association that improves memory dramatically: ******* belly laugh that damn near knocked me out of my chair.)

So in keeping with a little knowledge (aka googled a snippet and thought you knew shit, which you do not) is a dangerours thing (makes you appear as ******* retarded as you are), here's the 4 forces hit parade:

Nuke
EM
Gravity
Nuke decay

You were getting the shit kicked out of you as you called for the revocation of basic civil rights. So you tossed out a red herring in hopes of derailing the thread. The irony was in your haughty post, you were ignorantly wrong, whilst arrogantly tsk tsking your opponent.

I pointed this out - because it was funny, and you deserved to be laughed at.

Indeed; kicking my ass would have been quite easy, had I in fact called for that, which I have not.

So, you see, what makes me seem haughty, is the company I'm in. (mental midget; you)

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

read John Locke

I have.

He's wrong about "natural rights".

Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.

In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.

And by the animals in that group.

Sound familiar?

Really? In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together? You don't know about nature and animals...do you? Not all animals "band together" and they lead solitary lives. The tiger is the first example I can come up with. It depends upon itself and doesn't "band together" with nothing. And, what rights does nature give us? The right to survive.

Additionally, I've always got to love how some folks can try to think they can separate human beings from nature, as if human beings' existence and everything they do is some anomaly of which wasn't meant to be. Who is some schmo to tell anyone that who they are and what they do isn't every bit as much a part of nature as anything else is? For instance, if I drive a car, some might say, "Well, that isn't natural". Who says? Who would they be to tell me that isn't as natural as a lion killing an antelope or a caterpillar building a cocoon? It's as if they think, somehow, they know I wasn't meant to drive a car. But, I'm capable of learning how to drive a car so, why wouldn't I be meant to drive a car? But, some might say that by the fact that I need to learn how to drive a car, this isn't natural. Who says? Who says the ability of a human being to learn, is unnatural and wasn't meant to be? The capacity for human beings to learn is just as natural as a tree growing in the forest.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No.

All you need to know is that the single most important tenet of the founding of America is the recognition of the inalienable rights granted by God.

Look it up.

They said "rights granted by their 'Creator'..."

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your god is my Creator and I'll kiss your ass on the fifty yard line of any game you buy the tickets for.

Step one is still to define "God".

I don't have to prove anything to you, doomed soul, to prove that our Nation was primarily founded on the principle of our rights existing unalienable and beyond reproach of any government - since they are granted supernaturally.

You don't believe in America, but, then again, you are godless scum.

​

What's more 'American' than offering to kiss your ass on the fifty yard line of any game you buy the tickets for, if only you could prove your point?

Your whaaaaaaaambulance is on the way.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Anyone winning this debate?

​

Apparently, God is.

 

[Dante]

Agreed. It is all pretend.

Unalienable rights as acknowledged in our founding document, however, is a completely different matter.

the unalienable/inalienable(in the drafts and final) rights in our founding document(S) are manmade constructs that some believed and continue to believe, come from some magical creator or nature itself. that is cute symbolism and myth, but reality bites.

now, do we all mostly agree in these rights and having them protected? On some levels yes...in principle supposedly

Wrong.

They are an acknowledgement.

the words themselves are an acknowledgement, the reality is those words refer to concepts

 

[Dante]

I see this discussion went to the crapper...looks around for a new topic

this thread is crack for internet trolls....


QUICK! get me to the recovery center....


after my next post

 

[Dante]

read John Locke

I have.

He's wrong about "natural rights".

Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.

In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.

And by the animals in that group.

Sound familiar?

Really? In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together? You don't know about nature and animals...do you? Not all animals "band together" and they lead solitary lives. The tiger is the first example I can come up with. It depends upon itself and doesn't "band together" with nothing. And, what rights does nature give us? The right to survive.

Additionally, I've always got to love how some folks can try to think they can separate human beings from nature, as if human beings' existence and everything they do is some anomaly of which wasn't meant to be.

Who is some schmo to tell anyone that who they are and what they do isn't every bit as much a part of nature as anything else is? For instance, if I drive a car, some might say, "Well, that isn't natural". Who says? Who would they be to tell me that isn't as natural as a lion killing an antelope or a caterpillar building a cocoon?

It's as if they think, somehow, they know I wasn't meant to drive a car. But, I'm capable of learning how to drive a car so, why wouldn't I be meant to drive a car? But, some might say that by the fact that I need to learn how to drive a car, this isn't natural. Who says? Who says the ability of a human being to learn, is unnatural and wasn't meant to be? The capacity for human beings to learn is just as natural as a tree growing in the forest.

The right to survive? Nope, not even that.


No one is trying to separate human beings from nature...what has been said is a person's nature, is something a human being has and it is separate from the force nature/god/creator.

Driving a car isn't part of human instinct. As that schmo I tell you .... stop embarrassing the species -- stfu

 

[SniperFire]

the unalienable/inalienable(in the drafts and final) rights in our founding document(S) are manmade constructs that some believed and continue to believe, come from some magical creator or nature itself. that is cute symbolism and myth, but reality bites.

now, do we all mostly agree in these rights and having them protected? On some levels yes...in principle supposedly

Wrong.

They are an acknowledgement.

the words themselves are an acknowledgement, the reality is those words refer to concepts

EUREKA!

You admit America was founded on the principle of God-given unalienable rights.

Blind hog finds acorn.

That you hate the founding principles of America - and ergo, America itself - is the topic of another thread.

/thread

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There seems to be some strange notion that to recognize the fact that our rights are a consequence of our humanity, acknowledged and codified by Constitutional case law, and not the ‘creation’ of a non-existent deity, that our civil liberties are somehow ‘illegitimate.’

It goes without saying that this is ignorant idiocy.

Indeed, the fact that our rights are recognized as a result of human struggle, where men have fought and died for their rights against ignorance, hate, and intolerance, makes our rights that much more valuable and legitimate, as opposed to something just ‘given’ to us by an imagined god.