Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rights

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:24:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rationally, I fully agree. Idealistically, I cringe.

But since I (very, very close to ) always pick rational thinking over idealistic... I have to agree that natural rights do not exist.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:36:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Right begin where nature hath ended. They are the limits it is rational to observe toward another rational being. So, yes and no. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:42:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Natural rights, as in the Jeffersonian understanding, is somewhat dependent on a higher purpose, or even objective morality; at least as i see it. If you have neither as a starting point, then i would say that you are correct, there are no natural rights, or inherent rights to man. I could even see a humanist believing in natural rights of man as a precept of their philosophy, i.e. the exceptional nature of man demands these inherent rights - it's kind of a stretch, but i'm not a humanist, so i wouldn't presume or dare to defend it.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 10:13:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 10:11:03 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Correct you are.

You don't believe in man having any inherent or natural rights?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 10:46:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It bugs me slightly but yes I agree.

However it is clear that from the point of view of everyone, be they the ruled or the rulers, some concept of natural rights is very benefiical.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 11:17:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 10:46:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It bugs me slightly but yes I agree.

However it is clear that from the point of view of everyone, be they the ruled or the rulers, some concept of natural rights is very benefiical.

But as someone who values rational thinking, you are supporting a myth if you want society to hold this as a concept to be believed. You're okay wit that?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 11:22:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 11:17:44 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 10:46:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It bugs me slightly but yes I agree.

However it is clear that from the point of view of everyone, be they the ruled or the rulers, some concept of natural rights is very benefiical.

But as someone who values rational thinking, you are supporting a myth if you want society to hold this as a concept to be believed. You're okay wit that?

It's not a myth if it's simply observed and not believed in, but either way I would be okay with it. It is beneficial to us, that is what counts.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 11:39:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 11:22:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/28/2010 11:17:44 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 10:46:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It bugs me slightly but yes I agree.

However it is clear that from the point of view of everyone, be they the ruled or the rulers, some concept of natural rights is very benefiical.

But as someone who values rational thinking, you are supporting a myth if you want society to hold this as a concept to be believed. You're okay wit that?

It's not a myth if it's simply observed and not believed in, but either way I would be okay with it. It is beneficial to us, that is what counts.

Rights are observed, natural rights imply some belief, that's really (imho) what the OP is about.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 11:41:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 11:39:24 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 11:22:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/28/2010 11:17:44 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 10:46:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It bugs me slightly but yes I agree.

However it is clear that from the point of view of everyone, be they the ruled or the rulers, some concept of natural rights is very benefiical.

But as someone who values rational thinking, you are supporting a myth if you want society to hold this as a concept to be believed. You're okay wit that?

It's not a myth if it's simply observed and not believed in, but either way I would be okay with it. It is beneficial to us, that is what counts.

Rights are observed, natural rights imply some belief, that's really (imho) what the OP is about.

Well I fail to see the contradiction even more so now, don't get why you asked the question you did.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 11:57:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
To deny that we have inherent natural rights is to accept the opposite which is that the inherent state of beings is subjugation, slavery, and vulnerability. So those who deny rights have a much larger burden of proof whereas, it seems almost quite evident that beings have the right to live and live freely.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 12:11:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not really trying to be belligerent here, but i have a hard time understanding how atheists could believe in natural rights. Help me understand, where did they come from? Why must they exist beyond simply rights afforded by a given society? Jefferson wrote that they were endowed by our creator - that's easy enough to understand. However, if we are all an accident, and there really is no higher purpose or exceptionalism within our very existence, where does natural rights come? Why do we necessarily have them? Geo said that the burden of proof was on the other side, that there is a greater burden of proof to say they do not exist? Really Geo? Proving something doesn't exist? Come on.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 12:13:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist.
It i dangerous when an atheist believes in natural rights.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 12:13:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Natural rights are a moral foundation. They are what we should acknowledge about one another, not about ourselves. Acknowledging rights about yourself is useless unless someone else agrees.

The question is whether those rights are correct.

As rights, their scope is within a society. I think I can borrow from what Geo said by stating that the adverse within a society is something that must be avoided, whereas the application of those rights are beneficial. Therefore, those rights are correct. Subsequently, everyone should abide by those rights.

When I say "should," to add to the "is-ought" argument I recently heard, it denotes free will. As in, as a practical and rational person, I realize that not all people will do something on the basis that it is right, but this is the best standard of conduct. A more affirmative question that can be acknowledged as a proposition is: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are imperative implements due to their known benefits as well as the known detriments of their absence.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 12:24:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*

*takes away spartan shield*

You don't need this here, apparently. Most of them agree with you.

I don't. I believe that human life is sacred, created by God to be like Himself; that which is made in the image of a God deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Natural rights are a natural conclusion from my religion.

But you don't want to hear that, not here. That's not the only reason I have for believing in natural rights. I have a perfectly secular line of reasoning, too.

This will be an argument ad populum, one of the only times it can be used when it is not a fallacy. I argue that, because people universally react as if they had rights, that those rights actually exist.

Were I to push a man into the street in Chicago or Bejing, either amn will get upset at me. Apparently, they both believe they have the right to be treated with respect, and not be interfered with. Were I to take someone's wallet in Sydney, I expect them to be as outraged as the person I take one from in Pompeii.

Humans expect respect; humans dislike being murdered or raped. This is a universal. If someone believed I had the right to take their dog, would they be upset if I exercised that right? Perhaps, but not to the extent we'd see if they did not. I argue that people expect certain rights to be honored; certain rights that come naturally to us, no matter what our upbringing, culture, or religion.

*considers using shield, and decides against it*
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 12:33:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 12:24:56 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*

*takes away spartan shield*

You don't need this here, apparently. Most of them agree with you.

I don't. I believe that human life is sacred, created by God to be like Himself; that which is made in the image of a God deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Natural rights are a natural conclusion from my religion.

But you don't want to hear that, not here. That's not the only reason I have for believing in natural rights. I have a perfectly secular line of reasoning, too.

This will be an argument ad populum, one of the only times it can be used when it is not a fallacy. I argue that, because people universally react as if they had rights, that those rights actually exist.

Were I to push a man into the street in Chicago or Bejing, either amn will get upset at me. Apparently, they both believe they have the right to be treated with respect, and not be interfered with. Were I to take someone's wallet in Sydney, I expect them to be as outraged as the person I take one from in Pompeii.

Humans expect respect; humans dislike being murdered or raped. This is a universal. If someone believed I had the right to take their dog, would they be upset if I exercised that right? Perhaps, but not to the extent we'd see if they did not. I argue that people expect certain rights to be honored; certain rights that come naturally to us, no matter what our upbringing, culture, or religion.

*considers using shield, and decides against it*

I essentially agree with you, but i will take a devils advocate.

People can be universally pissed off for a lot of reasons, and that doesn't imply there is a natural right involved. Natural rights imply objective morality, and many do not believe in this. That morality is subjective, and natural rights are merely an outcrop of the further implications of objective morality.

There are no natural rights, but merely legal rights, and those rights that society has found valuable but beyond that there is nothing else. Rights are not a creation of nature, but of a society, and are somewhat arbitrary, or dependent on the current values of a given society. To give greater gravity to what man has created in living in his society is false. -
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 12:35:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 12:11:41 PM, innomen wrote:
I'm not really trying to be belligerent here, but i have a hard time understanding how atheists could believe in natural rights.

Atheists are naturalists, yet you have a hard time understanding how Atheists could believe in natural rights? They certainly don't believe in divinely granted rights.

Help me understand, where did they come from?

Nature, hence "natural rights."

Why must they exist beyond simply rights afforded by a given society?

Why must anything exist? It just does.

However, if we are all an accident,

Seriously? You're sounding like a young earth creationist. I dont believe in God nor do I believe our existence was an accident.

and there really is no higher purpose or exceptionalism within our very existence, where does natural rights come?

Nature.

Geo said that the burden of proof was on the other side, that there is a greater burden of proof to say they do not exist? Really Geo? Proving something doesn't exist? Come on.

Strawman. You know I didn't make that argument. The reason I said the other side has a bigger burden of proof is because beings are born alive and born free. These are default, inherent characteristics from nature. Those who oppose natural rghts must argue that the inherent state of all beings is subjugation, slavery, and vulnerability. So I'm not asking them to prove a negative (which you dishonestly proclaimed; I clearly asked them to prove a POSITIVE), I'm asking them to prove a positive assertion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 12:45:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 12:35:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/28/2010 12:11:41 PM, innomen wrote:
I'm not really trying to be belligerent here, but i have a hard time understanding how atheists could believe in natural rights.
I wasn't really looking for a tet a tet avec vous.

Atheists are naturalists, yet you have a hard time understanding how Atheists could believe in natural rights? They certainly don't believe in divinely granted rights.



Help me understand, where did they come from?

Nature, hence "natural rights."
So nature put these rights together? Rights are a concept, and not a product of physical science which is what nature is.

Why must they exist beyond simply rights afforded by a given society?

Why must anything exist? It just does.

However, if we are all an accident,

Seriously? You're sounding like a young earth creationist. I dont believe in God nor do I believe our existence was an accident.
Really, then what. - Don't really want a tangent here though.

and there really is no higher purpose or exceptionalism within our very existence, where does natural rights come?

Nature.

Geo said that the burden of proof was on the other side, that there is a greater burden of proof to say they do not exist? Really Geo? Proving something doesn't exist? Come on.

Strawman. You know I didn't make that argument. The reason I said the other side has a bigger burden of proof is because beings are born alive and born free. These are default, inherent characteristics from nature. Those who oppose natural rghts must argue that the inherent state of all beings is subjugation, slavery, and vulnerability. So I'm not asking them to prove a negative (which you dishonestly proclaimed; I clearly asked them to prove a POSITIVE), I'm asking them to prove a positive assertion.
That's not true at all. To say that the absence of rights is slavery is to not understand the sentence. To say we are born free is also nonsense. It sounds really nice, but its total bs. You can easily be born into slavery, or not. You could even be conceived in slavery, with the intention of making you a slave. We may be born into a free society or not. You say they are default? Why? Who says? Nature says? What branch of natural science do these rights fall?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 1:04:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 12:35:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/28/2010 12:11:41 PM, innomen wrote:
I'm not really trying to be belligerent here, but i have a hard time understanding how atheists could believe in natural rights.

Atheists are naturalists, yet you have a hard time understanding how Atheists could believe in natural rights? They certainly don't believe in divinely granted rights.

1) Not all atheists are naturalists.
2) You're conflating the two senses of the word here. They mean different things. Besides, a lot of naturalists DON'T believe in natural rights and give good reasons and arguments not to believe in them given their worldview.

That being said I definitely believe in natural rights.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:13:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*

I agree half way.

Right to life is the where I disagree. That is the only right we have. Everything is fluff. Society dictates the rest.

Right to life is all we really have. We came in with it and we will go out when we lose it.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:20:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 2:13:50 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*

I agree half way.

Right to life is the where I disagree. That is the only right we have. Everything is fluff. Society dictates the rest.

Right to life is all we really have. We came in with it and we will go out when we lose it.

You surprise me.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:30:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 2:20:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:13:50 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*

I agree half way.

Right to life is the where I disagree. That is the only right we have. Everything is fluff. Society dictates the rest.

Right to life is all we really have. We came in with it and we will go out when we lose it.

You surprise me.

Why is that?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:32:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 2:30:45 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:20:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:13:50 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*

I agree half way.

Right to life is the where I disagree. That is the only right we have. Everything is fluff. Society dictates the rest.

Right to life is all we really have. We came in with it and we will go out when we lose it.

You surprise me.

Why is that?

Would have guessed that you believed we were children of God and as such we are given a certain dignity by our creator. No big deal, just would have thought.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 2:32:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:30:45 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:20:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:13:50 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*

I agree half way.

Right to life is the where I disagree. That is the only right we have. Everything is fluff. Society dictates the rest.

Right to life is all we really have. We came in with it and we will go out when we lose it.

You surprise me.

Why is that?

Would have guessed that you believed we were children of God and as such we are given a certain dignity by our creator. No big deal, just would have thought.

Yeah. Life. That is our dignity. I go back to what Jesus and the Apostles said about believing and being a slave. It doesn't matter what state of life you are in, I'm not owed anything besides the right to live. I believe the only right my Creator gave me was a right to live as He sees fit. He gave it to me and He can take it away. Also goes back to Job. Who am I (the clay) to ask the Potter what He does with His clay.

As far as I can tell I line up with Catholic teaching, but I could be wrong.

Now don't get me wrong. I believe in the rights of others. I'm against slavery but if I become a slave I will not cry. I'm for helping people and doing what I can to relieve their suffering but if I find myself there I will not cry. I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for, I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

Hope this helps.:)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:45:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:32:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:30:45 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:20:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 2:13:50 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/28/2010 9:16:07 AM, Kleptin wrote:
I submit that natural rights do not exist. Rights are either given to you by a society of sufficient size, or compromises that arise from a group of small size.

There is no inherent right to life, liberty, or property. There is no need to intrinsically respect those rights. Men are not born with inalienable rights.

*hides behind a large spartan shield*

I agree half way.

Right to life is the where I disagree. That is the only right we have. Everything is fluff. Society dictates the rest.

Right to life is all we really have. We came in with it and we will go out when we lose it.

You surprise me.

Why is that?

Would have guessed that you believed we were children of God and as such we are given a certain dignity by our creator. No big deal, just would have thought.

Yeah. Life. That is our dignity. I go back to what Jesus and the Apostles said about believing and being a slave. It doesn't matter what state of life you are in, I'm not owed anything besides the right to live. I believe the only right my Creator gave me was a right to live as He sees fit. He gave it to me and He can take it away. Also goes back to Job. Who am I (the clay) to ask the Potter what He does with His clay.

As far as I can tell I line up with Catholic teaching, but I could be wrong.

Now don't get me wrong. I believe in the rights of others. I'm against slavery but if I become a slave I will not cry. I'm for helping people and doing what I can to relieve their suffering but if I find myself there I will not cry. I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for, I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

Hope this helps.:)

Yep, good response.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:45:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Have to agree with the OP, there are no natural rights that exsist beyond what we (as a society) give ourselves.

(sadly, quoting a disney movie here) There is only what you "can" do, and what you "cannot do." In a society, we change that from "can" to "allowed to" (since you physically can murder someone, you are not allowed to). If you go back to nature (or anarchy and no society), you go back to "can," in which case, if you are physically able to do something, you can do it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:49:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 10:13:31 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/28/2010 10:11:03 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Correct you are.

You don't believe in man having any inherent or natural rights?

From god and god only.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:55:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I deign "rights" to people according to my cares and understanding of the world...
and they're subject to change to my cares/understanding too.

However..
Given my lack of Omnipotent control over things...
And my general agreement with my culture's idea of rights...

I'm willing to be a bit more Democratic if that'll protect those "Rights" which I would have protected... and protect other things I care about.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."