You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.
The absolute of natural rights is a concept, it's not that you are free "in reality", it's that the rules of choice and freedom, are only consistently accepted/self-consistent when you start with the premise sentient entities are free to choose. It doesn't mean they ARE free to choose in reality, i.e. they are enslaved and someone is beating the crap out of them...doesn't refute this, any more than it would refute 4+4=8.
I don't think people get the argument, it keeps devolving into a semantic ass grab of "ownership means strictly yadayada", it misses the entire, underlying argument. Always does, natural rights discussions always have yahoos claiming rights only exist when we make them, entirely missing the point of why we make them, and why we make one, over another (it's not random!). Or maybe we just aren't very good at explaining it yet.
That's a contradiction. I suspect we all have made it (I have), but it always can use a good repeating.Originally Posted by moot
Nothing is absolute? Is an absolute statement. Which is contradictory.No rights are absolute. In fact, nothing is.
We do accept absolutes when we use logic, when we agree on the meaning of a word, etc. They are funny when we claim something in reality "is absolute", but they are serious when we are talking about meaning, math, etc.