Anarcho-fascist
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 1,069
- Reaction score
- 264
- Location
- T E X A S !
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A person's body begins at conception, yes.
Soo... if someone writes it, it must be true? Seriously? This is your argument?
A person's body begins at conception, yes.
They more than wrote it. They fought on the basis for it. Killed and died for it. As has many generations after them.
You are more than welcome to deny the fact that your own rights are inherent,... That's all well and good.
When you start denying the inherent rights of others,... you will find out just how "real" they are.
So again, just because someone writes 'endowed by a creator', it must be true? :roll: There is no 'creator' to 'endow' anything of the sort. And if there were, then we wouldn't be arguing over them and changing them all the time since they'd be 'inherent' and there'd be no argument about them.
Yup, in this country *I*, as a person, do have a right to live my life. That right is granted to me by my government.If you are alive (and humans in the embryonic stage of their lives are),... you have a right to live the life you are already living.
Any creator.You say there is no "creator?" I'm guessing by that you mean "God."
ROFL I didn't realize I was a goddess for eating bacon. That's awesome!News for you,... if you can look at a creature and deny they have a right to their life,.. even as you would defend your own,...
There's a "God" thing going on,....
You just don't see who it is playing the role.
Yup, in this country *I*, as a person, do have a right to live my life. That right is granted to me by my government.
Any creator.
And I would have whatever rights I could defend. As soon as someone bigger and stronger or more charismatic takes them away from me, then I have them no longer.A right is a "just claim" Rivrr...
Are you saying that you would not have a justifiable claim to your life in the absense of Government recognition of that right?
Ever heard of "anarchy?"
Your right to your life persists even under anarchy. You just have to rely more on yourself than the good-will of others to defend it.
Did they do a special ceremony to 'endow' you with rights?My Parents were my creators.
And I would have whatever rights I could defend. As soon as someone bigger and stronger or more charismatic takes them away from me, then I have them no longer.
Did they do a special ceremony to 'endow' you with rights?
"]It wouldn't be unheard of.
You know how chimps are more human (and deserving of rights) than pre-birth humans are.... right?
I'm saying your strawman argument that nature can't be expected to respect our rights, so therefore they can't possibly be "inherent" is just that,... a classic strawman argument.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
- Person A has position X.
- Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
- Person B attacks position Y.
- Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Nature doesn't have moral affirmations, sentiments, and philosophical concepts.
Correct?
They come from nowhere but myself. I determine my rights by deciding what I want and defending what I want. As long as I can defend it, what I want is my right.And where (if not from your creator-s) would the rights you are now defending,... come from?
And where (if not from your creator-s) would the rights you are now defending,... come from?
They come from nowhere but myself. I determine my rights by deciding what I want and defending what I want. As long as I can defend it, what I want is my right.
Unless of course my rights are granted to me by the country in which I reside. And then I get what THEY want to give me despite what I may want or what I feel is my 'right'. I can, of course, work to change their point of view as well. (hence the constant changes to the rights we have or don't have)
Well, humans exist in nature, so it depends on what you mean by "have" moral affirmations, though I'm not sure what difference it would make.
None of this changes the moral sentiment underlying natural rights. Either you agree with negative individual liberties or you don't.
In my highschool debate classes,.. we were told that a sure sign of defeat is when someone starts claiming victory or telling you you have lost.
You were poorly educated. Rights are in no way inherent. They are granted or taken. We GRANT the presumption of innocence in our legal system. It is not some inherent 'right'. We GRANT him a right to life. We GRANT him a right to equal protection under OUR law, etc. Not a single one of these things are inherent. It's not possible for them to be.
Are You saying our rights as recognized in the Declaraction of Independence is somehow contrary to those expressed in the Constitution?
If so,... how so?
We are not born with [rights]. The mere fact that we MUST GRANT them only reiterates the fact that they are NOT INHERENT. If they were inherent, we wouldn't need to grant them and enumerate them in a document... We would all just be born with them and know what they are automatically.
Are You saying our rights as recognized in the Declaraction of Independence is somehow contrary to those expressed in the Constitution?
If so,... how so?
Rights are just a philosophical construct.
Rivrat has already answered this.I see,... so what right does my child or my wife or my neighbors , or YOU have,..
They come from nowhere but myself. I determine my rights by deciding what I want and defending what I want. As long as I can defend it, what I want is my right.
Unless of course my rights are granted to me by the country in which I reside. And then I get what THEY want to give me despite what I may want or what I feel is my 'right'. I can, of course, work to change their point of view as well. (hence the constant changes to the rights we have or don't have)
Depending on the society you live in you may or may not be punished. In this society we punish most murderers.to keep on living if it would be a convienience to me to keep you from doing so?