View Poll Results: Are Rights Natural?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    27 40.30%
  • No.

    32 47.76%
  • Other.

    6 8.96%
  • Rootabega.

    16 23.88%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2533343536 LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 352

Thread: Are Rights Natural?

  1. #341
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    01-09-18 @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    153,358

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573 View Post
    Not exactly supportive of your statement. The way I see it rights pre-exist a society. A society, or government determines which they value, and which they need to restrict under the concept of civility. I maintain the same concept of rights as you do only after the creation of a society, only before it do we differ on opinion.
    Prior to societal formation, one only has their desires, instincts and values. Since they are individual, each person models their behavior after their own set of rules. Once a society is formed, that society will determine what behaviors will be rights or not... and that society will decide if they can be taken away or not. It doesn't change what someone may want, but what they can DO is determined by societal rules. It is what a person can DO that I would define as "rights". And this is solely governed by society or government.





    This is only true once a society exists. Your freedoms are limitless before that.
    Your desires are limitless.


    So under your reasoning would you claim that the first amendment creates the right to free speech?
    Yes. Without the First Amendment, if so enacted, one could receive consequences for saying the word, "pork" or for discussing the concept of evolution.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 03-14-10 at 07:09 AM.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #342
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,255

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573
    No, ability doesn't determine rights. I have the right to walk, even if I lack the ability.
    See, that's where the whole concept of "rights" as you're using it becomes absurd. It's like saying you have the right to breathe underwater or flap your arms and fly, even if you lack the ability. Should you have the right to leap buildings with a single bound like Superman? At this point, the whole point of "rights" becomes diluted to the point of absurdity. What's the point of rights at all?

    I don't really understand the point behind the prime rib comment. You do have a right to prime rib, but with that comes a responsibility of finding it. If they are unable to provide you that prime rib it doesn't restrict your right. In restricts their ability to provide it.
    But it restricts my "right" to find it in their particular establishment which was the point. Rights, defined as you seem to be doing it, are pointless and meaningless. The whole concept that you have a "right" to eat prime rib if you happen to find it is as absurd as saying you have the "right" to fly if you happen to grow wings. Great, but so long as those things don't happen, your "right" is utterly worthless.

    Right, the concept of civilization is founded on ideas like your point with murder. That's what makes Libertarians different than anarchists. Reasonable people don't believe rights should be limitless, and we prefer a society that would restrict the right of life to others.
    Reasonable people would come at a concept logically and rationally. The whole idea that rights are something that everyone has and cannot be taken away, except that they can be and are routinely taken away by society, really does away with the whole concept of rights to begin with. It just doesn't make any rational sense, any more than saying that we have a right to fly, but reality has restricted our right to fly.

    Thanks for caring, I just tend to think he said it better than I am capable of. I thought his description was fascinating, and because it was a leftist on a debate forum that introduced me to him and the site named after him I made the mistake of thinking he was a respectable source for the left. I don't see him as an authority, just an excellent writer.
    That's fine and I agree, I've read him, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a debate forum, not a literary reading club. Ideas are debated based on what the individual debaters can do, not on what books they can suggest.

    Since typically a right is useless without the ability to protect them.
    The right wouldn't exist in the first place without the society itself putting forward the effort to protect them, yes. But that's at the core of the question, do the rights come from society itself as I assert, or from another source, as other libertarians assert. We both seem to agree on the former. For those who assert the latter, I ask them to back it up.

    Where do trees come from originally? Nature, regardless of how it's created is as old as time.
    I agree, but that's because it's demonstrably true that trees actually exist and actually come from "nature". The same is not demonstrably true of "rights" which are nothing more than a philosophical construct, played out in social situations.

    Rights would have been created at the same time as the first creature.
    Says who? It's an assertion without a shred of support.

    Morality would be created at the same time as the first creature with a conscious.
    Says who? Again, another unsupported assertion.

    The only difference in our thinking is when rights were created. You think each individual society or government creates it. And I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is.
    It's a big deal when people assert that they have the "official list" of rights and therefore, it ought to apply to everyone, everywhere and those who do not stack up to their "official list" are judged to be somehow in error. It's a difference between the obvious subjective rights and morality that we see every day and claiming that there is some unseen, non-demonstrable authoratative version of rights and morality that everyone ought to be held accountable to, even though nobody can back up what this list is or where it actually comes from.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #343
    Student Jray573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Last Seen
    04-12-10 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    178

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Prior to societal formation, one only has their desires, instincts and values. Since they are individual, each person models their behavior after their own set of rules. Once a society is formed, that society will determine what behaviors will be rights or not... and that society will decide if they can be taken away or not. It doesn't change what someone may want, but what they can DO is determined by societal rules. It is what a person can DO that I would define as "rights". And this is solely governed by society or government.


    Your desires are limitless.

    Yes. Without the First Amendment, if so enacted, one could receive consequences for saying the word, "pork" or for discussing the concept of evolution.
    So can we agree to disagree? Or is their some major significance to our difference of opinions? I hold what I view as natural as also sacred. I believe the concept of liberty should be considered at least as sacred as our country's forefathers believed, and that it should be held to a higher model than the will of a present society. Beyond that, I see very little significance to this debate. If for some reason you believe there is a great significance to the debate I would love to debate that angle. If you think I'm the idiot Cephus does simply for holding a different opinion than his own then I will also entertain you for awhile. I just don't see it. I don't believe society creates anything, I believe they agree on concepts of ideals and morality to determine what would best fit their desires.

  4. #344
    Student Jray573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Last Seen
    04-12-10 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    178

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    See, that's where the whole concept of "rights" as you're using it becomes absurd. It's like saying you have the right to breathe underwater or flap your arms and fly, even if you lack the ability. Should you have the right to leap buildings with a single bound like Superman? At this point, the whole point of "rights" becomes diluted to the point of absurdity. What's the point of rights at all?
    Right, I like your direction with this. However, if you are born in the US without the ability to speak do you also lose your right to it? My point is simply that ability is not a limiter of rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    But it restricts my "right" to find it in their particular establishment which was the point. Rights, defined as you seem to be doing it, are pointless and meaningless. The whole concept that you have a "right" to eat prime rib if you happen to find it is as absurd as saying you have the "right" to fly if you happen to grow wings. Great, but so long as those things don't happen, your "right" is utterly worthless.
    You are speaking from an angle of entitlement, which is not a realistic factor of rights either. You have the right to eat prime rib, and a restaurant has the right to not serve it. At the end of the day we have to live in this world together, and when you involve others you stand at the mercy of their rights as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Reasonable people would come at a concept logically and rationally. The whole idea that rights are something that everyone has and cannot be taken away, except that they can be and are routinely taken away by society, really does away with the whole concept of rights to begin with. It just doesn't make any rational sense, any more than saying that we have a right to fly, but reality has restricted our right to fly.
    Sometimes I wonder why I'm not more picky about who I debate with. I suppose I feel that all of my thoughts should be subject to even the oddest of critics, and I find narcissism from others amusing. Especially since it is one I tend to suffer from. The difference is that while I also find my thoughts superior to others, I can accept a difference of opinion as reasonable. The lack of reason comes from the inability to even attempt at seeing where another person is coming from. Your angle isn't honest to an intellectual debate.

    A society determines which rights should be protected, and which ones should be restricted in an attempt to create a civil environment. A government provides the protection necessary to defend those rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    That's fine and I agree, I've read him, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a debate forum, not a literary reading club. Ideas are debated based on what the individual debaters can do, not on what books they can suggest.
    Hey man, I live under a philosophy repeated by Newton in that if I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. If that leaves me inferior to you then I'm sorry, but the thousands of years it's taken to develop our science and philosophy leaves me believing that going at it alone is far inferior than understanding the concepts of the geniuses before me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    The right wouldn't exist in the first place without the society itself putting forward the effort to protect them, yes. But that's at the core of the question, do the rights come from society itself as I assert, or from another source, as other libertarians assert. We both seem to agree on the former. For those who assert the latter, I ask them to back it up.
    I only agree that rights are subject to society. I disagree that society is a creator of anything. The society itself is at the mercy of philosophy and ideals before them. History will always influence to ideas of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I agree, but that's because it's demonstrably true that trees actually exist and actually come from "nature". The same is not demonstrably true of "rights" which are nothing more than a philosophical construct, played out in social situations.
    Yes, now imagine the honesty in an attempt at debate if I were to suggest that you prove that the origin of a tree was natural, and called you illogical or unreasonable because you couldn't provide the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Says who? It's an assertion without a shred of support.

    Says who? Again, another unsupported assertion.

    It's a big deal when people assert that they have the "official list" of rights and therefore, it ought to apply to everyone, everywhere and those who do not stack up to their "official list" are judged to be somehow in error. It's a difference between the obvious subjective rights and morality that we see every day and claiming that there is some unseen, non-demonstrable authoratative version of rights and morality that everyone ought to be held accountable to, even though nobody can back up what this list is or where it actually comes from.
    Says me, I thought you wanted my opinions. Are you asking for references now? I can debate by your rules, but it would be nice if you remained consistent.

    I don't claim to have an official list of rights, I have a set of ideals that I hold sacred in what's right or wrong. From there I determine what it is that I believe a person's rights should or should not be. The majority of rights are subject to morality. What I believe to be moral is liberty, and believe it should be preserved at the maximum level while still protecting the rights of others. These are my societal goals for rights, and with my understanding of rights means that I understand you come with your own, and for us to belong in the same society we have to agree on a set of ideals. I am not at all under the misconception that it is my right to set the ideals of society, as you seem to want to argue with your prime rib example.

  5. #345
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    01-09-18 @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    153,358

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573 View Post
    So can we agree to disagree? Or is their some major significance to our difference of opinions? I hold what I view as natural as also sacred. I believe the concept of liberty should be considered at least as sacred as our country's forefathers believed, and that it should be held to a higher model than the will of a present society. Beyond that, I see very little significance to this debate. If for some reason you believe there is a great significance to the debate I would love to debate that angle. If you think I'm the idiot Cephus does simply for holding a different opinion than his own then I will also entertain you for awhile. I just don't see it. I don't believe society creates anything, I believe they agree on concepts of ideals and morality to determine what would best fit their desires.
    To me, this is a basic difference in one's personal philosophy. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. You have been civil and debated this topic reasonably. Is this topic of any great significance? Is any? I like debating the topic. It's a good philosophical debate. The only significance I see with it is when some folks use it to be inflexible. Other than that, just something interesting. I'd be happy to debate it with you... or to just agree to disagree.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #346
    Student Jray573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Last Seen
    04-12-10 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    178

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    To me, this is a basic difference in one's personal philosophy. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. You have been civil and debated this topic reasonably. Is this topic of any great significance? Is any? I like debating the topic. It's a good philosophical debate. The only significance I see with it is when some folks use it to be inflexible. Other than that, just something interesting. I'd be happy to debate it with you... or to just agree to disagree.
    I'm not opposed to debate, but after debating multiple people who seemed to be very passionate about the subject, I realized the debate at hand seemed very insignificant. Maybe it's the stuff going on in my personal life right now, but I really don't think so. From where I stand it shouldn't matter. From what I've found here is what I believe we can all agree on.

    Originally we were entirely free. While this may sound great, it also leaves us vulnerable.

    In an effort to seek out protection and live amongst others we learn of morality, and try to create a system of right and wrong. This would be a society in it's most simplistic form.

    To maximize our protection we resort to government.

    So here is how it comes back to the nature of rights. An effort to embrace our most natural state. Within a society this has to be sacrificed, and most willing to live in such an environment would agree that cuts need to be made. We have to acknowledge the others around us, though we still prefer the maximum amount of freedoms available while maintaining the rights of others. This is why we have statements that claim inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    So ultimately the debate of rights within a society shouldn't be inflexible, but the model of our most ancient self is. It's held onto as an ideal to show a reference of where our society is under the scope of liberty. To keep it subjective only to the current rulers leaves us uneducated of potential. If we find ourselves sacrificing massive amounts of liberty we can raise a flag and change direction.

    So I don't know who debates it as inflexible, unless of course you are talking of the ideal, but I would be surprised if you disagreed with any of this statement. And I would love to be a part of a debate that deals strictly with the real subject at hand. Agreeing on a definition seems meaningless.

  7. #347
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    "In the true Natural World, that few actually live in. All there are, are rights. A truly Free individual does exactly what he pleases, and exactly when He pleases to do it. He has no concern for the status qua, nor popular opinion. He is is own King, and will live free till long after he is dead." From, "the Drunk at the end of the Bar"
    Last edited by Skateguy; 03-14-10 at 10:33 PM.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  8. #348
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    No, the concept of rights is a social construct.
    I think that's probably how I feel about it, too. Good question!

  9. #349
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    OK but where did the right come from? Who gave us rights in the first place? I don't understand if they cannot be given or taken away, why do they even matter?
    Good question, BD. And I hope to answer it adequately, but first, I must state that the following is purely a self-derived philosophy, and as such, cannot be classified as anything more than my opinion on the matter.

    In my way of viewing things, rights are a natural ability to engage one's own will in order to pursue a specific behavior and/or goal.

    For example: One has a natural right to imbibe intoxicants, seek a mate, or even kill another human being. Other rights include the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as described by Jefferson in the DoI.

    These rights are natural, and cannot actually be removed from a living being, as they are determined by the individual's will. They are not "granted" by anyone in particular, they merely exist.

    The reason they matter is because the entire purpose of society is to add consequences to the pursuit of certain rights. The society dictates which rights are moral and can be pursued without consequence, and which one's are immoral and cannot be pursued without consequence.

    This, IMO, is a product of humanity being a social creature, and the evolutionary benefits of morality are such that a shared morality in an intelligent social creature increases the overall likelihood that the species will survive as well as the likelihood that people within a social group will pass on their genes (or have those who have similar genetic structures, such as relatives, pass on theirs).

    So, essentially humans are pre-wired to develop morality, and these moral concepts should be shared by the group in order to increase the evolutionary benefits of that morality.

    This means that individuals who do not display the same moral inclinations they receive consequences for this non-conformity, such as removal from the group (which I theorize is the rudimentary foundation for laws as they would be found in a tribal society). This can only be determined by the actions a person performs, so when someone engages in a right that has been deemed immoral by the group, they receive consequences of some sort.

    The group cannot take away the ability from the individual, but they can add consequences to their behavior. As the size of the groups increased when we became an agricultural creature, the informal rules became more formalized and society was formed, primarily existing to define these moral rules that differentiate people within the group form those outside the group.

    Unfortunately, since all laws exist to add consequences to the exercise of a right, they naturally act as a sort of "deterrent" to the exercise of certain rights.

    The reason we need to consider the way that rights work is so that we can define the parameters we use to add consequences to the exercise of certain rights. Every society does this, but for a society that has a shared morality where a maximization of personal freedom is considered a positive, the parameters are such that they specifically limit the addition of consequences to the exercise of those rights that can only be exercised in a fashion that have a negative effects on other people within that society.

    For example: while making a law against murder cannot stop someone form exercising that right, it will add consequences for the purpose of trying to deter people from exercising that right.

    Adding consequences to the exercise of certain rights is beneficial to the society as a whole, but adding consequences to other rights can have a detrimental affect on the society as a whole.

    The unimpeded rights of a society should reflect the shared morality of that society to prevent discord within that society.

    This works in two directions. When the exercise of a right is believed to deserve consequences, but doesn't, people become unhappy with the fact that it doesn't receive consequences. Conversely, if the exercise of a right receives consequences, when the people believe it shouldn't, they will become unhappy as well.

    Since there exists a high degree of variation about which rights should receive consequences (which directly correlates to the variation of morality within that society), the only rights that should be universally receive or not receive consequences are those rights that are universally agreed upon at a moral level by the society as a whole. The addition or exclusion of consequences for any other rights should become as localized as possible to encompass only those who conform to the moralistic basis for the consequences and/or lack of consequences for certain rights.

    This is the foundational philosophy to my anti-federalist views, and it is what I feel is the basis for our governmental system (where the bill of rights acts as a limitation on the federal government's ability to add consequences to rights, while allowing the states and local governments to be able to add consequences at their choice and in reflection of the moral beliefs within that small region.

    Thus, for my personal philosophy, they are of the utmost importance. Ironically, I'm one of the few people I know who approaches the issue from a pure view of moral relativism.

    I view the ability to add consequences to the exercise of right as a shared right of it's own. I feel that all legislation is, at it's most basic level, legislating morality. Thus, I feel that it should, in all cases, reflect the shared morality of those who are directly effected by it.

    I hope that answers all of your questions. As I said, this is a personal philosophy. It's entirely based on my opinions and my own logical deductions.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #350
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,255

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573
    Right, I like your direction with this. However, if you are born in the US without the ability to speak do you also lose your right to it? My point is simply that ability is not a limiter of rights.
    Freedom of speech goes beyond vocalization. Doing what we're doing right now falls under freedom of speech. However, let's assume for a moment that you're talking about someone who is a head in a jar, who cannot talk, who cannot write, who cannot communicate with the outside world in any way, shape or form. The concept of a "freedom of speech" becomes entirely irrelevant for said individual. It means nothing. A "right" that you cannot exercise is entirely empty and other than academically, what's the point of it in the first place?

    You are speaking from an angle of entitlement, which is not a realistic factor of rights either. You have the right to eat prime rib, and a restaurant has the right to not serve it. At the end of the day we have to live in this world together, and when you involve others you stand at the mercy of their rights as well.
    I am speaking from an angle of applicability. If I have the "right" to fly naturally, but nothing I can do will actually gain me the ability to grow wings, then what's the point of the right? Where is the application? Why claim I have the right at all if it's inherently impossible to actually practice said right? You can't go sue the owners of a tall building because they won't let you go to the top and jump off so you can fly, that's absurd. Why even bother talking about rights that have no application?

    Sometimes I wonder why I'm not more picky about who I debate with.
    Uncomfortable when people point out your unjustified assertions, huh?

    A society determines which rights should be protected, and which ones should be restricted in an attempt to create a civil environment. A government provides the protection necessary to defend those rights.
    Then in practice, a society determines which rights you have, period. That takes us back to step one. You still have not justified why you think rights exist outside of society at all, you've just functionally acknowledged what I've said all along. You're just holding onto the nebulous idea that there are these rights that are just floating around in the ether somewhere, you don't know how they got there, you don't know why they exist, you don't know under what authority they matter or now you've actually determined their existence or their qualifications, you just think they're there and nothing anyone says will change your mind.

    Sorry, that's not rational, that's faith. Worse, it's entirely blind faith, based on nothing more than wishful thinking. You want it to be true, therefore you're just demanding that it's true without justifying that statement with anything approaching evidence or critical thinking. Ultmately, because you want this to be true, you're just asserting it into existence because it helps your overall worldview. You haven't demonstrated that your overall worldview is credible in the least.

    I think that's why the specific questions I ask of libertarians go entirely unanswered, because they can't answer them so they don't even try. It all becomes very vague and "I know because I know" nonsense. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. You have to be able to actually defend your claims.

    Hey man, I live under a philosophy repeated by Newton in that if I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. If that leaves me inferior to you then I'm sorry, but the thousands of years it's taken to develop our science and philosophy leaves me believing that going at it alone is far inferior than understanding the concepts of the geniuses before me.
    Newton was speaking in regard to human knowledge, how each new generation builds upon the knowledge gained by previous generations, but what you're actually making are unsupported claims, not based on anything but previous unsupported claims. No one has yet demonstrated that any of your claims have any rational validity to them whatsoever. This has nothing to do with inferiority, it has to do with the ability to take a claim, disassemble it to it's compontent parts and examine each part to see if it's valid. Unfortunately, you're doing exactly what the religious do, you're starting with a conclusion that appeals to you, then working backward, desperately trying to find elements that support your preconceived conclusion. Ikari is particularly blatant about it, he says openly that natural rights must exist because his conclusion requires that they do. Well here's a novel idea, maybe the conclusion is wrong because there's no evidence for the natural rights actually existing in the first place!

    Yes, now imagine the honesty in an attempt at debate if I were to suggest that you prove that the origin of a tree was natural, and called you illogical or unreasonable because you couldn't provide the evidence.
    It could be done very easily. Trees grow in natural forests all the time. We can also go back through the fossil record and find evidence of tree evolution, from the earliest proto-plants to modern-day redwoods. That's not even a challenge. Now let's see you do the same thing, go find "rights" that exist in nature, outside of man. Find how these supposed rights originated. Where did they come from? How can you differentiate what is an actual right and what is not? These are questions you people have dodged since day one.

    I don't claim to have an official list of rights, I have a set of ideals that I hold sacred in what's right or wrong.
    Then you're already admitting that your idea of rights is entirely subjective. As such, you're also admitting that everyone can come up with their own list of subjective rights. So why do you think your list of subjective rights is objectively better than anyone else's? Certainly you act like yours is the only list that matters and everyone ought to be following it to the exclusion of all others. Is that rational? I don't think so.

    I am not at all under the misconception that it is my right to set the ideals of society, as you seem to want to argue with your prime rib example.
    Of course you are. You assert that your subjective list of rights exist for everyone and anyone not getting your subjective list of rights is somehow having their rights taken away. You haven't demonstrated that your list of rights are true, accurate, applicable across social or cultural lines, etc. What makes your set of rights any demonstrably better than Hitler's set of rights, or Joe Blow, of Madison, Wisconsin's set of rights? The fact is, you've got an opinion, you want your opinion to be true but instead of actually defending your opinion through rational debate and well-reasoned examination, you've just claimed that somehow, your claims are valid because you think they are.

    It's as absurd as claiming that blue is everyone's favorite color, just because it happens to be yours.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2533343536 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •