• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do natural rights exist?[W:811:1629]

Do natural rights exist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 44 52.4%

  • No

    Votes: 40 47.6%
  • Total voters
    84
Cephus said:
It would certainly take time to explain, but are you saying that only Newton could make the observations that Newton made? Especially since they are reconfirmed time and time again by science all the time.
Click to expand...

Once derived, observation supported it yes. But thats not the point. You are trying to dismiss an argument by restricting source material. Can you, without citing physicist or mathematician, derive the three laws of motion? If not, does that mean they don't exist?
 
Ikari said:
Once derived, observation supported it yes. But thats not the point. You are trying to dismiss an argument by restricting source material. Can you, without citing physicist or mathematician, derive the three laws of motion? If not, does that mean they don't exist?
Click to expand...

No. It came from observation. That's how science works. Newton didn't dream up some wild idea and then go looking for evidence to support it, he made observations which then led to making hypotheses about how the world operated, then it was tested repeatedly in the real world to see if those hypotheses stood up. So yes, yes I can, by making the same observations, coming up with the same hypotheses and testing those hypotheses.
 
Cephus said:
No. It came from observation. That's how science works. Newton didn't dream up some wild idea and then go looking for evidence to support it, he made observations which then led to making hypotheses about how the world operated, then it was tested repeatedly in the real world to see if those hypotheses stood up. So yes, yes I can, by making the same observations, coming up with the same hypotheses and testing those hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Newton's laws are first principal, they were derived. Yes, motion was observed and Newton sought to discribe that motion, there is observational base, but the mathematics behind it is derived. He had to invent calculas to do so. Once derived, it was then demonstrated that the laws of motion along with the laws of gravity could reproduce the observables. Kepler's laws were more phenomenological, Newton's equations were a bit more fundamental and reproduced Kepler's.

This is how science works.

But this is an aside. Given the same starting points as Kant, I could arrive at the same conclusions. But that's not what you're restricting it to, you want the independent derivation or it didnt happen. So once again, can you derive the laws of motion, and if not does that mean it does not exist?
 
Re: Do natural rights exist?

Captain Adverse said:
You have the right to believe anything you wish. Neither I, nor society can do anything about it. Which only goes to prove both that you have this natural right, and that natural rights do exist.

That is my final word on the subject. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...
If you think natural rights exists just as the Sun exist that's fine but I can't agree with that.
 
devildavid said:
Ad hominem fallacy.
Click to expand...

Fallacy my ass. Being unable to grasp the concept of a socially natural abstract object is pathetic. Natural rights are the basis of The Enlightenment, The American Revolution, The French Revolution and the Western world as we know it today. Believing all of that is a trick, scam or otherwise fake is pathetic. What makes such even more ridiculous is that the intellectually pathetic agnst is paraded by the ignorant as some kind of enlightened view! hahaha


Socially: derived from human social interaction/society
Natural: occurring in all cases
Abstract: not physical
Object: thing

All free and sane people come to three agreements, making them socially natural: life, expression and self defense. These agreements are socially natural as a matter of species preservation.


If you can't grasp that, I can only laugh. I mean, really, what kind of idiot claims The Enlightenment and subsequent political revolutions are based on something FAKE?! hahaha
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Fallacy my ass. Being unable to grasp the concept of a socially natural abstract object is pathetic.
Click to expand...

A socially natural abstract object. And what the hell is that exactly?
 
haymarket said:
A socially natural abstract object. And what the hell is that exactly?
Click to expand...

Let's not pretend this is the first time it's been explained to you. And it will not be the first time that you idiotically deny it. You spew garbage like a fundie muzzie in a radical mosque desperately attempting to discredit the Western world and equate it with theocracy.

Sorry, but you supporters of facism cannot discount the fact that natural rights come from (free and sane) society and not any authority.
 
ecofarm said:
Let's not pretend this is the first time it's been explained to you. And it will not be the first time that you idiotically deny it. You spew garbage like a fundie muzzie in a radical mosque desperately attempting to discredit the Western world and equate it with theocracy.

Sorry, but you supporters of facism cannot discount the fact that natural rights come from (free and sane) society and not any authority.
Click to expand...

Lots of insulting vitriolic words for you don't have the slightest idea what your fancy sounding phrase means in real world terms.
 
ecofarm said:
Let's not pretend this is the first time it's been explained to you. And it will not be the first time that you idiotically deny it. You spew garbage like a fundie muzzie in a radical mosque desperately attempting to discredit the Western world and equate it with theocracy.

Sorry, but you supporters of facism cannot discount the fact that natural rights come from (free and sane) society and not any authority.
Click to expand...

You are the master of ad hominem.
 
ecofarm said:
Fallacy my ass. Being unable to grasp the concept of a socially natural abstract object is pathetic. Natural rights are the basis of The Enlightenment, The American Revolution, The French Revolution and the Western world as we know it today. Believing all of that is a trick, scam or otherwise fake is pathetic. What makes such even more ridiculous is that the intellectually pathetic agnst is paraded by the ignorant as some kind of enlightened view! hahaha


Socially: derived from human social interaction/society
Natural: occurring in all cases
Abstract: not physical
Object: thing

All free and sane people come to three agreements, making them socially natural: life, expression and self defense. These agreements are socially natural as a matter of species preservation.


If you can't grasp that, I can only laugh. I mean, really, what kind of idiot claims The Enlightenment and subsequent political revolutions are based on something FAKE?! hahaha
Click to expand...

More ad hominem. Coupled with the false statement that "all free and sane people come to three agreements, making them socially natural: life, expression and self defense. These agreements are socially natural as a matter of species preservation."
 
devildavid said:
You are the master of ad hominem.
Click to expand...

I would not quite say he rises to the level of a master as that implies a certain level of smooth expertise which goes unnoticed and unchallenged and what he does is the opposite - but practices the dark art just the same.
 
haymarket said:
I would not quite say he rises to the level of a master as that implies a certain level of smooth expertise which goes unnoticed and unchallenged and what he does is the opposite - but practices the dark art just the same.
Click to expand...

You're right. He isn't very subtle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom