Rights - god given? inalienable? self-evident? natural? WRONG

Let me back up.

If they built into the nature of mankind, would they be natural? In other words, they have no existence or context outside of human conception and relations, but are imbued upon every person simply as a matter of being a person - would those be natural rights?

 

So do many blacks in New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and in dark Africa.

That's why you shoot cannibals on sight.

 

No, it isn't.

Then we're just gonna make owning lefties as slaves moral.

Those of us in the sticks can outshoot you,, and definitely have you outgunned.

I guess we're gonna see how good you are at picking cotton.

it's not that I really need cotton, but I do like the idea of donning a colonel sanders suit and sipping iced tea on my porch while you sad sacks try to figure out which end of a shovel to push.

Hey, I didn't want this. You do, so this is gonna be how it is.

 

"Who's chair is it?" is a different question than "who whittled it". I posit the question "How do you prove you whittled it" is irrelevant because what is right is not determined by his ability to convince you of the truth.

 

What is the nature of mankind? Is all of mankind the same? All cultures the same?
Some say women should not be forced to wear full head to toe clothing. It's against their rights. Some say women should dress head to toe in clothing. For it's the rights granted by their creator.
What exactly is the nature of mankind. For most of it, was to kill the tribe over for something the other tribe wanted.

 

It was never moral for any of those things to happen. You are speaking things you know to be nonsense now.

 

What? Did we not fight a revolutionary war? Did we not take the land from the natives? Of course we did. We use might to form this country. Had we lost the revolutionary war, our rights would be vastly different today.

I see you are back to the only natural right is MIGHT. Why do you keep arguing with me, and saying the exact same thing I say?

 

Exactly my point. Maybe you should review what was written.
He says no one can sit in the chair because he whittled it. I don't know he whittled it, neither does anyone else.

So I fail to see what you're getting at. Except you jumped in and don't know the context.

 

The nature of man is a rational, social, yet self-interested animal. I posit that, just as logic and reason can lead men to agree that 2+2=4, so can it lead men to natural moral laws that no one can disagree with without abandoning their humanity.

 

Really, it's long past time to make drunkposting a bannable offense.

Then surely it would be child's play to point to something I actually said to which either applied; but evidently you lack the brains, or the cojones, or both.

Pilgrim, if I got a lobotomy, my understanding of the subject matter would still eclipse yours by at least a millionfold.

 

It was moral when it was happening, else those things would not have occurred. Morals change over time.

 

Logic and reason does not lead anyone to 2+2 = 4. That is a mathematical fact and is not the least bit subjective.

Morals are completely subjective and based on no facts, just human rational, logic, and a more peaceful society. If a more peaceful society is what is deemed important. Not always the case.
Is waterboarding prisoners moral? Is it our military's right?

 

I don't need to know the context. What I'm getting at is that your ignorance or his lying doesn't change what is right and wrong. If something is moral and right, it is moral and right on its own. If it is moral that the person who whittled the chair has claim to the chair, then the person who whittled the chair has right to the chair, regardless of whether he can convince you.

Ignorance may mean someone is less culpable for being wrong, but it doesn't make them any less wrong.

 

Then I understand you to be saying that nothing immoral has never happened? The holocaust was moral? Does such ethical nihilism extend to individuals, or is the state the only entity incapable of doing wrong?

 

The main reason is that it isn't moral. We fought a war against the British because of this idea that people have natural rights.

Yes, we took land from the natives. They refused to abide by those same rights. They weren't above flensing people, dude! They were nothing more than chickens to my colonel Sanders.

I wrote long ago that you can lose your natural rights by transgressing against mine. Since they did not value natural rights, they were nothing but chickens, and a paying customer has an order for a 16 piece bucket of the colonel's original recipe.

It's true that we did the same basic thing to them, but that's because we didn't consider them moral agents, same as they did for us. Nothing more than chickens ready to be plucked.

You want to go back to that, so we will go back there.

We did the same thing to Africans. They were slaves and we weren't because we had the guns and they didn't. Just as you want things to be.

Sorry it has to come to this, but... you chose.

 

This is some silly-ass nonsense right here. But mainly I just quoted this to point out that you can't, by definition, lose your natural rights.

 

and your reasoning?

I'll tell you mine. If you want to enslave me, then you open yourself up to enslavement. Natural laws are nothing more than an agreement between two people who can agree on what is right and wrong.

If you can't, then you're just a chicken on the farm. Or maybe I am.

 

Because they are natural? What is natural cannot be undone by man.

 

My gun says they can be undone by man.

I would also say that circular logic is kinda stupid.

 

As Man evolved on this planet just like all other animals and as Man is comprised of the exact same Quantum Particle/Wave Forms every thing else in the Universe is comprised of MAN and all his constructs are NATURAL.

AA

 

Seeing as the existence of God is wholly irrelevant to my point, as should have been clear to anyone who actually read my post. But I understand - when you don't have a leg to stand on against an argument made, it must be very tempting to just create a straw man and argue against an argument not made.

 

Then you are saying the exact same thing as Dairyair? I posit that your gun cannot change what is right and wrong. Do you disagree?

And it is not circular reasoning. I just told you what natural rights are. There is no reasoning involved outside of A=A.

 

no, I have that right. We as a society, agree that we have the right to self defense.

huh?

 

but morality is subjective. So we are back to rights that are agreed upon by society.

Because if they are man made, they aren't natural.

 

What is moral? What is right?
If one claims something, it must be proven or the claim is just air.