Society decides the extent of your right to live, whether it comes to the death penalty, self defense, wars, etc.

Like all of the rights affirmed in the Constitution, society defines the limits.

I have been through the formal H&K instructed courses using hammer and double tap techniques. I am not familiar with the author but I have heard of the technique.

I found a reasonably good article on Wikipedia by searching under Lucky McDaniel.

I've heard of double tap, but what's hammer?

Very interesting! thanks I will read it.

Human rights existed before there were human beings. We alone have rights because we alone have the level of sentience to have DISCOVERED those rights. Note the fact that I didn't say we CREATED rights.

Humans didn't create rights; we DISCOVERED them in much the same way we DISCOVERED gravity. Both gravity and natural rights are part of natural law. Both are equally immutable and undeniable. Neither of them can be voted, bought, sold, given, or taken away.

We don't have rights because the Constitution says so. We'd have rights without any Constitution, without any government, and without any "society". We are BORN with them. They are as self-evident, tangible, and real as the presence of oxygen.

I did not say human rights came with the first human. You asked when the first human being got their rights, and I said when the first human was born. The rights already existed, but a human didn't get those rights until a human was born.

I'm not changing my definitions. I've been perfectly clear, logical, reasonable, and unlike you...sane in everything I've said and I've never contradicted anything else I've said.

Society doesn't dictate rights. Society does not exist. Only individuals do. A collection of a hundred million people has no more rights than a single person and has no legitimate authority to prevent a single person from exercising their rights.

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."

- John Stewart Mill

You say the right to be free is too broad. Here's a very clear definition of what we have the right to do and it has laser accuracy...

We have the right to do ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or infringe upon the person, property, or equal rights of non-consenting others.

Your denial of universal human rights is akin to denying that gravity exists. Your claims that rights are a human social construct are so laughable and idiotic there hasn't been a word invented for this stupidity yet. This is why you're a joke to everyone on this board.

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."

- John Stewart Mill

That is unless the one might have the intention of doing 'harm' to the others, or the others had the intention of doing 'harm' to the one.

I always find it's a bad idea to quote philosophers on message boards because there are always a lot more variables than that which can be contained in one single quote.

"I guess one person CAN change the world, but most of the time they probably shouldn't" - Marge Simpson

No reason really, it just seemed to fit. :)

lol...does every male in Brisbane watch that bloody show?

There isn't too much that can't be explained with a Simpsons reference!

You tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
Homer J. Simpson

No, most Native Americans didn't own property and were perfectly content with that even when they knew that the white settlers did it. They chose not too because they didn't think it was necessary to their way of life, so it wasn't a right in their culture.

I am pretty sure every culture can agree on the right to life so I won't go into that but if a culture agrees that they don't want to have "the right to own property" as a right, why should we tell them they are wrong? They are just living a different lifestyle than you are with different perspectives on how they should live.

No human ever owned property until the agriculture revolution 10,000 -12,000 years ago. Were the people before that too stupid to not realize that they could own property? No, of course not, they were just as smart as us, just that their lifestyle didn't demand the need to own property so it wasn't a right to them.

What you are doing is telling them that their culture and way of life is wrong which is outrageous. If they want to live their lives without owning property then it is up to them. If they want to adopt our lifestyle then fine, let them. Just don't tell them they are wrong because I guarantee many will think they same about yours.


What you are saying is that humans are somewhat special in the universe. It’s hard to accept but humans don't mean anything to the universe and we are nothing to it except another animal. We are no better than any other animal on this planet, then why should we have natural rights? The only explanation is that we think we are better, so we made up rights to satisfy that thought.

You stupidly claim that no human owned property before the agricultural revolution. How do you know this? The answer is you don't. There were hundreds of ancient civilizations.

Let's say I agree that "most" people didn't own property back then. Why was this? It was because people could only own what they could defend, and because people migrated from one area to another in search of food. The agricultural revolution was what got people to stay in one place so they could cultivate crops. It wasn't that people couldn't own property, it was that they didn't think they'd be able to live if they stayed in one place. Tribal peoples like the American Indians shared everything and were pretty much communists (all communism and socialism is inherently wrong) as well as being migratory people. They not only didn't see the need to own land, they didn't think land could be owned. They didn't comprehend the concept of property ownership. So in answer to your ridiculous question, YES, they were too stupid to realize they could own land and it cost them most of America.

The gargantuan thing you are ignoring, and the gaping hole in your ridiculous claims is the fact that even then they had the RIGHT to own property. Whether or not they chose to exercise that right is irrelevant. Whether or not the tribe in which they lived believed they could own property is also irrelevant.

The only human you speak for is yourself, and if you want to believe you aren't above animals, that's fine. If you want to act like an idiot and deny natural, immutable, self-evident, and universal human rights, that's fine too. If you find yourself violating my rights, you may find yourself without a voice to deny such things because dead people don't talk much.

Our rights aren't an "idea" or a "thought" or a "concept". They weren't made up by humans. They weren't made up by societies. They have existed for as long as the universe has existed. It took the beings with the highest level of sentience on the planet (humans) to DISCOVER rights. Rights don't go away when they are being violated by "society" or by governments. This is a universal truth and will continue to be regardless of the number of times you blather incoherently denying it.

Not true. Another popular fabrication used to rationalize European conquest. We keep repeating it because we "learned" it in "history" class.

Now we understand, pierce does not believe in freedom, equality or a republic. There is no more discussion.
He wants a police state.

Bullshit! I'm alive, it is my right and as long as I'm able to stay alive and kill you to stay that way if you are tryint to take it away, it is my right.

Stop making your opinion fact. That is why you will never see it a different way because you are too closeminded to notice that you are not the center of the universe. This obviously isn't going anywhere on relation to rights so I'm going to let that die.

Is that the great logic you speak of?

I do not believe in universal ethics but yet I am a moral person. How does that work? Maybe just because I believe that freedoms are man-made doesn't mean that I don't believe we should use them.