[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

Wrong. You've seen it many times, but you just deny it much like a child putting fingers in their ears while saying, "I can't hear you!".

I must of missed it then.

I honestly have not seen any proof of natural rights. Since I am obviously not as smarted as you, please explain it for me word for word.

By denying the existence of natural rights, you deny the existence of gravity. Both are equally part of natural law.

You could theoretically take away gravity if you take away what is causing it. You can not take away what is giving us our rights. I can imagine what a world would be like without gravity, we would all die, but I can imagine it. I cannot imagine a world without rights.

If we lived in a universe without gravity space would just seem empty and all energy would probably be spread out. Since I am not as smarted as you, can you explain to me what the universe would be like if we did not have rights.

Natural law encompasses gravity and natural rights. You claim that gravity exists because a particle exists. Natural rights exist because nature exists.

Ok, if you want it that way. If we take away that particle we can take away gravity. We can not take away nature so there is no way we can test your version of rights, which makes it philosophy, which means you cannot prove or disprove it.

No, you can't take away gravity. Society has no bearing on gravity. Every single person on earth could unanimously vote to get rid of gravity, and it would still exist. The same is true of our natural rights. If every single person on earth voted for our rights to go away, we'd still have them. Nothing you say or do will remove either gravity or our natural rights.

Where the fuck did you get this from? I never said society has any effect on gravity, I said that particle or whatever causes gravity does.

What you are saying is completely retarded. That would be like a society saying that we should get rid of morals. Rights and morals come with society, you cannot have a society without rights or morals.

Remember, rights are just justifications. You do something because you have the right the do it. You justify your shooting at people who take away your guns because you have the right to own a gun.

If I am the only human on Earth, what would be the point of rights because I wouldn't need to justify myself. The same goes with morals, morals are basically guidelines on how we interact with other people. If there is no one to interact with, there is no need for morals. So since there are no need for rights or morals until a society is formed, why would nature create rights or morals when the chance of a society actually forming is so small? Since you don't believe in a god, you probably do realize how small the chance is of an organism that feels the need for justification (rights) to evolve.

That is what I am trying to get at. The fact that rights came with society and will leave when society falls. There is no need for nature to create rights when society can.

Yes I'm sure about it and I don't need to provide a survey. By all means do your own survey. Ask everyone you meet if they have the right to live. Then ask if that right comes from their government or if they are born with that right.

You are a joke aren't you? I never said we don't have the right to live. I said that rights are a sociological construct.

I'll wait to answer this until you've completed your assigned reading.

I already have a book list in double digits that I need to get too. I'm not going any of your books ahead of the ones I want to read, I just don't care that much.

Nature (aka the laws of physics) grant us these rights at birth.

Prove it.

I know that murdering Jews isn't a right because if one human being has a right to life, we all do. My rights end where another person's begin. I don't have a right to kill another human unless it is in my own defense. My right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Murder does. Bearing arms is part of our right to life. Murder is not one of our rights because our rights don't include infringing on the rights of others.

Is there like a ten commandments saying what our rights are? Where are you getting this information? All I hear is what you are saying rights are, not what nature is saying what rights are.

Originally Posted by jinx

If society determines our rights then there can be no such thing as human rights violations then, right?

No. I am saying society determines rights. So if you go against what society says right are, you have human right violations.

If a particular society decides that they don't want any filthy jews mucking up their gene pool, then jews have no right to life there, correct?

There we have a conflict of interests. If a society determines that jews have no right to life, the jews have no right to life from THEIR perspective. But our, and the Jewish society, says that jews have a right to life, so we will protect them from that society that doesn't think they have the right to life. If the Jews think they have a right to life, they can protect themselves.

I can't think of a good human example, so I will go to animal rights. We as a society says that dogs have a right to life and if you breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will you will go to jail. But, we as a society says that pigs do not have a right life and it is accepted that we breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will.

Since life and pursuit of happiness is something that no sane society will deny themselves, I will have the stay with property. In many different ways of living, rights to property do not make sense. For example, owning property in a hunter-gatherer society would destroy that whole system. In a far left socio-economic system, right to property is also taken away as well because property goes against that political philosophy. They are not wrong in their beliefs, it is just a difference in culture in dealing with rights.

Owning property is historically a rightist mindset and does not work in a leftist system. So to say that owning property is an unalienable right means that you are saying that a far leftist system is wrong, which is absurd.

Did you go thru public schools here in the US pierce?

Yes I did, why?