Sheriff calls for guns on campus

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Once again, what is the difference between a caveman with infinite rights and a caveman that just survives? There is no difference so why would the universe make an idea of rights if they are unneeded? So, I am saying that the idea of rights were likely made as a counterweight to laws.

Rights are not sandwiches, nobody makes them, not even the "universe". Every critter is born with them.

If rights are a justification and humans are the sole species that need to justify their actions, humans are the only ones that could make up the idea of rights. Not the universe but humans.

Were you not paying attention when I said, "Just because humans have the ability to explain their rights, to reason how they apply, doesn't mean animals... uh, the other animals, don't have them too."
We don't need them to justify out actions, although we can, it's not necessary.
Rights aren't a reaction to laws... laws are are a reaction to rights. If people didn't have rights there would be no laws, because people would just have to do what they were told.

What would happen if someone was born without rights? Its impossible to imagine because it is impossible to do.

Yes! Now you've got it.

You can take away any other universal law (theoritically) but not rights. If it is impossible to take away rights what is the point of reconizing them in the first place?

The point is, you're not the boss of me... and vice versa.

It is just an added piece of information that is not needed, which goes against the will of the universe.

C'mon, don't be silly, the "universe" has no will.
Not needed? Without it there would be no truths to hold self evident.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Rights are not sandwiches, nobody makes them, not even the "universe". Every critter is born with them.

How can you be born with something that can not be made? Rights are ideas, which have to be made by something.

Were you not paying attention when I said, "Just because humans have the ability to explain their rights, to reason how they apply, doesn't mean animals... uh, the other animals, don't have them too."
We don't need them to justify out actions, although we can, it's not necessary.
Rights aren't a reaction to laws... laws are a reaction to rights. If people didn't have rights there would be no laws, because people would just have to do what they were told.

What you are saying is contradictory to what I just said. I said it was impossible to be born without rights and now you are saying it is possible. Do you need a right to do what you are told or not? Either way, if no one tells you what to do then you don't need rights and the idea of rights can still be considered reactionary to power. This is turning into a "what came first, chicken or the egg" argument...

What you are saying is that someone born without rights would be born without free will, more or less. Is this what you are trying to say or not?

C'mon, don't be silly, the "universe" has no will.

Okay, I used the wrong word. Supports may fit better.

Not needed? Without it there would be no truths to hold self evident.

I was talking about rights without society or anyone telling you what to do. There is no difference from infinite rights and survival so in that situation rights are not needed. Once a society forms, then the idea of rights are needed.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What you are saying is contradictory to what I just said.

That's right.