People actually vote for these guys.

[GSUhooligan]

Who would actually want to be born into a family where the mom wants to kill you? I'd much rather have been aborted than to have been forcibly born into that kind of environment.

[kalm]

Cooperation and experience.

That's a far cry from self-evident rights IMO.

http://www.animalattorney.com/

We are self evident animals.

[Chizzang]

That's a far cry from self-evident rights IMO.

http://www.animalattorney.com/

We are self evident animals.

We are self aware & self evident
You'd really need to NOT believe in the logic of evolution to argue some other point...
I'm still confused about the "Gotcha" thing that's being tossed around
Did Jesus launch a web site recently..?

[JoltinJoe]

Human evolution...
We started off attributing all acts beyond our understanding - to God
Over time we came to discover - through the scientific method - using unbiased criteria and trial and error - that there were indeed naturally occurring phenomenon

Naturally occurring phenomenon
self evident through unbiased study methods

Not nearly as complicated as you'd like it to be I think...

Again, you are contradicting yourself. If something is "self-evident" why would you need "study methods" to discover it?

If you are going to say we have "self evident rights," mean it, and accept the logical conclusions of such a statement.

[JoltinJoe]

Self-evident rights? I'd like to hear more on this.

Cooperation and experience.

Evasion.

[kalm]

Cooperation and experience.

Evasion.

Simplicity.

[Chizzang]

Human evolution...
We started off attributing all acts beyond our understanding - to God
Over time we came to discover - through the scientific method - using unbiased criteria and trial and error - that there were indeed naturally occurring phenomenon

Naturally occurring phenomenon
self evident through unbiased study methods

Not nearly as complicated as you'd like it to be I think...

Again, you are contradicting yourself. If something is "self-evident" why would you need "study methods" to discover it?

If you are going to say we have "self evident rights," mean it, and accept the logical conclusions of such a statement.

Joe,
All kinds of things that are self evident today - many - took years and years (hundreds upon hundreds) to bring to the forefront of the human awareness...
and are now accepted as self evident

Why:
Because humans are WILLFULLY ignorant
We willfully choose the least obvious, least logical answer -in the face of all the evidence - the frequency with which humans choose the most absurd incongruous conclusion is startling

I still do not understand what point you're trying to make
again: Explain it to me as though I were a disabled child - what is your point

[JohnStOnge]

Who would actually want to be born into a family where the mom wants to kill you? I'd much rather have been aborted than to have been forcibly born into that kind of environment.

Oh, Ok. So let's say you're a five year old instead of a fetus. Would you want to continue life if your family wants to kill you? Surely you'd rather just have your mother kill you than continue to live in that kind of environment. Right?

You act as though "born" is the beginning of life for an individual. It's not.

[death dealer]

He's right. Say what you want D1B, but here he has both of you by the short hairs.

I still don't see how an observable law relating to natural phenomenon is such a "gatcha" moment...
explain it to me as though I were a retarded child

Who said anything about a gotcha? Why does everything need to be a gotcha?

Explain it? I think JJ did that already pretty well. You're a smart boy. Read his posts. He does a pretty good job of providing a primer on the concept of rights. Take it from there. This is Intro to Philosophy territory here. Didn't you attend an Ivy?

[D1B]

I still don't see how an observable law relating to natural phenomenon is such a "gatcha" moment...
explain it to me as though I were a retarded child

Who said anything about a gotcha? Why does everything need to be a gotcha?

Explain it? I think JJ did that already pretty well. You're a smart boy. Read his posts. He does a pretty good job of providing a primer on the concept of rights. Take it from there. This is Intro to Philosophy territory here. Didn't you attend an Ivy?

Bullshit.

[Chizzang]

I still don't see how an observable law relating to natural phenomenon is such a "gatcha" moment...
explain it to me as though I were a retarded child

Who said anything about a gotcha? Why does everything need to be a gotcha?

Explain it? I think JJ did that already pretty well. You're a smart boy. Read his posts. He does a pretty good job of providing a primer on the concept of rights. Take it from there. This is Intro to Philosophy territory here. Didn't you attend an Ivy?

I'm trying to get him to admit something he does not want to admit...
That he believes all natural phenomena are in direct correlation to acts of God and endowed (bestowed) by the Creator and this would include the concept of a "human right"

Where as a modern "Relativist" interpretation would include intellectual evolving interests - the intellectual evolution of Self evident RIGHTS

That's all I've been trying to hint around at: His ideas revolve around God - I say we still have self evident rights even if tomorrow we can prove God does not exists (Right..?)

[death dealer]

Who said anything about a gotcha? Why does everything need to be a gotcha?

Explain it? I think JJ did that already pretty well. You're a smart boy. Read his posts. He does a pretty good job of providing a primer on the concept of rights. Take it from there. This is Intro to Philosophy territory here. Didn't you attend an Ivy?

I'm trying to get him to admit something he does not want to admit...
That he believes all natural phenomena are in direct correlation to acts of God and endowed (bestowed) by the Creator and this would include the concept of a "human right"

Where as a modern "Relativist" interpretation would include intellectual evolving interests - the intellectual evolution of Self evident RIGHTS

That's all I've been trying to hint around at: His ideas revolve around God - I say we still have self evident rights even if tomorrow we can prove God does not exists (Right..?)

I'm a moral relativist, or rather I should, I see humans as moral relativists. So I don't buy into the concept of rights, particularly self evident or naturally occurring/universal rights in a culture of more than one. Your rights are and have always been whatever the most powerful entity in the system allows them to be. Anyone who says any differently hasn't been paying attention. I'm not talking about physical properties. Moral law, which is all other law other than scientific/physical law, is a manifestation/concept created by man by and for humans to fulfill very similar needs that inspired the invention of gods. "Thou shalt not _________, except in the name of __________." "You have the right to __________ until __________ says otherwise." Whoever controls __________ controls ___________. Thus endeth the lesson.

[death dealer]

Now, I'm going to exercise my right to bear arms into the bountiful wilderness and kill me some tasty critters! Bye now!

[Chizzang]

I'm trying to get him to admit something he does not want to admit...
That he believes all natural phenomena are in direct correlation to acts of God and endowed (bestowed) by the Creator and this would include the concept of a "human right"

Where as a modern "Relativist" interpretation would include intellectual evolving interests - the intellectual evolution of Self evident RIGHTS

That's all I've been trying to hint around at: His ideas revolve around God - I say we still have self evident rights even if tomorrow we can prove God does not exists (Right..?)

I'm a moral relativist, or rather I should, I see humans as moral relativists. So I don't buy into the concept of rights, particularly self evident or naturally occurring/universal rights in a culture of more than one. Your rights are and have always been whatever the most powerful entity in the system allows them to be. Anyone who says any differently hasn't been paying attention. I'm not talking about physical properties. Moral law, which is all other law other than scientific/physical law, is a manifestation/concept created by man by and for humans to fulfill very similar needs that inspired the invention of gods. "Thou shalt not _________, except in the name of __________." "You have the right to __________ until __________ says otherwise." Whoever controls __________ controls ___________. Thus endeth the lesson.

Of course I could chat about this all day... (love it)
as a Modern Relativist I feel like each society has "intellectually evolving interests"
which includes the concept of evolving self evident rights - but you have to accept evolutionary theory in all of it's forms to accept the notion that human intellect "evolves" too...

starting from zero
100,000 years ago (human species) to now - we've slowly moved away from chaos towards order

[D1B]

I don't (and didn't) use the term, "self-evident". That's a term people like you use to poison the well and connect rights with god.

For better or worse, rights are conceived by man and are thus fluid and changing, and yes they can be taken away, and often are. The worst human rights abuses are happening before our eyes in the Middle East, the most "religious" place on earth.

But Cleets did, and I was responding to him.

But as for you, if you call something a right, but the government can morally take that "right" away, then it is not a right. If the government cannot take it away "morally," then it is a right. So the whole determination of whether something is a "right" depends on the morality of any action intended to disposses you of that "right." And such actions must be measured by some standard of morality, i.e., objectivity.

Since you do not believe in objective morality, you really do not believe in rights. I don't mean to throw fuel on the fire, but when you say "rights" are "fluid" and "conceived by man," you sorta sound like Chairman Mao.

You should compare the text of the "Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens" of the 1954 Mao Constitution, and the US Bill of Rights. One speaks in terms of what "rights" the citizens of the Republic of China possess, by virtue of being a citizen. One speaks in terms of what rights a citizen possesses and may assert against the government.

In one model, "personal rights" are derived from the government. In the other model, personal rights are superior to the government. I think you are well intentioned, but you are buying into the Mao model. And ultimately if a right is derived from the government, then the government possesses the right, for good reason or bad, to take it away. Which means it really wasn't a "right" in the first place.

Rights, moral or ethical decencies, whatever you want to call em- good or bad - consistent or inconsistent in their application and acceptance - are created by man and are in a perpetual state of development. They're the products of thousands of years of trial and error - the collective wisdom of man.

[89Hen]

Rights, moral or ethical decencies, whatever you want to call em- good or bad - consistent or inconsistent in their application and acceptance - are created by man and are in a perpetual state of development. They're the products of thousands of years of trial and error - the collective wisdom of man.

So you disagree with Kalm and his animal anaolgy.

[89Hen]

Who would actually want to be born into a family where the mom wants to kill you? I'd much rather have been aborted than to have been forcibly born into that kind of environment.

Easy to say.

How about being born into poverty? Or physical diability? Or to her...

[kalm]

Rights, moral or ethical decencies, whatever you want to call em- good or bad - consistent or inconsistent in their application and acceptance - are created by man and are in a perpetual state of development. They're the products of thousands of years of trial and error - the collective wisdom of man.

So you disagree with Kalm and his animal anaolgy.

You're confused.

[D1B]

Who would actually want to be born into a family where the mom wants to kill you? I'd much rather have been aborted than to have been forcibly born into that kind of environment.

Easy to say.

How about being born into poverty? Or physical diability? Or to her...

Both of those obese cunts will be voting for Romney, because they "don't wanna nigger in the White House."

[89Hen]

Easy to say.

How about being born into poverty? Or physical diability? Or to her...

Both of those obese cunts will be voting for Romney, because they "don't wanna nigger in the White House."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs[/youtube]

[GSUhooligan]

Who would actually want to be born into a family where the mom wants to kill you? I'd much rather have been aborted than to have been forcibly born into that kind of environment.

Easy to say.

How about being born into poverty? Or physical diability? Or to her...

Yeah, I'd rather have not been born than be born into any of that.

[JoltinJoe]

I'm trying to get him to admit something he does not want to admit...

I'm not concealing what you think I "don't want to admit." I think I've admitted it (hundreds ) of times previously). But you used the words "self-evident right." You really cannot possibly mean that unless you accept natural law.

Both D1B and death dealer understand what I've said. They don't agree with me about how rights are derived, but they understand what I'm saying, and I understand what they're saying. But look how D1B and death dealer reject the words "self evident" while (in my opinion) trying to re-frame our historical understanding of how "rights" are derived. They know if you call rights "self evident," you are admitting to an objective source of rights and stating a natural law position. So they reject the notion that any "right" is "self evident."

What is going in the United States today, from a political philosophy perspective, is that there persons who understand our Constitution to be an articulation of natural law, and strive to apply it in such fashion. On the Supreme Court, the natural law adherents would include Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

On the other hand, there are persons influenced by a utilitarian moral philosophy who seek to "re-center" the constitution from a natural law foundation. To them, the morality of an action is determined by its overall utility in promoting individual and collective happiness, and if some action is useful in such terms, it can be called "right." This is the process of "collective wisdom" that D1B is speaking about. But as death dealer states, such "rights" exist only to the extent that the governing authority is willing to permit those rights.

The battle between natural law adherents and proponents of utilitarianism plays itself out most notably in the abortion discussion. A natural law adherent is likely to reject abortion as a right, but a utilitarian will likely favor an abortion "right" because the act can be seen as useful to a woman's assertion of other rights and privileges.

[Chizzang]

I'm trying to get him to admit something he does not want to admit...

I'm not concealing what you think I "don't want to admit." I think I've admitted it (hundreds ) of times previously). But you used the words "self-evident right." You really cannot possibly mean that unless you accept natural law.

Both D1B and death dealer understand what I've said. They don't agree with me about how rights are derived, but they understand what I'm saying, and I understand what they're saying. But look how D1B and death dealer reject the words "self evident" while (in my opinion) trying to re-frame our historical understanding of how "rights" are derived. They knows if you call rights "self evident," you are admitting to an objective source of rights and stating a natural law position. So they reject the notion that any "right" is "self evident."

What is going in the United States today, from a political philosophy perspective, is that there persons who understand our Constitution to be an articulation of natural law, and strive to apply it in such fashion. On the Supreme Court, the natural law adherents would include Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

On the other hand, there are persons influenced by a utilitarian moral philosophy who seek to "re-center" the constitution from a natural law foundation. To them, the morality of an action is determined by its overall utility in promoting individual and collective happiness, and if some action is useful in such terms, it can be called "right." This is the process of "collective wisdom" that D1B is speaking about. But as death dealer states, such "rights" exist only to the extent that the governing authority is willing to permit those rights.

The battle between natural law adherents and proponents of utilitarianism plays itself out most notably in the abortion discussion. A natural law adherent is likely to reject abortion as a right, but a utilitarian will likely favor an abortion "right" because the act can be seen as useful to a woman's assertion of other rights and privileges.

I got no problem with that Joe
What I'm suggesting is the idea of self evident rights
has evolved from one thing to something else...

Evolution is happening on more levels than simply biologic
Intellectual evolving interests -or- the intellectual evolution of Self evident RIGHTS

[CID1990]

What about those of us who are pro-life for extra-religious reasons?

Everybody is pro-life for extra-religious reasons
but they respect the fact that their choices (feelings) shouldn't over ride the choice of the actual person involved and double the fact that now you're involving the government into a situation where it does not belong

I never said anything about whether abortion should be legal or illegal, or whether government should or should not be involved.

[Chizzang]

Everybody is pro-life for extra-religious reasons
but they respect the fact that their choices (feelings) shouldn't over ride the choice of the actual person involved and double the fact that now you're involving the government into a situation where it does not belong

I never said anything about whether abortion should be legal or illegal, or whether government should or should not be involved.

Dude...
we're way past this now - we're on to debating the potential of a philosophical evolution of divine rights
(get with the program)