Is that better or worse than being an asshole? Let me know so I can figure out where I stand. :D

Being a tangible reality does not mean you can be born without them. How can you be born into a planet without gravity? You can't. The same is true of rights. You are born with them and can't be born without them.


Disproven? by whom? when did this happen? As far as I know we've had no non-humans do tests in other parts of the universe to see if it exists without humans to perceive it. Do you know a Martian?


That's entirely false. I can sing a tune that you are displeased with and effected by, but I have not violated your rights by singing it. You do not have the right to not be offended, but I do have the right to express myself freely.


The moment the first human was born.

The natural rights I've described have existed for as gravity has existed.


I don't have a "version" of human rights. Nor do you. Nor does anyone. Human rights are there even if you choose not to recognize them as part of the laws of nature. They exist even if you are prevented from exercising them. All humans have the same rights despite any personal beliefs they may or may not have.


Society has not invented anything; individuals have. Rights are not an invention. They are a law of nature and are as real as any law of physics. Without a society you have all rights. With a society you have all rights. Your rights are the same regardless of whether or not you are living around others and regardless of what the laws are in a particular government where you may live.

I would ask the persistent Mr. Hawkeye: What exactly is your question, sir. Exactly what is your question?

no, but beest has two paintball guns, I'm guessing that doesn't count? (Still kept well out of reach of sproglets, though -a paintball in the eye is not amusing.)

I can't imagine anyone I know owning a gun, even though i live in America. Mind you, this is hippy town and almost everyone I know has children.

Edit - Look at the end of my next post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippyt View Post
Zip-ese

Well !! I didn't know that a language had been named after me ,
This could be fun !!!
Complete with the total inability to spell. Just like your hick people.


Well Nanny boo boo to you too FuckTard !!!!

You can go to into deep space where gravity is at a minimum and attempt to give birth but you can never give birth to someone without human’s rights. One is a physical concept because you can take gravity away and one is a abstract philosophical concept because you can not physically take it away.

I said it "seems to be disproven". If all humans die tomorrow, everything the world tells us is that it will move on with or without us.

I do not have a right to be offended? If you are singing a tune that displeases me, that takes away my ability to be happy. You do have a right to express yourself and I have a right to be happy, when these two conflict we have to come up with a compromise.

There was never a first human because humans are constantly evolving. There is never an exact point where a child becomes an adult. We place an age on it but the difference between the two is no different then any instant when someone is a child or an adult.

I thought they came when the first human was born?

How do we know what natural rights are? There is nothing that says what natural rights are. They are all made by individuals and there view of the world around them.

You have to compromise your rights when you live with other people because they will conflict.



I guess I do have a philosphical question Beestie.

If you have something that can not be taken away from you does it really exist or is it just an illusion?

(Just for the record, I should have said you have to compromise your rights, or illusion of rights, when you live in a society. You technically still have them, but you are not allowed to use them.)

Rights are as real, tangible, physical, and undeniable as gravity. You can go in the deepest recesses of space and gravity still exists, though its strength is diminished. Your rights exist even within the most fascist and brutal nations, they are being violated and you are prevented from exercising them, but they still exist. You can not physically take away gravity, and you can not physically take away rights.


That is an opinion. I'm talking about facts. Rights exist as a matter of fact, not opinion.


You have the right to PURSUE happiness. You are not guaranteed happiness. If you dislike the tune I'm singing, you are free to go somewhere that makes you happier, or to wear earplugs. My singing has nothing to do with your ability to pursue happiness.


There was a first human and there will be a last human too. The age at which someone becomes an adult is fluid. I know plenty of 60 year olds who are not adults, and 15 year olds who are.


No, human rights didn't appear when the first human was born. They have existed for all time and the first human was imbued with them at birth.


The beauty of natural rights is they don't have to be enumerated or codified. We have the right to do ANYTHING as long as our actions do not prevent another person from exercising their rights, and do not physically harm or endanger that person or their property.


I don't argue this. I've always maintained that one persons rights end where another's begin. But you seem to not only have a hard time comprehending the meaning of rights, but you also have a hard time distinguishing them from privileges or desires. My right to sing a song you don't like supersedes your desire not to hear it. The most minor of my rights is more important than your most fervent desire.

If you love someone, does it exist? Can someone take from you the love you have for your mother? Is the love you have for your mother merely an illusion?

There is no illusion of rights. There are rights and there are privileges and they are complete opposites. When you live in a "society" you don't have to give up your rights or even compromise them anymore than just respecting the equal rights of others. Most of the time there are those in a society who want to impose their desire onto others and prevent them from exercising their rights through force, but they still have the rights.

Are you talking about Adam, or something more akin to Lucy?

Because in the latter case, no matter how you define "human", the first one would in all likelihood be more similar to its "nonhuman" parents than to you. Do natural rights apply to those parents?

I just caught up with this shit. And to think I once saw you as a SMART AND BRIGHT lady. oh well And by the fucking way Zip and I are running neck and neck on the spelling. Thank you very flappin much.

That was after I turned the other cheek twice - that's all he gets. I know: you conservatives need teamwork to even come close to winning an argument against one liberal. And still, you lose.

Radar, you can think that you are born with all the rights you want - if your neighbor doesn't buy into the same societal convention, he will kill you and take your stuff and your women. So good luck with that.

Nuf said.

if your neighbor doesn't buy into the same societal convention, he will kill you and take your stuff and your women. So good luck with that.

Thus the need for a gun to defend your self and your stuff .

Right on, Buster.

Does anyone else completely tune people out once they start throwing around "you conservatives" or "you liberals" as an argument?

I am not a Christian and don't believe in any bible stories. I was talking about whatever person was the first person. The first person to evolve from apes to be an actual person as we are now, and not a half-ape/half-man hybrid.

I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the rational mind and you certainly haven't won any argument in this thread. Or are you talking about some other discussion where you had a better position and weren't trying to deny reality?

If he tries he will meet the same fate he planned for me but in my case, I'll be using defensive force and exercising my rights, while he'll be using offensive force while trying to violate them. My position is clear, concise, and has no flaws or ambiguity. This is because, unlike yours, it's based entirely on reality and truth.

And so the conversation comes full circle and proves not only the RIGHT for individuals to own any weapon we choose, but also describes the necessity.

No such thing. No definition of "human" is anywhere near specific enough to designate a "first" human. If you somehow do arbitrarily pick the "first" human, they will have been much more similar to their parents than to you. Do the natural rights apply to the child, but not the parents?

Yes.

Not really. The description is hypothetical...if the situation were a given, then it could be said that owning a weapon is a necessity.

Are you saying it isn't? For me owning a gun IS a necessity. In fact my owning of a gun is a necessity even for those who choose not to own a gun themselves. Private gun ownership makes everyone safer, including those who don't own guns.

http://www.cleveland.com/concealed/p...600.xml&coll=2

Poor fella. Guess it is not always safe to play with the Big Dogs.

All evolved species have evolved due to mutations. At some point a mutation occurred that gave us the very first human being. The non-humans who gave birth to this human would not have human rights, but their offspring would.

What does this really have to do with anything?

No, no... guns are evil. The tools of Satan to kill babies and puppies.
Save yourself before they seize your soul.
Mail all your guns to me.
Do it now... for the children.

I'll take a few more but I will have to buy a bigger safe. Please send the ammo that goes with the guns so I don't have to buy anymore. Thanks.

That's awesome!

Now if every law abiding citizen in that neighborhood or section of the city were to get a CCW license and made it known to all in the papers and airwaves, I bet you that crimes like that would nearly cease. If they did not stop right away, they would stop right away after a few more gang-banger want-a-be's got a cap in the forehead.

Yes, I am saying it isn't--for me. And it's fine with me if you think that owning a gun is a necessity for you, as long as you're a responsible gun owner.

I don't agree that private gun ownership makes everyone safer. It only makes others safer if, for instance, a gun owner happens to successfully intervene if non-owners are being threatened. It makes others unsafe if, say, that gun owner's kid or angry spouse happens to shoot bullets through the wall.

Its interesting to me that some people are so hung up on spelling, grammar, and dialectic jargon that a stunning example of crystal clear thinking like this sails right over their heads while the rest of us just put the mouse down and slide the keyboard back knowing there is nothing else to add.

Are you inferring that you've used your gun to protect yourself or your stuff?

Ok, so you agree with him. I'll alert the media.:right:

10-4 on da zip and beestie

Some folks will argue with a damn stump.

Don't you understand that if your neighbor would do this, he doesn't share the rights that supposedly were floating around waiting for you to be born? Rights are a societal convention. That's reality and truth, not mysticism and mumbo-jumbo, like your theory.

Why not tune out (or condemn) the people who offer no substance to a debate, just pop in to insult a debater?

Society doesn't give rights, it restricts them.

If you were the only person in North America you have the right to do anything you want... anything. You could shit in the punch bowl if you wanted.

BUT, if one (or more) people move in, you now have a society which limits your rights to do anything you want because you have other people to consider. And they you, which limits their right to do anything they want.

Society restricts rights.

yes Spex , I have had to use a weapon to defend my self ( against a Neibors dog ) , myself and my wife have fire arms , we know how to use them affectivly , and will use them if nessary. One of the reasons we moved here is that this area is sooo much nicer than where than where we both came from ( Memphis TN ) .
You nay have heard of White flight , we flew , not just from the city , or the area , we left the whole damn state !!!

It would be impossible in this universe but you can take away gravity. Gravity is a physical acceleration, it has physical properties, and you can take it away. You will never be able to reach absolute zero in this universe but it is possible hypothetically. You can not hypothetically have someone born without natural rights. If you are born into a fascist nation, your rights are taken away from you when you are born; you were never born without them.

This is pointless. There is no way to prove or disprove this.

Back that up. I am interested in seeing how it is a fact.

Rights existing is an opinion because they are not physical. There is no way to scientifically find natural rights just as there is no way to scientifically find a soul.

I am seriously not trying to call you out on this but that is not how evolution works. There are two kinds of evolution: microevolution, a change in of an allele in a population, and macroevolution, the separation of two species. One generation will never experience macroevolution or microevolution but only a single mutation. There was never a first human just as there is never a time when someone becomes an adult. It is a long slow gradual process where you can never tell when a species does evolve.

Do you believe in intelligent design. Evolution is random so the chances of life actually evolving into humans are one in a near infinite number. We just got that one time where we did evolve into humans

I really don't believe the world is that simple. Here is a real life situation with my roommate and my hallway. He wants to go to bed at 9:00 at night. The rest of the hallway wants to have fun and be loud all night. There is a conflict of interests. It is my roommate's right to get sleep but it is my hallway's right to have fun and be loud. To be able to live peacefully together, these two groups will have to compromise. My roommate will have to put up with the noise until 11:00 and then my hallway will have to be quiet. Both groups have to give up their rights to function within a community. If my roommate didn't live in a community, he would be able to sleep whenever he wants without distractions. If my hallway didn't live in a community, they would be able to be as loud as they want for as long as they want.

So you agree that people have to compromise when they live in a community?

So where is this list of rights, privileges, and desires?

Love is caused by chemicals in the brain. If you take away the chemicals you take away the love.

I think we agree but just are using different words.

If I live in a society that has a social norm that says you can not drink and drive.

I can physically drink and drive even when I live in this society. We both agree on this.

I am saying that once we have broken that norm, we have distanced ourselves from that society which will bring consequences on us that will usually inflict on our rights (going to jail, being fined, ostracized by the rest of the society).

Uk had 54 gun related deaths last year. gun control does work, its just that America is paranois as fuck, just because you have an old piece of paper that says you have the right to bear arms doesnt mean you should.

The UK is not the US. Different cultures, different ideas. People in the US don't trust police to do everything for them, including protect them. UK culture emphasizes government protection for almost everything, including a ban pointy objects. :rolleyes:

Suggesting the laws of one country would have the same effects (both positive and negative) on the other isn't really valid.

Sounds more like no responsibility and a free schedule, not rights.

Rights are agreed-upon behaviors.

Spexx, think about it this way.

If you found a small, isolated culture in the jungle where it was the societal norm to sacrifice two dozen children each year in a very long, painful ritual, would you consider that wrong? Do those children have a "right" to life that supersedes their society's agreed-upon behaviors?

You're asking me how I feel about those rights. Sure, I feel that it's wrong. But if rights tangible, objective "things" that we have when we are born, wouldn't the people in the tribe feel the same way that I do? The fact that they don't feel this way supports the concept that rights are not objective or universal, they are societal conventions. Sorry, I disagree with you.

Actually it makes everyone safer, even when gun owners don't intervene. When criminals don't know who has guns or who doesn't it makes them less likely to commit crimes.

The UK has a much higher rate of violent crime than does America. They have more rape, assault, etc.

In the UK they have "subjects", in America we have citizens.

I'm not sure I've said anything for you to disagree with yet. :confused: For the record, calling natural rights "tangible" and "palpable" is pretty semantically wrong, as far as I'm concerned.

But forget about Radar for a second, I'm asking you about the jungle people who sacrifice kids. Why do you feel that it's wrong for them to sacrifice the children? Is it only because it would be wrong in your society? Do you recognize the right of the jungle society to sacrifice their children if that's what they've agreed to do, or would you try to make them stop the practice?

Gun control won't work here because we won't stand for Nanny State control. You guys can't even take a dump without the Old Hag sifting through it for untaxed wealth. Your a) failure to understand why gun control won't work in the states; b) your willingness to live your life under suffocating government control a tenth of which would lead to anarchy if imposed in the states explains c) why you so disdainfully and disrespectfully refer to our Constitution as an old peice of paper.

What do you have that's better? Difficulty: no crusty old hags wearing perfume that costs more than you make in a year.

I wasnt suggesting one law for both countries, and i agree there are different cultures, but its blatantly obvious that something has to be done to curb gun related deaths in the US. how its done is of course up to your citizens and politicians.

sibjects?! this isnt the fuckin 1800's. :rolleyes:

keep repeating "we are free! we are free!". :rolleyes:
youre all too scared to even demonstrate against your governments, and you cant say "suicide" on TV. :rolleyes:

source?

I am a very strong believer in sociological forces.

For example, if you give me 20 babies I believe I can raise them to believe anything I want them too, with one or two expeptions for the "rebels". If you look throughout history you can find just about every practice as a norm that we find to be unethical. Most of our morals have been brought to us by the socity we live in. The only expections I can think of are practices that would wipe a community out, like sacrificing kids (that is not a shot at you Clod) or complete castration of males.

I feel it's wrong because that's the way the society in which I was raised feels. I would not try to change them anymore than I would allow them to change me to their way of thinking.

I maintain that if left alone, unsocialized, we would not hesitate to kill one another in order to eat and procreate. Think about how a three year old acts. If another kid has a toy that he wants, he'll walk over and bop the kid and take the toy.

Well, you suggested that gun control works for the UK. What do you suggest for the US?

That source you're getting your information from? Yeah, you might want to consider changing it. I have no idea where you're getting the "can't say 'suicide'" bit, either. Are you just making stuff up?

Funny. In the US, we consider these actions to be "paranoid as fuck".

In America, we have a car in every garage. In jolly old England they have a camera up every bunghole.

Besides I think the country that bans any object that might frighten a little old lady need not lecture the US about paranoia.

No such thing. There is no definition of human that could separate parents from children. Just like if you arbitrarily pick a point on the spectrum to be the "first red", it's going to be pretty orange.

The point of this is that rights can't be a physical reality if they only apply to an essentially arbitrarily chosen genome.

Everyone?
You think I suck? Hmmm. I've always liked you.
Ok, from now on, fuck off and don't discuss anything with me.
If you are a child and can't deal with someone who disagrees with you, I don't want to waste my time with you now.
More time for actual conversation.
Can't see humor for what it is you are not worth it.