Everyone in the universe has unalienable rights
Brandon
Life
Freedom
Obtain and secure property (though ownership is not always absolute)
Pursue happiness.
All humans regardless of race, religion, country and creed have these
rights, and are free to exercise their rights. Yet if they infringe
on the rights of others, they commit a violation, which ultimately
translates into war, and is what the law is supposed to protect us
from.
And while animals have rights as well as humans, humans are more
important and we should be concerned first and foremost with our own
species, while being considerate of animals and the apparently less
intelligent species.
asdf asdfae feee e e e e reer er er er er efasdfaafeaa a a adse
Steve
Good start, Brandon.
Now...you need to be able to define a few things:
freedom - to do/be/say - what?
property ownership - what limitations? What rights?
Pursue Happiness - define happiness?
I understand the infringement part just fine....but what body of law are you
referring to? Civil? Religious? Military? American? British (Common Law)?
French (Civil/Napoleonic Law?)
As for animals - is the a min / max? For exmaple: If there is loads of
habitate for animals, then we - being more important - get to take some.
But what about when there is almost no habitat left for animals? Are we
still so important we get to take even that?
It's a sort of "Bush" question: At what point does the unilateral and
unaccountable excerise of our 'rights' become unacceptable?
edwin Boyette
"Brandon" <Brando...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d337de3.03022...@posting.google.com...
A right only exists as long as some one acts to guarantee that right. A
right from a purely scientific view has zero meaning. "Rights" only exist
as concepts within human interactions. I.E. there is no natural phenomena
you can point to which indicates a "right" is a natural state. Thats a very
noble sentiment dont get me wrong but right do not exist until created or
maintained by men who respect and value Liberty.
dirtdog
wrote:
<crossposting retained to increase my exposure, thus boosting my
self-esteem>
<silly HiImpact's monthly crosspost snipped>
Just one question, HI1K. Why did you post around twenty lines of your
usual inane, nonsensical blither, followed by around eighty carriage
returns?
Just wondering...
w00f
PS- Any more evidence that PV is an alien?
dirtdog
Oh, fuck off back up your own arse, ponce boy.
w00f
gorf
liberties and rights ?
"edwin Boyette" <edwin_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
sIw6a.147473$ce4.39...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Robert Rice
Are you implying that that means we must, out of respect for all life on
earth, be considerate of George Bush? Come on now, let's be realistic here!
dirtdog
>so you agree that the world protests against the USA who threats the world
>liberties and rights ?
No, he wanks in a pool of his own poo, wee and sick, you top posting
cunt.
w00f
Robert Rice
"edwin Boyette" <edwin_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sIw6a.147473$ce4.39...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Brandon" <Brando...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6d337de3.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > All humans, and all creatures have the unalienable right to:
> >
> > Life
> > Freedom
> > Obtain and secure property (though ownership is not always absolute
> >
> > All humans regardless of race, religion, country and creed have these
> > rights, and are free to exercise their rights. Yet if they infringe
> > on the rights of others, they commit a violation, which ultimately
> > translates into war, and is what the law is supposed to protect us
> > from.
> >
> > And while animals have rights as well as humans, humans are more
> > important and we should be concerned first and foremost with our own
> > species, while being considerate of animals and the apparently less
> > intelligent species.
> >
>
>
> A right only exists as long as some one acts to guarantee that right. A
> right from a purely scientific view has zero meaning. "Rights" only exist
> as concepts within human interactions. I.E. there is no natural phenomena
> you can point to which indicates a "right" is a natural state. Thats a
very
> noble sentiment dont get me wrong but right do not exist until created or
> maintained by men who respect and value Liberty.
>
>
I agree to an extent, but I disagree as well, to an extent. There is, I
suspect very strongly, scientific evidence which shows that there is an
anthropic principled inalienable right to life, liberty, freedom, justice
and the pursuit of happiness imbedded right into the fabric of life itself,
at its own governing center, as the actual mechanism of a formative
causation giving rise to creation, and therefore in human consciousness
serving as an expression of the higher self aware manifestation of life
looking at itself. Aside from increasing civil conscious awareness, it is a
mechanism, if you will, by the law of increasing and diminishing returns,
which acts as a double edged flaming sword, to ensure that those who are
entrusted to respect and to value Liberty in fact do so, or they will be
held accountable if not to their own constituents, then by the law of life
itself through a historical causality and consequence of a natural right is
might, as opposed to the other way around. One can view history from within
this framework, through this new window, and see that what I am saying is
correct.
Much like what we are witnessing happening to Bush and the US administration
right now. They must more clearly justify their actions, if they are going
to initiate a war in the name of justice and righteousness, and yet having
hung themselves up on a lie, they can't seem to do this, without revealing a
hidden agenda which is not honorable, or civilized.
This is what I would call the double edged sword of civility which comes out
of the mouth of Christ. It is the same flaming turning sword which guards
the entranceway back into the garden of Eden, IMO.
Therefore, I am with you Brandon, everyone and all life in the Universe has
inalienable rights, yes.
It is really the only Universal Constant, and that many would claim that it
is purely and only a human construct is in fact a falsehood or a lie, though
perhaps the most difficult to uncover. Yes, there must be laws and an
administration of justice at all levels through the institution of
government and civic life, but the higher law of Life's own version of civil
liberty, is what ultimately keeps these powers in check, or the
civilizations on which they are *supposed* to be founded merely fall,
crumble to dust, and are blown away, such that the whole process must start
over again, from the ground up.
We can also see the possibility that this may be beginning to occur in the
United States of America, like, right now, before our very eyes.
The keystone of civil liberty IS it's very life. Remove that and the whole
thing falls, and may already be falling as a result of a governance which no
longer serves the values that it is support to maintain and uphold at all
cost, except to the cost of civil liberty itself, of course.
A Planet Visitor
>All humans, and all creatures have the unalienable right to:
>
>Life
>Freedom
>Obtain and secure property (though ownership is not always absolute)
>Pursue happiness.
>
Rave on... Macduff.. Perhaps you can explain exactly where that
"unalienable right" IS, in this picture? --
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the background.
There on the left... see it, Brandon? Those two hidden eyes of the 'provider of
all Unalienable Rights,' peering from the brush. How COULD I have missed
that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything' right that all 'life' possesses? The
greatest hypocrisy of man is to presume that because HE has something,
it suddenly is also available to EVERYONE.
PV
Robert Rice
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:357m5vcvs9fs1la0a...@4ax.com...
That pisses me off!
That is your demonstration, is it, Mr. Planet Visitor, that that boy in the
picture, does NOT have any inalienable rights, to freedom, shelter, food,
and even happiness, because he lives on the other side of the planet and
does not have access to the same things we do?
That makes me sick, when people try to pull that one, and then use it as a
means to try to destroy faith.
The only thing that picture does is show the level of hypocrisy of people
like you, and me for that matter, and the entire wealthy Northern Hemisphere
of the planet, to refuse to share our wealth so that people like that
needn't die prematurely.
God comes to the starving, in the form of food. ~ Ghandi Does that mean that
those who bring it are God? That we alone bestow the right on him in
bringing him food or giving him shelter. People do not own nor can they lay
claim to the right to life, but that does not mean that it doesn't still
exist as a moral imperative, an oughtness which supercedes the isness of
being. The right, the principal itself is as much a part of life as is the
air we breath. That we who have in abundance, fail to provide, to share what
we have merely removes that right from that boy is all. Providing that right
does not mean that we own it, make it up, or control it, but simply that
providing it makes of us agents of God, who is the highest expression of it,
in love, and service.
Are you saying that that boy does not have the RIGHT to life and liberty
because of the circumstances of his birth or of his nation?
Get a grip, "brother". Geez that makes me so mad when people try to pull
that one. Shame on you!
"In so far as you did unto the least of my brothers, you did it unto me." ~
Jesus Christ
A Planet Visitor
"Robert Rice" <in...@rcscorp.ca> wrote in message news:SdH6a.3261$kf7.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:357m5vcvs9fs1la0a...@4ax.com...
> > On 24 Feb 2003 13:02:15 -0800, Brando...@hotmail.com (Brandon) wrote:
> >
> > >All humans, and all creatures have the unalienable right to:
> > >
> > >Life
> > >Freedom
> > >Obtain and secure property (though ownership is not always absolute)
> > >Pursue happiness.
> > >
> > Rave on... Macduff.. Perhaps you can explain exactly where that
> > "unalienable right" IS, in this picture? --
> > url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
> >
> > Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the
> background.
> > There on the left... see it, Brandon? Those two hidden eyes of the
> 'provider of
> > all Unalienable Rights,' peering from the brush. How COULD I have missed
> > that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything' right that all 'life'
> possesses? The
> > greatest hypocrisy of man is to presume that because HE has something,
> > it suddenly is also available to EVERYONE.
> >
> >
> > PV
>
> That pisses me off!
>
Objective achieved. I hope that you become angry enough to recognize
the absurdity of your words.
> That is your demonstration, is it, Mr. Planet Visitor, that that boy in the
> picture, does NOT have any inalienable rights, to freedom, shelter, food,
> and even happiness, because he lives on the other side of the planet and
> does not have access to the same things we do?
>
That's it... it is arrogance personified to presume that because YOU
see some imaginary concept called 'unalienable rights' that it exists
for every human. You are probably GIVEN such rights by the society
you live in... and are blind to the fact that not all enjoy some invented
term called 'unalienable rights." Trust me... that _picture_ I provided
is only the TIP of the iceberg, that refutes your goofy claim that
"All humans, and all creatures have the unalienable right to: Life."
The depressing pictures I could provide that demonstrate how inane
such words are, can be found in every backstreet of every ghetto in
every land. And in every hospital where they treat children born
without such an "unalienable right to: Life."
> That makes me sick, when people try to pull that one, and then use it as a
> means to try to destroy faith.
>
FAITH!! What "Faith" is there for THAT CHILD? It is hypocrisy to presume
that FAITH will provide some imaginary "unalienable right" to that child,
or so many that are denied that imaginary "right," either through the acts
of man... or the design of nature (or God).
> The only thing that picture does is show the level of hypocrisy of people
> like you, and me for that matter, and the entire wealthy Northern Hemisphere
> of the planet, to refuse to share our wealth so that people like that
> needn't die prematurely.
Exactly!!! And you were the hypocrite who PRESUMED that EVERYONE
has this "unalienable right." Quite certainly that CHILD does NOT have
any such right.
Read your words AGAIN... you speak of "ALL HUMANS." The arrogance
of that statement should have you running to the mirror to obtain some
introspection into your own morality. Since it apparently _pleases_ that
morality to turn a blind eye to the REALITIES of the world around us.
It gives you a _touchy-feely_ good feeling about yourself, while man and
nature spin quite a different web on any imaginary concept called an
"unalienable right."
>
> God comes to the starving, in the form of food. ~ Ghandi
ROTFLMAO. It you are going to 'quote' him... Please learn how to
spell his name. Trust me... no food... starvation. See any food around
that picture? See Gandhi around feeding that child? I do not intend to
demean the ACTS of Gandhi, mostly in respect to PASSIVE civil
disobedience to achieve equality... in the mold followed by Martin
Luther King, Jr. But do not presume that his words can SUBSTITUTE
for the clear fact that so many humans have no such thing as an
"unalienable right" to life. Gandhi spoke to HOPE for the oppressed...
a noble undertaking. But he cannot SUBSTITUTE for reality... since
man by his very nature... and nature itself... provides nothing called an
"unalienable right" to life, to ANY of God's creatures. In truth, the
meaningless phrase would try to sweep under the rug the very clear reality
that man has not been able to provide such a right to his fellow man.
And certainly we have only to look around us, to see that nature
makes no such provision. We only speak of it... to FEEL GOOD
about ourselves. I refuse to be blinded into _feeling good about
myself_, which I see what ACTUALLY exists today.
<pathetic drivel clipped>
>
> Are you saying that that boy does not have the RIGHT to life and liberty
> because of the circumstances of his birth or of his nation?
>
That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Do you SEE that 'right' anywhere?
Do you see any "Unalienable right" to life from someone born with
Tye-Sachs disease. Doomed to die by the age of five? Or children
born with hydranencephaly, where no child lives past the age of one,
with his/her brain's cerebral hemispheres absent --replaced by sacs of
only fluid. Who spend that year in a totally vegetative state? What do
you say about any "unalienable right" to THEM?
> Get a grip, "brother". Geez that makes me so mad when people try to pull
> that one. Shame on you!
>
Shame on YOU... for presuming that child, or so many starving
and terminally ill children, are granted some imaginary "unalienable
right" simply because you feel it serves your OWN MORALITY to
presume it is there... when in fact, you are turning a BLIND EYE to
those who obviously do not have such an "unalienable right."
> "In so far as you did unto the least of my brothers, you did it unto me." ~
> Jesus Christ
>
Nice to see you again, hi1k.
PV
Brandon
The only thing that could violate anyone's natural and unalienable
right to life and freedom is another man, or an act of nature or
nature's God.
The argument that we have no rights is really just the argument that
we apparently lack property. But everyone has the right to CREATE
property.
It is bewildering that so many people misunderstand rights. You have
the right to ride a bike even if you don't own a bike. It's just a
fact of life that we start out "fucked" and without property. That
idiot fundamentalists go to war with us and worsen our already
deplorable situation, is absolutely atrocious.
Brandon
> Brandon wrote:
>
> > All humans, and all creatures have the unalienable right to:
> >
> > Life
> > Freedom
> > Obtain and secure property (though ownership is not always absolute)
> > Pursue happiness.
> >
> > All humans regardless of race, religion, country and creed have these
> > rights, and are free to exercise their rights. Yet if they infringe
> > on the rights of others, they commit a violation, which ultimately
> > translates into war, and is what the law is supposed to protect us
> > from.
> >
> > And while animals have rights as well as humans, humans are more
> > important and we should be concerned first and foremost with our own
> > species, while being considerate of animals and the apparently less
> > intelligent species.
>
> Good start, Brandon.
>
> Now...you need to be able to define a few things:
>
> freedom - to do/be/say - what?
> property ownership - what limitations? What rights?
> Pursue Happiness - define happiness?
You are basically free to do anything so long as you do not infringe
on anyone else...
Since lack is tyranny and witholding may be considered an act of war,
it is the responsibility of the government to regulate commerce to
some extent. The law is war and takes the place of actual all out
war.
We could be true commies, and I think if we did all give to one
another we would be much richer, and everything would be more
efficient and we would be more wealthy if we shared, but this is quite
different from what has passed as "communism," where "society" owns
everything and centrally controls the economy.
While I think we might be wealthier if we shared (Napster is an
example) we must realize that we can't have more than we ourselves
produce, you can't make something from nothing, and you do not realize
gains through some tyrannical communist vision of society. Society
can not, and does not provide for us at all.
Social help for the homeless and unemployed not withstanding. Raising
the minimum wage is probably the best way "society" can help the poor,
(so long as they do not go unemployed).
> I understand the infringement part just fine....but what body of law are you
> referring to? Civil? Religious? Military? American? British (Common Law)?
> French (Civil/Napoleonic Law?)
I'm not refering to any body of law. Unalienable means above the law
(and above war).
> As for animals - is the a min / max? For exmaple: If there is loads of
> habitate for animals, then we - being more important - get to take some.
>
> But what about when there is almost no habitat left for animals? Are we
> still so important we get to take even that?
Questions we shall deal with as we come to them. In the past man
lived in harmony with animals and nature.
> It's a sort of "Bush" question: At what point does the unilateral and
> unaccountable excerise of our 'rights' become unacceptable?
When they infringe on someone else's rights.
Brandon
And that power is you. And while all divided houses eventually fall,
what is unfortunate is that it is power and might which makes things
happen regardless of anyone's cares or wills. Otherwise there would
be no crime, and no violation of rights.
Criminals look for victims... and then become victims of the law. The
other alternative to the theory of 'might' is that you, or your (and
the) creator is the power which makes things happen... i.e. if there
is some higher awareness making things happen, it is YOU, and you are
what it is. For why would you care about something 'against' your
will if you did not have a will at all? You do not create yourself,
of that much we are certain. Yet if there is true righteousness which
overcomes duality and war, then how does it work? What mechanism?
Ultimately it must be of a sort of power as well, for while those who
walk in the 'spirit of the lord' may infrequently encounter evil, if
you are imprisoned you must be able to escape somehow, as Jesus passed
through the midst of those who entraped him (Luke 4:30).
Brandon
> On 24 Feb 2003 13:02:15 -0800, Brando...@hotmail.com (Brandon)
> wrote:
>
> <crossposting retained to increase my exposure, thus boosting my
> self-esteem>
>
> <silly HiImpact's monthly crosspost snipped>
>
> Just one question, HI1K. Why did you post around twenty lines of your
> usual inane, nonsensical blither, followed by around eighty carriage
> returns?
So I could spam.
> Just wondering...
>
> w00f
>
> PS- Any more evidence that PV is an alien?
read his message below.
Brandon
> what is unfortunate is that it is power and might which makes things
> happen regardless of anyone's cares or wills. Otherwise there would
no crimes, plural...
and no violation of rights.
>
> Criminals look for victims... and then become victims of the law. The
> other alternative to the theory of 'might' is that you, or your (and
> the) creator is the power which makes things happen... i.e. if there
> is some higher awareness making things happen, it is YOU, and you are
> what it is. For why would you care about something 'against' your
> will if you did not have a will at all? You do not create yourself,
> of that much we are certain. Yet if there is true righteousness which
> overcomes duality and war, then how does it work? What mechanism?
> Ultimately it must be of a sort of power as well, for while those who
> walk in the 'spirit of the lord' may infrequently encounter evil, if
> you are imprisoned you must be able to escape somehow, as Jesus passed
> through the midst of those who entraped him (Luke 4:30).
>
>
Brandon
If you're talking about property, you have a point, I never claimed
anyone had an unalienable right TO property, just that everyone has an
unalienable right to OBTAIN and SECURE property. Even your beloved
sparrows make nests for themselves.
We've been through this before. I handily explained it all to you in
the "HARMING, IMPRISONING AND KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG" thread:
where we ended with you either:
a) admitting you disagree with our Founding Fathers, the signers or
the Declaration of Independence and writers of the Constitution.
or
b) admitting we have unalienable rights.
Which is it? You say these men are not Gods, and yet you still insist
you get your rights from them.
Brandon
We are not given any rights by society, and once again, I suggest you
move to China, or perhaps Cuba, which is right off the coast of your
lovely state.
> you live in... and are blind to the fact that not all enjoy some invented
> term called 'unalienable rights." Trust me... that _picture_ I provided
> is only the TIP of the iceberg, that refutes your goofy claim that
> "All humans, and all creatures have the unalienable right to: Life."
> The depressing pictures I could provide that demonstrate how inane
> such words are, can be found in every backstreet of every ghetto in
> every land. And in every hospital where they treat children born
> without such an "unalienable right to: Life."
Their rights were violated. What is perplexing is why you can't admit
they have them, and assume death as the default state. Oh yes, you're
arguing in favor of the death penalty, I understand. That doesn't
change the fact that the philosophy and lies you're spreading can only
have a negative influence on human actions in the world.
> > That makes me sick, when people try to pull that one, and then use it as a
> > means to try to destroy faith.
> >
> FAITH!! What "Faith" is there for THAT CHILD? It is hypocrisy to presume
> that FAITH will provide some imaginary "unalienable right" to that child,
> or so many that are denied that imaginary "right," either through the acts
> of man... or the design of nature (or God).
>
> > The only thing that picture does is show the level of hypocrisy of people
> > like you, and me for that matter, and the entire wealthy Northern Hemisphere
> > of the planet, to refuse to share our wealth so that people like that
> > needn't die prematurely.
>
> Exactly!!! And you were the hypocrite who PRESUMED that EVERYONE
> has this "unalienable right." Quite certainly that CHILD does NOT have
> any such right.
>
> Read your words AGAIN... you speak of "ALL HUMANS." The arrogance
> of that statement should have you running to the mirror to obtain some
> introspection into your own morality. Since it apparently _pleases_ that
> morality to turn a blind eye to the REALITIES of the world around us.
> It gives you a _touchy-feely_ good feeling about yourself, while man and
> nature spin quite a different web on any imaginary concept called an
> "unalienable right."
> >
> > God comes to the starving, in the form of food. ~ Ghandi
>
> ROTFLMAO. It you are going to 'quote' him... Please learn how to
> spell his name. Trust me... no food... starvation. See any food around
> that picture? See Gandhi around feeding that child?
Do you see anyone in the United States feeding the starving? No, the
United States provides no rights either. Certainly the United States
does not provide the right to food or any other property at all. The
United States merely protects our UNALIENABLE right to obtain and
secure property for ourselves. And our government attempts to protect
our unalienable rights in a myriad of ways, from threatening to punish
those who would harm us, to regulating commerce and protecting us from
buying and ingesting products which would do us harm, to providing for
civil litigation of those who were negligent, to regulating all sorts
of products. Of course, if this attempt at "protection" starts to
infringe upon the very freedoms it is meant to protect (i.e. seat belt
laws) in that case, it has gone too far.
I do not intend to
> demean the ACTS of Gandhi, mostly in respect to PASSIVE civil
> disobedience to achieve equality... in the mold followed by Martin
> Luther King, Jr. But do not presume that his words can SUBSTITUTE
> for the clear fact that so many humans have no such thing as an
> "unalienable right" to life. Gandhi spoke to HOPE for the oppressed...
> a noble undertaking. But he cannot SUBSTITUTE for reality... since
> man by his very nature... and nature itself... provides nothing called an
> "unalienable right" to life, to ANY of God's creatures. In truth, the
> meaningless phrase would try to sweep under the rug the very clear reality
> that man has not been able to provide such a right to his fellow man.
> And certainly we have only to look around us, to see that nature
> makes no such provision. We only speak of it... to FEEL GOOD
> about ourselves. I refuse to be blinded into _feeling good about
> myself_, which I see what ACTUALLY exists today.
So, talk more about why you don't feel good about yourself. Are you
doing anything to improve the condition of the world?
We SHOULD feel good about ourselves, we should also do what we can to
improve the human condition and the condition of all life in the
Universe.
Your negative thoughts and assertions, and the hatred and anger you
throw at the world do us no good towards improving the human
condition.
Think positive.
<snipped godless bullshit>
A Planet Visitor
Don't be absurd... the Child pictured that I first offered as proof of
the non-existence of something called an _unalienable right_ does not
have any such right under the DOI or the U.S. Constitution. You said
ALL HUMANS.
>or
>
>b) admitting we have unalienable rights.
>
In the U.S. we have been given certain rights under our Constitution, none of
them called 'unalienable.'
>Which is it? You say these men are not Gods, and yet you still insist
>you get your rights from them.
Yes... we get our rights from MEN. The first "Right to Life," was that given
between two men, emerging from their respective caves, and first able to
communicate the meaning between them, that if one promises not to kill the
other, the other promises not to kill the one. That is where your "right to life"
evolved from. And it evolved into being structured into certain societies in
different ways. But ALL HUMANS do not enjoy what you claimed they do.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Rattle on... but it was YOU who said ALL HUMANS. You need to be
more specific. Nonetheless, you seem to be nodding off again. We are
ONLY given rights by society. There is no other entity capable of doing
so. They are incorporated into the laws of society, and the various
Constitutions which might exist in a society.
>
Having again grown tired of your raving, hi1k, I will leave you to
ruminate how that child pictured has some 'RIGHT.'
<rest clipped>
PV
danh
[...]
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:<RPN6a.40113$Cv4.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> Rattle on... but it was YOU who said ALL HUMANS. You need to be
> more specific. Nonetheless, you seem to be nodding off again. We are
> ONLY given rights by society.
Make up your mind, PV. First you say "probably" then you say "ONLY". Aside
from the silly caps, just which is it? This time.
There is no other entity capable of doing
> so. They are incorporated into the laws of society, and the various
> Constitutions which might exist in a society.
Quite untrue. Society does not give human rights - rights are inherent
within a human. Society can remove one's rights, but cannot grant them.
And humans have to protect their rights lest another human attempt to remove
them.
The "rights" that society grants are not true rights - they are privileges
subject to the whims of that society. Examples of this abound - voting,
Medicare, Social Security, bearing arms, no self-incrimination to name but a
few.
[...]
Brandon
> On 26 Feb 2003 17:49:05 -0800, Brando...@hotmail.com (Brandon) wrote:
>
> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<357m5vcvs9fs1la0a...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 24 Feb 2003 13:02:15 -0800, Brando...@hotmail.com (Brandon) wrote:
> >>
> >> >All humans, and all creatures have the unalienable right to:
> >> >
> >> >Life
> >> >Freedom
> >> >Obtain and secure property (though ownership is not always absolute)
> >> >Pursue happiness.
> >> >
> >> Rave on... Macduff.. Perhaps you can explain exactly where that
> >> "unalienable right" IS, in this picture? --
> >> url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
> >>
> >> Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the background.
> >> There on the left... see it, Brandon? Those two hidden eyes of the 'provider of
> >> all Unalienable Rights,' peering from the brush. How COULD I have missed
> >> that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything' right that all 'life' possesses? The
> >> greatest hypocrisy of man is to presume that because HE has something,
> >> it suddenly is also available to EVERYONE.
> >>
> >>
> >> PV
> >
> >
> >anyone had an unalienable right TO property, just that everyone has an
> >unalienable right to OBTAIN and SECURE property. Even your beloved
> >sparrows make nests for themselves.
> >
> >We've been through this before. I handily explained it all to you in
> >the "HARMING, IMPRISONING AND KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG" thread:
> >
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl65128357d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=54633dd4.0302071603.7155e434%40po
sting.google.com
> >
> >where we ended with you either:
> >
> >a) admitting you disagree with our Founding Fathers, the signers or
> >the Declaration of Independence and writers of the Constitution.
> >
> Don't be absurd... the Child pictured that I first offered as proof of
> the non-existence of something called an _unalienable right_ does not
> have any such right under the DOI or the U.S. Constitution. You said
> ALL HUMANS.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness." That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute New Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security."
- The Declaration of Independence
(Signed by the same men who wrote our Constitution)
> >or
> >
> >b) admitting we have unalienable rights.
> >
> In the U.S. we have been given certain rights under our Constitution, none of
> them called 'unalienable.'
The Constitution does not give us any rights at all. I suggest you
re-read it.
> >Which is it? You say these men are not Gods, and yet you still insist
> >you get your rights from them.
>
> Yes... we get our rights from MEN. The first "Right to Life," was that given
> between two men, emerging from their respective caves, and first able to
> communicate the meaning between them, that if one promises not to kill the
> other, the other promises not to kill the one.
Well.... see, since you're an alien and a psychopath, maybe that's
what's needed to keep you from murdering the rest of
us. Most normal people are not prone to kill humans on sight.
That is where your "right to life"
> evolved from.
The right to life was there before you stepped out of your cave. And
when you stepped out of your cave it was still there. And if the
other caveman attacked and killed you, he VIOLATED your body and
violated your right to life.
And it evolved into being structured into certain societies in
> different ways. But ALL HUMANS do not enjoy what you claimed they do.
It is true that humans all over the world have been wrongly oppressed
and persecuted. Governments have no more authority to take rights
from people than do axe murderers. Does this mean they can't do it?
No, it means we're all criminals.
> PV
>
Brandon
I expanded that to include ALL LIVING CREATURES. But I noted that I
thought we should be concerned first and foremost with our own
species.
We are
> ONLY given rights by society. There is no other entity capable of doing
> so. They are incorporated into the laws of society, and the various
> Constitutions which might exist in a society.
> >
> Having again grown tired of your raving, hi1k, I will leave you to
> ruminate how that child pictured has some 'RIGHT.'
If you kill him, you've violated his rights.
Killing a soldier who's shooting at you is not the same as wantonly
murdering an innocent child. Bombing Hiroshima was an act of war
against an apparently suicidal populace supporting a government which
had attacked our country without provocation. And while killing
civilians is worse then killing soldiers actively engaged in combat,
even the nuclear destruction of two Japanese cities does not stoop to
the despicable level you're suggesting.
If you:
Imprison
Mutilate
Kill
Torture
or Rape
that little boy, you have committed a crime.
If you steal food from him.... well, I would hope you would agree that
stealing is not a good thing and that all animals have a right to
obtain and secure property. And that you're violating that right.
And in extreme situations where there is one wealthy owner or king,
who exploits or wantonly wastes at the expense of other, or does not
allow people to utilize resources to produce more, the people are
certainly justified in taking from him. Which is why we regulate
commerce. But if you're starving the boy should share with you.
> <rest clipped>
>
> PV
>
Brandon
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness." That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute New Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security."
- The Declaration of Independence
(Signed by the same men who wrote our Constitution)
> >or
> >
> >b) admitting we have unalienable rights.
> >
> In the U.S. we have been given certain rights under our Constitution, none of
> them called 'unalienable.'
The Constitution does not give us any rights at all. I suggest you
re-read it.
> >Which is it? You say these men are not Gods, and yet you still insist
> >you get your rights from them.
>
> Yes... we get our rights from MEN. The first "Right to Life," was that given
> between two men, emerging from their respective caves, and first able to
> communicate the meaning between them, that if one promises not to kill the
> other, the other promises not to kill the one.
Well.... see, since you're an alien and a psychopath, maybe that's
what's needed to keep you from murdering the rest of us. Most normal
people are not prone to kill humans on sight.
That is where your "right to life"
> evolved from.
The right to life was there before you stepped out of your cave. And
when you stepped out of your cave it was still there. And if the
other caveman attacked and killed you, he VIOLATED your body and
violated your right to life.
And it evolved into being structured into certain societies in
> different ways. But ALL HUMANS do not enjoy what you claimed they do.
dirtdog
wrote:
<cross posting retained for extra exposure>
>Well.... see, since you're an alien and a psychopath
LOL!
Been wanking in any nice poo, wee and sick recently, HI?
A Planet Visitor
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:0k9r5v8o7b314bum5...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:<RPN6a.40113$Cv4.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> >>You are probably GIVEN such rights by the society
>[...]
>> Rattle on... but it was YOU who said ALL HUMANS. You need to be
>> more specific. Nonetheless, you seem to be nodding off again. We are
>> ONLY given rights by society.
>
>Make up your mind, PV. First you say "probably" then you say "ONLY". Aside
>from the silly caps, just which is it? This time.
>
It is BOTH... and your inability to grasp that is frightening. ONLY society
can give RIGHTS. But not ALL societies DO SO. Thus, in my words to
dipshit, it was implied that PROBABLY his society had done so. That does
not mean they MUST.. but simply IF they do, they are the ONLY entity that
CAN. Unless one functions outside of society and PRESUMES he can
determine what _rights_ he has independent from his intercourse with other
Men. But that is, of course, anarchy. Presuming one has the _right_ to do
something to a member of a particular society, which has not been provided as
a _right_ by that society, will bring down the full force of that society AGAINST
that particular offender.
>> There is no other entity capable of doing
>> so. They are incorporated into the laws of society, and the various
>> Constitutions which might exist in a society.
>
>Quite untrue. Society does not give human rights - rights are inherent
>within a human.
Rubbish... a clumsy INVENTION of your OWN MIND. There is no more
an _inherent_ human right, then there is an _inherent_ right to be a rock. Men
are NOT GODS... and cannot presume to _give_ themselves ANYTHING
as an "INHERENT" right. There are no stars in the sky that spell out that
humans have what you presume... no clockwork mechanism contained in any
physical or natural process that would prove your argument has any meaning.
EVERY RIGHT that humans have... must be DOCUMENTED. And doing
so, means they are the INVENTION of man's MIND... and not the hand of
nature or God, as any sort of "INHERENT" physical process of our universe.
Every philosophical _arguments_ presuming such existence of an "INHERENT"
right have been WRITTEN by MEN... not some natural force of nature. From
Plato to St. Augustine to Mill. None are Gods... All are men. We can PROVE
the existence of certain elements of nature...and NONE OF THEM are
stamped with "INHERENT HUMAN RIGHT." It is a _valued principle_
that certain societies develop, and SHOULD develop... but there is NOTHING
"inherent" about it. When we begin to PRESUME it is "inherent," we begin to
take it for granted. Suddenly.. we are no longer responsible for PROVIDING it...
as some unnamed ether has provided it for us.
Now... do not try to TWIST my words. I accept that Men have certain rights,
if their societies develop such a concept, and ingrain it into the structure of that
society. And it is well and proper that is does so. But there is nothing as a
NATURAL force of nature that DEMANDS humans have something called
"INHERENT HUMAN RIGHTS." It is ONLY man's arrogance that presumes
he has this special niche in the hiarchy of a seeming eternal nature. When all he
is, is at the top of the food chain at present. Man's arrogance both threatens and
challenges him. His presumption that he is special... and his belief that his reach
should always exceed his grasp. But INDIVIDUALLY, we have no special
"inherent human right." Collectively, we can certainly agree that we SHARE such
rights, in the structures called society that we develop.
I believe there is the force of a creator behind our existence and our universe,
call that creator whatever name you wish. I certainly believe our species is
SPECIAL, and will possibly even evolve into understanding the very reason of
WHY we are here... and why we are special. Perhaps in hundreds of thousands,
or even millions of years to follow; if nature, or whomever, grants us such a boon.
And I believe there is the possibility that we were created FOR just such a role.
The ultimate end to our journey into understanding. But nature, or whomever, is the
ultimate arbiter of this process, and our existence... not man, in believing he can
define what is not his to define.
> Society can remove one's rights, but cannot grant them.
Rubbish, again... are you familiar with our Bill of RIGHTS???
1) The right to peaceably assemble -- Article I
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms -- Article II
3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons -- Article IV
4) The right to a speedy and public trial -- Article VI
5) The right of trial by jury in suits -- Article VII
And these are only the articles that USE the EXPRESS term -- "right." GIVEN
by Society. There are implied many other _rights_ in our Constitution. Who do you
think WROTE those rights? Isn't the heart of our society OUR CONSTITUTION?
>And humans have to protect their rights lest another human attempt to remove
>them.
>
Yes... they do... but that has no meaning in respect to your claim that they
are "inherent." We have to protect those that are GIVEN to us, by society.
We do so by creating laws which prohibit acts which would tend to violate
our rights, and we even go to war sometimes, to protect what we see as
'our rights,' which are simply those granted to us by our separate societies.
Of course, MAN also created the principle of "what is not prohibited is
permitted." But that is NOT "inherent." It is simply another concept of rights
DEVISED by Men.
>The "rights" that society grants are not true rights - they are privileges
Rubbish... yet again... you presume that YOU can define 'rights.' When
in fact, you can DEFINE nothing. You are not in a position to DEFINE
what rights others have, or what rights YOU have. If you presume you
have a _right_ to murder, I can guarantee you that you DO NOT,
regardless of your belief that you do.
>subject to the whims of that society. Examples of this abound - voting,
>Medicare, Social Security, bearing arms, no self-incrimination to name but a
>few.
Every one of those 'privileges' you have listed, are those GRANTED by society.
You have spoken here ONLY of those BENEFITS provided by a certain society.
Nor do any of these have the slightest meaning in respect to ALL HUMANS,
which was the original premise. Thus you are trying to argue what are NOT 'rights'
by your own admission. Which makes it obvious that you have NO POINT in
your particular comment. You've only listed some "privileges." You're
looking in the _vegetable aisle of society privileges_ for meat (rights)... and
not finding any there, presume that society does not HAVE a _meat aisle of
society rights_. Yet, you admit you will not find it in the vegetable aisle. But
that does mean there is NO meat aisle called _ provided society rights_, just
as you found _provided society privileges_ in the vegetable aisle.
Further, you will not find "INHERENT RIGHTS" in the meat aisle, as well.
Unless you accept that Man has put them there, and only in a select number
of cases, which makes them NOT INHERENT... but SELECTIVE. You
cannot cite proof of the_vegetable aisle of society privileges_ as PROOF
of society NOT provided _society rights_ in the meat aisle, nor can those
privileges in the vegetable aisle provide PROOF there ARE "INHERENT
RIGHTS" IN ANY AISLE.
In point of fact... NATURE, or whomever, provides NO RIGHTS of any sort to
ANY biological creature or process. It is evolution that determines our progress
as a species... and no part of that species is granted any PROTECTION in the
form of some "INHERENT" right. Nature, or whomever, is the most
UNCARING force in respect to granting any "rights" to ANY biological form
of life. If you think there is... speak to the dodo bird.
PV
>
>[...]
>
A Planet Visitor
ROTFLMAO... Citing a document written by men... which proves my point.
>
>> >or
>> >
>> >b) admitting we have unalienable rights.
>> >
>> In the U.S. we have been given certain rights under our Constitution, none of
>> them called 'unalienable.'
>
>
>The Constitution does not give us any rights at all. I suggest you
>re-read it.
>
Ummm..
1) The right to peaceably assemble -- Article I
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms -- Article II
3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons -- Article IV
4) The right to a speedy and public trial -- Article VI
5) The right of trial by jury in suits -- Article VII
>
>> >Which is it? You say these men are not Gods, and yet you still insist
>> >you get your rights from them.
>>
>> Yes... we get our rights from MEN. The first "Right to Life," was that given
>> between two men, emerging from their respective caves, and first able to
>> communicate the meaning between them, that if one promises not to kill the
>> other, the other promises not to kill the one.
>
>
>Well.... see, since you're an alien and a psychopath, maybe that's
>what's needed to keep you from murdering the rest of
>us. Most normal people are not prone to kill humans on sight.
>
Apparently you admit you are not _normal people_ then. Since unfortunately,
that is what you have suggested in the past. Presuming that there is a _right_ to
kill those who function as State executioners.
>
>> That is where your "right to life"
>> evolved from.
>
>
>The right to life was there before you stepped out of your cave. And
>when you stepped out of your cave it was still there. And if the
>other caveman attacked and killed you, he VIOLATED your body and
>violated your right to life.
>
Rubbish. You simply invent things, hi1k.
>
>>And it evolved into being structured into certain societies in
>> different ways. But ALL HUMANS do not enjoy what you claimed they do.
>
>
>It is true that humans all over the world have been wrongly oppressed
>and persecuted. Governments have no more authority to take rights
>from people than do axe murderers. Does this mean they can't do it?
>No, it means we're all criminals.
>
?????????? Once again... hi1k is _off his meds_.
PV
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:12:20 GMT, dans l'article <n30t5vscme4cbcul1...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Now... do not try to TWIST my words.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!
>
Seeing as how you are the greatest offender at twisting EVERYONE'S words, I can see
how you might be offended by my asking danh to not do so. And I can also see how
you could be offended by the goring I have applied in the past to your pet _gospel_
of a "Universal Right to Life."
>Go on, FW ... invoke gimmick n° 2 ... url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/2.html
>
>{ snip remainder of mindless cack }
>
Our greatest foes are those within ourselves, desi. You are your own _greatest
enemy_, not me.
PV
>--
>Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html Oh... wait a
minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the background. There on the
left... see it, desi? Those two hidden eyes of the 'provider of the Universal Right
to Life,' peering from the brush. How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal,
beyond everything' right that all 'life' possesses? Too bad that 'your Church' isn't
for that child.
danh
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:11:08 -0500, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
> >> >>You are probably GIVEN such rights by the society
> >[...]
> >> Rattle on... but it was YOU who said ALL HUMANS. You need to be
> >> more specific. Nonetheless, you seem to be nodding off again. We are
> >> ONLY given rights by society.
> >
> >Make up your mind, PV. First you say "probably" then you say "ONLY".
Aside
> >from the silly caps, just which is it? This time.
> >
> It is BOTH... and your inability to grasp that is frightening.
"Both" and "only" are mutually exclusive. Aside from the ease with which
you are frightened, the rapidity with which you change positions makes one
wonder whether your primary molecules are rubber.
ONLY society
> can give RIGHTS.
Again, this is merely your assertion, which has as much validity as any
other article of faith - that is to say, none, excepting true believers.
[...]
> >Quite untrue. Society does not give human rights - rights are inherent
> >within a human.
>
> Rubbish...
Going English on us, PV? <g>
a clumsy INVENTION of your OWN MIND. There is no more
> an _inherent_ human right, then there is an _inherent_ right to be a rock.
A rock has the inherent property of being a rock. Humans have the inherent
property of being human. As such, humans, (not rocks, AFAIK) have a sense
of self-preservation, which is to say, humans have an inherent right to
life. All rights, of course, are predicated upon being able to prevent
their abrogation.
Men
> are NOT GODS... and cannot presume to _give_ themselves ANYTHING
> as an "INHERENT" right. There are no stars in the sky that spell out that
> humans have what you presume... no clockwork mechanism contained in any
> physical or natural process that would prove your argument has any
meaning.
> EVERY RIGHT that humans have... must be DOCUMENTED. And doing
> so, means they are the INVENTION of man's MIND... and not the hand of
> nature or God, as any sort of "INHERENT" physical process of our universe.
> Every philosophical _arguments_ presuming such existence of an "INHERENT"
> right have been WRITTEN by MEN... not some natural force of nature. From
> Plato to St. Augustine to Mill. None are Gods... All are men. We can
PROVE
> the existence of certain elements of nature...and NONE OF THEM are
> stamped with "INHERENT HUMAN RIGHT." It is a _valued principle_
> that certain societies develop, and SHOULD develop... but there is NOTHING
> "inherent" about it. When we begin to PRESUME it is "inherent," we begin
to
> take it for granted. Suddenly.. we are no longer responsible for
PROVIDING it...
> as some unnamed ether has provided it for us.
This is such incredibly self serving, on-your-knees, weaseling tripe that I
can scarcely believe anyone with the IQ above that of a retarded lab rat
would put it forth. Without language, there would be no "natural process"
or "clockwork mechanism" or proof of "the existence of certain elements of
nature". AFAIK, only humans are capable of articulating and understanding
complex notions. Without articulation and observation, there is nothing,
including the existence of anything at all.
> Now... do not try to TWIST my words.
Too late. Your words twisted the basic nature of everything as they were
written.
I accept that Men have certain rights,
> if their societies develop such a concept, and ingrain it into the
structure of that
> society. And it is well and proper that is does so. But there is nothing
as a
> NATURAL force of nature that DEMANDS humans have something called
> "INHERENT HUMAN RIGHTS."
Humans have rights which are not granted by society but that can be removed
by society. These rights are not large in number, but they exist by virtue
of our own existence. These rights include the right to life
(self-presevation) and the right to think independently (an ability not
available to insensate matter). There may be others, but these will do for
starters, and perhaps, even as an exhaustive list.
It is ONLY man's arrogance that presumes
> he has this special niche in the hiarchy of a seeming eternal nature.
When all he
> is, is at the top of the food chain at present. Man's arrogance both
threatens and
> challenges him. His presumption that he is special... and his belief that
his reach
> should always exceed his grasp. But INDIVIDUALLY, we have no special
> "inherent human right." Collectively, we can certainly agree that we
SHARE such
> rights, in the structures called society that we develop.
More on this below, but suffice it to say that the "rights" of which you
write are privileges provided by the social contract.
> I believe there is the force of a creator behind our existence and our
universe,
> call that creator whatever name you wish. I certainly believe our
species is
> SPECIAL, and will possibly even evolve into understanding the very reason
of
> WHY we are here... and why we are special. Perhaps in hundreds of
thousands,
> or even millions of years to follow; if nature, or whomever, grants us
such a boon.
> And I believe there is the possibility that we were created FOR just such
a role.
> The ultimate end to our journey into understanding. But nature, or
whomever, is the
> ultimate arbiter of this process, and our existence... not man, in
believing he can
> define what is not his to define.
Spend less time on your knees, PV - you'll have a better perspective on
everything.
> > Society can remove one's rights, but cannot grant them.
>
> Rubbish, again... are you familiar with our Bill of RIGHTS???
>
> 1) The right to peaceably assemble -- Article I
> 2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms -- Article II
> 3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons -- Article IV
> 4) The right to a speedy and public trial -- Article VI
> 5) The right of trial by jury in suits -- Article VII
>
> And these are only the articles that USE the EXPRESS term -- "right."
GIVEN
> by Society. There are implied many other _rights_ in our Constitution.
Who do you
> think WROTE those rights? Isn't the heart of our society OUR
CONSTITUTION?
Sigh. These are privileges only, not rights. They are granted as part of
the US social contract, but they are not inviolable and hardly universally
available. A right is universally available - that's what distinguishes it
from a privilege.
> >And humans have to protect their rights lest another human attempt to
remove
> >them.
> >
> Yes... they do... but that has no meaning in respect to your claim that
they
> are "inherent."
Of course it does. One of the basic principles of humanity is that nothing
can be taken that can be stopped from being taken. (Paraphrase of Joey
Heller.)
[...]
> >The "rights" that society grants are not true rights - they are
privileges
>
> Rubbish... yet again... you presume that YOU can define 'rights.' When
> in fact, you can DEFINE nothing. You are not in a position to DEFINE
> what rights others have, or what rights YOU have. If you presume you
> have a _right_ to murder, I can guarantee you that you DO NOT,
> regardless of your belief that you do.
You've slipped over the edge, PV. Human observation and articulation define
the world. Observation tells us we have the right to our own life and the
right to process information within the limits of our brain capacity.
Everything else I can think of is not a human right, but a privilege
negotiated with society. If I exceed my privileges, then society may choose
to limit my rights, but society can only remove rights, not grant them.
> >subject to the whims of that society. Examples of this abound - voting,
> >Medicare, Social Security, bearing arms, no self-incrimination to name
but a
> >few.
>
> Every one of those 'privileges' you have listed, are those GRANTED by
society.
> You have spoken here ONLY of those BENEFITS provided by a certain society.
> Nor do any of these have the slightest meaning in respect to ALL HUMANS,
> which was the original premise. Thus you are trying to argue what are
NOT 'rights'
> by your own admission. Which makes it obvious that you have NO POINT in
> your particular comment. You've only listed some "privileges."
Sigh. Read it in context. Try harder not to be a dummy. Are you
interested in purchasing the entire lecture series? Five separate
videotapes, packaged with a syllabus, bibliography and pre-written lecture
notes, with wide margins for doodling, available for 3 small monthly
payments of $29.95, a discount of 65% off the retail price.
You're
> looking in the _vegetable aisle of society privileges_ for meat
(rights)... and
> not finding any there, presume that society does not HAVE a _meat aisle of
> society rights_. Yet, you admit you will not find it in the vegetable
aisle. But
> that does mean there is NO meat aisle called _ provided society rights_,
just
> as you found _provided society privileges_ in the vegetable aisle.
You are the authority on vegetative states. <g>
[Meat and vegetable aisle comments moved to the frozen food aisle along with
PV's other frozen-in-archaic-time ideas.]
Brandon
Bearing arms is not a privilege. Driving a vehicle may sometimes be
considered a privilege in highly populated areas on well traveled
roads where it may endanger the lives of those around you. Handling
dangerous chemicals, and highly destructive bombs would also be
considered a privilege subject to certain licensing requirements.
Once again, if you don't bring them around other people, and don't
endanger protected public property, you should be a-okay. Playing
with bombs or firecrackers out in the desert should be your
prerogative and the government would do best to try to protect you
through education, labeling requirements, and regulation. And minors
are always subject to increased protection. Likewise, anyone can
drive a car on their own property, and driving a truck across an open
range where there are no other vehicles present shouldn't be a
problem. The drug war is effectively treason and creates a criminal
black market which works to fund other criminal enterprises. Yet if
we're going to legalize drugs we must do so cautiously and with
positive regulations. Having an M16 assault rifle, or any other
firearms is not a privilege but a right of all people. A gun's not a
danger unless it's pointed at you. You can have a rocket launcher for
all I care, just don't park a truck bomb outside my building.
Brandon
It proves you lied. Those men who created the longest lasting
government around today, and the greatest country the world has ever
seen, believed in NATURAL, INHERENT, AND UNALIENABLE rights in all
human beings. Do you agree with them or do you disagree with them?
> >> >or
> >> >
> >> >b) admitting we have unalienable rights.
> >> >
> >> In the U.S. we have been given certain rights under our Constitution, none of
> >> them called 'unalienable.'
> >
> >
> >The Constitution does not give us any rights at all. I suggest you
> >re-read it.
> >
> Ummm..
>
> 1) The right to peaceably assemble -- Article I
> 2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms -- Article II
> 3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons -- Article IV
> 4) The right to a speedy and public trial -- Article VI
> 5) The right of trial by jury in suits -- Article VII
> >
hmm... you conveniently leave out
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
The right to a speedy and public trial by jury is a distinction on an
inherently corrupt set of practices which are designed to PROTECT our
inherent and unalienable rights. The other "rights" are not rights at
all, but restrictions on the Government from infringing on our rights:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED." The second amendment does not give us any rights at all.
It's purpose to prohibit the government, and anyone else, from
infringing on our natural and unalienable right to bear arms.
<rest snipped>
Brandon
Congress, it does not give rights. Rights are inherent and
unalienable.
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:n30t5vscme4cbcul1...@4ax.com...
hmm... you conveniently leave out
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
The right to a speedy and public trial by jury is a distinction on an
inherently corrupt set of practices which are designed to PROTECT our
inherent and unalienable rights. The other "rights" are not rights at
all, but restrictions on the Government from infringing on our rights:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED." The second amendment does not give us any rights at all.
It's purpose to prohibit the government, and anyone else, from
infringing on our natural and unalienable right to bear arms.
> And these are only the articles that USE the EXPRESS term -- "right." GIVEN
> by Society. There are implied many other _rights_ in our Constitution. Who do you
> think WROTE those rights? Isn't the heart of our society OUR CONSTITUTION?
>
> >And humans have to protect their rights lest another human attempt to remove
> >them.
> >
> Yes... they do... but that has no meaning in respect to your claim that they
> are "inherent." We have to protect those that are GIVEN to us, by society.
> We do so by creating laws which prohibit acts which would tend to violate
> our rights, and we even go to war sometimes, to protect what we see as
> 'our rights,' which are simply those granted to us by our separate societies.
> Of course, MAN also created the principle of "what is not prohibited is
> permitted."
YOU created that principle, just to piss us off. As I've previously
told you, what is not permitted is prohibited... by definition. We
don't need 'permission' to do anything dushbag.
I suspect the average dodo bird lived out his life as happily as the
dinosaurs. They can be cloned.
Society does provide you with one right aside from the other bogus
'privileges' mentioned: The right to vote.
Brandon
Congress, it does not give rights. Rights are inherent and
unalienable.
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:n30t5vscme4cbcul1...@4ax.com...
hmm... you conveniently leave out
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
The right to a speedy and public trial by jury is a distinction on an
inherently corrupt set of practices which are designed to PROTECT our
inherent and unalienable rights. The other "rights" are not rights at
all, but restrictions on the Government from infringing on our rights:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED." The second amendment does not give us any rights at all.
It's purpose to prohibit the government, and anyone else, from
infringing on our natural and unalienable right to bear arms.
> And these are only the articles that USE the EXPRESS term -- "right." GIVEN
> by Society. There are implied many other _rights_ in our Constitution. Who do you
> think WROTE those rights? Isn't the heart of our society OUR CONSTITUTION?
>
> >And humans have to protect their rights lest another human attempt to remove
> >them.
> >
> Yes... they do... but that has no meaning in respect to your claim that they
> are "inherent." We have to protect those that are GIVEN to us, by society.
> We do so by creating laws which prohibit acts which would tend to violate
> our rights, and we even go to war sometimes, to protect what we see as
> 'our rights,' which are simply those granted to us by our separate societies.
> Of course, MAN also created the principle of "what is not prohibited is
> permitted."
YOU created that principle, just to piss us off. As I've previously
told you, what is not permitted is prohibited... by definition. We
don't need 'permission' to do anything dushbag.
A Planet Visitor
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:n30t5vscme4cbcul1...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:11:08 -0500, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>> >> >>You are probably GIVEN such rights by the society
>> >[...]
>> >> Rattle on... but it was YOU who said ALL HUMANS. You need to be
>> >> more specific. Nonetheless, you seem to be nodding off again. We are
>> >> ONLY given rights by society.
>> >
>> >Make up your mind, PV. First you say "probably" then you say "ONLY".
>> >Aside
>> >from the silly caps, just which is it? This time.
>> >
>> It is BOTH... and your inability to grasp that is frightening.
>
>"Both" and "only" are mutually exclusive. Aside from the ease with which
>you are frightened, the rapidity with which you change positions makes one
>wonder whether your primary molecules are rubber.
>
NO... the question is "ONLY" and "PROBABLY" -- BOTH being discussed
here. For example -- Consider a unique property, that ONLY you might give
to others. You might PROBABLY give it to someone else. But you do not
necessarily have to do so. There is no demand that you do so.
You have tried to manipulate the two terms from "probably" and "only" to
"both" and "only." It is obviously you who has tried to change the NAMES
of the terms being examined. States give Rights. They are the ONLY entity
that can do so (given that one accepts the conditions of intercourse in the society
one enters into). That particular society may or may not, give a particular
right. My words to what's-his-name, were that he "PROBABLY" lived in a society
that did give certain rights. Presuming to call them "unalienable rights
to life." "Probably" and "Only," have nothing to do with a comparison of "both"
and "only."
> ONLY society
>> can give RIGHTS.
>
>Again, this is merely your assertion, which has as much validity as any
>other article of faith - that is to say, none, excepting true believers.
No.. it's a fact of accepting the conditions of living in a society. Otherwise,
one presumes to decide for himself what rights he has. And in that case,
a murderer could determine he has a _right_ to murder. Society has not
given that right, and that member will be punished if apprehended. In
point of fact... FAITH is the only argument which supports any belief
in the _actual_ existence of a property called an "inherent right to life."
And you have rightly admitted that using FAITH, in the creation of such a
property has no validity. You certainly cannot prove it by using substance...
since counter-examples are everywhere.
>
>[...]
>
>> >Quite untrue. Society does not give human rights - rights are inherent
>> >within a human.
>>
>> Rubbish...
>
>Going English on us, PV? <g>
>
When someone presumes that something exists as a function of nature,
when it is so obvious that it does not -- It can only be seen as rubbish. I presume
arguing that the earth is flat, is not rubbish to you. Or, as in another dialog
ongoing in the group today... that it is not rubbish to you to argue that the
universe was created 9,000 years ago.
>>a clumsy INVENTION of your OWN MIND. There is no more
>> an _inherent_ human right, then there is an _inherent_ right to be a rock.
>
>A rock has the inherent property of being a rock.
That does not embody it with any "inherent right to life."
> Humans have the inherent property of being human. As such, humans,
> (not rocks, AFAIK) have a sense of self-preservation, which is to say,
> humans have an inherent right to life. All rights, of course, are predicated
>upon being able to prevent their abrogation.
Quite wrong. You confuse a biological process called an 'urge' to survive,
with a 'right' to survive. That you cannot see the difference is typical of
those who would arrogantly presume that INDIVIDUAL man is graced
with some special property. When in fact, our species may well become
extinct in the next instant. It borders on the same level as religious hypocrisy.
That man speaks to God... and God ANSWERS. Evolution (nature, or
whomever), has obviously instilled in ALL biological life forms this _urge_
to survive. The microbe world does so through massive exponential reproduction,
knowing that only one in a billion will survive. The frog does so as well. At
EVERY level of biological life, there is an _urge_ to survive, through one
evolutionary process or another. Nature provides that urge, and the biological
process that supports that urge. But nowhere is there any _RIGHT to
life_ for any INDIVIDUAL biological entity, or a specific species. In fact,
only Man can even articulate that belief... but being able to articulate
that belief... does not make it so. It simply means his fertile mind has
used that self-created principle to ENHANCE his 'urge' to survive. Through
the understanding that providing an agreement with other men that he will
respect THEIR 'urge' to survive, and not take their life, that they will in return
respect HIS 'urge' to survive, and not take his life.
>> Men
>> are NOT GODS... and cannot presume to _give_ themselves ANYTHING
>> as an "INHERENT" right. There are no stars in the sky that spell out that
>> humans have what you presume... no clockwork mechanism contained in any
>> physical or natural process that would prove your argument has any
>> meaning.
>> EVERY RIGHT that humans have... must be DOCUMENTED. And doing
>> so, means they are the INVENTION of man's MIND... and not the hand of
>> nature or God, as any sort of "INHERENT" physical process of our universe.
>> Every philosophical _arguments_ presuming such existence of an "INHERENT"
>> right have been WRITTEN by MEN... not some natural force of nature. From
>> Plato to St. Augustine to Mill. None are Gods... All are men. We can
>> PROVE
>> the existence of certain elements of nature...and NONE OF THEM are
>> stamped with "INHERENT HUMAN RIGHT." It is a _valued principle_
>> that certain societies develop, and SHOULD develop... but there is NOTHING
>> "inherent" about it. When we begin to PRESUME it is "inherent," we begin
>> to
>> take it for granted. Suddenly.. we are no longer responsible for
>> PROVIDING it...
>> as some unnamed ether has provided it for us.
>
>This is such incredibly self serving, on-your-knees, weaseling tripe that I
>can scarcely believe anyone with the IQ above that of a retarded lab rat
>would put it forth.
Actually, the PARTICULAR response you provided here is so typical of
those who arrogantly presume they are SO SPECIAL. Rather than anger me...
is made me realize how shallow your understanding actually is. When finding
yourself confronted with an argument based on reality, rather than yours, which
is based on FAITH, you begin with the insults. How typical of religious
zealots. Jesus... I expected that you would next call me a _heathen_.
What is self-serving is presuming you are SO GREAT that God has provided
YOU -- INDIVIDUALLY -- some pathetic expectation that you have this
fantastic "INHERENT RIGHT TO LIFE." It's the old _FAITH_ argument ==
_don't try to confuse you with facts_, because God in all his glory, has come
down to place his hand on your shoulder, and pronounce you PROTECTED by
his grace... providing you a _special niche in the universe_!! == Obviously, you
are projecting YOUR fears into my words... since YOU are the one assuming
the on-your-knees position.
Who provides this special "inherent right to life" for you? If you do not believe
it comes from some supernatural force, or that it does not come from society, then
you are only presuming arrogantly that you can determine what it means.
And thus YOU can JUSTIFY murder, because no other entity can determine
for you what limitations are placed on your "inherent right to life." Further,
nature provides an overwhelming number of counter-examples to believing
any such 'force' exists.
Obviously it is absurd, looking about us, to presume that some supernatural
force has provided it. The existence of NATURAL limitations of such a right, such
as children born with Tye-Sachs disease, doomed to die by the age of five, or
children born with hydranencephaly, where no child lives past the age of one, with
his/her brain's cerebral hemispheres absent --replaced by sacs of only fluid, who
spend that year in a totally vegetative state, clearly demonstrate that any NATURE
provided "inherent right to life" is a fantasy. Nature, or whomever, is the
ULTIMATE DISINTERESTED OBSERVER of any INDIVIDUAL life form or
species. Further the picture of that naked starving child in Africa, clearly shows
that Man does not provide an "inherent right to life" to ALL members of our species.
It is a SELECTIVE gift... which CERTAIN societies provide to their members.
And it is done so, because of the very obvious fact that it serves the
self-preservation process inherent in the _urge_ to survive. But there is nothing
INHERENT about the "right" itself. It is the culmination of the understanding of the
Golden Rule... "do unto others as you would have them do unto YOU." And
formed the initial basis for establishing society itself. The principle of
protection being better provided through the synergy created by forming
mutual agreements with others.
> Without language, there would be no "natural process"
>or "clockwork mechanism" or proof of "the existence of certain elements of
>nature". AFAIK, only humans are capable of articulating and understanding
>complex notions. Without articulation and observation, there is nothing,
>including the existence of anything at all.
>
What does that nonsense MEAN? Because man can ARTICULATE something
that it necessarily EXISTS? Gimme a break. I can articulate _Santa Claus_,
but that doesn't mean he exists. Or if man cannot ARTICULATE something
that it does not exist? Without articulation and observation... the sun would
STILL come up each morning, if the sun EXISTED, irrespective of man's ability to
articulate that it comes up. It was coming up long before man gained the capacity to
articulate that it was doing so. Are you presuming that it did not do so, until man
could articulate it doing so? You are trying, in a rather amateurish manner, to
fashion your argument around the weak anthropic principle. And I believe you really
do not understand it very well. I am also beginning to believe you are a
_bible-thumper_, dan... any confirmation of that??
Remember Tennyson -- "More things are wrought by prayer, than this world
dreams of." But both dreaming of something, or not dreaming of something has
nothing to do with what exists. We can dream that a 'right to exist' does
exist. Many philosophers have argued that it does. But it all comes from the
mind of man, the mind of those philosophers, and not any PHYSICAL reality.
It all comes from FAITH. What you have based your argument upon. Trust
me... homo sapiens are not ESSENTIAL to the equation of life... since life existed
well before we ever came on the scene. Our species is simply the current
last step in the evolutionary process. Not necessarily the culmination of that
process. And our mind cannot create what does not exist. We can observe...
but there is no SIGN that in our observations we SEE something called an
'inherent right to life.' No stars spell it out for us... no microscope reveals
it for us. We live, we die... quite randomly. Without order, and often in
chaos. While 'inherent' presumes ORDER. An intrinsic, essential element.
So we imagine it as a TOOL, to inhance our _urge to survive_, because
it serves our purpose in so doing. But it does not exist. It CANNOT exist.
Nature overrides every argument that it exists.
>> Now... do not try to TWIST my words.
>
>Too late. Your words twisted the basic nature of everything as they were
>written.
>
The 'basic nature'??? Jesus, dan... wake up. The "basic nature" of WHAT?
Why... of course.. the 'basic nature of everything.' How all inclusive you can
presume your counter-argument to be!
>> I accept that Men have certain rights,
>> if their societies develop such a concept, and ingrain it into the
>> structure of that
>> society. And it is well and proper that is does so. But there is nothing
>> as a
>> NATURAL force of nature that DEMANDS humans have something called
>> "INHERENT HUMAN RIGHTS."
>
>Humans have rights which are not granted by society but that can be removed
>by society.
I am reminded of your OWN WORDS, above -- "Again, this is merely your
assertion, which has as much validity as any other article of faith - that is to say,
none, excepting true believers." Pay attention now... YOU are the one presuming
something exists (an _inherent right to life_), based on YOUR faith. I am the one
saying it DOES NOT EXIST. I have proven it does not exist, under the principles
of providing clear counter-examples which refute the existence of such an
_inherent right_. You have only offered your argument in terms of FAITH that it
DOES exist. But then you go on to denounce any argument based on faith, arguing
that doing so has no validity. And I agree... Your argument that there is something
called an 'inherent right to life,' IS based on faith (because you presume it can be
ARTICULATED), and thus has no validity. Since it obviously cannot be validated in
REALITY, simply because it can be articulated. Just as we cannot validate Santa
Claus, although the image can be articulated.
> These rights are not large in number, but they exist by virtue
>of our own existence. These rights include the right to life
>(self-presevation) and the right to think independently (an ability not
>available to insensate matter). There may be others, but these will do for
>starters, and perhaps, even as an exhaustive list.
Need I say... RUBBISH. You have taken a biological evolutionary
process and presumed it gives humans some _right_. The "urge to
survive," and the "right to survive" are NOT synonymous. Since
EVERY biological entity... from the smallest virus up... has
such an urge... but obviously not a right. Your _argument_ is based
on nothing other than what you have denounced... FAITH. Obviously,
there is no 'right' to self-preservation. The dodo bird rather proves
that.
>
>>It is ONLY man's arrogance that presumes
>> he has this special niche in the hiarchy of a seeming eternal nature.
>>When all he
>> is, is at the top of the food chain at present. Man's arrogance both
>> threatens and
>> challenges him. His presumption that he is special... and his belief that
>> his reach
>> should always exceed his grasp. But INDIVIDUALLY, we have no special
>> "inherent human right." Collectively, we can certainly agree that we
>>SHARE such
>> rights, in the structures called society that we develop.
>
>More on this below, but suffice it to say that the "rights" of which you
>write are privileges provided by the social contract.
>
You are proving MY case. The fact that 'privileges' are provided, does
not in any way prove the existence of something called an "inherent
right to life." 'Rights' and 'privileges' are two separate entities. You can
be granted the 'privilege' of operating a motor vehicle by society... but
you certainly have no 'right' to do so, if you presume that you are a functioning
member of that society. And the fact that society provides 'privileges,'
does NOT prove it cannot provide 'rights' as well. Our Constitution
demonstrates that in the SPECIFIC WORD "right." You seem to believe
that these 'inherent rights' arise because _man can articulate them_. But
man can articulate MANY things that are not INHERENT. Man articulates
the CONCEPT of a society, for the very specific purpose of creating a better
environment which will satisfy his _urge_ to survive. Since he sees it wise to
do so, by understanding that he LACKS an 'inherent right' to survive, and
recognizes he needs the help of others to enhance his _urge_ to survive. Men
articulates those 'rights' by entering into certain societies that PROVIDE certain
'rights.' Obviously, not ALL societies provide SIMILAR 'rights.' Dictatorships
provide very few, and certainly not any 'inherent right to life,' if the dictator
presumes otherwise.
>> I believe there is the force of a creator behind our existence and our
>> universe,
>> call that creator whatever name you wish. I certainly believe our
>> species is
>> SPECIAL, and will possibly even evolve into understanding the very reason
>> of
>> WHY we are here... and why we are special. Perhaps in hundreds of
>> thousands,
>> or even millions of years to follow; if nature, or whomever, grants us
>> such a boon.
>> And I believe there is the possibility that we were created FOR just such
>> a role.
>> The ultimate end to our journey into understanding. But nature, or
>> whomever, is the
>> ultimate arbiter of this process, and our existence... not man, in
>> believing he can
>> define what is not his to define.
>
>Spend less time on your knees, PV - you'll have a better perspective on
>everything.
>
Hello... I'm not the one who presumes that something imaginary can be
formed from FAITH. You have expressed the CERTAINTY that there
is something called an 'inherent right to life,' While I have only expressed
what I see as some possibilities, enumerated above. Nothing certain about
them. But YOU are the only one presuming that your faith can CREATE
what is obviously not in evidence. I clearly expressed my view above as my
opinion... and not based on any FACTUAL argument of something existing.
While you have tried to do just the opposite with your faith-developed "inherent
right to life." I have clearly said that Man cannot create something presumed
as _universal_. He can only create it in the very limited framework of those
who accept that creation. Thus, it cannot be _inherent_ to ALL HUMANS.
Which was the original argument. While you presume Man can create
something _inherent_ to ALL HUMANS. Something _universal_ in scope!
In the face of all evidence to the contrary, in fact. But I suppose you believe
your unreasonable argument has some deep philosophical significance.
>> > Society can remove one's rights, but cannot grant them.
>>
>> Rubbish, again... are you familiar with our Bill of RIGHTS???
>>
>> 1) The right to peaceably assemble -- Article I
>> 2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms -- Article II
>> 3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons -- Article IV
>> 4) The right to a speedy and public trial -- Article VI
>> 5) The right of trial by jury in suits -- Article VII
>>
>> And these are only the articles that USE the EXPRESS term -- "right."
>> GIVEN
>> by Society. There are implied many other _rights_ in our Constitution.
>> Who do you
>> think WROTE those rights? Isn't the heart of our society OUR
>> CONSTITUTION?
>
>Sigh. These are privileges only, not rights.
ROTFLMAO. I can suppose that YOU wrote the word 'right' and told
the other founding fathers that you _didn't actually MEAN 'right'_ Do
you always try to rewrite the English language? I just love it when some
argue, in the face of FACTS, about the non-existence of those FACTS.
Can you possibly see that the WORD WRITTEN is _R I G H T_???
Of course, you would presume to TELL us they meant otherwise.
> They are granted as part of
>the US social contract, but they are not inviolable and hardly universally
>available. A right is universally available - that's what distinguishes it
>from a privilege.
>
Once again... you are presuming to define terms. A 'right' is NOT
universally available. Who ever filled you with such claptrap? Who now
is presuming to speak on _faith_? Things that are "universally available,"
apply to ALL THINGS in the universe. Both biological and non-biological.
And your words certainly assume some sort of mystical religious experience
as part of that belief. Perhaps YOU should be rising from your knees.
You admitted back a bit... that it must be articulated. Can a rock
articulate a 'right'? Isn't a 'rock' part of our Universe?
>> >And humans have to protect their rights lest another human attempt to
>> >remove them.
>> >
>> Yes... they do... but that has no meaning in respect to your claim that
>> they are "inherent."
>
>Of course it does. One of the basic principles of humanity is that nothing
>can be taken that can be stopped from being taken. (Paraphrase of Joey
>Heller.)
>
One of the basic principles of _humanity_??? Have you perhaps seen the
picture I offered? Where is the _basic principle of humanity_ hiding in that
picture? How can 'humanity' provide an 'inherent right to life,' to a child
born, but doomed to die in short order by nature? It is supreme arrogance
to presume that humanity provides 'basic principles' which any rational
human can see it does not provide. Nor can _humanity_ even do so, in
many cases. In those cases that nature presumes to do otherwise. In
a myriad of different ways.
>[...]
>
>> >The "rights" that society grants are not true rights - they are
>> > privileges
>>
>> Rubbish... yet again... you presume that YOU can define 'rights.' When
>> in fact, you can DEFINE nothing. You are not in a position to DEFINE
>> what rights others have, or what rights YOU have. If you presume you
>> have a _right_ to murder, I can guarantee you that you DO NOT,
>> regardless of your belief that you do.
>
>You've slipped over the edge, PV.
Very effective 'argument,' dan. Have any more of those trite comments which
you presume form a basis for rationality?
> Human observation and articulation define the world.
Again... rubbish. That is an opinion based on the _faith_ that you
so denounce. Mankind is defined by EXISTENCE. What can
be touched and felt, and forms the elements of our physical
existence. All else arises from the fertile imagination of the mind,
and defines NOTHING in the sense of absolute, or universal reality.
> Observation tells us we have the right to our own life and the
>right to process information within the limits of our brain capacity.
Observation can tell us a lot of things... but it cannot tell us that
something exists that does not exist. An 'inherent right to life,' is
no more real than _Santa Claus_.
>Everything else I can think of is not a human right, but a privilege
>negotiated with society. If I exceed my privileges, then society may choose
>to limit my rights, but society can only remove rights, not grant them.
>
See what you've said? You 'think'!!! Thus, you have presumed to
develop something with your thoughts. But that only presumes the
idea. Not something inherent to the _universe_. You think... you
join others who ALSO think... you creates societies from those
ideals you 'think' would be nice to have ... that 'right to life.' You
ingrain what you think... and what others think, into the fabric of that
society... and society establishes those rights, based upon your belief
that society serves to protect those ideals, which you see as a 'right to
life,' but which arise from your _urge to live_. Apparently, you interchange
'privileges' and 'rights' at your will. Actually, I don't believe you really have
much of an idea of exactly what you are trying to say. In fact, I don't
see how society could remove something that it had not given in the first
place. You have, of course, an 'urge to live,' but that in no way presumes
that nature has given you an inherent 'right to live.'
>> >subject to the whims of that society. Examples of this abound - voting,
>> >Medicare, Social Security, bearing arms, no self-incrimination to name
>> >but a
>> >few.
>>
>> Every one of those 'privileges' you have listed, are those GRANTED by
>> society.
>> You have spoken here ONLY of those BENEFITS provided by a certain society.
>> Nor do any of these have the slightest meaning in respect to ALL HUMANS,
>> which was the original premise. Thus you are trying to argue what are
>> NOT 'rights'
>> by your own admission. Which makes it obvious that you have NO POINT in
>> your particular comment. You've only listed some "privileges."
>
>Sigh. Read it in context.
Since there is not much context in your words... it's rather hard to do so.
> Try harder not to be a dummy. Are you
>interested in purchasing the entire lecture series? Five separate
>videotapes, packaged with a syllabus, bibliography and pre-written lecture
>notes, with wide margins for doodling, available for 3 small monthly
>payments of $29.95, a discount of 65% off the retail price.
>
Now it's my turn... Sigh.....sigh....sigh....
>> You're
>> looking in the _vegetable aisle of society privileges_ for meat
>> (rights)... and
>> not finding any there, presume that society does not HAVE a _meat aisle of
>> society rights_. Yet, you admit you will not find it in the vegetable
>> aisle. But
>> that does mean there is NO meat aisle called _ provided society rights_,
>> just
>> as you found _provided society privileges_ in the vegetable aisle.
>
>You are the authority on vegetative states. <g>
>
>[Meat and vegetable aisle comments moved to the frozen food aisle along with
>PV's other frozen-in-archaic-time ideas.]
>
TRANSLATION -- "Now I understand what you mean... and I admit I have no
reasonable counter-argument to offer."
PV
A Planet Visitor
As usual, hi1k... I soon tire with your ignorance... which is limitless... and
your cast-iron obstinate determination to repeat the same banal, vapid,
nihilist litany over and over. There is no longer a doubt that you will always
remain impervious to any penetration of a rational thought process which
might evolve into any form of fecund raising of your intellect, which
apparently will forever remain barren.
As usual... talking to you is nice... for about 30 millisecs. And then interest
begins to wane.
PV
A Planet Visitor
On 28 Feb 2003 14:01:17 -0800, brando...@2trom.com (Brandon) wrote:
>Once again: the Bill of Rights merely restricts the government and
>Congress, it does not give rights. Rights are inherent and
>unalienable.
>
As usual, hi1k... I soon tire of your ignorance... which is limitless... and
your cast-iron obstinate determination to repeat the same banal, vapid,
nihilist litany over and over. There is no longer a doubt that you will always
remain impervious to any penetration of a rational thought process which
might evolve into any form of fecund raising of your intellect, which
apparently will forever remain barren.
As usual... talking to you is nice... for about 30 millisecs. And then interest
begins to wane.
PV
>
A Planet Visitor
your cast-iron obstinate determination to repeat the same banal, vapid,
nihilist litany over and over. There is no longer a doubt that you will always
remain impervious to any penetration of a rational thought process which
might evolve into any form of fecund raising of your intellect, which
apparently will forever remain barren.
As usual... talking to you is nice... for about 30 millisecs. And then interest
begins to wane.
PV
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le 28 Feb 2003 14:01:17 -0800, dans l'article <fb0a01ac.03022...@posting.google.com>, Brandon <brando...@2trom.com> a dit ...
>
>> Once again: the Bill of Rights merely restricts the government and
>> Congress, it does not give rights. Rights are inherent and
>> unalienable.
>
>FuckWit isn't all that bright. He's the idiot who thinks that O.J. Simpson
>was 'convicted of murder in a civil court' [1], and that one can be
>'prosecuted for libel' [2]. It's thus hardly surprising that he is unable
>to fathom that rights can exist, without the state existing to 'give' those
>rights.
I'm bright enough to know the WORD 'right' cannot be transformed into
'privilege' simply because one doesn't like the fact that it is called a 'right.'
The instrument ITSELF is CALLED "The Bill of Rights," and NOT "The
Bill of Privileges." In this particular argument... dan is somewhere in
la-la land... presuming he is whispering in the ear of the founding fathers,
saying -- no, no... those are privileges.. not rights. See --
http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html
And read --
Amendment I
Amendment II
Amendment IV
Amendment VI
Amendment VII
Amendment IX
One cannot WIN an argument by rewriting words to please themselves.
Of course... this particular concept is alien to you, I understand that.
PV
>
>Ho, ho, ho ...
>
>[1] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>[2] url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=WRGB9.301346%24S8.6144624%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl=fr
[3]
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pckt5v0om0l0p7g598anu1n6cgks3b14lh%404ax.com
>--
>Ayatollah desi
Words of condemnation from another reasonable abolitionist to you on another day --
"I *never* lie on the newsgroups, Desmond - a distinction that you most
definitely do not share." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8a9hju%24suv%241%40lure.pipex.net
dirtdog
wrote:
>
>As usual, hi1k... I soon tire with your ignorance... which is limitless... and
>your cast-iron obstinate determination to repeat the same banal, vapid,
>nihilist litany over and over. There is no longer a doubt that you will always
>remain impervious to any penetration of a rational thought process which
>might evolve into any form of fecund raising of your intellect, which
>apparently will forever remain barren.
>
>As usual... talking to you is nice... for about 30 millisecs. And then interest
>begins to wane.
>
L-O-L!
FW gets, sorry, get's spanked by HI1K!
Ho ho fucking ho!
Answer his points, FW, they were perfectly valid and good rebuttals of
what you said. It simply _will not do_ to produce your usual top-post
and invoke Gimmick No.148
url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/148.html
It is hardly surprising that HI knows, sorry, know's, more about the
US consitution than you, given that he has for many years been able to
study its, sorry, it's content carefully whilst masturbating in a pit
of his own fornication. On the other hand, I suppose you have very
little time to read such secular documents given all that cross
burning, bible thumping and altar-boy shagging you have to be getting
along with...
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
<top-posted Gimmick 148 and defeated whine snipped>
<surprisingly savage beating of FW by Loony Toon snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
Louise is _lonely_ again.
PV
>w00f
A Planet Visitor
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Everyone in the universe has unalienable rights
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:26:35 +0000
>
>le Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:12:20 GMT, dans l'article <n30t5vscme4cbcul1jfvot1=
>hl1vp...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...=20
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Now... do not try to TWIST my words.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>Go on, FW ... invoke gimmick n=B0 2 ... url:http://www.zeouane.org/peine=
>demort/gimmicks/2.html
>
>{ snip remainder of mindless cack }
>
>--=20
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _=20
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Everyone in the universe has unalienable rights
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:26:35 +0000
>Lines: 24
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <rum2j-6...@zeouane.org>
>References: <6d337de3.03022...@posting.google.com>
><357m5vcvs9fs1la0a...@4ax.com>
><SdH6a.3261$kf7.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>
><RPN6a.40113$Cv4.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><6d337de3.03022...@posting.google.com>
><0k9r5v8o7b314bum5...@4ax.com>
><b3lrd1$3c1$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
><n30t5vscme4cbcul1...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1046392368 58868128 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Dolly Coughlan Jr, the legend continues!
As Desi lies, the archive grows!
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Everyone in the universe has unalienable rights
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:37:22 +0000
>
>le 28 Feb 2003 14:01:17 -0800, dans l'article
><fb0a01ac.03022...@posting.google.com>, Brandon
><brando...@2trom.com> a dit ...
>
>> Once again: the Bill of Rights merely restricts the government and
>> Congress, it does not give rights. Rights are inherent and
>> unalienable.
>
>FuckWit isn't all that bright. He's the idiot who thinks that O.J. Simpson
>was 'convicted of murder in a civil court' [1], and that one can be
>'prosecuted for libel' [2]. It's thus hardly surprising that he is unable
>to fathom that rights can exist, without the state existing to 'give' those
>rights.
>
>Ho, ho, ho ...
>
>[1]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
>[2]
>url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=WRGB9.301346%2
4S8.6144624%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl=fr
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!s
kynet.be!skynet.be!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!
not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Everyone in the universe has unalienable rights
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:37:22 +0000
>Lines: 26
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <1u45j-e...@zeouane.org>
>References: <6d337de3.03022...@posting.google.com>
><357m5vcvs9fs1la0a...@4ax.com>
><SdH6a.3261$kf7.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>
><RPN6a.40113$Cv4.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><6d337de3.03022...@posting.google.com>
><0k9r5v8o7b314bum5...@4ax.com>
><b3lrd1$3c1$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
><n30t5vscme4cbcul1...@4ax.com>
><fb0a01ac.03022...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1046472164 58986530 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])