If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

There is another cheap shot and not a damn thing relevant to the post. You really need some new material. Your basic problem is that your board name is a characterization of what you try to be on this board as if the insults and filibustering are somehow entertaining. I know what your board name means and you do live up to it. The problem is, it doesn't have any relevance as to where one gets their Rights.

God giveth and God taketh away. Only man can attempt to alien a Right. You are not required to submit to the alienation of your unalienable Rights.

 

I've told you countess times. I agree and want all those man made rights the courts give us.
I even want healthcare added to those court give rights.

 

Nope, never called you any names or ad hom attacks.

You've called names to at least 3 people in this thread. Emotional wrecks do that.

 

Here is all your insults in just 3 posts. Actually it's only partial in those 3 posts.

 

you did not post either the philosophical or legal definition, I did.

Anywhere you go its the same:

19.1.3: Natural Rights
Natural rights, understood as those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government,(and therefore, universal and inalienable) were central to the debates during the Enlightenment on the relationship between the individual and the government.

Learning Objective
Identify natural rights and why they were important to the philosophers of the Enlightenment.

Key Points

• Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). They are usually defined in opposition to legal rights, or those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.
• Although natural rights have been discussed since antiquity, it was the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment that developed the modern concept of natural rights, which has been critical to the modern republican government and civil society.
• During the Enlightenment, natural rights developed as part of the social contract theory. The theory addressed the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.
• Thomas Hobbes’ conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a “state of nature.” He objected to the attempt to derive rights from “natural law,” arguing that law (“lex”) and right (“jus”) though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refers to the absence of obligations.
• The most famous natural right formulation comes from John Locke, who argued that the natural rights include perfect equality and freedom, and the right to preserve life and property. Other Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers that developed and complicated the concept of natural rights were John Lilburne, Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, and Thomas Paine.
• The modern European anti-slavery movement drew heavily from the concept of natural rights that became central to the efforts of European abolitionists.

Key Terms

Natural rights
The rights that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Some, yet not all, see them as synonymous with human rights.
natural law

A philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and can be universally understood through human reason. Historically, it refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature in order to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, like nature itself, is universal.

Legal rights
The rights bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).

social contract theory
In moral and political philosophy, a theory or model originating during the Age of Enlightenment that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. It typically posits that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.

Thats called a stipulation, there are no stipulations in the constitution

yes you need much more than a dictionary, to the tune of a full course in civics 101
.

You do, you need something since you fail con law and philosophy in one fell sweep

I understand your logic, we are born without mouths.

and that is protecting your right, no gubmint required

might makes right is an idiom that applies to abuse of power, not use of legitimate power.

A family member takes care of it.

sure

you have no clue, you have a right to continue believing the **** you believe.

 

Legal Definition of natural right


: a right considered to be conferred by natural law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/natural right

 

There are only three requirements for considering something a natural right in my view.

1. People have to have the ability to exercise the right.
2. The right has to be free. If someone has to give something up, then the activity is not a right, it is a privilege.
3. The action cannot be harmful to another.

 

If that was simple as this conversation is, it would be over. This country was founded upon the presupposition that we have unalienable Rights. The presupposition is that those Rights are above the law. We, the people, entered into a social contract with the entity we call the government and that government guaranteed to protect those Rights. Now, you can choose to believe anything you like about Rights, but that is the agreement. Period. If / when the government does not make good on the agreement (i.e. when they interfere with our Rights or allow others to) then we bring it to the attention of said government and appeal to them, exhausting all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress. If that fails, we are justified then, and only then, to rebel against that government.

At NO time does the government have the authority to infringe upon our unalienable Rights. They may have the power, but they do not have the authority. When we've had enough, we can change the status quo.

 

Just like your board name, you are subtle about what you're doing. You call people names, just as you tell us why you are what you are with a pun as a board name. You think you are slick, but you aren't. I'm not an emotional wreck. I'm just wondering what it's going to take to get you to come up with some new material. Unless you have Alzheimer's, it is baffling the Hell out of me how you can be entertained every single day with the same, worn out, argument that's been refuted so many times that less than half a dozen people now read this stuff. You call people names - you just do it in a cowardly and dishonest manner.

 

Those are accurate assessments of what you're doing. I don't see any ad homs as you call them. I do see accurate and honest statements. Do you have any new material? Give me some new material and I'll give you some different assessments of your posts.

 

From where did they get them to give them? Can I just give myself the right to your wallet? That's man-made. What if I have a gun, does that give me a right?

There is no legitimate right for one human to rule over another, even if you dress it up with pretty rituals and call it Democracy. Statism, a long with a belief in man-made rights, is a religion.

 

Then they are alienable. From where does God get the right to take it away?

Then we are mere slaves to the owner of our privileges; they are not rights.

 

The source of natural rights is the right to life and all that stems from it. Anyone who interferes with your peaceful exercise of the things you do with your life violates your right to life. Property rights are human rights. Stealing your property steals the life you put into acquiring or creating it. Make you a slave steals your lifetime. It does not matter the intentions of the thief; violent interference with what you do with your life that is not in response to a violent act of your own is a violation of your right to life and, thus, wrong.

 

If there was a God, would babies be aborted?

If there is, it sure does allow for a nasty system full of hate and suffering. why continue it?

 

When a Creator bestows upon any human being a Right, it is said to be unalienable. Only the Creator who gave you the Right has the authority to take it away. Unfortunately, your opinion does not equal fact and a short history lesson in the law will expose you to the truth.

In NUMEROUS postings on this thread we have been over and over and over again what an unalienable Right is. Well, I'm going to do it AGAIN, but this time I'll show you another "right." This should make it crystal clear to even the dumbest person on this board and resolve this once and for all.

The Declaration of Independence states (in part):

“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.”

So, you have Rights, and I want you to notice that these unalienable Rights had the words Rights capitalized. It must have been important. Also you were “endowed by your Creator” with those Rights. In other words, your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon you unalienable Rights. Those Rights include, but are not limited to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

But, what is a right? A right is a justified claim on others. For example, if I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turn that around, I can say that others have a duty or responsibility to leave me alone.

Unalienable Rights are a bit different than all other Rights. Unlike all the other Rights we can talk about, unalienable Rights are those we have this presupposition about wherein you are born with them. We use synonymous terminology to describe them: inherent, natural, absolute, God given, irrevocable, etc. In any event these Rights are above the law of man. Period. End of story. Now let us defer to the earliest court rulings on this subject:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

That is a United States Supreme Court ruling. In my lifetime, not even Jesus has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court. So, plainly and factually, this country was built on the presupposition that you are born with these unalienable Rights later codified into law by the Bill of Rights. Now, of course, the the Courts (just like most liberals) love to pervert the law. Sooooo.... what they did was to drop the word unalienable little by little AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE ILLEGALLY RATIFIED 14TH AMENDMENT and replace it with a synonym for unalienable. Then the courts defined this synonym, inalienable, differently from previous court precedents that defined the word unalienable. Let me prove it to you. In 1875 the United States Supreme Court held:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, in irrefutable language the United States Supreme Court rules that they do NOT grant unalienable Rights. The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right - a point never in dispute in U.S. v Cruikshank. The Right is not even dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. The reason is, our country was founded on the presupposition that man was born with those Rights and they are above the reach of the government. With the illegally ratified 14th Amendment in place, the courts began to deny this concept of unalienable Rights. The government wanted to presume that they granted you your "rights." So, they chose a synonym for unalienable and interpreted it differently so as to deny people their guaranteed Rights under the Bill of Rights. HERE is a ruling that proves this beyond the shadow of a doubt:

“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

There are no exceptions to an unalienable Right. I challenge you right here and right now to show us one single, solitary time that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that you can consent to forfeit an unalienable Right. Furthermore, I challenge you to show me right here and right now where the United States Supreme Court has defined the word inalienable to have the same characteristics as an unalienable Right. THAT is because inalienable rights were created by judicial definitions in their rulings. Inalienable rights are granted by the government and subject to alienation when you consent to their forfeiture. THAT, sir, is how the government claims to be able to deny you your Rights - they simply rule that your Rights were incorporated into the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

The government claims the power to take your inalienable rights (those rights they granted you) so, it is only common horse sense that your Creator (whomever you deem that to be) is the grantor of your unalienable Rights and no man has the authority to take them.

“Of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms...If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.” James Monroe (Monroe was the final founding father to be elected to the office of the President of the United States)

 

The gov was chartered to protect our rights, instead they are incrementally destroying them and we the people in this so called democracy have no recourse to get them back as far as I know.


The rights we 'used' to have:
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr

 

Without the laws to protect any rights granted by a gov't or other entity that people follow, you can try to have a right to my wallet. I can also have a right to stop you from said wallet. Then it becomes a matter of might making right in that situation without a law to back up said theft.

So they got them from the law/gov't/enforcing entity. In the USA case, the constitution is a major factor in what we have.
That doesn't hold true for all the world.

 

Only because the law or might says those others exist.

Healthcare is a right that stems from the right to life also.

 

Here in America they have the Liberty to speak freely about their beliefs. It takes a real special case to want to incarcerate them for disagreeing with you.

Is support for free speech correlated with intelligence? 3 studies on that question all point to the answer: yes!

We again replicated the positive relationship between cognitive ability and supporting freedom of speech for all groups across the ideological spectrum.​

Moreover, ... we found evidence that higher levels of Intellectual Humility could explain the relationship between cognitive ability and free speech support. In other words, those with higher cognitive ability might support principles of free speech because of their greater independence of intellect and ego, openness to revise their viewpoints, respect for others’ viewpoints, and lack of intellectual overconfidence.​

The series of studies suggest that cognitive ability is related to support for freedom of speech for groups across the ideological spectrum. These results suggest that individuals with higher cognitive ability are more appreciative of the free flow of divergent ideas by groups at various places on the ideological spectrum ... even when these groups voice ideas that they don’t like.​

 

We are certainly justified in believing that objective moral values and duties exist on the ground of our moral experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience. To dislodge that justification you would have to show that our moral experience is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is as powerful as our sense experience is justifying our belief in the world of physical objects. Any argument for moral skepticism will be based on premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values and duties themselves, that is, than that objective moral values and duties exist.

And later in Acts, Paul was taking up a collection for the Synagogue in Jerusalem that conducted this experiment, because they fell on very hard times. Capitalism is a term from Marx, what we do here in the US is Free Will and Free Markets.

Rape is objectively wrong, as is murder for the sadistic pleasure of slaughtering another human being.

Actually it's completely rational.

This isn't horse trading. There either are objective moral values and duties or there are not. They are not dependent on consensus.

 

As soon as one aspect of this is beat to death, another poster begins to troll. I think this is probably two or three posters that want to keep beating that dead horse. The facts are in and regardless of the psychological double talk, denials, and filibustering, nothing has changed. They need some new material.

 

yep! as easy as changing socks!

 

Our "moral experience" is an emotional experience. We have feelings of guilt, compassion, justice, empathy, etc. These emotions are evolutionary adaptations that help us survive together. There is no evidence that they point to objective moral truths. We have other emotions like anger, selfishness, lust, and fear. These emotions also have an evolutionary purpose and exist because they improve our survival odds. But there is also no basis for saying they point to objective moral truths either. You can't claim objective morals exist simply because people feel or believe a certain way. You need evidence.

Verse? I don't see any place where the apostles later abandon this lifestyle.

I never claimed objective moral values exist on consensus. In fact I don't believe in them at all. What I'm saying is that one reason to act morally is to be able to get along with each other for mutually beneficial reasons.

 

Objective Moral Values and Duties exist independently of your emotions about them. Could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Now certainly our subjective perception of objective moral values has evolved. Moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, such a gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm. The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations. The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5. By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.

http://www.leaderu.org/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html

Take the statement: "Sexual Assault: No One Has the Right to Abuse a Child, Woman, or Man." Most of us recognize that that statement is evidently true. But the relativist doesn't really recognize a person's right not to be sexually abused by another. They'll dance around when confronted on this, but when you pin them down they view our moral choices as ultimately insignificant, since both our fate and that of the universe will be the same regardless of what we do. It is hard to do the right thing when that means sacrificing one's own self-interest and to resist temptation to do wrong when desire is strong, and the belief that ultimately it does not matter what you choose or do is apt to sap one's moral strength and so undermine one's moral life.

Noticing that very likely the history of the universe will not be good on the whole, no matter what one does, can induce a cynical sense of futility about the moral life, undermining one's moral resolve and one's interest in moral considerations.

In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

Acts 20:1-5 – The “Collection for the Saints”

Paul leaves Ephesus with the intention of returning to Jerusalem for the purpose of delivering the collection to the Jerusalem church at Pentecost, the group that engaged in the practice you describe during an euphoric period after Pentecost. The collection was a gift from the Gentile churches to the Jerusalem believers. Romans speaks about it as well.

William Bradford, drawing from this experience as you have, implemented this practice among the Pilgrims at the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and they too soon starved, but, not having a Paul or a collection of Churches in nearby Asia to bail them out, they filled the cemetery. In shock, William Bradford went back to the scriptures in search for an answer and came on Christ's parable of the talents. Apply this he then assigned plots of land as private property for the surviving colonists, assuring them they could use what they produced as they saw fit, consume it themselves or use it in trade, and the colony went from starving to abundance.

Germany was one of the most advanced Western Nations when Hitler came to power. An entire advanced western society willingly participated in a state-sponsored program of mass torture and genocide for over a decade without any serious opposition. They were not contemptuous of ethics, the perpetrators acted in strict conformity with an ethic which held that the mass extermination of the Jews and Gypsies was entirely justified. The Holocaust as a sustained effort was possible only because a new ethic was in place that did not define the arrest and deportation of Jews as wrong and in fact defined it as ethically tolerable and ever good.

Moreover, because of its coherence and internal consistency, the Nazi ethic could not be discredited from within. Only from a transcendent vantage point which stands above relativistic, socio-cultural mores could such a critique be launched. And with the recognition of objective moral values and duties that is precisely the vantage point that we occupy. One Rabbi who was imprisoned at Auschwitz said that it was as though all the Ten Commandments had been reversed: thou shalt kill, thou shalt lie, thou shalt steal. Mankind has never seen such a hell. And yet, in a real sense, if naturalism is true, our world is Auschwitz. There is no good and evil, no right and wrong. Objective moral values do not exist.

And we do have such obligations. Take the claim: "Sexual Assault: No One Has the Right to Abuse a Child, Woman, or Man." Most of us recognize that that statement is evidently true. There is nothing so likely to strengthen the moral life as knowing that we will be held accountable for our actions and that our choices do make a difference in bringing about the good.

 

I don't see any evidence that objective moral values exist or that they are obvious.

Moral values are just emotion-based beliefs without any evidence. Unverified beliefs don't have the same wait as scientific observational evidence.

Evolution doesn't care about objective right or wrong and only cares about survival. Therefore just because we feel moral emotions only indicates they evolved for survival and isn't evidence they are based on objective moral truths.

People who say rape is morally acceptable are wrong too. This is because morality doesn't exist in the first place so there is no such things as morally acceptable or morally unacceptable. I personally emotionally loathe rape and it is harmful for everyone. But I don't see any basis for calling it objectively morally wrong.

I agree too. I don't believe in rights so I don't believe in a right to abuse.

Relativists don't want to come off as jerks and emotionally do want to be moral. The simple answer is that morality and rights don't exist and we should act out of self-interest.

The fact that humans evolved at all and get to experience this universe is pretty awesome. I am very happy to be born a human in a technologically advanced western nation rather than as a beatle or a sperm cell that didn't quite make it.

I believe that all our emotions have a purpose and that it is good to hate some people. Hate evolved as a self-defense mechanism and while it is a risky emotion, it is a necessary emotion. So go ahead and hate Hitler. Its fine. Don't repress it. Nothing is objectively wrong anyway. Selfishness is another amazing emotion that gets a bad rap.

But even the Nazis has objective morals. They believed that the Jews were evil and that the strong races should overcome the weak. They arrested anyone who questioned their beliefs. So they had faith-based morals too. They were just Nazi morals.

Its actually really easy to discredit the Nazis. There is no evidence for the superiority of any race. War has been shown to be more harmful for nearly everyone and we are just better off focusing on the economy rather than destroying it. Dictatorship and supressing intellectual freedoms is harmful to the people.

And right after the ten commandments, the Israelites then proceed to commit genocide of the Caananites.

I do not believe this claim is objectively morally true, but I do believe it is beneficial to society and people are better off following it.