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

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by dadoalex, May 10, 2020.

  1. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you have a Right to Life if someone can take it just like they could take you personal possessions in your home?
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After those paragraphs of emptiness you tell Dairyaire to make a point??

    Really?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2020
    dairyair likes this.
  3. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    As I said before, you want to put as much space between the issues and the facts with your filibustering as possible. You think articulating the fact that a person has an Obligation, Duty, and a Right to defend Freedom is emptiness? Really?
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hows your 'democracy' working for ya wilbur?

    Hear ye Hear ye! To wit, BY:

    Proclamation and Declaration
    of Lord Roosevelt,
    King of the United States of America,
    Leader of Will's 'FREE' Democratic World,
    DO Hereby Degree the Law as Follows:



    Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation to Prison Camps:

    In an atmosphere of World War II hysteria, [King] Roosevelt, encouraged by officials at all levels of the federal government, authorized the internment of tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan. [King] Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, dated February 19, 1942, gave the military broad powers to ban any citizen from a fifty- to sixty-mile-wide coastal area stretching from Washington state to California and extending inland into southern Arizona.

    The order also authorized transporting these citizens to [American Concentration Camps] hastily set up and governed by the military in California, Arizona, Washington state, and Oregon.

    Although it is not well known, the same executive order (and other war-time orders and restrictions) were also applied to smaller numbers of residents of the United States who were of Italian or German descent.

    For example, 3,200 resident aliens of Italians background were arrested and more than 300 of them were interned.

    About 11,000 German residents—including naturalized citizens—were arrested and more than 5000 were [American Concentration Camps].

    Yet while these individuals (and others from those groups) suffered grievous violations of their civil liberties, the war-time measures applied to Japanese Americans were worse and more sweeping, uprooting entire communities and targeting citizens as well as resident aliens.

    Executive Order No. 9066

    The [King]

    Executive Order

    Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas

    Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

    Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as [King and Dictator] of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy,

    I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.


    Will's democracy in action!

    Seriously? Thats how you think democracies are supposed to operate?

    Are you going to apologize for them and root for status quo?

    I cant wait to hear your apologetics justifying those actions.

    ....and dont forget to explain all those rights :)icon_shithappens:) and freedom these people enjoyed in our democratic country in the light and comparison of other countries:

    How is the US Democracy different than Russia, China, Japan, Hitler?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2020
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your hate for America is deeper than I thought.
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  6. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    WTH?????? Did you read his post OR is this more of that mind game you think you're playing with people?
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nice projection! I feel your pain, nah not really! According to will reason or in this case lack thereof, people that hate america are those who advocate full adherence to the 'rule of law', the organic law as it was actually written and agreed. Your projection proves the point.

    You should refrain from blaming me for what you see in the mirror.

    btw you forgot to respond to the argument on the table, AGAIN, How is the US Democracy different than Russia, China, Japan, Hitler?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2020
    Resistance101 likes this.
  8. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    52,402
    Likes Received:
    7,789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You already stated Life is a Natural right. Now you backing off that?

    You have a right to life, because most everyone will defend their right to life.
    But to keep it, if one is trying to take it, means might. The bigger might typically wins.

    Hence my claim of Might makes Right. Unless we live in a civil society with rules and laws. Then we can get more rights than might.

    Now if one wants to take your possessions, one can fight to keep them. Risk their life. But if we have laws and rules, a legal case will ensue to determine the outcome.
    To answer our question, do you need possessions to have life?
    Basics would be food and water. Shelter helps.
     
  9. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    What possesses you to play jailhouse psychology? You should stick to something that you're good at. Read carefully: I MEAN WHAT I SAY, SAY WHAT I MEAN AND I DO NOT, HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT "BACK OFF" OF ANY POSITION I TAKE. Is that clear enough for you? Or is there some better way to articulate the English language so that you will understand it?

    YOUR position that the "bigger might usually makes right" philosophy you believe in is a belief that I do not share. Jesus changed the world with a mere 12 apostles; there were only 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence. On the other side of the political spectrum, Adolph Hitler damn near took over the world with a country about the size of Texas. I'm not backing off what I said. I'm telling you that my interpretation of history does NOT coincide with your claim. Samuel Adams, one of the founding fathers, had this to say regarding this aspect of our conversation:

    “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.”

    He also had this say regarding your Rights:

    “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

    This stuff is not rocket science. Your filibustering and trying to call into question the phraseology and the words the founders / framers used to express the concept of natural Rights (aka inherent, absolute, unalienable, God given, irrevocable) that were ruled to be above the law cannot alter the truth.
     
  10. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    52,402
    Likes Received:
    7,789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe English isn't your 1st language.

    You clearly stated in an earlier post, that life, is a Natural right. You and I agree on this.
    For me, it ends there. Done.
    That is clear enough. So don't go changing that but saying Life is not a right if one can't protect their possessions.
    I've never said one's possession can't be protected, they're just not a Natural right. It's not rocket science.

    What some person said about rights 200+ yrs ago is no more relevance than someone today.
    Without the gov't, those rights can not exist. There are many countries the world over that don't have those rights being claimed. They must be granted and enforcement against those violations will be dealt with by said gov't.

    All those rights by the founders are legal rights. They granted them, the gov't grants and enforces them.
     
  11. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Sir, I have been IN this fight probably since before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye. You aren't impressing anyone with your jailhouse psychology and challenging my knowledge of the English language while your ONLY contribution to this thread is to ignore the founders, framers and court rulings that substantiate any all claims I've made.

    The courts disagree with your assessment. How many times do we need to revisit the facts? How many times do you want to be proven wrong factually? What seems to by your major malfunction? This is absolute insanity. YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY FOUNDER, FRAMER OR EARLY COURT DECISION TO CONFIRM THE NUTTY CRAP YOU POST HERE. I've provided - what 50 or more sources factually refuting your position.

    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)

    You do realize that is the ruling of the United States Supreme Court, right?
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    even wiki disagrees with you


    Natural law - Wikipedia

    Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is law as seen as being independent of, and pre-existent to, the positive law of any given political order, society or nation-state. Such genesis is seen as determined by nature (whether that reflects creation, evolution, or random chance), and a notional law of nature treated as objective fact that is universally applicable;[1] that is, it exists and is recognizable, without any dependence on human understanding, or on the positive law of any given state, political order, or legislature — and even of society at large.

    Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature in deducing binding rules of moral behavior, via (dominant or insurgent) accounts of observed and/or posited aspects of reality and of “the human condition“.

    The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to it are also to be found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and were later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. The School of Salamanca made notable contributions during the Renaissance.

    Modern natural law theories were greatly developed in the Age of Enlightenment, combining inspiration from Roman law with philosophies like social contract theory. It was used in challenging theory of the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government—and thus legal rights—in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.[citation needed]

    In the early decades of the 21st century, the concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Indeed, many philosophers, jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural rights (Latin: ius naturale), or natural justice,[3] though others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]

    Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, natural law has been claimed or attributed as a key component in the Declaration of Independence (1776) of the United States, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) of France, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) of the United Nations, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) of the Council of Europe.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2020
  13. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    52,402
    Likes Received:
    7,789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You being all over the place on rights is wishy washy.
    You don't understand Natural. More legal rulings on Natural rights. When Natural rights need no legal ruling. But legal rights need legal rulings.
    /end
     
  14. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    52,402
    Likes Received:
    7,789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't see liberty as a Natural right in there. Or pursuit of happiness.

    And they are constructs? Inspired by Roman LAW Philosophy? Sounds like they're made up by men. To be granted and enforced by men. Not natural at all.

    Else every human of Earth would have the same rights.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you have freedome of speech, arms, religion without liberty? Seems you didnt think that through very well.
    So then we can steal all your stuff burn your house and when you rebuild it start all over again, set your taxes at 97% thats obviously ok with you. Happiness is the result of not being oppressed restricted from exercising your religion, speech, ability to protect yourself and family.
    What isnt?
    You should read for context, in as much as contracts are concerned.
    thats what is sounds like huh?
    No, if you steal from someone that someone can blow you away, mess with his wife he can blow you away, walk across his grass he can blow you away, doesnt need any help for anyone to pull a trigger.
    Do you even know what natural is? Tell us?
    They do, but cant 'exercise' them due to oppression from men that enforce the opposite.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2020
    Resistance101 likes this.
  16. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    YOU do not understand Rights. Let me put this in big bold letters that even your blind, Stevie Wonder eyes can see. THE EARLY FEDERAL COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES - THOSE WHEREIN THE JUSTICES WERE NOMINATED TO THE COURTS BY PRESIDENTS THAT WERE FOUNDERS AND / OR FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION - MADE COURT RULINGS THAT DECLARE THAT UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE NATURAL, GOD GIVEN, INHERENT, IRREVOCABLE RIGHTS THAT ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND THAT GOVERNMENT DID NOT, REPEAT DID NOT CREATE NOR GRANT.

    This thread is now 38 pages long and there is not one, single, solitary thing you have posted that changes the bottom line. It does not matter whether you like it or not; believe it or not; accept it or not. Those are the FACTS and no amount of filibustering, bluffing, or posting your opinion can ever change the original intent of the founders / framers.

    "If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  17. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    These guys who want to argue about this every single day have taken this thread to the brink of insanity. Here is some food for thought.

    In layman terms, natural and unalienable Rights are synonymous:

    https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/natural rights

    Also check this out:

    https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-natural-rights-4108952

    You'd think if those who hate and despise Liberty so much wanted to argue, they would take the time to read the FACTS and learn the English language, especially words that are synonymous.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dooooooooooooood this is only the tip of the iceberg! You want to see over the top insanity, check out the neoatheist and holocaust blather they post.
     
    Resistance101 likes this.
  19. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    26,034
    Likes Received:
    9,777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is mostly a semantic issue. "Rights" can either refer to 1) actual exercise of certain liberties, without interference or to 2) a justifiable claim to such exercises with interference being physically possible, but unjustified.

    So, the people saying, for example, that we don't have an unalienable right to life, liberty, etc. are, at least most of the time, referring to #1, as we've seen several times on this thread. What they are saying is that forces, such as the government, are physically capable of taking those liberties away, therefore they aren't unalienable rights in the #1 sense. But advocates of natural rights, including our Founding Fathers, were talking about rights in the sense of #2. They were well aware that people were physically capable of taking away those liberties, and thus violating rights, but they argued that they were not justified in doing so.

    The two sides are talking past one another, and it is likely that many of them don't even disagree when you get down to it. They are just arguing based on two completely different definitions of what a "right" is.

    However, I will continue to argue that, if rights are "God-given," then they can't be unalienable in either sense of the term, unless God is also bound by an external code of conduct that would make his interference in these rights unjustified.

    If God gave the rights of life, liberty, etc. and can justifiably take them away, then there are no unalienable rights.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2020
    dairyair likes this.
  20. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    And I would argue that since unalienable Rights are God given, he can legitimately take them away and does as promised. Maybe we're talking past one another. Humans cannot legitimately take the unalienable Rights of anyone else. As the Right is presumed to be granted by a Creator, then that Creator is the grantor of the Right and can take it any time he chooses.
     
  21. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    26,034
    Likes Received:
    9,777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And if he is jusified in doing so, then they aren't unalienable.

    Then they are only unalienable against humans actors (unless, of course, those actors are commanded by God to take away those rights). They are not actual unalienable.

    If he can, and if he can do so justifiably, then they aren't unalienable. They aren't actually rights at all. They are simply gifts given by an authority figure. If rights can be justifiably taken away by anyone, regardless of their race or supernatural status, then they aren't unalienable.

    There would be no such thing as the right to free speech or freedom of religion (and I'd argue that the Bible agrees with you on this point): there is only the patience God shows for such exercise, and he can command his followers to take it away at any time, or take it away himself.

    You are arguing or supernatural authoritarianism, not an actual philosophy of natural, unalienable rights.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2020
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    16,990
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what a statist load.

    Unalienable rights dont magically disappear because someone (gubmint or otherwise) infringes upon them or oppresses them, neither does the right to exercise them. In that case people are oppressed from exercising them.

    The constitutors had no reason to talk about a justifiable claim as this goes without saying in the legal world, so your #2 is pointless irrelevant speculation.

    Where is the dividing line on that again?
     
  23. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    52,402
    Likes Received:
    7,789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Natural. Natural. Natural rights.

    WE can have all kinds of rights the gov't grants and enforces the we the people want.
    But the right to life is the only Natural, get it, Natural right all humans have.

    I posted the definition on Natural in this thread.
    But one doesn't need a dictionary to know what Natural means. Do you?

    Occurs in Natural. Naturally.
    Life is one of those thing that occurs in Nature. Free speech is not occurring in Nature. It must be allowed.

    Yes, one can be blown away. Then might made right.
    And if there are no man made laws to deal with killing, then nothing happens to the one who did the killing. Unless another takes issue with the killing and seeks revenge.

    That's whey we have man made laws. To have a civilized world/society.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2020
  24. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    52,402
    Likes Received:
    7,789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand rights.

    But we have been talking Natural Rights.
    Not man made rights we all, or most, agree to. That the gov't allows/grants and enforces those that break or infringe on rights of others.
    Natural Rights occur Naturally.

    Nominating courts and justices is gov't. Granting, making, and enforcing rights/laws.

    Bottom line is LIFE occurs Naturally. It is the only Natural right I can think of.
     
  25. Resistance101

    Resistance101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    You are in denial of reality.
     

Share This Page