Rich ppl have access to money and resources we never will

Rights are as tangible as language. Neither is subjective.

Utter garbage. Law is NOTHING BUT an attempt to codify right and wrong, and laws are not changed unless they are thought to be wrong.

More garbage. People don't change laws because they "feel differently." They might get divorced because they feel differently, or change their hairstyle because they feel differently, but changing a law requires a conviction that the existing law is wrong.

 

Absolutely. The business pages are full of stories about crooks who made a ton of dough.

 

It has been this way since human commerce first began. It will always be this way.

Read "Atlas Shrugged" and you will see what I mean.

 

I just wish there could be something done about this.

 

Anyone who has more money and resources than you had access to more money and resources than you.. What a pointless statement.

 

Rights are not as tangible as language. A right is a belief...and language is a form of communication. Communication is neccessary...beliefs are not.

Right and wrong are subjective. A law is an attempt to codify a subjective opinion.

They change laws because they have changed their subjective opinion on the matter and now wish to change the law.

 

Rights are not beliefs. They are societal undertakings. You are just wrong.

Right and wrong are not subjective. You are just wrong.

No, that's just more wrong garbage.

 

What would make a society undertake such a thing? A mass belief in something being right or wrong perhaps?

Prove that they are not subjective. Cannabalism is still practiced in some cultures...they obviously have a subjective belief that this is ok to do.

Nope, you are wrong...and spew garbage.

 

Are you saying a tree falling in the woods does not make a sound if no one is there to hear it?

 

I am saying that if nobody heard it...does it matter? For all intents and purposes it might as well have not made a sound if nobody heard it.

 

Ok. But just to be clear we do know it makes a sound?

 

What does it matter, and how do you know?

Its a philosophical question that doesn't require an answer like you are seeking.

 

The laws of physics don't change in the absence of humans. You brought it up not me..

 

Talk about spewing garbage. Think about the logic you are trying to argue.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it does make a sound. So in attempting to invalidate the point, you actually defended it.

As for the "Nothing is real until someone makes it real." statement.

Does that mean that atoms didn't exist until they were discovered? Galileo created the other planets in the solar system? What exists exists whether or not people realize it is there. Knowledge doesn't create, it just brings awareness of what already existed.

Natural rights have always existed. They are not exclusive to humans either, they are true of all living creatures.

The right to life - a person has the right to live and to perpetuate that life in any manner that they can. This is true unless someone takes that right to them.

The right to liberty is simply an extension of the right to life - the freedom to support and continue the right to life as best you can.

The right to property - what is mine is mine unless it is given or taken away.

These rights have always existed, even before someone bothered to analyze them or write them down. Animals have the same rights, even animals that probably don't realize they have those rights.

Rights exist, whether or not they are realized.

 

No, he has evidence of how society sanctions violations of those rights.

That is probably so, but in a subtle way. And natural rights are much more problematic than legal or effective rights, which clearly have objective existence.

 

<sigh> A mass belief based on...nothing whatever?

I already have.

Even if that were true, which is unlikely, it's more than subjective belief.

No, I am indisputably correct as a matter of objective fact.

There was no universe before people? Then where did the people come from?

Your spew of garbage is self-refuting.

 

1) If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound, it only causes a vibration that would be translated by someone's nervous system into the sensation of sound if one were present; but there isn't, so it doesn't.

1a) Unless trees can hear, in which case the question is impossible unless it's a deaf tree falling in a forest of deaf trees.

2) Rights are metaphysical. They only exist to the extent that you can (and will) insist upon them.

3) Wasabi cheese is awesome! I just discovered this and wanted to share that with someone. I was typing this post, hence, you were selected. You could say that you have a right to not be selected, but you can't prevent it, therefore your right is purely imaginary and not practical.

 

Sound is the term for vibrations traveling through an elastic medium. Sound doesn't require an observer to be a sound.

Although I have to admit it is fun reading the foolishness of your posts. I'm sure a lot of other observers get a kick out of seeing what kind of ignorance you will post next.

 

Also, eggs greatly predate chickens. Dinosaurs and fish laid eggs long before chickens ever came along.

And having your cake and eating it, too? Pretty easy -- just don't eat all your cake.

You're just upset because you don't think you heard this from a rich person.

 

Sound exists without being perceived, just like anything else.

Silliness. Rights can be legal, societal, or hypothetical, but they are not metaphysical.

No, rights also exist for people who are unable to insist upon them, like children, mental defectives, etc.

 

No. Vibration exists, like curves, as arguably as any other physical phenomenon. But sound is like beauty, it only exists in one's perception.

The hypothetical is not necessarily metaphysical, but the societal and the legal are both metaphysical. Rights are like Shakespeare, immeasurable and invaluable.

We are all mentally defective children.

 

That has been known false for centuries.

No, they aren't.

Speak for yourself....

 

You are missing the entire point. Things are what people percieve them to be. Things only change when sufficient evidence is brought to bear to change the global perception of what something is. Human perception is far more powerful than any kind of objective truth you think exists in the world.

Explain please.

Who or what grants this right?

Who or what grants/protects this right?

Same question as above.

Really? Where is the animal court of law that prosecutes the Male lion that kills the cubs of his rivals, when taking over a pride? Rights are a subjective thing that exist only because there are people willing to protect them because of a belief.

Based on what that society values.

No, you have not.

look it up, it is most definately true. How exactly is it more than subjective belief?

So you assert.

In the realm of human beings, does it matter if something exists outside of our knowledge? If so, please explain why that matters. I could have cancer right now, but it does not matter if I have cancer if I do not know about it. It is only when I know about it that it becomes a cause for concern...or "real" if you prefer.

How do you figure? What century was that proven false in?

 

Reality is, whether or not people percieve it. Perception doesn't create reality, that is what makes it reality.

By this logic, the earth was actually flat until a majority of people believed it was round.

Rights can't be granted, only taken away. Rights are an extension of the nature of life.

You don't grant a sparrow the right to sing. The sparrow sings because it is a sparrow.

You don't grant people the right to live their lives. Living your life is part of being alive. That right can be taken, but never granted.

The same is true of all real natural rights. They are part of the nature of being alive. None can be granted, but all may be taken or given away.