I hate to spoil your party, you two, but what you are discussing brings me back to my primary school days when maybe for the first time I did not believe and understand my teacher when he said that the exception proves the rule. I applied the same logic that you two employed - he gave me a lesson in how pattern recognition works.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 3:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Indeed that is correct Pat IMO. > > > > Woohoo!! We agree. We should celebrate. Unfortunately, I've given > up alcohol but that does NOT, as you know, mean the end of > partying. ;-) > > > On Jun 6, 2:12 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 12:46 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > I think you missed this bit Rigsy: > > > > > > 'If in reality God has grnated such rights then they would be > > > > impossible for us to live without them, it is clear that we do > though' > > > > > > Which is saying no God has not objectivly granted us rights. There > is > > > > no objective source for any rights, rights are either taken or > > > > granted, that is all. > > > > > > Justice is decided upon by the people or the lawmakers. In both of > > > > these cases the rights by which justice is decided are rights that > are > > > > taken or granted. > > > > > > I'll say it agian, there are no natural human rights, all rights are > > > > taken or granted. > > > > > The only rights that are granted are granted to all life: You Shall > > > Live and Die by the Laws of Physics. Our man-made laws can be broken > > > (and almost each of them has been), but you can't break the Laws of > > > Physics. These are the only hard and fast rules we have. God's > > > guidance being viewed as a form of 'law' is an anthropomorphic view > > > and should be disdained, as God's guidance CAN be acted against (by > > > God's Will) but not God's Laws. The Laws that God creates are those > > > that by even which God abides, as, surely, the Lawmaker has a duty to > > > uphold the Laws they make?!?! > > > > > > On Jun 5, 7:15 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It might be grounded in our biology as a fetus will pull what it > needs > > > > > from the mother in order to develop and be born unless interrupted > by > > > > > Nature or laws. > > > > > > > And in wars, each side announces God's favor for their cause. So > too, > > > > > in political systems, though it is masked. > > > > > > > And do you really think laws are divinely motivated in various > > > > > governments? How is justice dispensed? How are rights distributed? > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 6:27 am, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nope I have to disagree OM. Now I have read the piece I find > nowt to > > > > > > make me change my mind. > > > > > > > > From what source do such rights stem? > > > > > > > > My stance is grounded in our history. All the rights we have now > have > > > > > > bee faught for, that is they have been taken. Once taken > progresive > > > > > > goveremtns have enshrined them in law and now they are granted. > > > > > > > > These laws, as all laws, can be changed. In which case the > granted > > > > > > rights will have been resincinded and well not have them back > again > > > > > > without 'taking' them back. > > > > > > > > There is no objective source from which such rights stem except > for > > > > > > God. If in reality God has grnated such rights then they would > be > > > > > > impossible for us to live without them, it is clear that we do > though. > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 12:11 pm, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Just reading through it now. > > > > > > > > > I find I can't agree with this bit at all: > > > > > > > > > 'In contrast to these objections, I would contend that if all > > > > > > > communities or nations on earth enjoy the same sort of autonomy > that > > > > > > > legitimates any action that they deem acceptable and can be > sustained > > > > > > > for a period of time, then the moral relativists win. There > are no > > > > > > > natural human rights, and the whole enterprise should be thrown > into > > > > > > > the gutter.' > > > > > > > > > I would ask why if it is shown that these natural human rights > do not > > > > > > > exist (which is indeed my stance) why the whole concept of them > need > > > > > > > to be thrown in the gutter? > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 7:19 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks rigsy! This is one of the best (read: accurate) > articles on the > > > > > > > > subject I've read in a long time. I feel this philosopher has > it > > > > > > > > 'right' as far as I can tell. > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 6:37 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/are-there-natural-hum... > > > > > > > > > > > I started to read the comments which are lively but I need > breakfast...- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
