Na, my dearest Lee, as long as we are talking, we cannot have lost. Thanks.

I was saying that when I was a child I would have agreed with you. That's
why it's stupid would I disagree with you now. It's part of me. As for
envying you two for your agreement, no, I don't. An emotional obstacle that
doesn't promote the understanding process.

Nixgwan!

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM, [email protected] <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Sorry Gabs you have lost me again.
>
> Are you agreeing, disagreeing?  Raging us out for our agreement?
>
>
> Wotgwan?
>
> On Jun 6, 5:07 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

Reply via email to