Or falsely assumed?
On Jun 6, 6:46 am, "[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. > > 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 -
