On Jun 8, 2:44 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Is the right to use your intelect to draw conclusions really a right? > > Naaa I would not have thought so. >
Ahh, but that's not exactly what I said. I said, "you have the granted right to misinterpret the truth at your leisure". Drawing conclusions is, though, the larger part of thinking. Do we not have the appearance of the right to think? The truth, of course, is that our thoughts are God's and we're just multiprocessors with differing firmware. But it might take an IT guru to fully grasp that analogy. > On Jun 8, 1:46 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 8, 9:50 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Umm now that is a question. > > > > If I assume that I have right and the reality is that I have not taken > > > it or been granted it, is it a right at all? > > > > I think I would have to say no, so yes rights can be falsely assumed. > > > Well, you have the granted right to misinterpret the truth at your > > leisure. That is, based on the environment in which you've been > > placed, you can, due to your intelligence, draw conclusions. Whether > > or not those conclusions are valid is guaranteed only by your belief > > that they are. Clear as mud? > > > > On Jun 7, 7:04 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
