ive only read a small part of this discussion, i saw freewill as a subject, freewill is the greatest nateral human right, to be yourself withoput fear of judjment, or prossicution, the world will probably never let this be , this right must be exersised from within, disregard society, law , judgment and do as you will and as you are , without fear of any kind, that is true freedom and the ultimant right , to be one with your innate nature , i think this is acchived by loveing thoughs who hate as evenly as thoughs who love, the lack of judgment of others will gain you lack of judgment from others, if you are not judged you are free to do as you will without prosicution,
On Jun 10, 12:10 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Heyup Archy, > > Yes I think I agree with you. You do know the scripture referancein > my last post was in reply to Pat's and my ongoing disagreement on > freewill, rather then anywhere on topic here? Heh heh yes I know this > thing does tend to stretch across threads with Pat and I. > > On Jun 10, 4:57 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I believe in human rights - yet they don't ground intellectually. To > > say they are social conventions is trite, and misses a lot of what we > > know of biology. Usama didn't have any at the end and any argument on > > the subject falls prey to flatulence. What of an unborn fetus, or of > > eggs and sperm that fail or are willfully destroyed. Infanticide has > > been legal in history. > > One might argue for them as a legal concept, but the farce of the HRA > > 1998 in the UK soon puts paid to such. In jail there's a big > > separation of rights and privileges. > > > Scripture may have been written by idiots and plenty in it is > > disgusting. Inventing god for the purpose of human rights really just > > leads to religious law. > > American universities are buying land in Africa and chucking farmers > > off it - we know that stinks and can guess some form of human rights > > may be behind our disgust. > > My guess is they are as 'real' as currency and the real debate is > > about what they should be and whether we'd want a world without them. > > To ground them is rationalist fantasy and one just doesn't have to. > > > On Jun 10, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Naaa Pat I think you have the reasons for my view wrong. > > > > My view is based upon my understanding of scripture. > > > > On Jun 10, 2:57 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 8, 4:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Ahh Pat yes that is not exactly what you said,I pared it down for you > > > > > and once again used differant words to say what I 'concluded' you > > > > > where saying. > > > > > > Of course as you know I'll just have to disagree with your particular > > > > > 'truth' here, perhaps after I have read your book I may not. Who > > > > > knows! > > > > > That is the key, I think. In order to judge the whole, you have to be > > > > presented with the whole. Personally, I doubt my book will change > > > > your view but that isn't because I'm incorrect bu that you are > > > > comfortable wit hyour view and not with mine. My view puts your > > > > control in the hands of God--who you should trust--but your view > > > > allows you to retain control. In my view, your opinion is related to > > > > a control issue and not reliant on any extrinsic truth at all. But, > > > > of course, that, too, is simply an opinion. In 'truth', I'm not sure > > > > I really know you THAT well to fairly state what I've just > > > > stated. ;-) > > > > > I.e., I mean no offence and please take it with a huge grain of > > > > metaphorical salt!!! > > > > > > On Jun 8, 4:33 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
