3
   

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 02:51 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
I have to start by expressing my initial reaction to your post, which is: I really cannot understand how you feel this information constitutes PROOF that our rights are inherent and derived by endowment from nature or a god.


It is in the nature of a deductive proof. For example:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
That's a deductive proof (in the form of a syllogism) of the fact that Socrates is mortal. Were you looking for something like an inductive proof of inherent rights? Because I don't think such a thing is possible without engaging in some sort of circular argument (I won't mention that it might be begging the question).

Frank Apisa wrote:
I do not think the information given comes even close to doing that, but since you have presented it with a straight face, so to speak, I will at least attempt to share my concerns with it.


You have made it clear that you are unhappy with this, without ever specifically identifying the cause of your unhappiness. Perhaps your step-by-step approach can help us locate the problem.

Frank Apisa wrote:
You say:
Quote:
Rights are justified claims to the protection of persons' important interests. Each right has two components: the rightholder's claim or interest, and the duty of others to forbear from interfering with that claim or interest.


I would argue that "rights" are much more than that -- and at the same time, much, much less than that.


Maybe you'd like to offer your own definition?

Frank Apisa wrote:
Suppose you have a neighbor who has annoyed you -- and who appears to you to be dangerous -- a person whom you assume may one day do you harm. Using your definition of "right", you can assert a "claim" (I'll let you talk about whether it is justified or not) that in order to protect your "important interests" (your peace of mind) that person has to be removed as a potential threat -- and that you therefore have a "right" to shackle him or kill him.


I will presume that this is all taking place in the state of nature, correct?

Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you assert that you have that right?


You need to be a little clearer. When you say "that right" do you mean my right to be free from annoyance or my right to respond by killing my tormenter?

Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you assert that your neighbor has an obligation to forbear from interfering with your claim in that instance?


Again, I don't want to risk answering the wrong question here. When you say "claim" are you referring to my claim to be free from annoyance or my claim that I may kill my tormenter without interference?

Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you assert that society (the law) must forbear from interfering with your claim in that instance?


Same question as previous.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Supposing that the positions were reversed and your neighbor were in fear of you -- would you feel an obligatin to forbear from interfering with his claim that you are a threat to his important interests -- and he therefore has to kill you?


This is very confusing. An obligation to forebear from interfering with his peace and quiet, or an obligation to respect his right to kill me? You'll have to make this clearer.

I'm not being intentionally difficult here, Frank, but we need to have some clarity in our terms before we can ever hope to discuss this in an intelligent manner.

Let me try to help you out here. If I have a right to "peace of mind," then everyone else has an obligation to refrain from interfering with that right. If I feel that somebody might be a threat (as in your first hypothetical), I can take whatever steps are justified to insure that my right is protected within the limits of my rights. I cannot, however, punish someone (assuming this is in a state of nature and I have not ceded my right to punish to the state) for what they might do, since the person who is a potential threat has neither violated my right (or, more specifically, infringed upon my claim) nor violated his obligation to refrain from infringing on my rights.

There is, in other words, no right to engage in pre-emptive strikes to preserve rights. In the state of nature, I have a right to protect my rights from actual infringement and I have a right to punish those who have infringed those rights. I cannot, however, justifiably punish someone in advance on the assumption that an infringement will likely occur. Such a pre-emptive strike would, itself, be an infringement of that person's rights.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 03:21 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
You say:
Quote:
Rights are justified claims to the protection of persons' important interests. Each right has two components: the rightholder's claim or interest, and the duty of others to forbear from interfering with that claim or interest.


I would argue that "rights" are much more than that -- and at the same time, much, much less than that.


Maybe you'd like to offer your own definition?



I wouldn't mind offering my own definition, but I doubt that you would buy it any more than I am buying your definition.

Let me give it a try:

Rights are those freedoms of action and activity that are codified by governments or societies either by expressedly granting the freedoms or by placing restrictions on the government's right to legislate against a class of actions or activities.

Joe, I don't pretend that this is a finished definition -- but it might be a start.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that this definition recognizes that the "right" is not really a right until it is secured. And of course, that goes against the grain of the argument you have been presenting.

And perhaps that is at the nub of our disagreement. Your perspective sees rights as some idealized concept -- where my perspective sees rights as tangible items.


Allow me to go back to your definition and the hypothetical I proposed.

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Suppose you have a neighbor who has annoyed you -- and who appears to you to be dangerous -- a person whom you assume may one day do you harm. Using your definition of "right", you can assert a "claim" (I'll let you talk about whether it is justified or not) that in order to protect your "important interests" (your peace of mind) that person has to be removed as a potential threat -- and that you therefore have a "right" to shackle him or kill him.


I will presume that this is all taking place in the state of nature, correct?


No! It is taking place in the state of New Jersey. :wink:



Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you assert that you have that right?


You need to be a little clearer. When you say "that right" do you mean my right to be free from annoyance or my right to respond by killing my tormenter?


Neither. I mean the right "to protect your important interests."



Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you assert that your neighbor has an obligation to forbear from interfering with your claim in that instance?


Again, I don't want to risk answering the wrong question here. When you say "claim" are you referring to my claim to be free from annoyance or my claim that I may kill my tormenter without interference?


Neither! I mean your right "to protect your important interests."



Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you assert that society (the law) must forbear from interfering with your claim in that instance?


Same question as previous.


Same answer as previous.

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Supposing that the positions were reversed and your neighbor were in fear of you -- would you feel an obligatin to forbear from interfering with his claim that you are a threat to his important interests -- and he therefore has to kill you?


This is very confusing. An obligation to forebear from interfering with his peace and quiet, or an obligation to respect his right to kill me? You'll have to make this clearer.


I will assume that by now, you get the picture.

Quote:
I'm not being intentionally difficult here, Frank, but we need to have some clarity in our terms before we can ever hope to discuss this in an intelligent manner.


I never for a moment suspect that you are being intentionally difficult. I think we are embarked on one of those philosophical discussions that has no answer -- and we (at least I am) should enjoy the back and forth/give and take.

And I agree completely that the only way to deal with the discussion intelligently is to be as sure as we can of what the other person is saying.

Quote:
Let me try to help you out here. If I have a right to "peace of mind," then everyone else has an obligation to refrain from interfering with that right. If I feel that somebody might be a threat (as in your first hypothetical), I can take whatever steps are justified to insure that my right is protected within the limits of my rights.



How is your right "to protect your important interests" -- limited? Who or what limits it?


Quote:
I cannot, however, punish someone (assuming this is in a state of nature and I have not ceded my right to punish to the state) for what they might do, since the person who is a potential threat has neither violated my right (or, more specifically, infringed upon my claim) nor violated his obligation to refrain from infringing on my rights.

There is, in other words, no right to engage in pre-emptive strikes to preserve rights. In the state of nature, I have a right to protect my rights from actual infringement and I have a right to punish those who have infringed those rights. I cannot, however, justifiably punish someone in advance on the assumption that an infringement will likely occur. Such a pre-emptive strike would, itself, be an infringement of that person's rights.


I stayed away from the notion of punishment completely and intentionally. Nothing I said in my hypothetical went to the question of punishment. It was all directed toward your supposed right (per your definition of rights) to protect your important interests.

And it contained a few questions about the notion of the second ingedient in your definitiion.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 03:22 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
No, that's quite sufficient. In fact, your definition relieves me of any need to respond to the other points you raised in your post. You attempt to prove that rights are societal in nature. If "a right is anything granted by society," then rights are, by your definition, societal in nature. In other words, you assume that which you attempt to prove. This is a classic petitio principii, i.e. begging the question. Your position rests on a logical fallacy. It is, therefore, meaningless: there is no need to examine it further.


In other words, you can't respond so you take the chicken's way out and ignore it. That's fine, it's what we've come to expect.

As Frank said though, where's your much-claimed proof? Everyone else can provide it, why can't you?
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 03:25 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
There was an agreement to wear clothes? I must have missed that.


Try running around naked in public and see where it gets you. Of course there was an agreement that everyone had to wear clothes.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 03:27 pm
joe's claim that that is a logical fallacy is absurd. He himself defines rights as inherent in nature. Yet I'd not call his argument begging the question unless he refuses to support it in any other way than his definition (this is why you SHOULD try joe).

Now the societal rights group has supported their arguments.

We can demonstrate righst ceded by society etc etc.

The societal arguments would only be the begging question fallacy if we depended only on our definition of rights being societal to assert that rights are societal.

We have not done so once. And frankly I am sick of people learning a list of logical fallacies and applying them to their every opponent in an argument. There is actually a criteria for them and it's not a rhetorical tool. Joe is using it in the sense that he thinks it's a good tool in debate, not because he understands and correctly applies them.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 03:32 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
[t is in the nature of a deductive proof. For example:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.


That's all well and good, but it's not really what you're trying to state. You're closer to:

Socrates is mortal.
All men are mortal.
Therefore, all men are Socrates.

Quote:
That's a deductive proof (in the form of a syllogism) of the fact that Socrates is mortal. Were you looking for something like an inductive proof of inherent rights? Because I don't think such a thing is possible without engaging in some sort of circular argument (I won't mention that it might be begging the question).


Your argument is inherently circular. You've claimed that all men want to live. I've pointed out that you're wrong, not all men want to live. There are quite a few who, through direct or indirect action indicate that they don't want to live. That's where your argument falls apart. At best, you can claim that men who wish to live have a stake in living and thus want the right to life. People who are out to kill themselves or are otherwise self-destructive certainly don't demonstrate that desire. As it is irrational to say that because SOME men want the right to life, *ALL* men must, by definition, inherently have it, natural rights, at least using your model, must be discarded logically.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 08:14 pm
Corollary 2a. A person has an interest in the means by which that person's life may be preserved. It would be an empty claim if I asserted an interest in my life but did not assert an interest in those things (e.g. food, shelter, etc.) that allow my life to be preserved.

Is that interest a characteristic of that person's nature?
Or,
Is that interest a characteristic of that person's society?

If it be characteristic of that person's nature, is that interest intrinsic/inherent to that person, or is it intrinsic/inherent to that person's society?

If it be characteristic of that person's society is that interest intrinsic/inherent to society, or is it intrinsic/inherent to persons?

If that interest not be intrinsic/inherent to either the person or the person's society, then is it intrinsic/inherent to anything else?

If that interest is intrinsic/inherent to either the person or the person's society, then is it an intrinsic/inherent characteristic?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 08:44 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
The societal arguments would only be the begging question fallacy if we depended only on our definition of rights being societal to assert that rights are societal.

We have not done so once. And frankly I am sick of people learning a list of logical fallacies and applying them to their every opponent in an argument. There is actually a criteria for them and it's not a rhetorical tool. Joe is using it in the sense that he thinks it's a good tool in debate, not because he understands and correctly applies them.


Cephus wrote:
Your argument is inherently circular. You've claimed that all men want to live. I've pointed out that you're wrong, not all men want to live. There are quite a few who, through direct or indirect action indicate that they don't want to live. That's where your argument falls apart. At best, you can claim that men who wish to live have a stake in living and thus want the right to life. People who are out to kill themselves or are otherwise self-destructive certainly don't demonstrate that desire. As it is irrational to say that because SOME men want the right to life, *ALL* men must, by definition, inherently have it, natural rights, at least using your model, must be discarded logically.


I had mentioned earlier, in response to one of Frank's posts, that I would remain in the discussion as long as it held my interest. I'm afraid that, after posts such as the ones above, my interest has quickly evaporated.

I participate in these kinds of message boards strictly for my own benefit: I find that engaging in intellectual discussions tends to hone my intellectual skills, focus my thoughts, and define my philosophic positions. I certainly don't do it for anyone else's benefit -- although if anyone gets something from my posts, well, so much the better.

It is clear, though, that not only am I not helping anyone else, I'm not even helping myself. Trying to engage in a discussion, grounded in deductive reasoning, with people who can't even grasp the simplest notions of logic, is tiresome and uninteresting. More importantly, I don't get anything out of it that could ever compensate me for the frustration I've experienced and the time I've wasted.

I owe Frank a response, and then I'll be done with this thread. I suppose the only thing left for me to do, then, is to issue the standard conclusion used by others here: "you're wrong, I'm right, you're a chicken, I win."
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 08:59 pm
Joe it has nothing to do with "winning" or "losing".

You alledged that people here employed logical fallacy.

You did this by a dishonest method:

They argued that rights are societal.

Later in the dicussion you ask them how they define rights.

When they define rights as a societal endowment you allege the 'begging the question' fallacy which would have meant that their arguments were entirely based on their own definition.

This was simply not the case, many have made a good faith effort to explain their arguments and nobody relied exclusively on their own definition as evidence.

You are now bowing out with parting shots that persons here do not grasp logic without substantiating the claim or addressing the arguments that were posited against your earlier arguments and your earlier accusations of fallacy.

This is not a case of winning or losing. It's a case of intellectual dishonesty. You do not wish to substantiate your allegations about other members.

I can perfectly understand if you are weary of a wordy discussion and wish to bow out. This doesn't mean you are a "chicken". But you show intellectual dishonesty by refusing to substantiate your opinion and furthermore adding parting shots that you will, of course, not substantiate either. You are using the exit as a staging ground for barbs under the convenient umbrella of not having to defend their veracity.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 09:14 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Rights are those freedoms of action and activity that are codified by governments or societies either by expressedly granting the freedoms or by placing restrictions on the government's right to legislate against a class of actions or activities.


Under this definition, "inherent rights" are impossible. So of course inherent rights cannot exist, if that's the definition you use for "rights." I hesitate to say this, but it's just one more example of begging the question. You use a definition of "rights" that includes the notion of "codification by government," and then you use that definition to show that inherent rights are impossible. But that's already implied in the definition.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Joe, I don't pretend that this is a finished definition -- but it might be a start.


Sorry, Frank, it's just another dead-end.

Frank Apisa wrote:
The difficulty, as I see it, is that this definition recognizes that the "right" is not really a right until it is secured. And of course, that goes against the grain of the argument you have been presenting.


Not against the grain. It goes against logic.

Frank Apisa wrote:
And perhaps that is at the nub of our disagreement. Your perspective sees rights as some idealized concept -- where my perspective sees rights as tangible items.


Well, perhaps that's the fairest way to put it. If the only things that are "rights" are those things that are sanctioned by governments, then inherent rights are simply impossible -- under that definition, saying there are "natural rights" would be akin to saying that there are "natural zoning ordinances" or "natural tax codes."

Frank Apisa wrote:
No! It is taking place in the state of New Jersey. :wink:


I've been to New Jersey. It's the closest thing we have to a Hobbesian state of nature :wink:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Neither. I mean the right "to protect your important interests."


OK, I think I follow you.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you assert that your neighbor has an obligation to forbear from interfering with your claim in that instance?


Does my neighbor have the obligation to forebear from interfering with my right to protect my rights? Yes, up to the point at which my act of protecting my rights goes beyond merely protection and intrudes upon his right. To illustrate: if I deem it necessary, as a means of protecting my right to "peace of mind," to have a wall around my property, then I am entitled to do that, and my neighbor is obligated not to interfere. If I build that wall so that it encroaches on my neighbor's property, however, I have infringed on his rights, and I cannot claim that my right to safeguard my own interests is superior to his right to enjoy his property.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you assert that society (the law) must forbear from interfering with your claim in that instance?


Yes.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Supposing that the positions were reversed and your neighbor were in fear of you -- would you feel an obligatin to forbear from interfering with his claim that you are a threat to his important interests -- and he therefore has to kill you?


Well, I'm not exactly sure how someone has a right to be free from fear, but if there is a right there, then I am obligated to refrain from infringing upon it.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I never for a moment suspect that you are being intentionally difficult. I think we are embarked on one of those philosophical discussions that has no answer -- and we (at least I am) should enjoy the back and forth/give and take.


Frank, you've always been fair, and I appreciate that.

Frank Apisa wrote:
How is your right "to protect your important interests" -- limited? Who or what limits it?


Everyone has the right to punish transgressions against rights (that was Corollary 3 in my proof). Locke believed that punishment can only go so far (I had previously provided the relevant quotation -- I won't expend the effort to find it now): presumably, at the point where the punishment is sufficient to vindicate the right, it must stop, and any further punishment is itself a violation of the offender's rights.

For mere acts of protection, rather than punishment, the right goes to the limits of the right and no farther. For instance, I can protect my right to privacy by building a wall around my property -- I cannot prevent everyone from approaching within 100 miles of me (unless I own all the property in a 100-mile radius). I can protect my right only to the extent that, by doing so, I don't infringe on anyone else's right.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I stayed away from the notion of punishment completely and intentionally. Nothing I said in my hypothetical went to the question of punishment. It was all directed toward your supposed right (per your definition of rights) to protect your important interests.


I hope I've answered your questions.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2003 09:16 pm
ican711nm wrote:

Is that interest a characteristic of that person's nature?
Or,
Is that interest a characteristic of that person's society?


Neither. You are trying to slip nature past the more 'choosable' option. but I only say neither because I partially disagree. I think the desire/interest is largely intristic.

ican711nm wrote:
If it be characteristic of that person's nature, is that interest intrinsic/inherent to that person, or is it intrinsic/inherent to that person's society?


Tricksical ican. In any case I agree with the next steps in this path you are leading us down.

ican711nm wrote:
If it be characteristic of that person's society is that interest intrinsic/inherent to society, or is it intrinsic/inherent to persons?


The interest (note, not rights, which are the codification of sometimes varying interests) I hold to be intristic 'to persons'.

ican711nm wrote:
If that interest not be intrinsic/inherent to either the person or the person's society, then is it intrinsic/inherent to anything else?


This is just a speedbump for those trying to veer of your path. ;-)

ican711nm wrote:
If that interest is intrinsic/inherent to either the person or the person's society, then is it an intrinsic/inherent characteristic?


I think so. In this we appear to have some common ground.

This may be where the two camps meet for a beer. I have no qualm with the attempt to portray the interest in certain rights (especially those related to survival) as inherent, intristic or what have you. I do believe that the rights only exist once those inherent desires (plus a few others thrown into the mix) are put to a quorum (determined entirely by power in the society) and codified or recognized as rights.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 09:25 am
joefromchicago wrote:
I participate in these kinds of message boards strictly for my own benefit: I find that engaging in intellectual discussions tends to hone my intellectual skills, focus my thoughts, and define my philosophic positions. I certainly don't do it for anyone else's benefit -- although if anyone gets something from my posts, well, so much the better.


Funny, I thought the purpose in participating in a debate forum was to debate, not to edify your own ego.

Quote:
It is clear, though, that not only am I not helping anyone else, I'm not even helping myself. Trying to engage in a discussion, grounded in deductive reasoning, with people who can't even grasp the simplest notions of logic, is tiresome and uninteresting. More importantly, I don't get anything out of it that could ever compensate me for the frustration I've experienced and the time I've wasted.


The problem here is that you're claiming deductive reasoning, but when the errors in your reasoning and assumptions are pointed out, instead of changing them, you simply become annoyed and defensive. Repeating the same flawed argument over and over again does not strengthen it or correct the errors. In that way, you're not much different than the theists who can only see things through the eyes of their religion, they simply cannot change their position because their entire worldview will come crashing down around their ears. If you're hoping to have people simply fall over themselves telling you that you're right, I'm afraid you're in for a shock and disappointment.

Quote:
I owe Frank a response, and then I'll be done with this thread. I suppose the only thing left for me to do, then, is to issue the standard conclusion used by others here: "you're wrong, I'm right, you're a chicken, I win."


I'm hardly surprised by this, it's standard operating procedure for most theists. Show up, make your claims, if people don't think what you've said is the best thing since sliced bread, run for the hills with your tail tucked firmly between your legs.

Victory in a debate is based on who best supports their arguments, and as I'm sure you'll realize, I don't think anyone here thinks you've supported your arguments well at all. Declaring your views to be true, based on flawed assumptions, simply doesn't impress anyone. I'll leave it to the participants to decide exactly who has won and who has lost.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 03:16 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
If that interest is intrinsic/inherent to either the person or the person's society, then is it an intrinsic/inherent characteristic?


I think so. In this we appear to have some common ground.

This may be where the two camps meet for a beer. I have no qualm with the attempt to portray the interest in certain rights (especially those related to survival) as inherent, intristic or what have you. I do believe that the rights only exist once those inherent desires (plus a few others thrown into the mix) are put to a quorum (determined entirely by power in the society) and codified or recognized as rights.


I have encountered a preponderance of evidence that, generally, living organisms possess a so-called instinct for survival. Is it logical to call an organism's instinct an intrinsic/inherent trait, attribute or characteristic?

It is self-evident to me that the instincts of living organisms, whatever the living organisms are and whatever the instincts are, are intrinsic/inherent traits, attributes or characteristics. That is my axiom.

I have encountered a preponderance of evidence that, generally, some living organisms possess a so-called altruistic instinct. Is it logical to call an organism's instinct an intrinsic/inherent trait, attribute or characteristic?

I say again, it is self-evident to me that the instincts of living organisms, whatever the living organisms are and whatever the instincts are, are intrinsic/inherent traits, attributes or characteristics. Again, that is my axiom.

I don't think it a stretch to infer that an individual human's interest in survival and an individual human's interest in altruism (when such exists) is an intrinsic/inherent trait of that individual.

I hypothesize that those human intrinsic/inherent traits plus the intrinsic/inherent ability of humans to think, lead many humans inexorably to the conclusion they can satisfy their intrinsic/inherent traits to survive and to be altruistic by seeking acknowledgment by all honorable humans that each human has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Once that acknowledgment is supported by a sufficient number of honorable individuals, those individuals are ready to begin organizing the means to secure those rights against their possible infringement by dishonorable humans.

So which came first? Did government security of human rights come first? I think not. Did human acknowledgement of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness come first? I think not. Did the human instincts for survival plus altruism, and their ability to think come first? I think yes, and that was followed by their desire for rights which was followed by their desire for security of those rights.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 03:26 pm
ican, you are now on ground that I can share and perhaps picnic on.

I have already agreed and argued that the nature of our desire is intristic. What you label altruism I'd label differently but not disagree as to the inherent factor.

Furthermore i agree in that human recognition of righst predates codification in terms of laws etc. you will note that I was careful to include arguments about the recognition of rights and not just the legal codification of them.

And in that i think the ideologies merge. I have already ceded that the desire and instinct that is intristic to man is the foundation of rights. Will you cede that while this foundation is intristic the rights themseves are not? That they are a contructed manifestation of intristic elements of human nature?

Frank phrased an argument I made in passing much better than I did. I mentioned the desire to "sanctify" rights when Frank used teh comparison between idealistic and tangible.

That's a digression worthy of a hole new thread but I just wanted to give Frank kudos for articulated an argument i'd touched on more clearly than i had.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 03:46 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Will you cede that while this foundation is intristic the rights themseves are not? That they are a contructed manifestation of intristic elements of human nature?


Yes! (Thanks to this forum, I learned despite myself Laughing )

These constructions you mentioned when acknowledged and advertised by a sufficiently influential group can and have been the catalyst for instituting government or changes to government that secures these rights. The 13th Amendment is an excellent example of instituting a change to government. The Declaration made it too painfully clear that all men meant all mankind, all human beings. Eventually the securing of liberty and the ending of slavery and involuntary servitude for all human beings was compelled by individual intrinsic/inherent traits to survive and to be altruistic.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 03:59 pm
Kewl, not much more to discuss then though. I haven't follwed your next step in regard to domestic US politics.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 04:08 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Kewl, not much more to discuss then though. I haven't follwed your next step in regard to domestic US politics.


What follows is a status report of my forum: DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ... ?

Strangely, no one participating in this forum, thus far, has provided any argument whatsoever that refutes my argument that it is illegal for the federal government to transfer money from one group and give it to another.

Strangely, no one participating in this forum, thus far, has provided any argument whatsoever that refutes my argument that it is illegal for the federal government to tax individual dollars of income/revenue differently according to the circumstances in which they were received.

I think I'll collect my arguments into a contiguous set of sequential posts to make it easier to find all its parts.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 04:09 pm
Maybe I should have said "not much more for ME to discuss". I haven't had time to follow the subsequent thread.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 04:10 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Kewl, not much more to discuss then though. I haven't follwed your next step in regard to domestic US politics.


What follows is a status report of my forum: DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ... ?

Strangely, no one participating in this forum, thus far, has provided any argument whatsoever that refutes my argument that it is illegal for the federal government to transfer money from one group and give it to another.

Strangely, no one participating in this forum, thus far, has provided any argument whatsoever that refutes my argument that it is illegal for the federal government to tax individual dollars of income/revenue differently according to the circumstances in which they were received.

I think I'll collect my arguments into a contiguous set of sequential posts to make it easier to find all its parts.

Y'all are invited to scrutinize my arguments and come up with your own counter (or supplementary) arguments.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2003 04:44 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Kewl, not much more to discuss then though. I haven't follwed your next step in regard to domestic US politics.


What follows is a status report of my forum: DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ... ?

Strangely, no one participating in this forum, thus far, has provided any argument whatsoever that refutes my argument that it is illegal for the federal government to transfer money from one group and give it to another.

Strangely, no one participating in this forum, thus far, has provided any argument whatsoever that refutes my argument that it is illegal for the federal government to tax individual dollars of income/revenue differently according to the circumstances in which they were received.

I think I'll collect my arguments into a contiguous set of sequential posts to make it easier to find all its parts.

Y'all are invited to scrutinize my arguments and come up with your own counter (or supplementary) arguments.


What you are saying is not "strange" as you suggest -- but wrong.

I have provided argument against your assertions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 10:35:10