ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Joe;

re your post containing:
" I have regrettably violated that policy here. So don't take it personally, ReDHoRN, if I don't respond to any of your infantile pipsqueaks in the future: after all, I only ignore you because I like you!"

that's 'bilge' if you wish to be demeaning, do it elswhere!

you won't gain points around here with such arrogance.

0 Replies

YEAH VILLAGE MORON THAT ARGUES WITH EVERYONE! Laughing

Stupid is as stupid does! I know you are but what am I? Dont take it offensively, if im a intellectual midget then your my intellectual Penis!

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Ican -- that's a colloquial (4th) definition of religion. "Drinking is my religion!" That kind of thing. In a real conversation which is about religion, stick to the real definition, okay?

More "denial" Question

It is not a "colloqual" definition of religion. On the contrary, I think it is a generic definition of religion. I checked three dictionaries to determine if that definition were labeled in any one or more <colloquial>. It is not. Not in anyone of them.

In my Webster's 2662 page Third New (1962) International Dictionary,

Religion definition "7a: a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith".

I quote this now, because I want you to understand that at least as far back as 1962, definition 7a was not labeled colloquial.

You are of course free to reject this definition. But make no mistake, when I use the word <religion>, definition 7a is exactly what I mean. I consider it the more general, the more accurate and especially the more honest definition. There are a great many folks who think that merely because they believe (i.e., have faith) God does not exist that they are not religious. I claim such people are in deed religious if they hold "with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith" that God does not exist. If they have sufficient valid data to support their belief, then, of course, I will admit their belief is not based strictly on faith and is therefore not a religion.

Yes, just as the various forms of theism are religions, so are some forms of atheism and some forms of agnosticism religions. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Given the ongoing religious debates in these discussions, it might indeed be wise to be clear and concise in one's definition of religion. Anything else is sheer pettifoggery. Arguing for the sake of argument. Also known as maliagaring.

Also we haven't discussed the category of people who would describe themselves (though perhaps more politely) as those who don't give a damn whether god exists or not but who nod and smile at those who do, not wishing to upset them.

0 Replies

But probably don't invite them to dinner terribly often.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

When I assert that rights are absolute and non-contingent, I mean the existence of a right is not dependent on who has them AND is not dependent on the circumstances in which anyone lives AND is not dependent on who or what claimed, bestode, granted, endowed, acknowledged, gave, yielded, tolerated, or assumed that right. All that is necessary is that any claim of a right shall coexist with an unconditional toleration by the claimant of anyone's possession of that same right, regardless of anyone's circumstances.

So you agree that a "right" only exists when people claim it AND tolerate it in others? By what twisted logic does that make it "absolute"?

The Founding Fathers did not tolerate the "right to life" of enemy soldiers. They did not tolerate the "right to liberty" of slaves, either their own slaves or those of others. They did not tolerate the "right to pursuit of happiness" by women.

So these "rights" were not absolute even by your own definition. The FFs believed that they were contingent on circumstance and gender.

At one time the English tolerated certain "rights" conferred at birth by the nobility of your parents. Kings and their descendents had the right to rule the country. Nobles had more rights than peasants. The Founding Fathers sought to change the status quo in order to validate the takeover of the government by non-nobility. They saw no need to grant those alleged rights to anyone other than themselves and their ilk.

The "right" to liberty was not recognized for slaves for ¾ of a century after the FFs wrote the D of I. Women in the US did not have the "right" to vote for almost one and a half centuries (1920!) and were still practically excluded from many occupational fields when I was growing up.

This country does not recognize any inherent "right" of its citizens to pursue happiness by using drugs, engaging in certain sexual practices, or gambling. It does not recognize the "right" of aliens to freely immigrate to this country in order to pursue happiness. It did not recognize the "right" to life of German and Japanese civilians bombed during WWII or the "right" to liberty of its citizens of Japanese ancestry who were sent to internment camps.

In spite of the noble intentions of the FFs, human beings are NOT created equal. Some are smarter, stronger, bigger, healthier, better-looking, and born into better social conditions, and they tend to obtain more recognition of their "rights." Throughout history some people have demanded and received "rights" based on heritage, religion, gender, strength or guile, such as claiming that God created some races/castes and women to be subservient.

Neither nature nor God recognize the "right to life" of a child with non-survivable birth defects or a fatal disease. Criminals and psychopaths do not have an inherent right to liberty. The supposed "right to pursue happiness" is meaningless to people with certain personality disorders or depression.

While people are not "created" equal, I believe that there should be universal recognition of certain mutual rights and responsibilities which can be summed up as "live and let live."

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Religion definition "7a: a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith". ... But make no mistake, when I use the word <religion>, definition 7a is exactly what I mean. I consider it the more general, the more accurate and especially the more honest definition.

ican, there is a reason why this is definition SEVEN and not ONE: it is NOT the general definition of "religion", but a less common ALTERNATE usage of the WORD.

For instance, suffrage is defined as: 1a. The right or privilege of voting; franchise. b. The exercise of such a right. 2. A vote cast in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office. 3. A short intercessory prayer.

If we are discussing the right of women to vote, definition 3 does not apply. When we are discussing religion here, everyone else is using the first definition:

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

I don't know what problem you have with this definition. but suggest that you stick to the common usage in order to facilitate communication.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I do have a belief, central to my being, that is imbedded in my argument: All men/women (humans) are created equal. My argument about inalienable rights flows from that. If someone can separate the two in a way that makes sense to me, I would change my mind.

My contention is not rooted in religion.

Then you must show more than just a "belief" in equality; you must provide some foundation for that belief. Otherwise, it is no less metaphysical than another's belief that God imbued everyone with unalienable rights.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

It is in our Enlightened Mutual Self-interest (EMS ) for our posterity to thrive (i.e., live long, healthfully, honorably and prosperously) for the full term of existence of our observable/inferable universe (OOU).

I have no problem with that.

ican711nm wrote:

I will argue a "prudential calculus" which I think increases the probability of that outcome.

I have no problem with that either.

ican711nm wrote:

I believe the proper paraphrase is: All people are born equally endowed with certain inalienable rights. I think those rights are those which serve our EMS. The identification of those rights and the securing of those rights is part of the "prudential calculus".

I have a BIG problem with that. Are you suggesting that your "prudential calculus" is only a means by which you identify rights, as a sort of "Observer's Guide to Inherent Rights"? Or are you saying that the prudential calculus, in some fashion or other, justifies calling something a right?

ican711nm wrote:

It is important for everyone to understand that I am a probabilist. My signature statement is borrowed from a definition of probabilist. Therefore, I readily concede that it is improbable that I will prove anything for certain. The best I can do is identify that "prudential calculus" I think will most probably achieve our EMS; and, I will argue why I think so. Furthermore, it will represent that "prudential calculus" on which I'm willing to bet my life.

There is nothing particularly objectionable about basing rights on prudence or expedience or utility or whatever extrinsic measure one might care to adopt. Certainly, one can form a system of rights on a foundation of enlightened mutual self-interest and justify it on purely pragmatic grounds. Thus, if it is prudent to treat everyone as equal, as having certain fundamental rights, then that is sufficient ground to say that everyone should have those rights.

On the other hand, you cannot base unalienable or inherent rights on a foundation of a prudential calculus unless you identify something in that prudential calculus which is itself unalienable and inherent. Simply saying that this system of rights "works" misses the mark entirely: you must show that your particular system works and is logically necessary. You haven't done that.

ican711nm wrote:

You can't extinguish a right once tolerated as if you were merely canceling your subscription to some newspaper. It will take much time and persuasion to accomplish that. Think of it. You cause all others of the human race to consider murder of you ok, then after committing murder yourself, you attempt to withdraw that right. Huh! Lots of luck. You'd be dead by morning! (so to speak).

Those are merely practical obstacles, not logical ones. After all, if I lived in a world where my rights validated everyone else's, then who's to say that others would necessarily dispute my ability to withdraw a right once granted? Nevertheless, the main point is that your formulation of a "categorical imperative" for rights is still based on some sort of prudential calculus: people only have the rights that could be afforded to everyone else because that system works best. Now I don't know that I necessarily disagree with that formula, but I strongly disagree with the notion that such a system can be based on inherent rights.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Ican--
Very strong points. The Pol Pot example aids in explaining the view. Certainly, they were all created equal. Luck doesn't grant one man a right to life. I guess Frank sees rights as law, and we, at least I, see it as an intrinsic right. How can anyone say All Men are Created Equal--and disagree with the concept of inalienable rights.

Anyway, I enjoyed your posts.

Sofia -- how can anyone say "all men are created equal" and do it with a straight face?

We may not have been created -- but even if we are, it is absurd to suppose we were created equal.

That is flowery speech meant to impress -- rather than to be logical.

0 Replies

Just sharing my view. I continue to believe that every child born comes into the world with the right to live free and decide what they will do with their life. I don't know if you thought my usage of the statement, or the FF's usage of it was meant to be flowery.

It may not be logical to you; it is a basic belief for me. The value and individual humanity of a person doesn't rise and fall, to me, based on how well they are treated or what country they were born into, or their luck, wealth or stature. Warren Buffet has no more value as a human than a child born in the Congo.

But, since I am the only person holding this view--I won't continue here.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Given the ongoing religious debates in these discussions, it might indeed be wise to be clear and concise in one's definition of religion. Anything else is sheer pettifoggery. Arguing for the sake of argument. Also known as maliagaring.

I think I am being quite concise. I gave you the definition that I favor for discussion in this forum. The appropriateness of a definition, where there are multiple in accepted usage, is the context of its usage. I think the definition of religion that I favor for this forum is far more appropriate than any other for this forum. It is after all not specific to some narrow interest or bias; it is generic and open to wider application and deeper insights.

Tartarin wrote:

Also we haven't discussed the category of people who would describe themselves (though perhaps more politely) as those who don't give a damn whether god exists or not but who nod and smile at those who do, not wishing to upset them.

Who here claims to be competent to discern much less discuss this category of people (assuming this set of people is not an empty set)?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Just sharing my view. I continue to believe that every child born comes into the world with the right to live free and decide what they will do with their life. I don't know if you thought my usage of the statement, or the FF's usage of it was meant to be flowery.

It may not be logical to you; it is a basic belief for me. The value and individual humanity of a person doesn't rise and fall, to me, based on how well they are treated or what country they were born into, or their luck, wealth or stature. Warren Buffet has no more value as a human than a child born in the Congo.

But, since I am the only person holding this view--I won't continue here.

You are wrong Sofia. You are not the only person here who holds your view. I HOLD THE SAME VIEW YOU DO! Very Happy

Please continue here.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Just sharing my view. I continue to believe that every child born comes into the world with the right to live free and decide what they will do with their life. I don't know if you thought my usage of the statement, or the FF's usage of it was meant to be flowery.

It may not be logical to you; it is a basic belief for me. The value and individual humanity of a person doesn't rise and fall, to me, based on how well they are treated or what country they were born into, or their luck, wealth or stature. Warren Buffet has no more value as a human than a child born in the Congo.

But, since I am the only person holding this view--I won't continue here.

Don't go away, Sofia -- and don't get in a snit.

You are free to "believe" anything you want, but since a significant part of the purpose of A2K is to discuss these kinds of things -- and since you brought this up in A2K -- don't you think it is reasonable to discuss it?

You wrote:

Quote:

It may not be logical to you; it is a basic belief for me. The value and individual humanity of a person doesn't rise and fall, to me, based on how well they are treated or what country they were born into, or their luck, wealth or stature. Warren Buffet has no more value as a human than a child born in the Congo.

I can easily identify with the sentiment being expressed there, Sofia. But what you are saying here has almost nothing to do with the comment you made originally - the comment to which I responded.

There you had written:

Quote:

Very strong points. The Pol Pot example aids in explaining the view. Certainly, they were all created equal. Luck doesn't grant one man a right to life. I guess Frank sees rights as law, and we, at least I, see it as an intrinsic right. How can anyone say All Men are Created Equal--and disagree with the concept of inalienable rights.

In that comment, you were making the same kind of mistake Christians often make in these debates -- a false initial premise. They frequently say things like: Look around at the creation -- there has to be a Creator!

But by what logic do they define what they see when they look around as "creation" -- other than to necessitate a Creator.

In your case, you were asserting that "all men are created equal" -- and from that deriving a concept of inalienable rights. I merely called to your attention to the fact that assuming that "all men are created equal" is gratuitous -- and it is only by that gratuitous assumption that you are able to make "all men are created equal" seem so apparent.

You then wrote::

Quote:

I continue to believe that every child born comes into the world with the right to live free and decide what they will do with their life.

Well, first of all, that is a great deal different from the original comment you made about all people being born equal.

But even this revised version has significant weaknesses.

Do you honestly think that a child born with a genetic disposition which will leave him/her with an IQ no higher than 50 -- has been born into this world with the right to live free and decide what he/she will do with his/her life?

Can you consider a child born with those circumstances in any way to be "born equal" to someone born with a silver foot in his mouth? (Or is that "silver spoon?")

The discussion at hand here is dealing with these categories of questions. Obviously, since I have a position -- I am going to argue against any assumptions made that obviate the need for further discussion -- WITH THE OTHER SIDE prevailing.

So naturally, I argued against "All men are born equal."

It ain't so -- not by any stretch of the imagination.

And I dare to suppose I can logically argue that we have no "unalienable" rights -- and that such rights that we do have, we obtained not from a Creator or any other kind of supernatural being of existence -- but by dint of DEMAND.

Still friends???

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
When I assert that rights are absolute and non-contingent, I mean the existence of a right is not dependent on who has them AND is not dependent on the circumstances in which anyone lives AND is not dependent on who or what claimed, bestode, granted, endowed, acknowledged, gave, yielded, tolerated, or assumed that right. All that is necessary is that any claim of a right shall coexist with an unconditional toleration by the claimant of anyone's possession of that same right, regardless of anyone's circumstances.

So you agree that a "right" only exists when people claim it AND tolerate it in others? By what twisted logic does that make it "absolute"?

I explained what I meant by <absolute> in the context in which I am using it. If you care to suggest a word you think is more appropriate for the meaning I attribute to it here, then do so. I promise to give it my serious consideration. How about the word <universal>?

There are many too many historical and contemporary examples of humans failing to live up to their professed ideals. How are you doing? But that does not subtract even so much as a Planck Length, Planck Time, or a Planck Mass from the value of pursuing those idea relentlessly.

Terry wrote:

While people are not “created” equal, I believe that there should be universal recognition of certain mutual rights and responsibilities which can be summed up as “live and let live.”

How is that different from assuming people are created (e.g., born) equally endowed with "certain mutual rights"?

0 Replies

Frank--

No snit. Just tired. I think you are hung up on "Creator" and taking Christianity to task, when my views about being either endowed or created or born has nothing to do with Christianity. It is very simply that I believe however a human arrives in this world, they are endowed/born with basic human rights--those I've mentioned ad nauseum.

if I didn't believe this, I'd believe that my value and the value of others as humans rested on their financial status, appearance, race, country of origin or some other such false indicator. I say we are all equal.

<Never had a negative feeling toward you in the discussion, but was briefly disheartened that you thought I was insincere.>

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sofia -- how can anyone say "all men are created equal" and do it with a straight face?

We may not have been created -- but even if we are, it is absurd to suppose we were created equal.

That is flowery speech meant to impress -- rather than to be logical.

Frank has frequently provided us here his theory regarding how one obtains rights. Frank has sometimes provided elegant, sometimes not so elegant, and sometimes inelegant explanations of his theory. My, no doubt flawed, research has failed to detect in his posts sufficient valid data to establish the validity of his theory. That's ok. So far at least, the same accusation can be made of my efforts. But Frank goes further and ridicules the theories of others while providing zero argument to support the validity of his ridicules. The above quoted response of his to Sofia is a simple but more than adequate example.

In my case, Frank goes even further into the land of vacuity. He libels my past behaviors and he libels my intentions. On top of that his forecasts of what he thinks I will do lack the reliability of a 1 year old child predicting the probable consequences of sticking his finger in a live electric socket.

What my past behaviors, intentions and forecast behavior has to do with the validity of his theory is a question I am unable to answer. Perhaps Frank is unable to answer that also.

So I have fasioned a new theory about Frank's theory. Frank's theory is Frank's religion. Further it is Franks cult religion. It's ok for Frank to have created his own cult religion. However, he should own up to it and resist his "flowery speech meant to impress -- rather than to be logical."

From Merriam-Webster
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: cult
...
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
...
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Main Entry: re·li·gion
...
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
...
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Cool

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Frank--

No snit. Just tired. I think you are hung up on "Creator" and taking Christianity to task, when my views about being either endowed or created or born has nothing to do with Christianity. It is very simply that I believe however a human arrives in this world, they are endowed/born with basic human rights--those I've mentioned ad nauseum.

if I didn't believe this, I'd believe that my value and the value of others as humans rested on their financial status, appearance, race, country of origin or some other such false indicator. I say we are all equal.

<Never had a negative feeling toward you in the discussion, but was briefly disheartened that you thought I was insincere.>

Not for one second did I question your sincerity, Sofia.

I've re-read my post -- and I'm not really sure how you came to that conclusion, but I assure you it was not intended.

Once again, I do not see any reason to assume humans are endowed -- or simply born into this world -- with any rights -- and I am not even sure what "basic human rights" are.

I think all humans want rights -- and want desperately not to live in a society where governments unnecessarily restrict freedoms, but I think that until such time as this stuff is codified, they are not really rights.

We disagree here -- and that is fine with me.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

It is very simply that I believe however a human arrives in this world, they are endowed/born with basic human rights--those I've mentioned ...

I would like to propose a brilliant compromise between those of us who theorize we are all equally endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights, and those of us who theorize we are endowed only with those rights we have DEMANDED (or someone else has demanded for us) and SECURED (or someone else has secured for us).

I HEREBY DEMAND THAT ALL PERSONS SHALL AT BIRTH BE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS; AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Fannnnntastic! Laughing

Now all we have left to discuss is how to go about adequately SECURING these and any other rights I shall demand.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank has frequently provided us here his theory regarding how one obtains rights. Frank has sometimes provided elegant, sometimes not so elegant, and sometimes inelegant explanations of his theory. My, no doubt flawed, research has failed to detect in his posts sufficient valid data to establish the validity of his theory. That's ok. So far at least, the same accusation can be made of my efforts. But Frank goes further and ridicules the theories of others while providing zero argument to support the validity of his ridicules. The above quoted response of his to Sofia is a simple but more than adequate example.

I am not trying to establish the validity of "my theory" -- I am merely telling you that I see no reason to assume that humans are born with rights - or that they are endowed with rights other than by endowing themselves with them through demand

Actually, this all started with me disagreeing with your contention that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" -- and you have pared away most of the nonsense from your original thesis, but still are not able to concede that you are still all wet.

This is how most of your threads go - so it is to be expected.

Quote:

In my case, Frank goes even further into the land of vacuity. He libels my past behaviors and he libels my intentions. On top of that his forecasts of what he thinks I will do lack the reliability of a 1 year old child predicting the probable consequences of sticking his finger in a live electric socket.

Yeah, I know - I know.

But early on back in the thread where you were still trying to establish that "the probability of God (you now call it an INTELLIGENCE necessary for evolution) is so great as to make the probability of noGod (things happening without a guiding INTELLIGENCE) virtually impossible"...

...I predicted that we would end up with you asserting that we have rights endowed on us in some way (with or without that God of yours).

AND I WAS CORRECT!

I now predict that this is all heading toward a far-right wing conservative batch of nonsense about how you should be able to own guns if you choose -- that you have a right (it use to be a God given right) to own them -- and that you have a right (it use to be a God given right) to oppose what you consider "pernicious envy" in other humans that somehow erodes your wealth.

Quote:

What my past behaviors, intentions and forecast behavior has to do with the validity of his theory is a question I am unable to answer. Perhaps Frank is unable to answer that also.

As I said, I am not interested in establishing the validity of what you see as "my theory." I am merely interested in telling anyone interested, that I see no reason to assume we are endowed with rights.

Since you seem intent on asserting that to be the case, we are at odds.

Quote:

So I have fasioned a new theory about Frank's theory. Frank's theory is Frank's religion. Further it is Franks cult religion. It's ok for Frank to have created his own cult religion. However, he should own up to it and resist his "flowery speech meant to impress -- rather than to be logical."

Oh, yes, I know, I know, Ican. You have been interested in establishing that I have a religion for the last two years. You've even started threads over in ABUZZ which aim toward that -- and have mentioned in dozens of threads your thoughts on that issue.

For you to pretend that this is a new theory is so laughable, it is unfair. I hurt my ribs not too long ago, and any sustained laughing hurts like the dickens.

It took me a very long while to see through you, Ican, but as of now, you are as transparent as glass to me. You still argue very interesting topics -- and your presentations are well conceived -- and you make me exercise my brain like few other people have ever done.

But you are a person with a few grudges against society as it now operates in the United States -- and you will manufacture whatever you have to in order to in order to have your say about those things.

Why don't you cut to the chase?

Tell us about how people are envious - perniciously envious -- and how the government has to stop assisting some of the less fortunate among us because somewhere, somehow, somebody is liable to get something he/she ain't entitled to -- and that is the kind of thing that will eventually bring humanity down.

C'mon, Ican. Cut out all the other bullshit -- and get to that part.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know