Religious Liberties Laws

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

answer this: If rights aren’t inherent, where do they come from?

[/quote]

This assumes that rights MUST exist, and I have a big problem with that assumption.

Why must rights exist? What goes wrong if rights do not exist? What if we are not actually “Free” in the manner that you define us to be? What happens then?[/quote]

Then society devolves as it eventually, and actually, begins to believe what it has been saying on the issue. “There are no inherent rights. We have no moral obligation to each other. Pedophilia being inherently evil is a myth, etc.”

It’s becoming more popular to disbelieve in what you can’t measure though while faith is ‘embarrassing.’

382

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

answer this: If rights aren’t inherent, where do they come from?

[/quote]

This assumes that rights MUST exist, and I have a big problem with that assumption.[/quote]

Fine, if your answer is “they dont’ exist” I can continue on anyway.

We’re getting there.

So now, back to your name being Todd.

So me and my government Cronies pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow that all people named Todd are now slaves. You’ve been assigned to my front porch. I can expect you there when I get home today or no?

383

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

answer this: If rights aren’t inherent, where do they come from?

[/quote]

This assumes that rights MUST exist, and I have a big problem with that assumption.

Why must rights exist? What goes wrong if rights do not exist? What if we are not actually “Free” in the manner that you define us to be? What happens then?[/quote]

Then society devolves as it eventually, and actually, begins to believe what it has been saying on the issue. “There are no inherent rights. We have no moral obligation to each other. Pedophilia being inherently evil is a myth, etc.”

It’s becoming more popular to disbelieve in what you can’t measure though while faith is ‘embarrassing.’
[/quote]

Why do you think that Natural Rights somehow removes a moral obligation to each other? The opposite is the case, and quite frankly, I think you must be operating with some sort of flawed assumption about what people mean when they refer to Natural Rights.

Whatever Creator it is that you believe in, at the point you were conceived, and again at actual birth, you have the right to life, liberty, and property, along with the right to defend such things.

I would think that this actually places a huge moral obligation upon people. If I want my rights to be respected, then I must necessarily respect those of others. I believe you refer to it as the Golden Rule, one which I certainly live by. And I live by that Rule out of deference to the idea of Natural Rights and out of deference to the Creator who has given me life, liberty, and the wherewithal to acquire property without coercion.

384

Sloth, the entire concept of Natural Rights only works in conjunction with the assumption that something bigger and more powerful than ourselves created us as a species. This is a view that encompasses most atheist beliefs, agnostics, as well as all of your traditional religions. I was given life by some powerful entity. Whether it be God or Zeus or anything between, that entity gave it to me and It gave the same to you and everyone else. This is the equality into which we are all born.

Honestly, I think that you assume I am some sort of atheist and you’re trying to back me into an existential corner you’ll never get me into. Sort of like playing the devil’s advocate which, coming from you, is quite ironic.

385

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Why do you think that Natural Rights somehow removes a moral obligation to each other? [/quote]

That’s not what I’m saying. I badly worded something if that’s the impression. I’m only pointing out it requires just as much faith as believing in a deity. And faith is becoming less popular.

386

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Sloth, the entire concept of Natural Rights only works in conjunction with the assumption that something bigger and more powerful than ourselves created us as a species. This is a view that encompasses most atheist beliefs, agnostics, as well as all of your traditional religions. I was given life by some powerful entity. Whether it be God or Zeus or anything between, that entity gave it to me and It gave the same to you and everyone else. This is the equality into which we are all born.

Honestly, I think that you assume I am some sort of atheist and you’re trying to back me into an existential corner you’ll never get me into. Sort of like playing the devil’s advocate which, coming from you, is quite ironic.[/quote]

Noooooo!. I’m highlighting why the idea of natural rights is on the retreat. The same reason as faith in general. Except, instead of the spaghetti monster, you could call it 'spaghetti rights."

387

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Why do you think that Natural Rights somehow removes a moral obligation to each other? [/quote]

That’s not what I’m saying. I badly worded something if that’s the impression. I’m only pointing out it requires just as much faith as believing in a deity. And faith is becoming less popular.[/quote]

Okay, now I see where you’re trying to go here. I can get onboard with that.

You’re right, faith is becoming less popular. You probably don’t want to hear this, but I think faith in any sort of benevolent deity is important, or at least a faith in some sort of Higher Power. I’ve recently delved into Buddhism, and while Buddhists do not worship a deity figure, all the same concepts in Christianity that lead to the acceptance of Natural Rights are present in Buddhism as well. I’m not familiar with Hinduism on anything more than a superficial level, and I know even less about Taoism or Confucianism, but I suspect the same holds true with those religions. Islam, absent the Sharia law segments of it, also has the same basic concepts built into it, as does Judaism.

The loss of faith and the complete bastardization of what rights are in this country and elsewhere are not independent events. I think there just seems to be a general lack of spirituality in general in this country. I’ve used the term “spiritual bankruptcy” repeatedly in reference to this phenomenon, and I think it’s an apt term. We are an increasingly materialistic, consumption driven society. I think the most prescient thing George Orwell ever wrote was simply “in the year of our Ford”.

388

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So me and my government Cronies pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow that all people named Todd are now slaves. You’ve been assigned to my front porch. I can expect you there when I get home today or no?
[/quote]

Of course I would. I’d imagine to deny it would mean that I’d get jailed (or worse!). And I’m sure I’d rather be a slave then be jailed (or worse!).

…

What you define as natural rights can just be instinctual behavior born from just being an animal. You need to find a way to bridge the argumentative gap that has you go from “natural instinct” to “natural right”. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t exist outside of God/some higher power.

389

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Then society devolves as it eventually, and actually, begins to believe what it has been saying on the issue. “There are no inherent rights. We have no moral obligation to each other. Pedophilia being inherently evil is a myth, etc.”
[/quote]

How is this any different from liberals arguing that we have a societal obligation to the poor and needy?

390

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Then society devolves as it eventually, and actually, begins to believe what it has been saying on the issue. “There are no inherent rights. We have no moral obligation to each other. Pedophilia being inherently evil is a myth, etc.”
[/quote]

How is this any different from liberals arguing that we have a societal obligation to the poor and needy?[/quote]

Is vs. ought

392

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So me and my government Cronies pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow that all people named Todd are now slaves. You’ve been assigned to my front porch. I can expect you there when I get home today or no?
[/quote]

Of course I would. [/quote]

Then you don’t believe in rights. You’re a slave to other men, and the exact person the government is looking to build.

I’d PM you my address, but they are broken. My yard needs some serious attention.

393

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Social equality will only exist when I can call both a gay person and a straight person a fag without either one feeling like I just victimized them.[/quote]

I’m cool with that.

394

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Then you don’t believe in rights. You’re a slave to other men, and the exact person the government is looking to build.

I’d PM you my address, but they are broken. My yard needs some serious attention. [/quote]

Are you really going to ignore the rest of my post?

395

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Then you don’t believe in rights. You’re a slave to other men, and the exact person the government is looking to build.

I’d PM you my address, but they are broken. My yard needs some serious attention. [/quote]

Are you really going to ignore the rest of my post?[/quote]

The rest of your post is irrelevant. You have no right to independent thought. Whatever you think is meaningless. If you don’t believe in rights, what does the rest of your post even mean. You’re just going to do what your rules & betters tell you to do…

So anyway, do you have your own rakes, or will you need to use mine? And what size are your shoes? I’ll get some chains fashioned up real quick later this week.

:wink:

396

[quote]magick wrote:
You need to find a way to bridge the argumentative gap that has you go from “natural instinct” to “natural right”.[/quote]

Why assume they are different?

397

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
You need to find a way to bridge the argumentative gap that has you go from “natural instinct” to “natural right”.[/quote]

Why assume they are different?
[/quote]

Because instincts aren’t alienable. People all have different instincts.

398

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
You need to find a way to bridge the argumentative gap that has you go from “natural instinct” to “natural right”.[/quote]

Why assume they are different?
[/quote]

Because instincts aren’t alienable. People all have different instincts.
[/quote]

I don’t mean in that sense. I mean in the “where do they come from” sense.

400

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So me and my government Cronies pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow that all people named Todd are now slaves. You’ve been assigned to my front porch. I can expect you there when I get home today or no?
[/quote]

Of course I would. [/quote]

Then you don’t believe in rights. You’re a slave to other men, and the exact person the government is looking to build.

I’d PM you my address, but they are broken. My yard needs some serious attention. [/quote]

What if, in exchange for his labor, you agree to not allow another to enslave him so long as he remains your slave? At that point, you will be providing him with a service in return for his labor. Would he even be a slave at that point?