Young people today don't understand what a "right" is.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just read the threads in here.

[heavenlyboy34]

Pretty sad, isn't it? :(

[Truth Warrior]

Gee, and it's all just so close at hand. :(

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right) :D

[sirachman]

Do the traits of the minority count for nothing?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Pretty sad, isn't it? :(

I didn't understand *our Founding-Fathers until I tried taking a philosophy of religion class. Well, that class was full so I had to take a philosophy of science class instead. Taking the class surprised me in that it taught me a lot about the significance of religion. It also made me appreciate our Founding-Fathers in how they used the science of that particular day, natural law, to establish our government.
Once again, a natural right is a physical thing because during the time of our Founding-Fathers the social sciences did not exist. So, a natural right reduced down to a real thing like DnA.
Modern science no longer views mankind as universal as metaphysical science did while it has moved the United States away from the American way of existentially viewing his and her contentment as primary in importance.

*President Obama refers to our Founding-Fathers as "THE founding-fathers" in order to distance himself from them politically.

[Truth Warrior]

Do the traits of the minority count for nothing?

The Military Lies by Roger Young (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/young-r4.html)

[sirachman]

I didn't understand *our Founding-Fathers until I tried taking a philosophy of religion class. Well, that class was full so I had to take a philosophy of science class instead. Taking the class surprised me in that it taught me a lot about the significance of religion. It also made me appreciate our Founding-Fathers in how they used the science of that particular day, natural law, to establish our government.
Once again, a natural right is a physical thing because during the time of our Founding-Fathers the social sciences did not exist. So, a natural right reduced down to a real thing like DnA.
Modern science no longer views mankind as universal as metaphysical science did while it has moved the United States away from the American way of existentially viewing his and her contentment as primary in importance.

*President Obama refers to our Founding-Fathers as "THE founding-fathers" in order to distance himself from them politically.
Wait a minute, your telling me that our 'natural rights' can be extrapolated from DNA? whhhaat?

[Truth Warrior]

I didn't understand *our Founding-Fathers until I tried taking a philosophy of religion class. Well, that class was full so I had to take a philosophy of science class instead. Taking the class surprised me in that it taught me a lot about the significance of religion. It also made me appreciate our Founding-Fathers in how they used the science of that particular day, natural law, to establish our government.
Once again, a natural right is a physical thing because during the time of our Founding-Fathers the social sciences did not exist. So, a natural right reduced down to a real thing like DnA.
Modern science no longer views mankind as universal as metaphysical science did while it has moved the United States away from the American way of existentially viewing his and her contentment as primary in importance.

*President Obama refers to our Founding-Fathers as "THE founding-fathers" in order to distance himself from them politically.

Josephus and the Origin of the State (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/horn2.html)

[sirachman]

The Military Lies by Roger Young (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/young-r4.html)

I seem to miss the point.

[sirachman]

I was just pointing out the fact that I understand the meaning of a 'right' just fine. But now that I see the OPs opinion on the matter, I may end up being one of the unenlightened according to him after all... lol

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Do the traits of the minority count for nothing?

That which is self-evidently true and unalienably a natural-right is "form" in that it has been worked out just short of the unapproachable almighty Himself. In other words, if you don't think what our Founding-Fathers concluded is the ultimate political expression, then just what is?
The King of England certainly had his chance to counter this argument and yet he came up with nothing. Many have had a chance to arrive at differing conclusions but no one has.

[Truth Warrior]

I seem to miss the point. Oooops, I read it wrong, sorry. :o I thought it said "military".

Do overs. ;)


"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Wait a minute, your telling me that our 'natural rights' can be extrapolated from DNA? whhhaat?


Science did not exist on the social level while the physical sciences were accepted by the Catholic Church as natural philosophy. So, yes, a natural right reduced down to become the conscience of every human soul. This would be what is politically bipartisan in every person.

[Young Paleocon]

I would posit that the past couple generations don't know what a "right" is because they continually strip them and alter them to the detriment of the younger generations.

[sirachman]

That which is self-evidently true and unalienably a natural-right is "form" in that it has been worked out just short of the unapproachable almighty Himself. In other words, if you don't think what our Founding-Fathers concluded is the ultimate political expression, then just what is?
The King of England certainly had his chance to counter this argument and yet he came up with nothing. Many have had a chance to arrive at differing conclusions but no one has.

I guess our fundamental disagreement lies in your presumption that all worthy logic should assume the existence of the almighty. I on the other hand do not and thus cannot determine whether mans presumption is indeed the ultimate or near the ultimate. I agree that for my purpose, and in my opinion these rights are the best to be defended that I know of as of yet. However I believe that there is no provable correlation between these rights and the DNA which composes the life of man and the rest of known living creatures. There could very well be future improvements, these are just as of yet the most sound so far. However because the history of man is finite and the future of man is possibly infinite but presumably a sum greater than the finite sum of mans past it can be assumed that the findings of mans history could be improved upon in the future and thus are not the ultimate especially since no scientifically provable methods exist to correlate the laws with the 'ultimate truth' which is in itself unknown. In my opinion.

[sirachman]

Oooops, I read it wrong, sorry. :o I thought it said "military".

Do overs. ;)


"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

Most agreed.

[Truth Warrior]

Most agreed. :cool: :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I was just pointing out the fact that I understand the meaning of a 'right' just fine. But now that I see the OPs opinion on the matter, I may end up being one of the unenlightened according to him after all... lol

And yet a natural right had to be a physical thing because Immanuel Kant, 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804, had not even been born when John Locke, 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704, had established his noble reasoning.
It was Immanuel Kant who eventually led to the establishment of the social sciences.

[sirachman]

That makes no sense, that would be to presume that two minds cannot reach the same opinion through logic unless it is preordained by god.

[Truth Warrior]

And yet a natural right had to be a physical thing because Immanuel Kant, 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804, had not even been born when John Locke, 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704, had established his noble reasoning.
It was Immanuel Kant who eventually led to the establishment of the social sciences. My favorite "Kantism" is the "categorical imperative". ;) I consider it the philosophical big brother to the "Golden Rule".

Aside from that Kant kinda pretty much sucks.<IMHO> :p

BTW, weren't Kant AND Locke BOTH EUROPEANS, EUW? :D Ya just kinda REALLY gotta watch out for that "skoolin". The STATIST "brainwashing" is everywhere. ;)

[mconder]

Can you blame them? We had a thread we debated for 3 days here entitled, "Do rights really exist."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I guess our fundamental disagreement lies in your presumption that all worthy logic should assume the existence of the almighty. I on the other hand do not and thus cannot determine whether mans presumption is indeed the ultimate or near the ultimate. I agree that for my purpose, and in my opinion these rights are the best to be defended that I know of as of yet. However I believe that there is no provable correlation between these rights and the DNA which composes the life of man and the rest of known living creatures. There could very well be future improvements, these are just as of yet the most sound so far. However because the history of man is finite and the future of man is possibly infinite but presumably a sum greater than the finite sum of mans past it can be assumed that the findings of mans history could be improved upon in the future and thus are not the ultimate especially since no scientifically provable methods exist to correlate the laws with the 'ultimate truth' which is in itself unknown. In my opinion.

In other words, you view "truth" as an expression that can be set apart from mankind. Metaphysical science viewed mankind as universally central to the truth while our Founding-Fathers viewed the human need for happiness as existentially central in importance.

[sirachman]

Arrogance is the fastest route to stupidity. Implications aside.

[sirachman]

In other words, you view "truth" as an expression that can be set apart from mankind. Metaphysical science viewed mankind as universally central to the truth while our Founding-Fathers viewed the human need for happiness as existentially central in importance.

I don't believe in faith based truths, to me they are opinions. Like culture, eating certain foods is no more 'right' than other foods. Unless one can be proved more healthy, then it can only be said to be more healthy but not 'right'. To me its not that what we defend is in some way wrong, but instead I would say that it is the most beneficial to our desires. Some people might genuinely desire to be led with an iron fist to take away their responsibilities out of laziness? Is their desire wrong, or is it simply foreign to my own? I think we are arguing different specifics of something we largely agree on.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

My favorite "Kantism" is the "categorical imperative". ;) I consider it the philosophical big brother to the "Golden Rule".

Aside from that Kant kinda pretty much sucks.<IMHO> :p

Weren't he and Locke BOTH EUROPEANS, EUW? :D

True western civilization wasn't incorporated into Europe until all of Aristotle's and the rest of Plato's philosophy were introduced in the 12th century. Up until that time, most schools were Christian with math serving as science (Plato was the mathematician). In order to unravel these mysterious philosophies by Aristotle and Plato, Europe built advanced universities.

[sirachman]

In other words, you view "truth" as an expression that can be set apart from mankind. Metaphysical science viewed mankind as universally central to the truth while our Founding-Fathers viewed the human need for happiness as existentially central in importance.

Actually I don't think philosophical 'truth' CAN be set apart from mankind, I think that philosophical truth is a product of mankind. It is a sort of evolved order of the mind, designed over time to best provide the things which humans need and desire. However just as in democracy not all humans agree on the specifics of their need and desires and thus different 'right' systems exist which disagree. However, in general for most, and from an impossible to remove bias, I believe that the ideas we all believe are the best for general humanity to thrive in its goals and in itself.

Hopefully I am not an idiot for not speaking on the level that everyone seems to do here. Hopefully it can be agreed that I can discuss without constantly using historical references..

I need to go to class now, if you think me stupid im sorry to have wasted your time. I just thought I would share my opinions. If anyone was wondering I am an aerospace major so I am not all that thoroughly versed in the deep specifics of the history of philosophy.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I don't believe in faith based truths, to me they are opinions. Like culture, eating certain foods is no more 'right' than other foods. Unless one can be proved more healthy, then it can only be said to be more healthy but not 'right'. To me its not that what we defend is in some way wrong, but instead I would say that it is the most beneficial to our desires. Some people might genuinely desire to be led with an iron fist to take away their responsibilities out of laziness? Is their desire wrong, or is it simply foreign to my own? I think we are arguing different specifics of something we largely agree on.

While most think science and religion have had a long history of struggling with each other, modern science and rational thought were born out of the Catholic Church as natural philosophy. Even Darwin had to be a member of the clergy.

[Truth Warrior]

True western civilization wasn't incorporated into Europe until all of Aristotle's and the rest of Plato's philosophy were introduced in the 12th century. Up until that time, most schools were Christian with math serving as science (Plato was the mathematician). In order to unravel these mysterious philosophies by Aristotle and Plato, Europe built advanced universities.

When asked by a reporter what he thought of western civilization, Gandhi once replied, "I think it would be a good idea".

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Actually I don't think philosophical 'truth' CAN be set apart from mankind, I think that philosophical truth is a product of mankind. It is a sort of evolved order of the mind, designed over time to best provide the things which humans need and desire. However just as in democracy not all humans agree on the specifics of their need and desires and thus different 'right' systems exist which disagree. However, in general for most, and from an impossible to remove bias, I believe that the ideas we all believe are the best for general humanity to thrive in its goals and in itself.

Hopefully I am not an idiot for not speaking on the level that everyone seems to do here. Hopefully it can be agreed that I can discuss without constantly using historical references..

I need to go to class now, if you think me stupid im sorry to have wasted your time. I just thought I would share my opinions. If anyone was wondering I am an aerospace major so I am not all that thoroughly versed in the deep specifics of the history of philosophy.

In order to preserve a practical, positive government where all people can be ideally dispensed a portion of contentment, our Founding-Fathers first established that which was undeniably bipartisan in our souls as self-evident truths and unalienble natural-rights. This ideal "formal-culture" was the American contribution to the established social contract.

[sirachman]

In order to preserve a practical, positive government where all people can be ideally dispensed a portion of contentment, our Founding-Fathers first established that which was undeniably bipartisan in our souls as self-evident truths and unalienble natural-rights. This ideal "formal-culture" was the American contribution to the established social contract.

Ok. I'm done discussing this, you aren't disagreeing with me. It seems like you are copy/pasting crap frankly. Either way, i am done trying to make my points.

[Truth Warrior]

Just read the threads in here.

Did ya check for what's indelibly written on their souls? :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Did ya check for what's indelibly written on their souls? :D

I know that what is written on their souls are self-evident truths and unalienable natural-rights. Why wouldn't I? I'm an American.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Ok. I'm done discussing this, you aren't disagreeing with me. It seems like you are copy/pasting crap frankly. Either way, i am done trying to make my points.

American Transcendentalism narrows down to what is formal American culture. Our minor European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Native American cultures are all poisonous influences on this greater ideal.

[Truth Warrior]

I know that what is written on their souls are self-evident truths and unalienable natural-rights. Why wouldn't I? I'm an American. That wasn't the question. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

You just may want to consider INDELIBLY writing this on YOUR soul too, "American". ;)

"The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state." -- Ron Paul

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That wasn't the question. :rolleyes:

By natural-law, the conclusion is an expression of tyranny if it is a question, theory, opinion, or argument challenging that which has been declared self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right.

[Truth Warrior]

By natural-law, the conclusion is an expression of tyranny if it is a question, theory, opinion, or argument challenging that which has been declared self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right. Not that you'll actually read NOR understand it. :(

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You just may want to consider INDELIBLY writing this on YOUR soul too, "American". ;)

"The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state." -- Ron Paul

But a self-evident truth and an unalienable natural right will remain the truth and a natural right whether we win or lose. Gee.
This brings us full circle back around to the American cheeseburger and its superiority over any dish ever concocted by the Europeans. In fact, the best the French Revolution could do was add the French fries.
Let's get real here. American soldiers today aren't dying for God. God will exist whether soldiers die for Him or not. American soldiers aren't dying for some complex European idea. God forbid! Americans aren't dying for liberty, equality and responsibility. What a travesty! American soldiers are dying to come home to enjoy eating American cheeseburgers. Happiness is the point here and one that is so obvious that even little kids know that a picture of a stick person isn 't whole unless the prerequisite of an upward smile is drawn upon its face. Any face that isn't happy just isn't proper authority to them but rather something that scares and makes them want to roll back up into the fetal position.

[Truth Warrior]

But a self-evident truth and an unalienable natural right will remain the truth and a natural right whether we win or lose. Gee.
This brings us full circle back around to the American cheeseburger and its superiority over any dish ever concocted by the Europeans. In fact, the best the French Revolution could do was add the French fries.
Let's get real here. American soldiers today aren't dying for God. God will exist whether soldiers die for Him or not. American soldiers aren't dying for some complex European idea. God forbid! Americans aren't dying for liberty, equality and responsibility. What a travesty! American soldiers are dying to come home to enjoy eating American cheeseburgers. Happiness is the point here and one that is so obvious that even little kids know that a picture of a stick person isn 't whole unless the prerequisite of an upward smile is drawn upon its face. Any face that isn't happy just isn't proper authority to them but rather something that scares and makes them want to roll back up into the fetal position. On an individual ( "soul" ) level it doesn't really mean a heck of a lot if we lose.<IMHO> DUH!!! :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

On an individual ( "soul" ) level it doesn't really mean a heck of a lot if we lose.<IMHO> DUH!!! :D

According to that which is self-evidently true and unalienbly a natural-right, Tyranny is defeated before it even goes to battle. So, this was an intelligent argument put forth by people who were submissive to the authority of the king of England. There didn't need to be a war.

[Truth Warrior]

According to that which is self-evidently true and unalienbly a natural-right, Tyranny is defeated before it even goes to battle. So, this was an intelligent argument put forth by people who were submissive to the authority of the king of England. There didn't need to be a war. Tell that to the 200 MILLIONS+ individuals ("souls") killed just in the last century, at the hands of governments, often their own.

I'm sure that will be a GREAT comfort to the DEAD. :rolleyes: :(


"The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal." ~ Mark Twain

[Mesogen]

While most think science and religion have had a long history of struggling with each other, modern science and rational thought were born out of the Catholic Church as natural philosophy. Even Darwin had to be a member of the clergy.

Rational thought is a product of the Catholic Church? :rolleyes:

Maybe you should tell Aristotle. Or anyone who thought rationally before there was a Catholic Church.




Young people today don't understand what a "right" is.

Just read the threads in here.

Why did you put "right" in "quotes?"

Can you list all the rights that you or I have? Since you are pretty up to speed on what rights are, then I'm sure you can produce an exhaustive list of all the things that you have been entitled to since you were born.

Do you have a right to clean air and water for example?

I know you could say that you have the right to do whatever you please as long as you don't interfere with the rights of others. But what are the "rights of others" that I'm not supposed to violate? Can you list them? If it's a short list then we don't have very many rights. If it's a long list then there are all sorts of things that we don't have the right to do.