Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[Hypoxia]

The Four Freedoms and the Declaration cost millions of lives to secure. Asserting that they are 'natural' diminishes the sacrifices made to establish them.

We should always remember that the rights we enjoy are only possible because people died so we can have them.

Rights are not granted by merciful invisible friends or magnanimous rulers. Rights are taken, not given. Patriotic theologians forget these truths.

We fight and die for those rights BECAUSE they are 'natural law'...

Exercise your deity-given inalienable natural rights in North Korea. Tell us how that goes.

 

[oggbashan]

Coachdb18 - you can believe whatever you want.

I prefer to give thanks for those who died so that you can believe and say whatever you want.

I will continue to visit war graves in the UK and in France to say 'thank you' as I have done to veterans I have met over the years. In Normandy at the American Cemetery above Omaha Beach I can stand on American soil, bought with American blood shed to give freedom to Europe.

I don't think many of those who fought and died for freedom would agree that there is anything natural or God-given about the rights you and I now enjoy.

 

[coachdb18]

Coachdb18 - you can believe whatever you want.

I prefer to give thanks for those who died so that you can believe and say whatever you want.

I will continue to visit war graves in the UK and in France to say 'thank you' as I have done to veterans I have met over the years. In Normandy at the American Cemetery above Omaha Beach I can stand on American soil, bought with American blood shed to give freedom to Europe.

Absolutely and enthusiastically agree, and applaud this...

I don't think many of those who fought and died for freedom would agree that there is anything natural or God-given about the rights you and I now enjoy.

... and then you add this total and complete bullshit.

 

[BotanyBoy]

We fight and die for those rights BECAUSE they are 'natural law', which strikes me as amazing that you still fail to understand the entire concept.

If the laws were natural nobody would need to fight and die to protect them.

Yet you still fail to understand that what I and others just said SHITS all over the fantasy that man made social constructs are somehow natural law.

You know how I know your Constitutional rights aren't natural law? The state infringes on them regularly.

 

[KimGordon67]

If the laws were natural nobody would need to fight and die to protect them.

Yet you still fail to understand that what I and others just said SHITS all over the fantasy that man made social constructs are somehow natural law.

You know how I know your Constitutional rights aren't natural law? The state infringes on them regularly.

Yep ... anything that's a 'natural law' (e.g. gravity and that stuff) can't be made to go away just because someone doesn't like it. Unlike human rights, which are negated on a daily basis.
It's tricky though, because unlike Ogg, I think they still 'have' those rights, because they live in a world in which we've agreed on that - they're just not able to exercise them.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yep ... anything that's a 'natural law' (e.g. gravity and that stuff) can't be made to go away just because someone doesn't like it. Unlike human rights, which are negated on a daily basis.

Never seen anyone infringe on any laws of motion.

It's tricky though, because unlike Ogg, I think they still 'have' those rights, because they live in a world in which we've agreed on that - they're just not able to exercise them.

I'm with ogg on that one.

If they can't exercise them? Then they effectively don't have them....doesn't matter if we agree that they do or not.

 

[Hypoxia]

Yep ... anything that's a 'natural law' (e.g. gravity and that stuff) can't be made to go away just because someone doesn't like it. Unlike human rights, which are negated on a daily basis.

Scientific laws are equations defining relations between objects and forces. 'Natural' laws are the consequences of those relations, operating whether or not life or people or thought exist. One of my fave lines: Reality is what's left when you stop believing. Rights ONLY exist by acting on belief.

It's tricky though, because unlike Ogg, I think they still 'have' those rights, because they live in a world in which we've agreed on that - they're just not able to exercise them.

A right (and responsibility) you can't exercise is one you don't have. Even if a 'right' is enumerated, to be 'real' it must be enforced. Have I the right to love whom I will? Not in many places.

 

[KimGordon67]

Scientific laws are equations defining relations between objects and forces. 'Natural' laws are the consequences of those relations, operating whether or not life or people or thought exist. One of my fave lines: Reality is what's left when you stop believing. Rights ONLY exist by acting on belief.

A right (and responsibility) you can't exercise is one you don't have. Even if a 'right' is enumerated, to be 'real' it must be enforced. Have I the right to love whom I will? Not in many places.

I diagree. The whole point of a document like the Declaration of Human Rights is to say 'everyone has these rights by virtue of being human ... now we need to work towards a situation where everyone can exercise them'.
It's a little bit of an exercise in semantics though, at that point, because either the 'you have them even if you can't exercise them' and the 'you only have them if you can exercise them' argument results in the same end goal.

 

[todski28]

I diagree. The whole point of a document like the Declaration of Human Rights is to say 'everyone has these rights by virtue of being human ... now we need to work towards a situation where everyone can exercise them'.
It's a little bit of an exercise in semantics though, at that point, because either the 'you have them even if you can't exercise them' and the 'you only have them if you can exercise them' argument results in the same end goal.

While I agree with this statement the only logical conclusion is that those that have different ideologies disagreeing with your premise must be subjugated and supressed from their world view by whoever is deemed fit to enforcce it. Making that leap human rights are only granted and defended at the end of a weapon.

The only disagreement is who should be holding that weapon

 

[KimGordon67]

While I agree with this statement the only logical conclusion is that those that have different ideologies disagreeing with your premise must be subjugated and supressed from their world view by whoever is deemed fit to enforcce it. Making that leap human rights are only granted and defended at the end of a weapon.

The only disagreement is who should be holding that weapon

See bolded section - why?

 

[todski28]

See bolded section - why?

If their world view is that you should be bashed and raped because of your beliefs and the way you dress what protects you from their enablement and execution of that belief?

 

[KimGordon67]

If their world view is that you should be bashed and raped because of your beliefs and the way you dress what protects you from their enablement and execution of that belief?

OK ... I really don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. You seem to be confusing a set of things that we have fairly universally agreed to be 'human rights' with 'world views'. They're not the same thing at all.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Those who have not lived with our level of freedom do not understand it.

And most of those who have lived it don't respect it because they have done nothing to deserve it.

^^^^Truth.^^^^

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

We fight and die for those rights BECAUSE they are 'natural law', which strikes me as amazing that you still fail to understand the entire concept. The people came first, and they later formed governments to meet mutual needs. The government didn't confer any rights to the people, the government was an invention OF the people. Their basic INATE rights were pre-existing to the formation of government. And government is only legitimate when it operates from the CONSENT of the governed.

To say that rights are only important if you fight and die for them is problematic. Our rights exist whether we fight and die for them, or roll over and play dead, as France did for the Nazis during WWII. The rights of the French people didn't suddenly cease to exist with the arrival of the first Nazi boot, and the establishment of Vichy government did not change the nature of those rights. Rights do NOT come and go with the passage of time and politics.

That's why America is unique, we understand human rights on an entirely higher level than is seemingly comprehensible to the average European, whose value is seemingly tied to a present monarch or law or trend. Our values are based on a Creator who didn't create valueless beings, and there is a morality to our existence. I now know this isn't accepted in Europe, and it is one of the reasons we fought for the freedoms (and the rights) that were ours to start with.

Not necessarily. But more spot on than not. Better than most any American. If I interpreted correctly, I do indeed see what you mean about 'natural law'.

I haven't been following this part of the thread. Hopefully, I'm not reading into it too much. I mean pertaining to what you are saying and no one else. Feel free to correct me or PM if you think I'm wrong.

 

[todski28]

OK ... I really don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. You seem to be confusing a set of things that we have fairly universally agreed to be 'human rights' with 'world views'. They're not the same thing at all.

Ok let me try again

If someones beliefs are anitthetical to your position on what human rights are, and they believe that you are wrong, what stops them from violently imposing their belief sytem on you, or in other words their world view?

 

[KimGordon67]

Ok let me try again

If someones beliefs are anitthetical to your position on what human rights are, and they believe that you are wrong, what stops them from violently imposing their belief sytem on you, or in other words their world view?

It's not 'my'position on what human rights are ... it's an almost universal position that's developed over centuries of thinking and discussion, and continues to develop. That's what makes them 'human rights', not just 'how the world should be according to KG'. By deciding, almost universally, that something is a 'human right', we're really putting them into a category that's both different to and kind of 'above' beliefs. For example, the right to practice one's religion - everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are different from other peoples religious beliefs (to the extent that your right to religious freedom doesn't impose on the rights of others). The things you believe as part of your religion - i.e. your world view - may differ from mine, but we both have the same right to have those world views.

As I said, you're confusing 'world views' and 'rights' - they're different things, as the above example illustrates. That's why we use different words to talk about them.

But, in answer to your question ... nothing. That's why people are constrained in exercising their human rights all over the place. There's nothing about something being a 'human right' that guarantees you'll be able to actually exercise it.

I'm still struggling to understand what your actual point is in relation to the discussion about whether there are 'natural' rights.

 

[KimGordon67]

We fight and die for those rights BECAUSE they are 'natural law', which strikes me as amazing that you still fail to understand the entire concept. The people came first, and they later formed governments to meet mutual needs. The government didn't confer any rights to the people, the government was an invention OF the people. Their basic INATE rights were pre-existing to the formation of government. And government is only legitimate when it operates from the CONSENT of the governed.

To say that rights are only important if you fight and die for them is problematic. Our rights exist whether we fight and die for them, or roll over and play dead, as France did for the Nazis during WWII. The rights of the French people didn't suddenly cease to exist with the arrival of the first Nazi boot, and the establishment of Vichy government did not change the nature of those rights. Rights do NOT come and go with the passage of time and politics.

That's why America is unique, we understand human rights on an entirely higher level than is seemingly comprehensible to the average European, whose value is seemingly tied to a present monarch or law or trend. Our values are based on a Creator who didn't create valueless beings, and there is a morality to our existence. I now know this isn't accepted in Europe, and it is one of the reasons we fought for the freedoms (and the rights) that were ours to start with.

LMAO. Sure ... if you want to base your politics on some imaginary voice from the ether, rather than basic human dignity, go for it. The rest of the world is fine about that, so long as you keep it to yourselves.

 

[KimGordon67]

It's not 'my'position on what human rights are ... it's an almost universal position that's developed over centuries of thinking and discussion, and continues to develop. That's what makes them 'human rights', not just 'how the world should be according to KG'. By deciding, almost universally, that something is a 'human right', we're really putting them into a category that's both different to and kind of 'above' beliefs. For example, the right to practice one's religion - everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are different from other peoples religious beliefs (to the extent that your right to religious freedom doesn't impose on the rights of others). The things you believe as part of your religion - i.e. your world view - may differ from mine, but we both have the same right to have those world views.

As I said, you're confusing 'world views' and 'rights' - they're different things, as the above example illustrates. That's why we use different words to talk about them.

But, in answer to your question ... nothing. That's why people are constrained in exercising their human rights all over the place. There's nothing about something being a 'human right' that guarantees you'll be able to actually exercise it.

I'm still struggling to understand what your actual point is in relation to the discussion about whether there are 'natural' rights.

Where I think the argument can come a bit unstuck is that at various points, people (myself included in places) forget that the there are types of rights, which are more context specific. For example, here I have the right to half the property shared by me and my husband in the event of separation - that's a legal right, not a human right, and it only 'counts' within our borders. You nutbars have decided gun ownership is a 'right', but it's a constitutional right, not a human/natural right - the fact that some document refers to it as 'self-evident' doesn't make it so. That's why it's a right that only exists in the US. I can utterly assure you that the second you step into my homeland, that right completely and utterly dissipates.

 

[KimGordon67]

Also, partying is only a 'right' in the universe of the Beastie Boys.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/Beastie_Boys_YGFFYRTP.jpg

Beastietopia?
Beastieastan?

 

[Hypoxia]

LMAO. Sure ... if you want to base your politics on some imaginary voice from the ether, rather than basic human dignity, go for it. The rest of the world is fine about that, so long as you keep it to yourselves.

Ah, holy moral laws. Did such laws exist before humans evolved, and if so, to what did they apply? If certain moral laws apply to humans, do other species have the same or other laws? Vegans will say humans eating animals is immoral, but is it immoral for animals to eat humans? Suppose they're rewarded in heaven for each kill?

Until a holy moral is declared, how does anyone know it exists? Humans have devised many deities with variant moralities; how can a poor human objectively decide which god(s) and set(s) of holy laws to follow? If a holy moral law okays killing folks who don't believe the same, who wins?

http://www.vitamin-ha.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Where-is-your-God-now-03.jpg

 

[My I]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtrQkS0AEpI

 

[Blue]

I think the problem here is that Coach and the others proposing this idea that rights exist independent of humans and human beliefs and ideas as opposed to a technological invention have been fed a specific worldview, religious or otherwise, which strongly appeals to that innate human desire for stability and a degree of predictability; Humans are special and there are inherent truths and mechanisms in this universe which govern human behaviour in a positive way.

So when we propose this almost nihilistic idea that those inherent mechanisms and rules that make up this imaginary moral safety net don't exist, everything is subjective, no action or event means anything or has any intrinsic moral value, and our governing rules are just the contemporary interpretation of the compromise between individual and social freedoms that every half-functioning society has to make...that's probably pretty scary to somebody who's believed in this idea of spoon-fed unalienable moral frameworks for their whole life.

E.g. "If I killed CoachDB tomorrow that would be objectively a bad thing and my moral standing according to the universe gets reduced" - It's more personally appealing to know that even if I die my murderer is condemned and punished by the universe itself so I will definitely get my own back. As a human I'm special and this giant authoritarian strongman (the universe/god/whatever) is keeping me safe. Than: - "If I killed CoachDB tomorrow that has no effect on the amoral inanimate object that is the universe whatsoever aside from making his family sad".

 

[My I]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-oNMHNrS-8

 

[KimGordon67]

I think the problem here is that Coach and the others proposing this idea that rights exist independent of humans and human beliefs and ideas as opposed to a technological invention have been fed a specific worldview, religious or otherwise, which strongly appeals to that innate human desire for stability and a degree of predictability; Humans are special and there are inherent truths and mechanisms in this universe which govern human behaviour in a positive way.

So when we propose this almost nihilistic idea that those inherent mechanisms and rules that make up this imaginary moral safety net don't exist, everything is subjective, no action or event means anything or has any intrinsic moral value, and our governing rules are just the contemporary interpretation of the compromise between individual and social freedoms that every half-functioning society has to make...that's probably pretty scary to somebody who's believed in this idea of spoon-fed unalienable moral frameworks for their whole life.

E.g. "If I killed CoachDB tomorrow that would be objectively a bad thing and my moral standing according to the universe gets reduced" - It's more personally appealing to know that even if I die my murderer is condemned and punished by the universe itself so I will definitely get my own back. As a human I'm special and this giant authoritarian strongman (the universe/god/whatever) is keeping me safe. Than: - "If I killed CoachDB tomorrow that has no effect on the amoral inanimate object that is the universe whatsoever aside from making his family sad".

Pretty much ... it is true that a lack of belief in a higher power can be a bit depressing, so I see why religion works for a lot of people. For those of us who don't have religion, it does mean we're just left with 'increasing the sum total of happiness' as the point of our existence. Or something like that.

 

[My I]

Kitchen Knife wielding attacker in UK

There is an initiative being discussed in UK right now to ban kitchen knives with sharp points because of growing violent crime using kitchen knives as weapons.

The UK has comprehensive gun control laws. When guns were banned violent crime remained relatively the same. What changed was the weapons used for crime. Knives took over where guns once ruled. So UK banned fixed blade knives and folding knives with blades longer than 3.5 inches. Also to purchase a large kitchen knife in the UK you must show photo ID and proof of age. (over 18) Online purchases cannot be delivered to a residential address. Violent crime rates did not significantly change.

You can keep banning, "evil" weapons and everything that gets used as weapons and pretty soon you are going to be watching Pro Wiffle Ball while eating your dinner with blunt plastic tableware.

The weapons are not the problem. The problem is people with violent criminal tendencies. Deal with THAT problem first and you will find that the other measures are unnecessary.