Nice straw man (and false one, at that) but no, I don’t, and I’m not sure where you picked that up from my post about natural rights.

triple on March 9, 2012 at 12:51 AM

It’s not a strawman. It’s a very logical conclusion of what you’re saying.

majority rule dictating rights is a disaster

If rights are merely man’s “invention” as you claim above, then man has full power to withhold them. If rights are bestowed by man, then man has the right NOT to bestow them.

If a constitution and/or government is needed in order to possess rights, then a majority has the power to withhold those rights.

Minority rights especially need to be protected for that precise reason

But you’re simply hoping that a majority decides to INVENT rights for all minorities. You don’t believe that minorities are born with rights.

Ironically the bible is perfectly okay with slavery.

Does your interpretation of the bible make you feel more comfortable believing in a system which allows men to decide that slavery is ok?

Isn’t that why prison exists? Prisons are full of people who did not respect the inherent dignity of others in some way, infringed on someone else’s rights – and had their rights and freedom TAKEN AWAY as a result.

Yes, prisons are perfect examples of you practicing your religion on everyone else. Again, it’s incredibly hypocritical of you to do this since you claim that you think that someone doesn’t have “the right to practice it on everyone else.”

So, you believe slavery is ok as long as a majority of men wants to enslave you.

Nice straw man (and false one, at that) but no, I don’t, and I’m not sure where you picked that up from my post about natural rights. Minority rights especially need to be protected for that precise reason – majority rule dictating rights is a disaster, just ask any black man who lived in the south during the era of jim crow laws. Or ask any gay man who lives in the bible belt today.

Ironically the bible is perfectly okay with slavery.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. 1 Timothy 6:1-2

So, you’re claiming that someone doesn’t have the inherent dignity to his own self unless he respects the same in others?

Isn’t that why prison exists? Prisons are full of people who did not respect the inherent dignity of others in some way, infringed on someone else’s rights – and had their rights and freedom TAKEN AWAY as a result.

This is the fundamental basis of our justice system, no?

Without babies to talk about ripping apart, well, you just don’t seem like your regular trollish witty self.

Badger40 on March 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

But he explained that he believes in slavery (since he believes that rights are whatever a majority says rights are) – so there’s that.

do your students copy their homework from wikipedia?

And one of the girl’s mother is our History teacher.
And she didn’t know SQUAT.

Badger40 on March 8, 2012 at 8:39 AM

so what?

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM

What’s with the wikipedia crack?
And it was relevant bcs the kid’s mother is a government teacher.
Unlike your anti-religious rant.
Seriously, isn’t there a baby-killing thread you’d feel more comfortable trolling?
Without babies to talk about ripping apart, well, you just don’t seem like your regular trollish witty self.

First of all, some distinction. Natural rights doesn’t mean god-given.

triple on March 8, 2012 at 6:45 PM

The writers & signers of the Declaration, Locke, and Blackstone all disagree.

God-given rights assumes some sort of supernatural being had a hand in granting you freedom, which is kind of naive, honestly, but believe whatever you want to, its a free country.

triple on March 8, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Naive or not, this is precisely the assumption that forms the foundation of the United States and its federal government:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

The Preamble of the Declaration makes it clear that: human beings have specific (not unlimited) rights which were given to them by the divine Creator of the natural world; those rights are individual to each person; that the purpose of Government is to ensure the security of each person’s rights and the exercise thereof; and that all of the above assertions are self-evident truths.

Like it or not, the Founders assert that every one of your “natural” rights is God-given. The primary functional upswing of this is that no government — tyrannical or otherwise — can ever justly take those rights away from you. Government — as a human institution — has no authority to overrule the God who made humans.

THAT is the whole point: no government rules with the authority or approval of God when it unjustly infringes on a person’s innate rights.

I don’t really care whether you believe in God, the Bible, or anything for that matter. But, as the saying goes, facts is facts. Trying to re-write the 18th century Christian Founders as 21st century secular realpolitik philosophers is just embarrassingly sad.

there is nothing that can stop other men of trying to enslave me. so I make mine jefferson words:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
to note, I think we live far from an tyranny, such as libya of syria that deserve such bloody revolutions

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 4:14 PM

The adorable thing about this comment is the juxtaposition of the Jefferson quote about Shays’ rebellion and nathor’s confident assertion that we “live far from an [sic] tyranny…that deserve such bloody revolutions”.

Jefferson’s point to William Stephens Smith (newly-wed son-in-law of John Adams) was that WITHOUT periodic (every 20 years or so) fertilization by the blood spilled in defense of our liberties the tree of liberty would die, and quickly so.

Context is vital. Knowing history even more so.

First of all, some distinction. Natural rights doesn’t mean god-given. Natural rights assumes every human being has the inherent dignity to his own self,

so long as he respects the same in others

. This is what I believe, and it’s also why I believe in things like gay marriage. You have the right to practice your religion, but you don’t have the right to practice it on everyone else. It’s the same idea.

triple on March 8, 2012 at 6:45 PM

So, you’re claiming that someone doesn’t have the inherent dignity to his own self unless he respects the same in others?

Wow, your belief in an inherent dignity sounds religious and the fact that you want to take away someone’s inherent dignity if they don’t agree with you IS you practicing your religion on everyone else. It’s incredibly hypocritical.

But kos is right, god-given or not as determined by our founding fathers.

This isn’t a coherent sentence, but I assure you that kos is wrong!

See, because god is an invention of man, so they’re our invention regardless.

So, you believe slavery is ok as long as a majority of men wants to enslave you.

Got it.

I dont.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 4:58 PM

But you believe that only have rights IF you’re able to enter into a contract with other men that agree that you have rights. So, that means that you believe that, if those other mean reject your contract, that they have the right to enslave you.

maybe its better to close the conversation here?

Close it whenever you want. You’ve already back-pedaled 90% of the way.

God-given rights assumes some sort of supernatural being had a hand in granting you freedom, which is kind of naive, honestly, but believe whatever you want to, its a free country.

But kos is right, god-given or not as determined by our founding fathers. See, because god is an invention of man, so they’re our invention regardless.

The point isn’t that some men think that they have the right to enslave me.

The point is that you agree with them.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I dont. where you want to go with this? maybe its better to close the conversation here?

i definitely believe some men can think that they have the right to enslave me.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM

The point isn’t that some men think that they have the right to enslave me.

The point is that you agree with them.

First, this is untrue in today’s world.

Second, the issue isn’t about stopping them – the issue is whether they have the right to do it. You seem to believe that they do.

i definitely believe some men can think that they have the right to enslave me. for example, a muslim extremist , a despot, a racial supremacist that dislike my race, etc.

But it’s kind of sad that you don’t think that you have a right to be free unless other men agree that you should be free.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 4:17 PM

its not sad, its pragmatism. the world was once full of men with the “right of being free”, but slaves any way.

its just my reasoning leading me to these conclusions.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I know that your reasoning is leading you to conclude that slavery is acceptable as long as men agree that they can enslave others.

Is the “golden rule” more of an authority than “self interest”? Because “self-interest” allows one to refuse your contract and enslave you.

I think it derives mostly from our emotion of empathy.

Human desire for self interest is much more powerful than empathy.

It just does not feel right.

You’ve simply been conditioned to feel this way.

there is nothing that can stop other men of trying to enslave me.

First, this is untrue in today’s world.

Second, the issue isn’t about stopping them – the issue is whether they have the right to do it. You seem to believe that they do.

so I make mine jefferson words:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
to note, I think we live far from an tyranny, such as libya of syria that deserve such bloody revolutions

Completely irrelevant.

I dont want to concede your point,

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM

You’ve come close enough. That’s fine.

But it’s kind of sad that you don’t think that you have a right to be free unless other men agree that you should be free.

Again, I’m not criticizing this belief. It’s just that most people stopped thinking like this over 100 years ago, so it’s a bit rare

.
maybe I am in our founders footsteps? … seriously, its just my reasoning leading me to these conclusions.

Is the “golden rule” more of an authority than “self interest”? Because “self-interest” allows one to refuse your contract and enslave you.

I think it derives mostly from our emotion of empathy. It just does not feel right.

That’s fine. However, you’re also admitting that “other men” have no obligation to provide you your freedom which means that your admitting that they have a right to enslave you.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

there is nothing that can stop other men of trying to enslave me. so I make mine jefferson words:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
to note, I think we live far from an tyranny, such as libya of syria that deserve such bloody revolutions

No, short, disengaging answers which nitpick are designed to force the debate opponent to expend more resources in their replies. That’s trolling.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM

that nuts. I dont want to concede your point, but I am also tired of the argument. that is all.

to be sure:
A is “government”
B is “our rights”
C is “constitution”
D is “god”

if KOS claims, A cause B, then KOS is wrong.
fine, I agree.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Furthermore, the Constitution didn’t cause our rights. You are dead wrong about this.

to be sure:
A is “government”
B is “our rights”
C is “constitution”
D is “god”

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

No, this is dead wrong. It doesn’t matter what meanings are assigned to the logic placeholders.

Are you completely unable to analyze logic without forcing god into the equation?