Do you acknowledge this?
Edit: Gotta go. It might be a bit before I get back to any response you make. I’ll try to get back to you sooner rather than later though, don’t worry! 
Because on slavery, like every other topic, my opinion is useless without widespread buy in from others?
The flux of every right imaginable throughout history shows these rights truly do exist at the whim of society.
I must nothing of the sort. You’re clearly not capable of discerning what I believe
Like anything else? Because I say so? Nobody forcing you to accept it.
Good thing I didn’t say society is the source of rights.
Good thing I’ve said nothing to the contrary.
And then…
You just made the case that they had no rights (thus no moral obligation on society because rights exist at the whim of society. You’re in disagreement with yourself. Sorry, pfury. I do have to leave out very shortly. Breakfast is ate, shower is done. Let the drive commence. If you’re still wanting to discuss I’ll try to get back to your responses.
Whether or not it was owed to them has nothing to do with whether or not society can ignore those rights. Society can and does strip anyone it wants of any right it wants. Whether or not it SHOULD happen is another matter entirely.
Again, no. I made the case that despite my view of them having rights, that’s never been enough to stop society from overruling my opinion.
A concept is a thing.
Actually that case was not made. That rights exist at the whim of society doesn’t make it a contradiction. If anything, it’s the opposite.
So you’re saying that the bear didn’t violate that person’s rights because rights can only be recognized as well as taken by those who give them. The bear, which exists in nature, is not bound by our sense of natural rights. So you’re saying, therefore, that since nature doesn’t recognize those rights they can’t come from nature.
Not one that actually exists, which is what I said.
Negative rights to life, liberty, and property don’t require someone else give up his rights. When someone starts claiming other things as “rights,” they invariably require something from others(positive rights).
No, it was made. If rights exist on society’s whim, which is what was said (quote is above), and that society hadn’t given slaves rights, then no trespass was done against the rights of slaves.
Nope. The person’s rights are obviously violated, but we’ long learned bears can’t be regarded as moral agents. They just aren’t very good at teaching morality to.
Believing that rights don’t actually exist means YOU are stuck valuing human life no more than an animal, like your bear.
I don’t understand why people take offense at it being pointed out that they don’t actually believe in something they say they don’t believe in. Gooooollllllllllly! Ok, the rest of my lunch is for eating. Have a good time, folks.
1 Like
So freedom, a concept, does not exist?
What does that glob of words have to do with anything?
But you are asking someone not from that society.
I am speaking outside of the person. Like God. I could say God exists, and the existence of the concept of God is proof.
The concept of morality and rights exists, but as actual things, you don’t believe they do. No, you don’t. Because you can’t empirically measure it. Trying to eat over here!
Then that person must defer to reality. Society hadn’t given those slaves to trespass against. I’ll be back in the evening, don’t worry!
What I’ve learned is that most gun owners are such law-abiding, NICE people. That it would take an unimaginable event for them to take to the streets.
We don’t see one small issue and get up in arms about it and block interstates…because we’re (99.9%) nice Law-abiding people who respect this country and it’s laws.
Seriously nice people who respect the laws, this is why we are so touchy about any of these laws changing, cause we follow them so closely.
Seriously, nice people.
These are the people that you should WANT to own guns.
2 Likes
Then it would follow that bears have rights thus bear hunting is a violation of their rights since natural rights would have to be universal to everything in nature. Unless your saying that natural rights only apply to humans which means a bear can’t violate a right that doesn’t apply to his existence. But you believe that a bolt of lightning violates someone’s rights if it strikes him.
If you do the former you are thinking like people in the Middle Ages. As for the latter it is obviously false since I, like you, conform to moral standards and take advantage of rights and respect the established rights of others.
Indecipherable.