asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Dec 2, 9:37*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:39:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:00 am, Chris L Peterson

wrote:

The most civilized in that regard are those that adhere to a free
market and respects natural rights. *To try to make health care a
"right' is to lose sight of the fact that someone would then have to
be coerced into paying for or providing it.

This applies to any right, which would require some court system to
punish those who violate the right. Someone will have to pay for the
court system too, but without it the right would vanish and instead
become a might.

A criminal defendant does not benefit from the court system, except to
get a fair trial, which is his right under the law, which in turn
recognizes and is largely derived from natural rights. If it is
determined that he has violated one or more of the natural rights of
others, then he loses claim to one or more natural rights.

Ironically, once sent to prison, the defendant will be given medical
care as needed, only because he would no longer be able to seek or pay
for it in the normal way. The rest of us bear that cost in exchange
for getting a possibly violent criminal off of the streets.

A right is what we say it is.
Who is "we?"

Those who are in power, of course.

In my country, the people are in power, but we recognize the natural
rights of an individual. Your country is probably different.

Nothing more, nothing less. A human
societal construct.
A natural right exists even without a society to create it.

Which means natural rights do not exist, since without a society
there will be nothing to enforce any rights.

No, if someone tries to clobber you on the head, you are entitled to
defend yourself.

On Dec 3, 12:15*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:14:24 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Which of course allows many of us to recognize the existence of
natural rights.

You can recognize whatever you want, even if the viewpoint is
irrational and based on nothing but personal philosophy.

I prefer to limit my recognition to that for which some evidence
exists. And that doesn't include natural rights.

If someone tries to hit you over the head with a rock, by what right
are you allowed to defend yourself?

On Dec 3, 12:17*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:39:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:
You think we are in Iraq, shooting people who are no threat to us in
our own country, by accident?

We are there because Hussein was violating the terms of a treaty
signed at the end of the Persian Gulf War. *Most of the deaths have
been due to the actions of the insurgents. *Hussein had been
responsible for far more deaths during his brutal reign.

You see... no natural rights.

Simply because Hussein violated the natural rights of others does not
mean that his victims did not have natural rights.

You are perfectly comfortable making an
exception to your "natural right" to not be killed for people with
whom you have a political disagreement.

We had a political disagreement with Hussein, not the Iraqis:

Hussein invades Kuwait and violates the natural rights of Kuwaitis.
The Allies kick him out of Kuwait and have him sign an agreement
allowing weapons inspections.
Hussein violates that agreement.
No longer able to be sure what he is up to, we remove him from power.
Having violated the natural rights of millions of Iraqis, Hussein is
found guilty by the Iraqis and executed.
Israel can shift its attention to other enemies.
The Iraqi people now get to vote.

Hypocrite.

You should learn the meaning of the word before throwing it around.

While you are at it, learn to think logically.

On Dec 3, 6:15*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I prefer to limit my recognition to that for which some evidence
exists. And that doesn't include natural rights.

Limit indeed !,judging from the commentaries of those who were
insightful,the attempt of empiricism to limit its approach to all
celestial and terrestrial phenomena results in a selective use of
information and mostly a distortion of information to achieve,for want
of a better word,ideologies which have a distinct cult feel about
them.What most people understand as 'science' is empiricism,something
quite different and the results are pretty dismal.

While Galileo,Kepler and Copernicus provide decent commentaries on
those who can't quite join the stream of thought behind an insight or
a method,there is no way to budget for an out-of-control empirical
cult except to direct to literature which assumed a fictional state
such as Orwell -

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct,
at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of
not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of
misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to
Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which
is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short,
means protective stupidity" Orwell

Many of you really couldn't feel the tragedy that exists presently and
especially the unfolding catastrophe where empiricism meshes with
human rights/civil law however it is the most simple thing known that
has the most resonance in the failure to accept 1461 rotations in 1461
days defies if not staggers the mind.

On Dec 1, 1:52*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/1/11 1:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:11 am, Sam *wrote:

*Brad is not very bright wanting to relocate the moon to a location
*where benefits to the stability of the earth trend toward negligible.

Your pretend-knowledge of a smart parrot is noted.

Relocation of our moon is by itself could be worth 10+ trillions per
year to Earth, just with the little spot of shade it'll accomplish.

* L1 is not stable and the moon could come crashing into the earth.
* Brad, you forgot to do a feasibility study!

Also any civilisation which had the power and resources to move the Moon
wouldn't need to do it.

In other words, you and other Rothschilds that never have to worry
about anything still have no idea what YU55 is made of, and you could
care less what happens to Earth in the near or distant future.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 04:29:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:

If someone tries to hit you over the head with a rock, by what right
are you allowed to defend yourself?

By the right that society defines for us, that we can generally defend
ourselves against personal violence. That's what "allowed" means.

In the absence of society, I don't defend myself by any "right" at
all. There is no question of what is "allowed". I defend myself
because doing so is part of my survival instinct, a quite natural part
of the evolution of most species. Of course, you don't mention the
motivation of the person with the rock- which might also be a product
of natural evolution.

On Dec 3, 10:27*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 04:29:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:
If someone tries to hit you over the head with a rock, by what right
are you allowed to defend yourself?

By the right that society defines for us, that we can generally defend
ourselves against personal violence. That's what "allowed" means.

BZZZZT... Sorry, wrong answer. The answer we were looking for is "The
natural right to life and to not be injured."

In the absence of society, I don't defend myself by any "right" at
all. There is no question of what is "allowed".

While one is fighting against a rock-wielding attacker the existence
of laws and a society is moot. In absence of a society and laws, you
would have the natural right to use about as much force to uphold your
rights as the offender was using to violate them.

I defend myself
because doing so is part of my survival instinct, a quite natural part
of the evolution of most species. Of course, you don't mention the
motivation of the person with the rock- which might also be a product
of natural evolution.

Assuming that you didn't start the fight and attack the other person
with deadly force, we can conclude that he is up to no good, ie, out
to violate your natural rights. Maybe he is out to steal your
property and doesn't want any witnesses.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 08:44:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

BZZZZT... Sorry, wrong answer. The answer we were looking for is "The
natural right to life and to not be injured."

So you were looking for the wrong answer. Nothing I can do about that.

Assuming that you didn't start the fight and attack the other person
with deadly force, we can conclude that he is up to no good, ie, out
to violate your natural rights. Maybe he is out to steal your
property and doesn't want any witnesses.

If he is stronger than me, he has something like a natural right to
take my property. That's pretty much how nature works. I have no
"right" to protect myself. I'm as much violating his "natural right"
to take my stuff as he is violating mine to trying to take it.

Might makes right. But it doesn't make "rights". People do that.

On Dec 3, 9:13*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 08:44:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
BZZZZT... Sorry, wrong answer. *The answer we were looking for is "The
natural right to life and to not be injured."

So you were looking for the wrong answer. Nothing I can do about that.

Assuming that you didn't start the fight and attack the other person
with deadly force, we can conclude that he is up to no good, ie, out
to violate your natural rights. *Maybe he is out to steal your
property and doesn't want any witnesses.

If he is stronger than me, he has something like a natural right to
take my property. That's pretty much how nature works. I have no
"right" to protect myself. I'm as much violating his "natural right"
to take my stuff as he is violating mine to trying to take it.

Might makes right. But it doesn't make "rights". People do that.

Here in Usenet/newsgroups there are no rights other than approved by
the mainstream Zionist Nazis and their fellow FUD-masters (aka pretend-
Atheists and politically correct shape shifters).

On Dec 3, 12:13*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 08:44:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
BZZZZT... Sorry, wrong answer. *The answer we were looking for is "The
natural right to life and to not be injured."

So you were looking for the wrong answer. Nothing I can do about that.

No, we were looking for the correct answer, which I gave after you
made an incorrect statement.

Assuming that you didn't start the fight and attack the other person
with deadly force, we can conclude that he is up to no good, ie, out
to violate your natural rights. *Maybe he is out to steal your
property and doesn't want any witnesses.

If he is stronger than me, he has something like a natural right to
take my property.

Bzzzt! Wrong again.

That's pretty much how nature works. I have no
"right" to protect myself.

Civilized, rational humans would recognize you right to defend
yourself.

I'm as much violating his "natural right"
to take my stuff as he is violating mine to trying to take it.

He has no natural right to steal.

Might makes right.

Did your parents teach you that?

But it doesn't make "rights". People do that.

Natural rights exist, but people must learn to recognize them. You
have much to learn.