asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:42:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:


There is a difference. One has a natural right to own a piece of
property, but using it might involve a privilege.

Nobody has any natural right to own property.

I get it. You have a religious belief in this idea of "natural
rights". Like all religious belief, it is philosophy that can't be
objectively supported. Fine. But recognize your belief for what it is-
dogma.

On Dec 10, 1:05*am, wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:47*am, Mike Collins wrote:





wrote:
On Dec 7, 10:09 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 02:56:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Natural rights exist, but people must learn to recognize them. *You
have much to learn.

I fear you learn to much from churches and other sources of unreason..
If you actually thought about these things reflectively, I think you'd
be much less certain of your views.

Like I said before... I'll restrict what I actively believe in to that
for which there is at least an iota of evidence. No evidence, no
belief.

Able to recognize the existence of natural rights: *Most humans.
Unable to recognize the existence of natural rights: Non-human animals
and C. Peterson (and perhaps some tyrants and other bad actors.)

Congratulations. *You are in good company.

Or maybe your problem is that you don't understand the difference
between privileges and natural rights.

No, that's your problem.

Peterson has problems thinking very deeply about most things, as do
you, apparently.

Like most right wingers you feel the universe owes
you a living.

You'll have to define "right-winger" for us. *In my country it's only
the left wingers who expect the government to solve all of their
problems and redistribute. *In your country it's probably -everyone-
who expects that.

There are no rights. Only privileges given to you by your tribe.

I am not a member of any tribe.

American
Right winger.

The first of these tribes gives you priveleges in the constitution
which are enforced by your local protection racket. (The judicial
system)





I may
agree with the ideas behind most of these "rights" but they are not natural
laws.

My ancestors disagreed with the primitive views similar to what you
have today, and declared independence.


Your ancestors were too selfish to help pay for the war against the
French started by one George Washington. They declared independence
once the French were defeated and were no longer a danger. They were
so concerned about natural rights that they allowed slavery.


Try exercising your right to free speech in China

The natural right to free speech still exists, even in China, but with
consequences that involve having one's other rights violated.

or your right to keep and
bear arms in Britain where carrying a handgun will get you a 5 year jail
sentence.

Which makes Britain rather backward in its thinking. *Carrying a
handgun violates no one else's natural rights. *Vermont has very lax
gun laws and few murders.

The murder rate in Vermont is about 12 per million. About the same as
the total English murder rate. In a comparable rural area Norfolk
where I live the murder rate is 8 per million.




You can't assert a right to life in a country which has capital punishment.

Sure you can.


You can clain it but only by being either a hypocrite or a liar.



The universe doesn't give you a right to life.

Who said it did?

You said it did by claiming natural rights.


You have to earn it by
surviving.

Survival is more likely if those around you recognize and respect your
natural right to life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Historically the best protection from murder is a strong government.

On Dec 9, 9:50*am, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Restoring this and most other public Usenet/newsgroups to any level of
intellectually deductive scientific research that's positive and
constructive, is almost a lost cause.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

Pot kettle black



Obviously you have problems with sharing the best available science.
So, how has your need-to-know system of nondisclosure and obfuscation
be doing?

Do you have any viable clean renewable energy solutions for us?

Do you have a terrestrial metallicity extraction plan of action that
doesn't happen to include social/political disparity issues, ethnicity
compromises, hoarding and global inflation or yet another bloody war?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:50 am, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Restoring this and most other public Usenet/newsgroups to any level of
intellectually deductive scientific research that's positive and
constructive, is almost a lost cause.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

Pot kettle black



Obviously you have problems with sharing the best available science.
So, how has your need-to-know system of nondisclosure and obfuscation
be doing?

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by thus gibberish.



Do you have any viable clean renewable energy solutions for us?


Tidal, wave, nuclear, geophysical, satellite. Possibly ocean thermal but
that might increase global warming by liberating methane clarhrates.
Kite generated wind power may also be an option.


The Severn barrier won't be much good if you move the Moon though.


Do you have a terrestrial metallicity extraction plan of action that
doesn't happen to include social/political disparity issues, ethnicity
compromises, hoarding and global inflation or yet another bloody war?

I don't feel the need for any of these.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

On Dec 10, 12:47*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:50 am, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Restoring this and most other public Usenet/newsgroups to any level of
intellectually deductive scientific research that's positive and
constructive, is almost a lost cause.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

Pot kettle black

Obviously you have problems with sharing the best available science.
So, how has your need-to-know system of nondisclosure and obfuscation
be doing?

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by thus gibberish.

Do you have any viable clean renewable energy solutions for us?

Tidal, wave, nuclear, geophysical, satellite. Possibly ocean thermal but
that might increase global warming by liberating methane clarhrates.
Kite generated wind power may also be an option.

Because of your social/political system that's totally corrupted and/
or dysfunctional is why we can't hardly access any of that, so it's
back to the toxics and polluting basics because others of your kind
don't seem to even like hydroelectric energy or much less thorium
fission energy, as well as token solar and wind derived energy isn't
getting us very far. About the only thing you consider as clean and
renewable is spendy coal, other hydrocarbons plus fracking of shale
and otherwise converting our food into fuels.


The Severn barrier won't be much good if you move the Moon though.
That would become problematic, although because of the continuous
lunar alignment and synchronous benefit that's associated with our
solar induced tides, there would still be roughly 50% tidal actions
taking place, .


Do you have a terrestrial metallicity extraction plan of action that
doesn't happen to include social/political disparity issues, ethnicity
compromises, hoarding and global inflation or yet another bloody war?

I don't feel the need for any of these.
It seems we got a few ongoing and likely future wars due to
metallicity extractions and various market hoarding as is (metallicity
includes hydrocarbons as well as lithium, helium and He3), and it's
probably not going to get much better as all 8 billion humans insist
upon having their high performance cars, trucks and SUVs plus iPhones,
iPads loaded with with each and every conceivable interactive HDTV
plus 3D games running at full tilt, not to mention those spendy needs
of the upper most 0.0001% (8000 oligarchs and Rothschilds) with their
fleet of ultra-mega-yachts and personal jets to go along with their
four seasonal villas that each require an average 100+ kw just to keep
them ready for action (fully operational yachts can easily exceed 2 MW
because I know of several that exceed 5 MW and a few others that
exceed 10 MW)

It seems we humans can't hardly survive without good access to most of
those raw elements, some of which being rare earths are currently at
minimums and/or getting spendy as hell as our global cache of
resources is about to the taper off, because of our current rate of
accelerated consumption isn't tapering off.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Dec 10, 12:25*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:42:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:
There is a difference. *One has a natural right to own a piece of
property, but using it might involve a privilege.

Nobody has any natural right to own property.

ROTFL. If the masses voted to institute land reform, you would be a
hypocrite if you protested their decision in any way.

I get it. You have a religious belief in this idea of "natural
rights".

Your statement makes no sense, since my recognition of the existence
of natural rights did not derive from any religion.

Like all religious belief, it is philosophy that can't be
objectively supported. Fine. But recognize your belief for what it is-
dogma.

If a religion speaks of, or alludes to, natural rights it is because
its founders recognized their existence and wrote them down.

Whatever its origin, you have to admit that "Thou shall not steal" is
a good idea.

On Dec 10, 4:43*am, Mike Collins wrote:
On Dec 10, 1:05*am, wrote:



On Dec 8, 6:47*am, Mike Collins wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 7, 10:09 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 02:56:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Natural rights exist, but people must learn to recognize them. *You
have much to learn.

I fear you learn to much from churches and other sources of unreason.
If you actually thought about these things reflectively, I think you'd
be much less certain of your views.

Like I said before... I'll restrict what I actively believe in to that
for which there is at least an iota of evidence. No evidence, no
belief.

Able to recognize the existence of natural rights: *Most humans.
Unable to recognize the existence of natural rights: Non-human animals
and C. Peterson (and perhaps some tyrants and other bad actors.)

Congratulations. *You are in good company.

Or maybe your problem is that you don't understand the difference
between privileges and natural rights.

No, that's your problem.

Peterson has problems thinking very deeply about most things, as do
you, apparently.

Like most right wingers you feel the universe owes
you a living.

You'll have to define "right-winger" for us. *In my country it's only
the left wingers who expect the government to solve all of their
problems and redistribute. *In your country it's probably -everyone-
who expects that.

There are no rights. Only privileges given to you by your tribe.

I am not a member of any tribe.

American
Right winger.

You still haven't explained what a "right winger" is.

There are many different cultures and subcultures in the US. Few, if
any, of them question the existence of natural rights. Your "tribe"
is more primitive apparently.

The first of these tribes gives you priveleges in the constitution
which are enforced by your local protection racket. (The judicial
system)

I may
agree with the ideas behind most of these "rights" but they are not natural
laws.

My ancestors disagreed with the primitive views similar to what you
have today, and declared independence.

Your ancestors were too selfish to help pay for the war against the
French started by one George Washington.

No, they were tired of British taxes, and no voice in British
government.

They declared independence
once the French were defeated and were no longer a danger.

The French were defeated in 1763. The Declaration of Independence was
signed in 1776. In between were the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend
Acts, Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Intolerable Acts, and the
beginning of the Revolutionary War (started by British troops.)

Since the French helped the Americans, maybe they were a "danger" only
to the British.

They were
so concerned about natural rights that they allowed slavery.

Rhode Island started fixing that in 1774.


Try exercising your right to free speech in China

The natural right to free speech still exists, even in China, but with
consequences that involve having one's other rights violated.

or your right to keep and
bear arms in Britain where carrying a handgun will get you a 5 year jail
sentence.

Which makes Britain rather backward in its thinking. *Carrying a
handgun violates no one else's natural rights. *Vermont has very lax
gun laws and few murders.

The murder rate in Vermont is about 12 per million. About the same as
the total English murder rate. In a comparable rural area Norfolk
where I live the murder rate is 8 per million.

Where I live it's about 0 per million.

You can't assert a right to life in a country which has capital punishment.

Sure you can.

You can clain it but only by being either a hypocrite or a liar.

You can claim it, assert it, etc., if you have respected other's right
to life.

The universe doesn't give you a right to life.

Who said it did?

You said it did by claiming natural rights.

No, sentient beings have natural rights, simply because they have the
potential to recognize the existence of the same. If you have
difficulty with the concept, perhaps it is because you have a feeble
mind.

You have to earn it by
surviving.

Survival is more likely if those around you recognize and respect your
natural right to life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Historically the best protection from murder is a strong government.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Iraq,
Libya,....

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:59:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

ROTFL. If the masses voted to institute land reform, you would be a
hypocrite if you protested their decision in any way.

Why is that? I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with "the masses"
without invoking any sort of supernatural concept of "natural rights".

Your statement makes no sense, since my recognition of the existence
of natural rights did not derive from any religion.

The belief itself is religious. I did not say it derived from any
religion.

Whatever its origin, you have to admit that "Thou shall not steal" is
a good idea.

That depends on context. I generally agree that it is a good idea. So
are many other aspects of behavior. There is no need to invoke
"natural rights" to take that position.

On Dec 13, 12:27*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:59:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
ROTFL. *If the masses voted to institute land reform, you would be a
hypocrite if you protested their decision in any way.

Why is that? I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with "the masses"
without invoking any sort of supernatural concept of "natural rights".

Not if they are violating some of your other natural rights. On what
basis can you complain? "The people" have spoken.

Your statement makes no sense, since my recognition of the existence
of natural rights did not derive from any religion.

The belief itself is religious. I did not say it derived from any
religion.

You really should neither edit so much, nor fail to indicate that you
have edited.

You wrote:
"I get it. You have a religious belief in this idea of "natural
rights"."

I then wrote:
"Your statement makes no sense, since my recognition of the existence
of natural rights did not derive from any religion."

Natural rights, religious or not? Which is it?

Whatever its origin, you have to admit that "Thou shall not steal" is
a good idea.

That depends on context.

"Ends justify the means?" That sort of thing?

I generally agree that it is a good idea.

Then on what basis do you say it is a good idea? You already deny the
existence of natural rights.

So
are many other aspects of behavior. There is no need to invoke
"natural rights" to take that position.

Then on what basis do take that position?

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:25:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Why is that? I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with "the masses"
without invoking any sort of supernatural concept of "natural rights".

Not if they are violating some of your other natural rights. On what
basis can you complain? "The people" have spoken.

I can't tell if you're trolling, or just stupid. Natural rights have
no bearing on whether I choose to agree or disagree with how the
majority sees something. Are you seriously suggesting that I can't
have an objection to anything that the majority of people approve of?
Ridiculous! Indeed, it is the concept of "natural rights" that forces
people into unnatural patterns of agreement or disagreement with
ideas. There's a reason that the most moral, ethical people are those
who don't believe in any natural or absolute ethos, and the least
moral and ethical people are those who base their views on absolute or
religious ideals.

Your statement makes no sense, since my recognition of the existence
of natural rights did not derive from any religion.

The belief itself is religious. I did not say it derived from any
religion.

You really should neither edit so much, nor fail to indicate that you
have edited.

You wrote:
"I get it. You have a religious belief in this idea of "natural
rights"."

You really should develop some reading comprehension skills. Bad
enough that you can't interpret what I say the first time. But then to
repeat it for all to see, and fail a second time to interpret it...
well, I guess the "stupid" suggestion earlier was correct.

A religious belief does not mean the same thing as a belief derived
from any particular religion. It merely means an irrational belief
based on superstition.

I generally agree that it is a good idea.

Then on what basis do you say it is a good idea? You already deny the
existence of natural rights.

Because society functions better, and more people are happy, if
stealing isn't common. What does this have to do with natural rights?

Humans create rights. Successful societies create them carefully.
Unsuccessful societies, not so much.