|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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” |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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 |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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” |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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,.... |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
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? |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Close approach planetoid. | Sjouke Burry | Misc | 1 | February 5th 08 01:19 AM |
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Red Planet set for close approach | Nick | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 29th 05 02:29 PM |
Cassini-Huygens makes first close approach to Titan | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | October 26th 04 05:06 PM |
Observing 4179 Toutatis near close approach | Astronomy Now Online | UK Astronomy | 1 | September 17th 04 06:02 PM |
Mars Looms Big & Bright as It Nears Record-Breaking Close Approach | Ron Baalke | Misc | 4 | August 10th 03 08:15 AM |