asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Dec 13, 10:39*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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!

If the masses vote to confiscate your property (and according to you
it is their "right" to do so) what objection can you raise? Sure, you
won't be happy about it, but without the recognition of natural
rights, what will be your argument? Will you try to state that their
decisions and actions aren't fair?

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,

Actually, it is the moral relativists who make it up as they go along,
leading to mob rule.

and the least
moral and ethical people are those who base their views on absolute or
religious ideals.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy. Those who follow and
understand natural rights are far more likely to be moral and ethical,
since they already understand the concept of equality.

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.

Your problem seems to be that you simply don't read.

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.

You appear to be stupid, ignorant and arrogant all at once.

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.

Now you try to refine words in order to support your pathetic
arguments.

"Thou shall not steal" might be considered a religious belief, since
religions often preach it. Would you say that it is an "irrational
belief?"

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?

Natural rights are equal rights. Rational and civilized people
recognize them and respect them. If a person steals from another, he
can then have no cause to complain if someone steals from him.
Eventually, if he is smart enough, he recognizes that we all have a
natural right to keep what we have worked to obtain.

Humans create rights.

Humans have natural rights, simply because they are human.

Successful societies create them carefully.

Stable and just societies are based on and must respect all natural
rights.

Unsuccessful societies, not so much.

They usually fall apart once the people in them begin to recognize and
assert their natural rights. For example, once they exercise their
natural right to free speech, their situation tends to change, perhaps
even to improve.

We still don't seem to know what YU55 is made of, however off-world
metallicity is a very good thing, not that digging up and/or
excavating through another fraction of a percent of Eden, plus
extensive recycling shouldn’t get us by. We’ve processed through and/
or having excavated plus sucked dry roughly 0.0000001% of our planet
as is, and a billionth of our planet is only 6 trillion tonnes.
However, adding in what we’ve intentionally and accidentally cleared
and/or having cultivated to death is perhaps worth an all-inclusive
6000 trillion tonnes, or 0.0001%, so perhaps we still got a long ways
to go before ever reaching 0.1%, that might not even be possible
without going below the crust..

Actually gold is still a very nifty metal that's good for all sorts of
stuff, besides just always looking good it’ll also be hard to replace
with other alloys that are any easier to come by.. By rights our
physically dark moon should be saturated with gold deposits and many
other valuable metallicity elements, because any good color image of
the physically dark lunar surface proves that such a terrific
assortment of metals do exist.

However, if the NWO is going to become simply evil upon evil, whereas
only the bully oligarchs and Rothschilds as mutually competitive
robber barons get to decide most everything, then it's not going to
become a good thing, much less fair and balanced for the other
99.9999% of us that always get to pay for everything. Perhaps that’s
the message in those Georgia Guide Stones telling us that a maximum of
500 million get to remain and dominate this planet because that’s all
this planet can possibly accommodate without social, political and
faith-based insurmountable issues.

Of what little social/political corruption is left is kind of the
cookie crumbs of the mostly public funded jar, because all the really
good cookies of crime and corruption have already been taken and
consumed by those truly in charge of whomever we elect or appoint, and
clearly mainstream religion can’t be trusted to police its own kind.

Perhaps it's past due that we the evil villagers with each of our fist
full of burning sticks take charge, and if need be burn down the
castles of those evil robber barons oppressing and misguiding us,
because with good applied physics and existing technology this planet
can accommodate billions more without our having to go off-world in
seeking greater riches and/or the basics that’ll be required for
sustaining life as we know it.

So, it's kind of evil against evil, and may the best bad guys win, and
of course only the evil victors ever get to interpret and publish
their version of history, so that whatever mistakes or do-overs at
public expense can be forgotten and/or continually blamed on those
other evil bad guys. Clearly the only good guys are the losers
because they didn’t get to cheat and obfuscate their way to the top.

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


On Nov 1, 12:35*pm, wrote:
The article at the link below indicates a forthcoming asteroid
approach by 2005 YU55 to within 325,000 km of Earth and states that
the object is about 400m across. I would imagine that such an object
would be quite bright! How bright will it get, and which hemisphere is
favored observation-wise?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/po...d=asteroid-pla....

On 12/14/11 8:45 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
By rights our
physically dark moon should be saturated with gold deposits and many
other valuable metallicity elements, because any good color image of
the physically dark lunar surface proves that such a terrific
assortment of metals do exist.

The Apollo rocks show that the chemistry of the moon is the same
as the earth's surface, Brad.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:29:57 -0800 (PST), wrote:

If the masses vote to confiscate your property (and according to you
it is their "right" to do so) what objection can you raise?

Where did I say that? What I said at that rights are a human
invention. First, society has to redefining rights to include the
taking of property (oh wait... they already have; property gets taken
all the time, doesn't it?)

Again, I fail to see what something being defined as a "right" has to
do with whether I agree or disagree. In the U.S. we have a "right" to
own firearms. I disagree with that, and think it should be considered
a privilege. We don't have a right to free healthcare. I disagree with
that, considering this a fundamental human right.

Rights are what they are, as defined by a society. There is nothing
that forces us to accept them as well defined. There is nothing that
prevents us from seeking to limit some rights, and extend others.

Sure, you
won't be happy about it, but without the recognition of natural
rights, what will be your argument? Will you try to state that their
decisions and actions aren't fair?

Why not? If I consider it to be unfair, the rational thing to do is to
try to convince enough other people to think that same way, and change
the definition of a right. Not long ago in the U.S., many black people
did not have a right to freedom. This was considered fair by many
people. But over time, what people considered fair changed, and with
that change came a new definition of a right.

Actually, it is the moral relativists who make it up as they go along,
leading to mob rule.

No, that has never happened. Only moral relativists can be truly
moral.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy. Those who follow and
understand natural rights are far more likely to be moral and ethical,
since they already understand the concept of equality.

History suggests otherwise. Nearly everything we would today consider
an atrocity occurred because those in power fabricated some sort of
"natural right" to justify their actions. Ethical actions come from
reflective analysis of morality, not from dogma.

On Dec 14, 10:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:29:57 -0800 (PST), wrote:
If the masses vote to confiscate your property (and according to you
it is their "right" to do so) what objection can you raise?

Where did I say that? What I said at that rights are a human
invention.

There, you just said it again.

First, society has to redefining rights to include the
taking of property (oh wait... they already have; property gets taken
all the time, doesn't it?)

In the form of taxes, certainly, but land reform has happened in other
countries.

Again, I fail to see what something being defined as a "right" has to
do with whether I agree or disagree. In the U.S. we have a "right" to
own firearms. I disagree with that, and think it should be considered
a privilege.

You are not required to own any, and your rights are not being
violated simply because others do decide to own them.

We don't have a right to free healthcare.

There is no "free" healthcare.

I disagree with
that, considering this a fundamental human right.

A "right" to "free" healthcare for a person would necessarily entail a
responsibility for some other person to provide or pay for it. If the
neighbor's kid tries to ride his skateboard down a flight of steps and
cracks his face open, why should I or anyone else have to pay for his
treatment? If a chain smoker spends hundreds of dollars per month on
cigarettes (enough to pay for a health plan, BTW) why should I, a
person who doesn't smoke and who invests a similar amount of money in
things that are productive, have to pay for the smoker's
healthcare?

Rights are what they are, as defined by a society.

Then a society can give itself the "right" to take your property.

There is nothing
that forces us to accept them as well defined. There is nothing that
prevents us from seeking to limit some rights, and extend others.

Sure, you
won't be happy about it, but without the recognition of natural
rights, what will be your argument? *Will you try to state that their
decisions and actions aren't fair?

Why not? If I consider it to be unfair, the rational thing to do is to
try to convince enough other people to think that same way, and change
the definition of a right.

You don't get it, do you? I said that the masses, society if you
will, has decided to take your property and they cannot be convinced
not to.

Not long ago in the U.S., many black people
did not have a right to freedom. This was considered fair by many
people. But over time, what people considered fair changed, and with
that change came a new definition of a right.

They had a right to be free, a right which was being violated. Many
people already understood this and realized that opposing slavery was
the only logical stance.

Actually, it is the moral relativists who make it up as they go along,
leading to mob rule.

No, that has never happened. Only moral relativists can be truly
moral.

Moral relativists are moral only sometimes and only by accident.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy. *Those who follow and
understand natural rights are far more likely to be moral and ethical,
since they already understand the concept of equality.

History suggests otherwise. Nearly everything we would today consider
an atrocity occurred because those in power fabricated some sort of
"natural right" to justify their actions.

Obviously, you do not understand what a natural right is.

Maybe this will help:

Natural rights are equal rights.
Having and/or exercising natural rights does not violate anyone else's
natural rights.
Violating one or more of another's natural rights can lead to
forfeiture of one or more of one's natural rights.
Animals do not understand rights, and therefore do not have them.
Humans can understand natural rights, and therefore can have them.

There are at least three broad categories: Right to life, liberty,
property (aka pursuit of happiness)

A non-exhaustive list :

Right to life, to not be injured, to not be attacked, to self defense,
to reproduce and raise family,...

Right to liberty, freedom, speech, assembly, religion, privacy, to
bear arms, to fair trial, to participate in government, to protest,...

Right to property, right to keep what one has worked to obtain or what
one has been given, right to seek a living, right to trade, right to
seek education, right to seek medical care,...

When in doubt remember:
Your freedom ends where someone else's nose begins.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
All humans are created equal.

On Dec 14, 7:18*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/14/11 8:45 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

By rights our
physically dark moon should be saturated with gold deposits and many
other valuable metallicity elements, because any good color image of
the physically dark lunar surface proves that such a terrific
assortment of metals do exist.

* *The Apollo rocks show that the chemistry of the moon is the same
* *as the earth's surface, Brad.

If NASA told you tyhat Muslims had WMD hidden on the moon, you'd
believe that too.

BTW; those Apollo moon rocks were just terrestrial rocks, so of
course they'd be the same. Any objective proof otherwise has been
lost or simply tossed out the window.


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

On 12/14/11 10:38 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
BTW; those Apollo moon rocks were just terrestrial rocks, so of
course they'd be the same. Any objective proof otherwise has been
lost or simply tossed out the window.

At least you are finally admitting that the Apollo rocks have
the chemistry as the earth's surface.

On Dec 14, 8:45*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/14/11 10:38 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

BTW; *those Apollo moon rocks were just terrestrial rocks, so of
course they'd be the same. *Any objective proof otherwise has been
lost or simply tossed out the window.

* *At least you are finally admitting that the Apollo rocks have
* *the chemistry as the earth's surface.

Other than your Apollo moon rocks can't be objectively proven as
coming from our moon.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:58:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:


We don't have a right to free healthcare.

There is no "free" healthcare.

I disagree with
that, considering this a fundamental human right.

You see, there's the difference between us. We both believe in the
idea of rights. But I see them for what they are- human constructs. As
a result, I'm willing to let my ideas about them change as society
changes. I'm willing to let go of rights that make no sense anymore,
and adopt new rights that do. I'm willing to let superior arguments
change my viewpoint.

You pick out a subset of rights- for no rational reason- and call them
"natural". No matter that there is no agreement that these rights are
actually natural, or that they are necessarily the same "natural"
rights others would list. But by defining them this way, you've
essentially taken them off the discussion table. You believe that your
list is somehow blessed by "nature", and when somebody else believes
the same thing about their list, and all that's left if you disagree
is for one of you to kill the other (or at least, consider the other
guy evil or immoral). Welcome to the reason for so much destruction in
the world.

The idea of natural rights is dangerous, and like all dogma, leads
only to evil.

On Dec 15, 12:22*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:58:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
We don't have a right to free healthcare.

There is no "free" healthcare.

I disagree with
that, considering this a fundamental human right.

You see, there's the difference between us. We both believe in the
idea of rights. But I see them for what they are- human constructs. As
a result, I'm willing to let my ideas about them change as society
changes. I'm willing to let go of rights that make no sense anymore,

And if the majority decides that freedom of speech makes no sense
anymore, then you go along with that?

and adopt new rights that do. I'm willing to let superior arguments
change my viewpoint.

My arguments have been superior to yours and your viewpoint hasn't
changed.

You pick out a subset of rights- for no rational reason- and call them
"natural".

The rights that I listed do not interfere in any way with other
natural rights.

No matter that there is no agreement that these rights are
actually natural, or that they are necessarily the same "natural"
rights others would list.

If I left out any natural rights please submit them for approval. I
didn't claim that the list was complete. Just be warned that if you
try to include something such as "free" healthcare again, I will point
out your error.

But by defining them this way, you've
essentially taken them off the discussion table.

Of course, otherwise they would not be natural rights.

You believe that your
list is somehow blessed by "nature", and when somebody else believes
the same thing about their list, and all that's left if you disagree
is for one of you to kill the other (or at least, consider the other
guy evil or immoral).

If the other guy thinks he has the right to take my possessions, keep
me from speaking out, etc., then he is evil and immoral. I don't have
to wait around for other people's permission in order to reach that
conclusion.

Welcome to the reason for so much destruction in
the world.

The idea of natural rights is dangerous,

How could the "idea" (fact, actually) that we all have a natural right
that we call freedom of speech be dangerous ?

and like all dogma, leads
only to evil.

BEGIN SARCASM:
Yeah right, speaking out is evil. How silly of the rest of us to
think that we have that natural right.
END SARCASM:

Again:

Natural rights are equal rights.
Having and/or exercising natural rights does not violate anyone
else's
natural rights.
Violating one or more of another's natural rights can lead to
forfeiture of one or more of one's natural rights.
Animals do not understand rights, and therefore do not have them.
Humans can understand natural rights, and therefore can have them.

There are at least three broad categories: Right to life, liberty,
property (aka pursuit of happiness)

A non-exhaustive list :

Right to life, to not be injured, to not be attacked, to self
defense,
to reproduce and raise family,...

Right to liberty, freedom, speech, assembly, religion, privacy, to
bear arms, to fair trial, to participate in government, to
protest,...

Right to property, right to keep what one has worked to obtain or
what
one has been given, right to seek a living, right to trade, right to
seek education, right to seek medical care,...

When in doubt remember:
Your freedom ends where someone else's nose begins.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
All humans are created equal.