asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:11:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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

No. What's the majority got to do with anything? If the majority
decides freedom of speech makes no sense, than by consensus, within
that society, freedom of speech isn't a right. That doesn't mean I
have to agree. I can still argue that it should be a right, and
attempt to claim that right for myself. Of course, there may be
consequences to going against societal consensus. Or, I might sway
enough people to my view that it becomes a right. This is, very
obviously, the way it works in real life, the way it has worked
throughout history.

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

Sorry, I still haven't seen a shred of evidence presented for the
existence of any natural right. You've merely put forward a list of
rights and asserted that they were natural. Not the same list, BTW,
that others would suggest.

That there are moral beliefs and pattern of behavior (not killing, not
stealing) that are rooted in the evolutionary development of ours and
other species seems indisputable. But that fact has nothing at all to
do with how "rights" are defined, or whether they exist in the absence
of our creating them.

If you read your history and your philosophy, you'll see that people a
lot smarter than you have been arguing this matter for centuries.
Nobody has ever proved the existence (or lack of existence) of natural
rights. Arguments have been extended for their existence, for their
lack of existence, and different rights have been claimed as natural.
Like all matters of philosophy, this comes down in the end to personal
beliefs. The existence of natural rights cannot be proven. You are
either swayed by arguments, or not.

A non-exhaustive list :

Right to life, to not be injured, to not be attacked, to self
defense,

That's a human asserted right. Plenty of societies have functioned
just fine without that right, where the existence of most people was
at the pleasure of the ruler or rulers. If it was actually "natural"
that would not have been the case.

to reproduce and raise family,...

Same as above. And of course, it is eminently reasonable for a society
to place some restriction on this, for managing population size, for
example. If this is a natural right, then there should be no problem
with a 50 year old man taking a handful of 13-year old girls as wives,
for the purpose of procreation, right? That's perfectly natural, after
all, and has been the norm in many societies. Or do you think society
should step in an place restrictions on a "natural" right?

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

Now we really start to see how arbitrary your list is. Very few people
in the course of history have had any right to freedom or speech. Even
today there are major restrictions on the right to assemble. The right
to religion has been limited throughout history, to the point where
its existence is doubtful (and ought to be limited today in free
societies, such as making it illegal to teach children about religion,
or take them to church). Clearly, these rights you enumerate are all
defined by people. Indeed, you only have to look at the discussions
that were engaged in when the Bill of Rights was designed to see how
much people disagreed on what was or was not a right.


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,...

So taxes violate "natural" rights? Why the right to "seek" medical
care but not the right to receive it? Again, just an arbitrary list
that reflects YOUR personal philosophy, and carries with it the
implication that people with different beliefs about rights must be
evil or immoral.

When in doubt remember:
Your freedom ends where someone else's nose begins.

I don't think so.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

A recipe for evil, if ever there was one. I'd buy this: do not do unto
others what you would not have done unto you.

All humans are created equal.

A pretty concept, but obviously an unnatural one. Humans are not
created equal. But a society can create rights and laws in order to
maximize the degree to which all its citizens have equal opportunity
to succeed.

On Dec 15, 10:09*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:11:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:
And if the majority decides that freedom of speech makes no sense
anymore, then you go along with that?

No. What's the majority got to do with anything? If the majority
decides freedom of speech makes no sense, than by consensus, within
that society, freedom of speech isn't a right. That doesn't mean I
have to agree.

Why wouldn't you, then?

I can still argue that it should be a right,

On what basis, then?

and
attempt to claim that right for myself. Of course, there may be
consequences to going against societal consensus. Or, I might sway
enough people to my view that it becomes a right.

Free speech would already be a right.

This is, very
obviously, the way it works in real life, the way it has worked
throughout history.

Humans are able to speak by their very nature. They are able to think
by their very nature (although you might be an exception.) Humans can
express their ideas to others. Therefore to suggest that humans do
not have the natural right to free speech is absurd.

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

Sorry, I still haven't seen a shred of evidence presented for the
existence of any natural right. You've merely put forward a list of
rights and asserted that they were natural. Not the same list, BTW,
that others would suggest.

You have been given plenty of evidence, but your brain is not
sufficiently developed to understand it.

That there are moral beliefs and pattern of behavior (not killing, not
stealing) that are rooted in the evolutionary development of ours and
other species seems indisputable.

Not at all. You are anthropomorphizing once again.

But that fact has nothing at all to
do with how "rights" are defined, or whether they exist in the absence
of our creating them.

They do exist in absence of our recognition of them. We do not create
them.

If you read your history and your philosophy, you'll see that people a
lot smarter than you have been arguing this matter for centuries.

Those who would argue against the existence of natural rights are
definitely less intelligent than I.

Nobody has ever proved the existence (or lack of existence) of natural
rights. Arguments have been extended for their existence, for their
lack of existence, and different rights have been claimed as natural.
Like all matters of philosophy, this comes down in the end to personal
beliefs. The existence of natural rights cannot be proven. You are
either swayed by arguments, or not.

Nonsense. Natural rights are something that you and others simply
cannot grasp.

A non-exhaustive list :

Right to life, to not be injured, to not be attacked, to self
defense,

That's a human asserted right. Plenty of societies have functioned
just fine without that right,

Individuals have rights, and may at times band together to assert
those rights, but societies do not have rights.

where the existence of most people was
at the pleasure of the ruler or rulers.

Read your history; in general rulers existed at the pleasure of
others.

If it was actually "natural"
that would not have been the case.

Violation of a natural right does not imply its non-existence.

to reproduce and raise family,...

Same as above. And of course, it is eminently reasonable for a society
to place some restriction on this, for managing population size, for
example.

China's one-child policy is a violation of natural rights, on so many
levels. Couples are limited to "one-half" replacement, baby girls are
aborted and tens of millions of Chinese men will not be able to find
wives. The human cost is staggering.

If this is a natural right, then there should be no problem
with a 50 year old man taking a handful of 13-year old girls as wives,
for the purpose of procreation, right?

If by "taking as wives" you mean marrying them, keep in mind that
marriage is usually a legal contract and usually limited to only one
spouse at a time. However, it is not, in a society that respects
natural rights, a precondition for having children.

That's perfectly natural, after
all, and has been the norm in many societies.

And your point is?

Or do you think society
should step in an place restrictions on a "natural" right?

You seem to be asking some loaded questions here. Each person has a
natural right to reproduce and raise their children. The age of 13 or
even a bit older is generally too young for a girl to safely give
birth nor is she likely to be emotionally ready, so laws are in place
that protect their natural right not to be harmed. Beyond that age,
circumstances become increasingly more auspicious for starting a
family, and laws become more lenient. Historically, many people died
early, so it made sense to start a family at a younger age, while
today people live longer and can wait. Laws to protect the young do
not violate the natural right of reproduction.

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

Now we really start to see how arbitrary your list is. Very few people
in the course of history have had any right to freedom or speech.

Free speech harms no one, so free speech is a natural right.

Even
today there are major restrictions on the right to assemble.

It doesn't matter how many or what kind of restrictions some people
might impose, there is a natural right of assembly just the same.

The right
to religion has been limited throughout history, to the point where
its existence is doubtful (and ought to be limited today in free
societies, such as making it illegal to teach children about religion,
or take them to church).

That's really an amazingly arrogant statement. It is really no
business of yours whether parents teach their children religion. Feel
free to not teach it to yours, most of us don't care if you don't and
would leave you alone.

Clearly, these rights you enumerate are all
defined by people.

Recognized by people as natural rights and used as a guide to
governance.

Indeed, you only have to look at the discussions
that were engaged in when the Bill of Rights was designed to see how
much people disagreed on what was or was not a right.

It doesn't matter who disagreed, the rights exist anyway.

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,...

So taxes violate "natural" rights?

When taxes are used for wealth redistribution, then natural rights are
violated.

Why the right to "seek" medical
care but not the right to receive it?

If one needs medical care, there are charities that can help, or
family or friends to help pay, or for those with the foresight to buy
it, insurance. For the truly needy, there is Medicaid.

Again, just an arbitrary list
that reflects YOUR personal philosophy, and carries with it the
implication that people with different beliefs about rights must be
evil or immoral.

You may have different beliefs, but once you knowingly and willingly
violate a natural right, you have crossed over into evil and
immorality. If you don't believe in or can't comprehend natural
rights, then one can say you are not entitled to them. That is where
laws, based on natural rights, come into play.

When in doubt remember:
Your freedom ends where someone else's nose begins.

I don't think so.

With an attitude like that, you'd best be careful.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

A recipe for evil, if ever there was one.

ROTFLMAO! Your illogic is astounding.

I'd buy this: do not do unto
others what you would not have done unto you.

The same thing, worded a bit differently, but the same general idea.
The positive form, which I gave, implicitly includes the negative
form, which you gave, since inaction is the default situation.
However, the negative form only prescribes inaction.

All humans are created equal.

A pretty concept, but obviously an unnatural one. Humans are not
created equal.

They are created equal since they have the same natural rights. They
become unequal only to the extent that their natural rights are
violated, or to the extent that they violate natural rights.

But a society can create rights and laws in order to
maximize the degree to which all its citizens have equal opportunity
to succeed.

They already do have equal opportunity to succeed, so long as natural
rights are respected.

On Dec 16, 2:59*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Society suffers when its members are irrational (as is so apparent
today).

I have spent the best part of 8 months looking for a person who does
not adhere to the idea that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days and
have failed to find a single individual willing to support the
inviolate proportion of rotations per circuit which amount to 365 1/4
to 1 orbital circuit and 1461 rotations/days to 4 orbital circuits/4
years.

So irrational !,few have an idea just what that actually means in
today's world but I can tell what that nightmare is.

oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 16, 2:59 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Society suffers when its members are irrational (as is so apparent
today).

I have spent the best part of 8 months looking for a person who does
not adhere to the idea that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days and
have failed to find a single individual willing to support the
inviolate proportion of rotations per circuit which amount to 365 1/4
to 1 orbital circuit and 1461 rotations/days to 4 orbital circuits/4
years.

So irrational !,few have an idea just what that actually means in
today's world but I can tell what that nightmare is.

Yes it's irrational to expect anybody intelligent to support an idea that's
wrong.

On Dec 16, 1:33*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 16, 2:59 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Society suffers when its members are irrational (as is so apparent
today).

I have spent the best part of 8 months looking for a person who does
not adhere to the idea that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days and
have failed to find a single individual willing to support the
inviolate proportion of rotations per circuit which amount to 365 1/4
to 1 orbital circuit and 1461 rotations/days to 4 orbital circuits/4
years.

So irrational !,few have an idea just what that actually means in
today's world but I can tell what that nightmare is.

Yes it's irrational to expect anybody intelligent to support an idea that's
wrong.

If it was in any way remote from human experience I could allow for
the mistakes but it isn't,the correspondence between the cycle of one
day and night and daily temperature fluctuations is fixed to one 24
hour rotation of the Earth and the overall picture of 1461 rotations
in 4 years/4 orbital circuits so that the challenge is to remove the
erroneous 1465 rotations gives readers here the opportunity to present
the wider world with decisive facts that cannot be argued against ever
again .

The timekeeping system and its foundations in the cyclical dynamics of
the Earth is as intricate as rocket science or any other engineering
feat yet when asked to explained hugely complex issues such as
variations in seasonal weather patterns,why the return of the Sun
varies across each noon and multiple other topics in climate,biology
and geology,investigators don't get past the word 'tilt of the Earth'.

I am in

On Dec 16, 3:16*am, wrote:

You seem to be asking some loaded questions here. *Each person has a
natural right to reproduce and raise their children. *The age of 13 or
even a bit older is generally too young for a girl to safely give
birth nor is she likely to be emotionally ready, so laws are in place
that protect their natural right not to be harmed. *Beyond that age,
circumstances become increasingly more auspicious for starting a
family, and laws become more lenient. *Historically, many people died
early, so it made sense to start a family at a younger age, while
today people live longer and can wait. *Laws to protect the young do
not violate the natural right of reproduction.


Every student has a right to receive the information that the Earth
turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days,something you pair
have yet to affirm so forget your overblown fuss of 'natural
rights',all rights assume responsibility as a primary factort and I
have yet to see a single individual exercise responsibility,not
opinions,genuine responsibility that the Western world needs now more
than ever.

I am here in beautiful SoCal where the weather is different to the
Western isles of Europe where I come from yet behind the differences
is a common bond as the temperatures rise and fall in response to the
daily rotation of the Earth .How it came to be that men tried to
challenge the balance between rotations and these temperature
fluctuations and the opposoing arguments has a nobility to it that
hasn't appeared on the astronomical scene in such a long time and it
is the turn of our generation to make its mark rather than fall back
on people and conceptions that were in error,distorted or manipulated
for all the wrong reasons.It is a right the world deserves and it
should be in all individuals to make the effort each day to add
something.

There is no law to protect the primary fact that the Earth turns once
in 24 hours and 365 1/4 times as a proportion to 1 orbital
circuit,there is just an almost silent understanding among men that
this is so insofar as to promote an alternative proportion tears at
the intellectual fabric which holds a civilization together for if men
can be insincere here then there are no rules or laws.

On Dec 17, 7:38*am, oriel36 wrote

Every student has a right to receive the information that the Earth
turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days

With respect to the sun, true enough.

I am here in beautiful SoCal...

Me too! Stop by, I'll buy you a beer and we can get the broom out and
I'll demonstrate the way things really are...

\Paul A

"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 7:38 am, oriel36 wrote

Every student has a right to receive the information that the Earth
turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days

With respect to the sun, true enough.

I am here in beautiful SoCal...

Me too! Stop by, I'll buy you a beer and we can get the broom out and
I'll demonstrate the way things really are...

\Paul A
Kelleher wouldn't know SoHo (South Hoboken) from Soho, London.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:50:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You don't seem to believe in a natural right to property, so if the
masses, the majority, or society decided to confiscate your property,
what would you say in protest?

Asked and answered.

Ramble on all you want, the fact is that a philosophical opinion is
not the same as a rational argument. You've said nothing that
demonstrates natural rights exist. You may believe it, but there is no
more substance to these rights than there are to unicorns, gods,
ghosts, or any of a million other things that people believe in
despite a complete lack of objective evidence.

On Dec 17, 6:53*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:50:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:
You don't seem to believe in a natural right to property, so if the
masses, the majority, or society decided to confiscate your property,
what would you say in protest?

Asked and answered.

You have not answered the question, idiot.


Ramble on all you want, the fact is that a philosophical opinion is
not the same as a rational argument.

If society were to decide to take your property, what reason would you
give for why they should not?

You've said nothing that
demonstrates natural rights exist. You may believe it, but there is no
more substance to these rights than there are to unicorns, gods,
ghosts, or any of a million other things that people believe in
despite a complete lack of objective evidence.

Unicorns, gods, ghost would have no practical value even if they did
exist, whereas natural rights are applicable on a daily basis, and one
must admit, have lead to stable and just societies. Your strawman is
pathetic.