Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:42:46 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

But thinking of the society itself as having rights leads to confusion and
error. As one example, "social rights" are used in some foreign countries to
justify acts which Americans would reject as racist - telling people they can't
name their children from their own ethnic traditions, or dress differently from
others.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/25034...by-naming-laws

Strange that most of the countries in the list are probably the ones that peterson most admires?

WRT atti

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...fashion-police

He probably likes North Korea too. Its government controls the airwaves after all.

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:51:22 PM UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:16:45 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
Going to "natural rights" instead of "God-given rights" is already
one step
down on the ladder, but one which often must be taken simply
because there is
more than one religion, and they're not all agreed on what God
commands men to

Wouldn't god-given rights be the same as supernatural rights? :-)

The subject is natural rights, not supernatural rights. Are you attempting to create a strawman argument?

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I see society as a living thing, an
entity that consists of a synergistic collection of individuals. A
group of conscious beings, if you like, and I see no reason not to
recognize the concept of group rights, just like individual rights.

Rights to do what, at what individuals' expense? IOW, you are a collectivist?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:29:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I see society as a living thing, an
entity that consists of a synergistic collection of individuals. A
group of conscious beings, if you like, and I see no reason not to
recognize the concept of group rights, just like individual rights.

Rights to do what, at what individuals' expense? IOW, you are a collectivist?

Protection of common goods, for example. The right of society to
unpolluted air and water valued higher than the right of an individual
to pollute them.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:20:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:51:22 PM UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:16:45 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
Going to "natural rights" instead of "God-given rights" is already
one step
down on the ladder, but one which often must be taken simply
because there is
more than one religion, and they're not all agreed on what God
commands men to

Wouldn't god-given rights be the same as supernatural rights? :-)

The subject is natural rights, not supernatural rights. Are you attempting to create a strawman argument?

If you can't show that these rights are somehow provided by nature,
described by repeatable natural laws, then you are talking about the
supernatural.

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:29:27 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I see society as a living thing, an
entity that consists of a synergistic collection of individuals. A
group of conscious beings, if you like, and I see no reason not to
recognize the concept of group rights, just like individual rights.

Rights to do what, at what individuals' expense? IOW, you are a collectivist?

Protection of common goods, for example. The right of society to
unpolluted air and water valued higher than the right of an individual
to pollute them.

You evaded the question, peterson. A law against pollution is presumed to apply to all individuals.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:19:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:29:27 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I see society as a living thing, an
entity that consists of a synergistic collection of individuals. A
group of conscious beings, if you like, and I see no reason not to
recognize the concept of group rights, just like individual rights.

Rights to do what, at what individuals' expense? IOW, you are a collectivist?

Protection of common goods, for example. The right of society to
unpolluted air and water valued higher than the right of an individual
to pollute them.

You evaded the question, peterson. A law against pollution is presumed to apply to all individuals.

Society is another name for "all individuals", which is all I was
saying in my adult conversation with John.

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 9:12:23 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

If you can't show that these rights are somehow provided by nature,

You are making a false assumption when you say "provided by nature," peterson.

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 9:30:02 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:19:09 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 05:29:27 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I see society as a living thing, an
entity that consists of a synergistic collection of individuals. A
group of conscious beings, if you like, and I see no reason not to
recognize the concept of group rights, just like individual rights.

Rights to do what, at what individuals' expense? IOW, you are a collectivist?

Protection of common goods, for example. The right of society to
unpolluted air and water valued higher than the right of an individual
to pollute them.

You evaded the question, peterson. A law against pollution is presumed to apply to all individuals.

Society is another name for "all individuals", which is all I was
saying in my adult conversation with John.

You are not actually capable of carrying on an adult conversation, peterson.

So if you think "society is another name for 'all individuals' " then you would have to claim that all individuals (in any given society) are treated equally in all ways. Yet some societies had slaves, others don't have universal suffrage, etc.

Now actually answer the questions that I asked earlier:

"Rights to do what, at what individuals' expense? IOW, you are a collectivist?"

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:31:23 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 9:12:23 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

If you can't show that these rights are somehow provided by nature,

You are making a false assumption when you say "provided by nature," peterson.

What assumption would that be? Are you saying that you believe in
something called "natural rights" that aren't actually a property of
nature?