YOU MUST KNOW THIS MAN

On Nov 18, 5:08*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/11/2012 17:13, wrote:

On Nov 17, 11:39 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:15:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:
They simply exist and are discovered by rational beings. *They bear
similarity to rules in mathematics ... 1+1 = 2, for example.

Mathematics is a fiction, as well. If you want to argue that they
exist as some sort of natural laws, you need to compare them to those.

1 + 1 = 2 *would be considered true to any other species capable of
discovering that fact.

If they only have two digits on a hand they might well say 1 + 1 = 10.

There are after all 10 types of people in the world - those that
understand binary and those that don't.

We are pretty sure that any civilisation will eventually recognise
certain universal mathematical constants like e, pi, 0, 1, i though give
them different names. They are likely to choose a number system based on
the number of digits they have on a hand/foot/tentacle.

However 1 + 1 will still equal 2, regardless of the symbols used. (My
example used base-10 and Arabic numerals, in case you were confused.)

But even in the case of physical laws, we are generally able to do
better than "they simply exist". We find all sorts of interconnections
and dependencies. Where are those for these supposed "natural rights"?

Nonsense. *Try again.

The only natural right that exists is that the fastest strongest
predator eats whatever it can catch. Nothing more and nothing less.

Perhaps among Brits, but the inhabitants of the Colonies were a bit
more advanced than those they left behind.

We have written them down in the Bill of Rights.

We've written all sorts of things down.

Yes, but the Constitution is the law of the land.

If it has to be written down then it is in no way natural!

Why not?

That doesn't make them laws of
nature.

Wrong, although your terminology is a bit vague and deceptive.

Yours is utterly perverse rightard drivel.

The idea that one human being doesn't not have the right to kill
another except in a case of self-defense is hardly drivel.

I think that your problem is that your mind is not sufficiently
developed to understand the concept of a natural right. *I wouldn't
expect a cat or a dog to understand the idea either.

There are no "natural rights" beyond might is right.

Wrong.

We have created synthetic laws to go beyond nature.

Drivel, as you would say.

The laws are derived from the natural rights, not the other way
around.

I disagree.

You are wrong to disagree, but you would never admit it.

What do these obvious "natural rights" actually say then in as succinct
a form as you can manage?

We'll start with the fact that all humans are assumed to have equal
rights. If you can't understand that, then then is no point in
explaining it to you further.

Remember that your constitution counted black slaves as less than a
person and unable to vote until after 1870 and still badly oppressed
them until as late as the 1970's. A country so strong on the idea of
"natural rights" sits very badly with its oppression of minorities.

That is irrelevant to the concept of natural rights.

On Nov 18, 12:35*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 18 Nov 2012 17:19:46 GMT, Bert wrote:

You're confusing the symbols with what the symbols represent.

He might be. But the concept of 1+1 = 2 if not an absolute truth.

ROTFLMAO!

All
of mathematics hinges on unprovable axioms. Perfectly consistent
mathematical systems exist where 1+1 != 2. There is nothing to suggest
that there are any universal mathematical truths.

What an idiot.

On 21/11/2012 11:18, wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:08 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/11/2012 17:13, wrote:

On Nov 17, 11:39 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:15:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The laws are derived from the natural rights, not the other way
around.

I disagree.

You are wrong to disagree, but you would never admit it.

What do these obvious "natural rights" actually say then in as succinct
a form as you can manage?

We'll start with the fact that all humans are assumed to have equal
rights. If you can't understand that, then then is no point in
explaining it to you further.

Except for slaves and children of slaves who were defined in the
original US constitution to be less than fully human. Black people in
the USA are still pretty badly treated even today although it was much
much worse in the past. You have selective memory of US history.

It was certainly not a majority view in the USA as recently as the
1970's why else did they need to pass laws like the Civil Rights Act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...ing,_Jr#Legacy

Remember that your constitution counted black slaves as less than a
person and unable to vote until after 1870 and still badly oppressed
them until as late as the 1970's. A country so strong on the idea of
"natural rights" sits very badly with its oppression of minorities.

That is irrelevant to the concept of natural rights.

Hardly. It is pretty clear that these so-called "natural rights" were
not recognised by the very people who drafted the US constitution.
Most of them were slave owners and some were abusive slave owners.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Nov 21, 11:49*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 21/11/2012 11:18, wrote:









On Nov 18, 5:08 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/11/2012 17:13, wrote:

On Nov 17, 11:39 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:15:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The laws are derived from the natural rights, not the other way
around.

I disagree.

You are wrong to disagree, but you would never admit it.

What do these obvious "natural rights" actually say then in as succinct
a form as you can manage?

We'll start with the fact that all humans are assumed to have equal
rights. *If you can't understand that, then then is no point in
explaining it to you further.

Except for slaves and children of slaves who were defined in the
original US constitution to be less than fully human. Black people in
the USA are still pretty badly treated even today although it was much
much worse in the past. You have selective memory of US history.


Selective memory indeed !before you point fingers look at your own
history -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcpE-jJ14pQ


It was certainly not a majority view in the USA as recently as the
1970's why else did they need to pass laws like the Civil Rights Act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...ing,_Jr#Legacy


The charter of parental rights is to protect children and get them out
of danger,it is unwritten and no organization actually exists to
maintain this human sentiment yet here you have people with a sever
dysfunction indoctrinating them through the education system.

Don't talk to me about rights ! - a cruel a people that has ever
existed it is has its roots in Royal Society empiricism.

On Nov 21, 11:49*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

Hardly. It is pretty clear that these so-called "natural rights" were
not recognised by the very people who drafted the US constitution.
Most of them were slave owners and some were abusive slave owners.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Evolutionary geology and biology were working side by side for the
longest time until the Royal Society empiricists framed them as a
natural law and in terms of cause using the most nationalistic and
tribal circumstances.You can read this train wreck through the pages
of history and still nobody is accountable for its continuation which
suits the aggressive and the uncaring -


"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin


"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.3.html

"Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find
the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance
along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted
living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the
danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave
nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the
disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter
as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our
historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence" Mein
Kampf

What religion ?,what science ?, a cruel people who play out their
'natural law' by using the wider population for funding/welfare or
using students as cannon fodder.