On Jul 17, 11:05Â pm, Michael Price
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jul 17, 2:27Â am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jul 16, 11:30Â am, CanopyCo
aol.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 15, 10:14 pm, Michael Price
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2:15 am, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>
>>>>> The individual - nation analogue is used by the top political
>>>>> scientists including Alexis DeTocqueville, whose brilliance is
>>>>> unquestioned.
>
>>>>> Bret Cahill
>
>>>> Â The individual is not a nation and the nation is not
>>>> an individual. Â The second amendment refers to individuals
>>>> not nations. Â Why would a government bother to give itself
>>>> the right to be armed? Â Of course you'll never admit that you
>>>> might be wrong on this or anything else.
>
>>> Nations are made up of individuals, therefore a group of individuals
>>> is a nation.
>
>>> Exactly how are you going to disarm a nation without first disarming
>>> all individuals?
>
>>> As to the second amendment, it was entered into our constitution
>>> because it was considered a "God given" right. One that is the right
>>> of everyone. Like the pursuit of happiness. Everyone has the right to
>>> try and have a tolerable life instead of hating life every day.
>
>>> Therefore, regardless of if it was an American or any other nation,
>>> the individuals in each of them also have the same "God given" rights
>>> as we do. Not because they are given to us by law, but because they
>>> are inherited by us as civilized humans.
>
>>> The right to defend ourselves.
>>> The right to be left alone.
>>> The right to think what we want.
>>> The right to warship what ever we want.
>>> The right to leave a place we don't like being in.
>
>>> Stuff like that.
>
>>> Otherwise, it is not a right, it is a privilege granted you by your
>>> government.
>
>> Just like a soul. See, everyone has an immortal soul, given to them by
>> God. And you know that because of the voices in your head, right?
>
>> Idiots.
>
>> -tg-
>
> Â Souls have nothing to do with rights. Â We know we have rights
> because
> it is impossible to make a consistent moral code without the concept
> of
> rights
It is impossible to have the idea of sin without an immortal soul. By
your reasoning, that is proof of the existence of souls.
and it's impossible to live well without a moral code that
> works.
Nonsense. I live perfectly well without a moral code.
> We also know that inconsistent theories don't work as well as
> consistent
> ones. Â So if you need a concept to make a theory fit reality well (as
> a good
> moral theory will guide you in reality) then the concept describes
> something
> real. Â Just like the solar wind,
Solar wind can be measured without observing the behavior of comets.
> which we need to explain the
> behaviour of
> comets, so rights are needed to explain how human morality works.
No, there can be an arbitrary set of rules (morality) without any
reference to 'rights'. It is not necessary to say that humans have
the right to life to say "thou shalt not kill".
Look, your argument reduces very clearly to "The *concept* of rights
exists." Well duh, we already knew that. The question was whether
*rights* exist outside of legal rights, where existence means that we
can test for them **by observation of real-world phenomena**. The
fact that people may act *as if* they have an immortal soul or rights
or a guardian angel doesn't demonstrate the existence of souls or
rights or angels.
-tg
