He likes me better.If these rights come from "God," why aren't they universal to ALL humans on the planet?
Ah yes, philosophizing is oppressing your freedom to hear only Meatball bashing. Sounds like victim mentality to me.Less philosophy, more bashing DeSantis.
Now there's a free thinker for you. It's not that if you can't see the prison imposed on you by the authoritarian rules of relationships that make up our social life and in which we have been imprisoned if accepted without examination, you will find no use for what Jesus is teaching, no no no not that but rather you should blame and reject the actual people themselves that are similarly trapped. Hahaha, personally I would say that Jesus is saying that if you want to find truth know that the price will be everything you currently hold sacred.It's more than just "had half siblings". Jesus was actively anti-family (like cult-leaders throughout history).
“If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
All you need to do to answer that is to compare what you mean by God to what anybody else thinks He is. I suspect tht the God you refer to is one you don't believe in so any rights you believe in could be whatever you want to imagine. Now multiply.If these rights come from "God," why aren't they universal to ALL humans on the planet?
Put that way it's harder to dismiss (as I understand it they've observed things like trading of possessions occurring within groups of other primates). But I'm still not convinced our 'instincts' are sufficiently limited or definable so as to base an explicit list of 'rights' on them.
We have 'instincts' to do all sorts of things, including establish hierarchies and attempt to dominate or exploit others (most primates seem to have hierarchical social structures). Which is presumably why our ideas about 'rights' have varied depending on the historical era and specific culture. Those ideas of "rights" are probably driven by those 'bad' instincts as much as supposed 'good' ones, and the specific idea of 'rights' they give rise to is probably dependent on culture.
I don't know. I'm not denying that talk of "rights" can be useful, or saying that it should be thrown out entirely, I just don't think they are as simple or obvious as some claim and certainly don't accept that one can derive them from this 'state of nature' idea.
In practice people who go on about 'human rights' seem to often be rather self-serving in how they interpret them and what they choose to include or omit from them (e.g. our own "equality and human rights commission" seems an obviously partisan political body, and the European Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up by people with a specific ideology - ironically it was heavily influenced by British Conservatives, who later turned against the whole thing when it became inconvenient for them)
Yup, such an unattractive idea that the chemical pheromone the Queen emits to the hive to drive colony survival, replaced in human society by the love of others as one’s self, so easily becomes, by way of the delusion of language, the notion of the self as a separate unique ego.I'm not suggesting we determine rights from a list of instincts. I'm saying our rights are already based on instincts. At least, that is where they started. In modern civilization, we've attached more social ideas to those rights. Yet even now some rights are barely more than instinct. For example, when man developed language, we relied on that too to survive ("hey, there's a grissly bear over there, run!"). No surprise we don't like being gagged. And while nowadays we have lip gloss and fidget spinners, all our possessions used to be things we needed to survive. Or here's another - if someone passes a law that says you can't marry a black person, or a man - our choice of mate, because it is instinct, this becomes an infringement on our "rights."
We protect ourselves from death and physical harm; we protect our possessions from theft; we cherish our freedom of movement; and we don't like to be gagged.
This is the sense in which our "rights" are "inalienable," or at least, they seem that way. Because those instincts are quite literally inside of us. It is essential that people not do these things to us, - we can feel it in our bones. They are emotions, feelings and, with sentience, ultimately they become beliefs.
The rest is just words we've attached to all those things. It may not be an attractive idea - that we are all just talking animals who are slaves to our instincts and most of the things we "believe" have little to do with objective reality - but it's the truth.
From that obscure document called the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Yup.
Of course rights don’t come from god. God not existing aside, if rights came from god they would be universal, which they very much are not.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Irony at it's finest, where you are trying to claim that rights are not granted by government, using a document created by government, telling you that there are unalienable rights given to you by your creature. Where they go on and tell you (define) what some of those rights are. If such rights are given by our creator, and not government, why is it the government, who is defining and telling us what those rights are?From that obscure document called the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In order for a non Progresshevik society to work, government is not the grantor of rights.
You have a Cart before the horse or chicken before the egg issue going on here. First, every form of civilization has some form of basic monarchy (government).I'm not a history buff but I had no idea no civilization existed before the declaration of independence that had set forth laws and rights to its citizens. oh my, america first for everything.
Some of you are are beyond being thick. if god gave us rights then god certainly gave mr desantis his effeminate voice.
The principles of today's government were well established by past civilizations. Many of our laws are directly inspired from those. In case it wasn't clear I wasn't calling your post out but bull's stupid post. Men of old studied the classics and principles of government by philosophers and handed down texts from those civilizations. They were a model for nearly all governments.Cart before the horse issue going on here. First, every form of civilization has some form of basic monarchy (government).
Second, there where no United States citizens until the declaration of independence and Constitution where created forming the United States. However, there was already a monarchy established long before they reached the shores of America.
Sorry, I was editing my post to clarify what I was trying to say, as you where typing and posting this. But we are are on the same page.The principles of today's government were well established by past civilizations. Many of our laws are directly inspired from those. In case it wasn't clear I wasn't calling your post out but bull's stupid post. Men of old studied the classics and principles of government by philosophers and handed down texts from those civilizations. They were a model for nearly all governments.
and if we're being technical here, July 2nd 1776 was when they announced independence, wrote it on the 4th, and began signing it on the 2nd of the following month.
Yeah. I should have been more clear I was poking fun at the other guy's post. He's probably the lone yes vote, too. It's very funny if you think how fast the government moved in those days. these days you'd be lucky to get something adopted that fast that affected the sovereignty of the nation.Sorry, I was editing my post to clarify what I was trying to say, as you where typing this. But we are are on the same page.