Where do your rights come from?

a reply to: andy06shake

So animal rights are made by animals not for animals?

I'm missing the leap in logic that says human rights obviously means rights created by humans as opposed to inferring rights for all humans as I beleive is the more obvious solution as illustrated by the meaning of the phrase animal rights.

a reply to: CitizenZero

I suppose the thing is, people are not born equal, nor in life are they really ever that much equal nether.

But it takes all sorts to make the world spin, and that does not mean that we should at least strive towards a modicum of equality for all.

Accept the reality is money talks and the rest simply do the walk.

Far to many have nots, and far to few haves, is the colour of the day.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Ever read "Animal Farm"?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". LoL

What makes you think humans follow logic where might and right are concerned?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

The fact is, "God almighty" created us hungry and vulnerable, and only the most vicious among us survive, historically. Humanity, as a collective whole, has not conquered hunger and vulnerability. As a matter of fact, the rich and power exploit hunger and vulnerability to maintain said wealth and power.

The meek have not inherited the earth, yet. Historically, the meek are, well "history", and the rich and powerful rule the meek and have, thus far, inherited the earth.

This is the "moral foundation" of the society that we live in today.

But how bad really is the rich and powerful? The Liberals have turned them into the "evil rich" well the ones not liberal as least..lol

The big question is do we need the rich and powerful? I say yes as the vast majority of society would wallow in their own sh!t without them.

What have the rich and powerful done to you, as example. Have they made your life better or worst?

Now we could go the direction with zero religion, zero morals outside of some independent humans dreaming them up on the spot and get Pol Pot with millions killed in a few years with many tortured to death using school children, China's industrial revolution where 100 million were killed, but no one knows the real count, Stalin 40+ million killed with many by just his whims of the day, Hitler... Japan during WWII, so on and so forth. Sh!t gets real, real quick...lol

The rich and powerful don't look so bad in comparison to what it could really be like.

originally posted by: CitizenZero
No one has a right to an easy and comfortable upbringing. That’s a pipe-dream.

That doesn't preclude the idea of god given rights also being a pipe-dream.

Think about it, the words in the declaration of independence states that all men have these rights, while slavery was going on. That is one serious disconnect.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That "moral foundation" comes from a social agreement, even if that social agreement is called religion and claims to come from "God Almighty".

I agree to a point... Morals from a wider body of people compared to lets say the morals I personally feel we should have if I was king.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: CitizenZero
No one has a right to an easy and comfortable upbringing. That’s a pipe-dream.

That doesn't preclude the idea of god given rights also being a pipe-dream.

Think about it, the words in the declaration of independence states that all men have these rights, while slavery was going on. That is one serious disconnect.

Yes, men deny the rights of others all the time, even against established and cherished doctrines. But slavery has been abolished and the disconnect was eventually straightened out by good men, a pipe-dream came reality.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The rich and powerful have protected me, and mine, from invading marauders, established a way to feed myself and my family so that we can be productive members of society. In exchange, I pay taxes and obey laws.

Indeed, the world as we know it would fall into disrepair if the mighty didn't rule. That doesn't mean that humanity can't continue to evolve to a more altruistic government that doesn't require poor vs rich to make the world spin round and round.

Could humanity survive without these constant wars and economic manipulation? You bet.

a reply to: andy06shake

All of creation testifies to the glory of god and all things are for the glory of god. In practice this means all evil down to the devil himself will kneel before god and confess to his glory.

Does that mean no evil exists in this world or it is just as good to be good as it is to be evil sense it all ends up glorifying god in the end?

Nope. We are either willfully for him or we are willfully against him. In this case it is the means not the ends that matter sense the end is all the same aka god gets the glory.

Good and evil are mutually exclusive according to the bible. Sence all men fall short ot is by the grace of god and the blood of jesus that we have any hope for salvation.

Best I can break it down down is this god is perfect man is borne into sinful flesh and deservingnof death, it by gods grace and jesus blood we have a choice to willfully drawn closer to him and seek a relationship with him or we choose to ignore him.

The fact that we can choose to ignore him does not mean a perfect god doesn't exist any more than his perfect existence precludes us from sinning against him.

Hope this helps.

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Yes, men deny the rights of others all the time, even against established and cherished doctrines. But slavery has been abolished and the disconnect was eventually straightened out by good men, a pipe-dream came reality.

While that is a move forward it does not prove that the pipe-dream of god given rights is a reality. Oppression and even slavery still exist.

It might be a nice idea but it wasn't a reality when written and it isn't a reality now.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

That's a bit of a big bold statement given the sheer size and scale of creation.

I mean how can you say that when you have only ever seen Earth for a start?

Good and evil are human constructs based on perspective and justification, one mans lie is another truth, one mans bad, another's good.

If God, or gods exists, good and evil will be somewhat above(or below as the case may be) there scope of reality.

Its easy to ignore the silent my friend and the big dudes not saying much or anything at all for that matter, that's us you hear screaming religion from the rooftops, well 80% of us anyroad.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Yes, men deny the rights of others all the time, even against established and cherished doctrines. But slavery has been abolished and the disconnect was eventually straightened out by good men, a pipe-dream came reality.

While that is a move forward it does not prove that the pipe-dream of god given rights is a reality. Oppression and even slavery still exist.

It might be a nivce idea but it wasn't a reality when written and it isn't a reality now.

The fact that slavery and oppression exists is not an argument against freedom and human rights, unfortunately.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If we a borne with freedoms why do they only become rights in your definition once aknowledged/given by men.

Either you are confused on the definition of rights or I am confused by your statement.

I am going toncircke back to Google's definition and leave it hear for you to use for referance.

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.
"she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong"
Similar:
goodness
rightness
righteousness
virtue
virtuousness
integrity
rectitude
uprightness
principle
propriety
morality
truth
truthfulness
honesty
honor
honorableness
justice
justness
fairness
equity
equitableness
impartiality
lawfulness
legality
Opposite:
wrong
2.
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
"she had every right to be angry"

Where in either of those two provided definitions does it imply rights come from men either exclusively or otherwise?

Can you even find the word men in either definition?

originally posted by: CitizenZero
The fact that slavery and oppression exists is not an argument against freedom and human rights, unfortunately.

The argument isn't against that, it is about them being god given and that this somehow makes them inalienable.

That just isn't true, no matter how much it resonates with some people.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They weren't bankers.

They were both.

Matthew 21:12

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Moneychangers were the bankers of the day.

As for the selling of forgiveness, you lack the context to understand what was even happening. Suffice it to say that Jesus changed the need for sacrificial animals completely. One cannot buy forgiveness from God. Just because some try, it does not follow that it works like that. Any church that is selling forgiveness is selling a worthless product.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Stevenmonet
You are again confusing right, as in the correct thing to do, with "birthright". I thought the redneck had pointed out why they are not the same thing.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: CitizenZero
The fact that slavery and oppression exists is not an argument against freedom and human rights, unfortunately.

The argument isn't against that, it is about them being god given and that this somehow makes them inalienable.

That just isn't true, no matter how much it resonates with some people.

It just means you’re born with it. When people say “shake what your momma gave you” they don’t mean their ass was literally handed to them by their mother.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet

In other words would it be fair to say that according to you your rights are inalienable from due to the nature of the univers or how it is ordered.

If that is a fair approximation of your position, we are half way to a clean data set.

I'm not sure as inalienable rights are still created by man and constantly change. Case in point, As Plato and other ancient philosophers wrote about morality, rights etc they had slave boys. Both the philosophers and the boys thought their inalienable rights put them in their positions..i.e. The slave boys had no issues with their rightful position and felt very lucky and blessed to be there.

We can go throughout history and see a smorgasbord of inalienable rights, and the rights we are kind of talking about here right now are really limited to American/some EU countries ideals of rights and not the whole world even today, and even with that people want to add to the list in 2021, so to answer your question the universe has zero care for the "rights" of a complex chemical process we call life.

Do you feel your current form of government/society should have/is waranted more control/oversight over your daily activities than it currently does, or would you say that your current form of government/society should have/is warranted less control/oversight over your daily activities than it currently does?

Tough question...its all about balance in you can not have total anarchy and then you also do not want Totalitarianism either, or what we are kind of seeing with Technocratic today.

I'm more liberation than Conservative, so I tend to want a bigger State foot print I can have more control over and a smaller fed foot print with minimal regulations to keep us from anarchy. But this doesn't mean I believe that social program are not necessary, but those of sound mind and body need to learn how to swim or sink at some point.

originally posted by: CitizenZero
It just means you’re born with it. When people say “shake what your momma gave you” they don’t mean their ass was literally handed to them by their mother.

And, if you are born into slavery, those freedoms were never yours.

In the example of slavery, it took society to ensure those rights to not be enslaved, it wasn't a given just because those slave babies were born, up to that point. Those rights were given to them by men.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Can you even find the word men in either definition?

I prefer to use the term "humanity" in these kinds of discussions.

If we a borne with freedoms why do they only become rights in your definition once aknowledged/given by men.

The only freedom a newborn baby has is to be hungry. It may, or may not, have the strength to cry. A newborn baby has no freedoms and no rights. It only has whatever rights its caretakers care to bestow on it. The only obligation its caretakers have is instinct, which may, or may not, rule on the infant's benefit.

The only freedoms and rights we have are the ones we agree on. I can agree that I have the right to life, but a murderer can take that right me from, without my permission. God won't stop them. All government can do is threaten punishment and follow through with that punishment as a deterrent. They can't enforce my right to life, they can enforce a punishment for breaking a rule.

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
"she had every right to be angry"

Depending on where and when this women exists, she may, or may not, have the right to be angry.