(11-17-2014 05:11 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 11:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The fact you missed that is further proof that you don't know much about rights. You have some grandiose idea but no real understanding.

You're being obtuse.

I'm the one who has been giving specific examples. You're the one who keeps talking in generalities and saying I don't know what I'm talking about without even giving one piece of evidence to say why. It's a waste of time responding to you, since you're obviously just trolling. So, I'm done.

I did; I even highlighted them subsequently.

The 'definition' you gave is imaginary.

(11-18-2014 06:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 05:11 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 11:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The fact you missed that is further proof that you don't know much about rights. You have some grandiose idea but no real understanding.

You're being obtuse.

I'm the one who has been giving specific examples. You're the one who keeps talking in generalities and saying I don't know what I'm talking about without even giving one piece of evidence to say why. It's a waste of time responding to you, since you're obviously just trolling. So, I'm done.

I did; I even highlighted them subsequently.

The 'definition' you gave is imaginary.

It is all imaginary. The strongest specie gets to make up the rules.

(11-19-2014 06:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 05:11 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 11:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The fact you missed that is further proof that you don't know much about rights. You have some grandiose idea but no real understanding.

You're being obtuse.

I'm the one who has been giving specific examples. You're the one who keeps talking in generalities and saying I don't know what I'm talking about without even giving one piece of evidence to say why. It's a waste of time responding to you, since you're obviously just trolling. So, I'm done.

I did; I even highlighted them subsequently.

The 'definition' you gave is imaginary.

It is all imaginary. The strongest specie gets to make up the rules.

Rules are not rights.

(11-19-2014 09:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 06:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 05:11 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 11:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The fact you missed that is further proof that you don't know much about rights. You have some grandiose idea but no real understanding.

You're being obtuse.

I'm the one who has been giving specific examples. You're the one who keeps talking in generalities and saying I don't know what I'm talking about without even giving one piece of evidence to say why. It's a waste of time responding to you, since you're obviously just trolling. So, I'm done.

I did; I even highlighted them subsequently.

The 'definition' you gave is imaginary.

It is all imaginary. The strongest specie gets to make up the rules.

Rules are not rights.

Nothing particularly wrong with spelling out "rights"..but..they are just made up concepts. We just happen to be the ones making them up and enforcing them as being the specie on the planet that uses force the most effectively.

(11-21-2014 04:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 09:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 06:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 05:11 PM)G-Man Wrote:  You're being obtuse.

I'm the one who has been giving specific examples. You're the one who keeps talking in generalities and saying I don't know what I'm talking about without even giving one piece of evidence to say why. It's a waste of time responding to you, since you're obviously just trolling. So, I'm done.

I did; I even highlighted them subsequently.

The 'definition' you gave is imaginary.

It is all imaginary. The strongest specie gets to make up the rules.

Rules are not rights.

Nothing particularly wrong with spelling out "rights"..but..they are just made up concepts. We just happen to be the ones making them up and enforcing them as being the specie on the planet that uses force the most effectively.

And that's the whole point. Rights ARE made up, given, etc. by those CAPABLE of defining them and sacrificing to obtain them. Animals can't do that. The only beings who have rights are those who are capable of conceptualizing them, and who are willing to fight to keep them.

Creatures who haven't got a clue, don't know they could have rights. So they don't have rights. And any "rights" bestowed upon them by beings who are more intelligent (enough so, at least, to understand the concept), aren't recognized by any animals. So "rights" don't exist FOR them.

(And actually, that might apply to some who keep wanting the government to continue taking care of them. They can't conceptualize what a "right" is. They're wanting the government to treat them like a "pet" --feed them, house them, give them medical, care, etc. They just want stuff. The more dependent on government, the more you move down the chain of thinking capacity, IMO.)

(11-21-2014 05:42 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 04:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 09:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 06:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 06:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I did; I even highlighted them subsequently.

The 'definition' you gave is imaginary.

It is all imaginary. The strongest specie gets to make up the rules.

Rules are not rights.

Nothing particularly wrong with spelling out "rights"..but..they are just made up concepts. We just happen to be the ones making them up and enforcing them as being the specie on the planet that uses force the most effectively.

And that's the whole point. Rights ARE made up, given, etc. by those CAPABLE of defining them and sacrificing to obtain them. Animals can't do that. The only beings who have rights are those who are capable of conceptualizing them, and who are willing to fight to keep them.

Creatures who haven't got a clue, don't know they could have rights. So they don't have rights. And any "rights" bestowed upon them by beings who are more intelligent (enough so, at least, to understand the concept), aren't recognized by any animals. So "rights" don't exist FOR them.

(And actually, that might apply to some who keep wanting the government to continue taking care of them. They can't conceptualize what a "right" is. They're wanting the government to treat them like a "pet" --feed them, house them, give them medical, care, etc. They just want stuff. The more dependent on government, the more you move down the chain of thinking capacity, IMO.)

Good points.

No creature has "rights"...including the creature that thinks it has rights. It is all simply a fabrication to allow for control their paradigm.

If an entity more advanced...and with more capability to use force than humans comes to Earth? At that second...We no longer have what we think are "rights". By default...that entity has the "rights" at that point.

That entity also would not have actual "rights". They just have the ability to subject us to their paradigm through force.

"Rights" do not exist.....period. They are a fabrication. There is nothing wrong with us using this concept to better our lives...but...it is totally imaginary.

(I did not read all the posts) I am going to restate your comment- Animals do not have human rights.

(11-23-2014 08:56 AM)chess Wrote:  (I did not read all the posts) I am going to restate your comment- Animals do not have human rights.

Well, of course they don't have human rights.

And neither do they have animal rights.

Animals don't have rights.

Only entities the can conceive of rights can possess them. And animals can't conceive of having rights.

So, they have no rights.

(11-24-2014 05:54 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 08:56 AM)chess Wrote:  (I did not read all the posts) I am going to restate your comment- Animals do not have human rights.

Well, of course they don't have human rights.

And neither do they have animal rights.

Animals don't have rights.

Only entities the can conceive of rights can possess them. And animals can't conceive of having rights.

So, they have no rights.

That is made up.

So do people with no mental capacity or vegetables not have rights?

You are just talking nonsense.

Animals have a form of process right.

^ Agreed w/Dixie.

Do you think the tribes of Papua New Guinea can conceive of their rights?

Because they don't think in the way we do about rights, they shouldn't have our rights. Right?

(11-24-2014 07:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 05:54 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 08:56 AM)chess Wrote:  (I did not read all the posts) I am going to restate your comment- Animals do not have human rights.

Well, of course they don't have human rights.

And neither do they have animal rights.

Animals don't have rights.

Only entities the can conceive of rights can possess them. And animals can't conceive of having rights.

So, they have no rights.

That is made up.

So do people with no mental capacity or vegetables not have rights?

You are just talking nonsense.

Animals have a form of process right.

I already answered your question. Maybe you can find it in the earlier post where I gave it. Who knows what motivates you to call it nonsense?

Sorry you can't understand logical concepts. But you still have rights.

(11-24-2014 10:43 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 07:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 05:54 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 08:56 AM)chess Wrote:  (I did not read all the posts) I am going to restate your comment- Animals do not have human rights.

Well, of course they don't have human rights.

And neither do they have animal rights.

Animals don't have rights.

Only entities the can conceive of rights can possess them. And animals can't conceive of having rights.

So, they have no rights.

That is made up.

So do people with no mental capacity or vegetables not have rights?

You are just talking nonsense.

Animals have a form of process right.

I already answered your question. Maybe you can find it in the earlier post where I gave it. Who knows what motivates you to call it nonsense?

Sorry you can't understand logical concepts. But you still have rights.

Bless your heart

(11-24-2014 10:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 10:43 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 07:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 05:54 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 08:56 AM)chess Wrote:  (I did not read all the posts) I am going to restate your comment- Animals do not have human rights.

Well, of course they don't have human rights.

And neither do they have animal rights.

Animals don't have rights.

Only entities that can conceive of rights can possess them. And animals can't conceive of having rights.

So, they have no rights.

That is made up.

So do people with no mental capacity or vegetables not have rights?

You are just talking nonsense.

Animals have a form of process right.

I already answered your question. Maybe you can find it in the earlier post where I gave it. Who knows what motivates you to call it nonsense?

Sorry you can't understand logical concepts. But you still have rights.

Bless your heart

Thanks.