Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

And who grants what right? What right can be granted? At what point does a granting of such turn from a privilege to a right?

The distinction between a right and privilege is moot. They're essentially the same thing.

Also, you never answered the question asked directly of you.

- - - Updated - - -

Take it up with the philosopher's who came up with the concept.

I'm more interested in seeing if you can form a coherent thought for yourself.

Educate yourself.

Oh. Looks like you can't. Never mind then.

[Tinykong]

I'm more interested in seeing if you can form a coherent thought for yourself.

Oh. Looks like you can't. Never mind then.

Which part are you struggling with?

Maybe I can draw a picture with a crayon.

[petej0]

No, really. That literally makes absolutely no sense. Things don't just exists because we also happen to exist. Certainly not ethical or moral standards. These things are created by humans. They don't exist in a vacuum. That's an unbelievably absurd thing to believe. There's absolutely zero mathematical or physical evidence for it.

There is no law granting you the right to free speech ergo you have had the right to free speech from birth.

[Tinykong]

Only PRE 9-11 (or maybe Rukentuts) would pretend the age of enlightenment didn't happen and that natural rights don't exist.

Lucky for me the government said I'm allowed to breathe the air around me and be alive. WHEW.

[TZucchini]

Which part are you struggling with?

Maybe I can draw a picture with a crayon.

I made several points in response to your post, and asked you a question. You ignored the entire post, the question, and said "take it up with the philosophers...use Google."

If this discussion is too far over your head, maybe you should take your crayons and stick to coloring books.

[rhandric]

The distinction between a right and privilege is moot. They're essentially the same thing.

Also, you never answered the question asked directly of you.

Because it's an inane question. It's like asking who determines the sky is blue. Natural rights are easily determined through logic and reason.

And no, rights and privileges are separate things. Is driving a car a right or a privilege? Is free speech a right or privilege?

[TZucchini]

Only PRE 9-11 (or maybe Rukentuts) would pretend the age of enlightenment didn't happen and that natural rights don't exist.

Pretend they don't exist? Natural rights are concept. Not a physical entity. There is no mathematical or physical evidence for them.

[Tinykong]

Pretend they don't exist? Natural rights are concept. Not a physical entity. There is no mathematical or physical evidence for them.

Who is claiming they are a physical entity?

They exist because we exist. The government doesn't give them to you, nor does any other person. When you came into being, you were afforded those rights by virtue of your own existence.

"Hurr durr, you can't measure them so they aren't real."

[rhandric]

Pretend they don't exist? Natural rights are concept. Not a physical entity. There is no mathematical or physical evidence for them.

That sounds like something someone prior to the age of enlightenment would say.

[Tinykong]

I made several points in response to your post, and asked you a question. You ignored the entire post, the question, and said "take it up with the philosophers...use Google."

If this discussion is too far over your head, maybe you should take your crayons and stick to coloring books.

You're doing your typical antics: asking me to prove something I never said, and when repeatedly shown a concrete concept, ignoring that it exists and introducing red herring arguments and questions.

Natural rights are a thing. Just because you don't agree means nothing.

Oh, wait, you mean your question about Ayn Rand's ideology wasn't just a sarcastic anti-gun rhetoric jab and you wanted a serious answer?

lol

[TZucchini]

Who is claiming they are a physical entity?

They exist because we exist. The government doesn't give them to you, nor does any other person. When you came into being, you were afforded those rights by virtue of your own existence.

Great. You've thoroughly underscored the concept of natural rights.

I'm arguing, rather successfully, that it's complete bullshit. It's a really nice concept that gives people a warm and fuzzy feeling when they think about it. But it's complete bollocks. No evidence for their existence.

Do you believe in objective morality as well?

- - - Updated - - -

You're doing your typical antics: asking me to prove something I never said, and when repeatedly shown a concrete concept, ignoring that it exists and introducing red herring arguments and questions.

I'm not denying the existence of the idea, the concept, of natural rights. I'm simply stating the idea is idiotic. At best.

[Tinykong]

Great. You've thoroughly underscored the concept of natural rights.

I'm arguing, rather successfully, that it's complete bullshit. It's a really nice concept that gives people a warm and fuzzy feeling when they think about it. But it's complete bollocks. No evidence for their existence.

Hundreds of years of logic and reason debunked by an arm-chair philosopher from MMO-Champion. Well done. Well fucking done.

The evidence of their existence is all around you. Who is allowing you to breathe the air? Who is allowing you to be alive? Prior to these concepts, people paid tribute to a king or deity to be allowed to do these things.

Just because you can't pick it up or measure it with a ruler doesn't mean it isn't a thing. No one here is claiming they are an entity or that they do anything. They simply exist because you exist. No government, ruler or person gave them to you.

Do you believe in objective morality as well?

See above.

I also really enjoy when you toot your own horn and pat yourself on the back calling your own arguments "successful." Never change.

[rhandric]

Great. You've thoroughly underscored the concept of natural rights.

I'm arguing, rather successfully, that it's complete bullshit. It's a really nice concept that gives people a warm and fuzzy feeling when they think about it. But it's complete bollocks. No evidence for their existence.

Do you believe in objective morality as well?

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not denying the existence of the idea, the concept, of natural rights. I'm simply stating the idea is idiotic. At best.

Nice one

What evidence do you expect? Do you need some chosen one to hand you a gold plaque with these natural rights engraved in it for you to accept their existence?

[TZucchini]

Hundreds of years of logic and reason debunked by an arm-chair philosopher from MMO-Champion. Well done. Well fucking done.

Debunked? Lol, your'e clearly lost in this discussion.

You are aware that there's just as many philosophers that do not believe in natural law. This isn't the big bang theory. This isn't the theory of evolution. Natural law is a concept not backed by physics or mathematics. I don't need to debunk it...it hasn't been proven to be true.

The evidence of their existence is all around you. Who is allowing you to breathe the air? Who is allowing you to be alive?

The physical anatomy of my body allows me to breathe air and live.

See above.

Answer the question. Natural law is practically identical to objective morality. I'd be interested to know how you believe in one, but not the other.

[Tinykong]

Debunked? Lol, your'e clearly lost in this discussion.

You are aware that there's just as many philosophers that do not believe in natural law. This isn't the big bang theory. This isn't the theory of evolution. Natural law is a concept not backed by physics or mathematics. I don't need to debunk it...it hasn't been proven to be true.

Most legal concepts and principles are not based on physics or mathematics. But nice try getting the science denial angle working, though.

The physical anatomy of my body allows me to breathe air and live.

An ability to do is not a right to do.

Answer the question. Natural law is practically identical to objective morality. I'd be interested to know how you believe in one, but not the other.

Natural law and natural rights are not the same thing.

For someone who is claiming others are lost, you are pretty adrift here.

[TZucchini]

Most legal concepts and principles are not based on physics or mathematics. But nice try getting the science denial angle working, though.

Those things are admittedly created by men. I can show you concrete evidence of their existence. You, on the other hand, can do no such thing.

An ability to do is not a right to do.

I don't need a right to breathe or live. My body is perfectly capable of doing that task on its own.

Are you under the impression that we can only do things if we have a right to do them?

Natural law and natural rights are not the same thing.

Whaaaaa? Explain to me the difference...

Also. Noted. You've dodged the question for a third time. Really feels good when you can't answer my questions. It validates my arguments. Thanks

[TZucchini]

So you act like the guy is an idiot and then decide that arguing with idiots is validating?

I don't think he's an idiot.

[lockedout]

Nice one

What evidence do you expect? Do you need some chosen one to hand you a gold plaque with these natural rights engraved in it for you to accept their existence?

Some people need to be told what to do how and when to do it.

[Tinykong]

Those things are admittedly created by men. I can show you concrete evidence of their existence. You, on the other hand, can do no such thing.

And I don't need to, since the idea of a natural right is just that, an idea. Don't be absurd.

I don't need a right to breathe or live. My body is perfectly capable of doing that task on its own.

Are you under the impression that we can only do things if we have a right to do them?

Enough with the red herrings. An ability to do is not a right to do. You can go kill someone, if you like, but that isn't a "right" to do so.

Whaaaaa? Explain to me the difference...

Feel free to read up all you like, whatever is presented here you'll just hand waive off or say "Yeah, but I don't agree so you're wrong, I'm winning!"

Also. Noted. You've dodged the question for a third time. Really feels good when you can't answer my questions. It validates my arguments. Thanks

Because I won't be baited into another "lol hurr durr republican science denial" attempt? Please.

I can deduce that a natural right exists without peddling Ayn Rand. Fail harder.

[TZucchini]

Some people need to be told what to do how and when to do it.

You mean like people that instinctively follow "natural law" without thinking for themselves?

Yeap. Sounds like you.