If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
proffsl wrote: > John S wrote: > > Proffsl wrote: > > > > > > Did I mention any "superior being"? No, I did not. I only mentioned > > > "Creation". I assume you exist, therefore you were born, or Created. > > > It is your Creation which brought about your Existence. It is Your > > > Creation which also endows you with Rights, for you to recognize > > > and respect. Nothing superior or super natural about this. > > > > The act of being born and living does not by itself result in any > > rights. You do not have the right to anything at that point. > > In all honesty, Ignorance is no excuse. Just because you were Ignorant > of my existence before we met here doesn't mean I didn't exist. And, > just because you appear to be Ignorant of our Inherent Rights doesn't > mean they don't exist. > > > > What are these rights you keep babbling about that exist > > independent of any social structure. > > Frankly, I was hoping for debate concerning our Right of Locomotion > instead of a debate concerning the very existence of Inherent Rights. > But, that's okay. The recognition of Inherent Rights pre-date even our > own government's recognition of them (I am assuming you are from the > US). It's not like I'm proposing something here that wasn't proposed > more than 700 years ago. Our own Constitution recognized them over 200 > years ago. The Magna Carta recognized them as early as 1297. > > Although, I will admit that virtually all these writings on our > Inherent Rights are somewhat muddled by their employment of a "God". > The problem here being that the existence of a "God" can be neither > proved nor disproved. These Inherent Rights do indeed exist, but their > method of proof was faulty. It's as if an Innocent man were to pose no > further proof of their Innocence, even though it exists, than to say: > "God Knows I'm Innocent." They attempted to prove the provable using > un-provable evidence > > Yes, I say these Inherent Rights ARE provable. Instead of using > un-provable evidence, such as a "God" which Creates, I exchange that > with "Creation" (NOT "Creator", which is just another "God"), allowing > the reader to envision any or no Creator at all of their own choosing. > Our Individual Existence is proof positive of our Individual Creation. > While a Creator might be reasonably denied, Creation itself can not be > reasonably denied. Our Creation is the basis upon which my Primary > Evidence is built. > > What would you consider the primary aspect endowed by their Creation > upon Sentient, or Self Aware beings? What is a word derived from > "Sentient"? That word is: "Consent", which means something like: "Of > Sentient origin". And, that primary aspect endowed upon Sentient > Beings by their Creation is their Power of Consent. > > Consent is the Inherent power of a Sentient being to voluntarily give > assent or approval to something done or proposed, and is from which all > sentient behavior originates. The giving of Consent to something is to > claim that with such Consent, that thing is Rightful, and that without > such Consent, that thing is wrong. By recognizing and exercising our > Power of Consent, we recognize and witness to the very existence of > Right and wrong. > > Creation endows Sentient Beings with the Power of Consent, which endows > us with the existence of Right and wrong. Combine these together, and > you get Rightful Consent and Wrongful Consent. If I give my friend > Consent to enter My House, that would be Rightful Consent. If I give > my friend Consent to enter Your House, that would, of course, be > Wrongful Consent. > > So now, we know that both Rightful and Wrongful Consent exist, endowed > upon us by our Creation as Sentient Beings, and now it is upon us, as > Sentient Beings, to recognize between Rightful Consent and Wrongful > Consent. Rightful Consent is a Right among our Rights. So in our > attempts to correctly recognize our Inherent Rights, we produce our > Enumerated Rights. > > Keep in mind there is a difference between our Inherent Rights and our > Enumerated Rights. As I said above, we attempt to correctly recognize > our Inherent Rights, but it is entirely possible that we incorrectly > recognize a Right. After all, we're not perfect. But, nice thing > about being imperfect is that there is always room for improvement. > So, while Inherent Rights are unchanging and Inalienable, Enumerated > Rights do come, go and change as we attempt to improve our recognition > of our Inherent Rights. > > So, while I will admit that our Enumerated Rights are indeed a Social > construct, which can be added to, changed, and subtracted from, I still > maintain my recognition of our Inherent Rights, which are indeed > Inalienable, and which our Enumerated Rights attempt to Mirror. All I read are the same old circular arguments used to support one another. I'm still waiting for proof that those rights exist independent of a social structure. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
John S wrote:
> > All I read are the same old circular arguments used to support > one another. Yet, you don't bother to detail your objections. Easy to say your opponent is wrong. Harder to prove it. > I'm still waiting for proof that those rights exist > independent of a social structure. And, I'm still waiting for proof I'm wrong. Don't worry! I won't hold my breath. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|