From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 15:50:34 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Ron writes
>
>
>>samantha [writes]
>>
>>>Do I understand you [Lee] correctly as saying that no such thing
>>>as "natural rights" based on the nature of sentient beings such
>>>as ourselves, exists?
>>
>>Samantha,
>> Worse yet, is he suggesting that we should surrender
>>any claim to our natural right to his or someone else's decision?
>
>
> Certainly not. I just wish I knew what you were talking about.
> I feel like I did as a little boy in Sunday School when they
> kept talking about the Trinity. Now God, and Jesus, I understood.
> But what was this Holy Ghost thingy? Surely (though I did not
> possess the vocabulary at the time) it was a figure of speech.
> Like "there was a spirit of happiness at the party". SURELY
> THESE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT ADULTS DID NOT BELIEVE IN A TRUE GHOST!
Er, that isn't what the Holy Ghost was sposed to be. Of course
this entire Trinity thing was one of the most useless things
ever sweated out by the early Catholic Church. But the HG is
not a ghost even in the theology.
>
> Oh, but years later I learned, yes they did. Well, maybe not
> the liberal-cum-atheists in the Methodist Church, but the true
> Trinitarians did and do.
Of course all of this is perfectly irrelevant and might even be
consider dishonest argumentative technique of tossing out
something else you believe most readers will find ridiculous and
using that to cast ridicule on natural rights by fast and loose
association. I wish you would refrain from using such tactics.
>
> What is a natural right? Who issued it? From whence does
> it come, or emanate? Surely it cannot be found anywhere
> the way that real laws can (i.e., recorded in statutes).
> For example, it's not been found in our DNA, nor does it
> show up in anthropological studies. What the hell are we
> talking about?
>
No one "issues" a natural right. It wouldn't be natural if it
was "issued". It is a property of the sentient being concerned
due to its specific nature and the needs implied by that nature
in social groupings. This is not the first time I have
explained that.
> When I say "certainly not" above, I mean that I have no
> intention of surrendering any of my legal rights as a
> citizen of a Western nation. (While under the circumstances
> I do not believe that John Ashcroft and his ilk have gone
> too far yet, the further that they do go, the more I will
> resist.) On many other fronts, Western governments, including
> the U.S.'s, have indeed gone way too far, as any libertarian
> will agree.
>
So is there any basis to a claim that the rights recognized by
"a Western nation" are better than the ones recognized (or not)
by other nations? Do you believe that claimed is based on other
than your preference? If so, then what is that basis?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST