Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (81843)	11/19/2009 11:25:53 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I demonstrated how the perspective of conflict is not necessarily a fact, except from a very narrow perspective that isn't under unanimous agreement." Well enough, but the discussion has been centered around abortion which falls under the later perspective and not the former. So, would you agree that in the case of abortion there is no unanimous agreement to end the life of one of the interested/vested partners? In the case of Rights. You started off a bit strangely by going from what is naturally right to Natural Rights. So I suppose the first thing to ask is: what do you mean by natural: and do you see those two things (naturally/natural right/rights) as synonymous? Also I think you need to clarify what you men by right and rights and on what natural basis they would or should be considered as such. "If it was 'swirling with assumptions,' it was no more so than the age of enlightenment assumptions used to understand rights and to found the ideals of American principle." If? Come on. The assumptions of the rights in the Declaration of Independence are stated in the document itself. That Document was written by Theists and was based on Theistic assumptions. Yours is built on...?