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 (81848)	11/19/2009 5:56:23 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<Whatever influences have been brought to bear on the person behind the keyboard known as less_ … I speak only for myself, as always.> As of course was the Declaration (influenced by whatever forces were brought to bear on it's authors). DAK

To: one_less who wrote (81848)	11/20/2009 3:17:24 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

<<You started off a bit strangely by going from what is naturally right to Natural Rights.>> "I don’t know what is strange about that." <<do you see those two things (naturally/natural right/rights) as synonymous?>> "I see them as synchronous." I'll take that as a no. That's why your initial statement is confused the two things are not the same. <<So I suppose the first thing to ask is: what do you mean by natural:>> "'Natural’ is the quality or condition of nature that befits a particular creature." That's just saying that whatever a creature does is natural. As such it merely describes what is. How do you get from what is to what ought to be? If that's the case how can anything ever be right or wrong? "A right based on nature regards the essential condition of a creature. We don’t consider it a right of the willow to be concerned for the birds nesting in its branches. We consider such portrayals preposterous except when in a cartoon as personifications, since it is an essential condition of persons to be endowed with that psychological construct. We consider it a right of plants not to suffer needlessly at the hands of human beings, as per pollution. We consider it right for human beings to have concerns about polution. In that sense, all creatures have rights over human beings, the rights to have their well being regarded (as in idea #2)." I'm sorry, that is just gobbledygook. <<That Document was written by Theists and was based on Theistic assumptions. Yours is built on...?”>> "Whatever influences have been brought to bear on the person behind the keyboard known as less_ … I speak only for myself, as always." That's a non answer.