re: What is the source of our rights?

quote:

---

If morality comes from society, then society can't be wrong,

---

Society can be wrong. Trial and error.

Again, you fail at the basics of stating my argument.

I won't post an emoji this time since it triggered you in the last post.

quote:

---

REASON DISCOVERS MORAL TRUTHS GROUNDED BY HUMAN NATURE,

---

You do realize that since you can't define these natural rights, you end up in the same "can't be wrong" stasis you referenced above, right?

quote:

---

That's why we can say a society is wrong in real-time, not just in hindsight-because there is a standard that exists PRIOR TO and ABOVE it.

---

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the DOI, did slavery violate human rights (or was it "wrong" to use your exact language in the quote), or not?

quote:

---

Just to be clear, if you reject natural law, you are rejecting the very foundation the Constitution rests on.

---

Our Founders did that with the 3/5 clause and not including women with the right to vote.

You are still conflating violation with invalidation. That's a simple error in logic. The fact that the founders failed to fully live up to Natural Rights doesn't disprove them-it simply proves that the standard EXISTS because it is EXACTLY what we use to judge their failures. The three fifths clause and exclusion of women aren't refutations of Natural Law they are examples of Natural Law being violated.

If your framework were right, those weren't injustices at all-just acceptable in their time. And yet we know-because we believe in Natural Law that they were the opposite of justice. Because as you implicitly argue-there is no such thing as injustice-just the morality of the time. There is no Natural Law -just the norms of the day. No moral foundation based in human NATURE-only moral quicksand based in 15 minutes ago.

You also keep shifting between "society influences morality" and "society defines morality"-those are NOT the same thing and switching between them is not an argument.

quote:

---

what do you think you are?

---

Someone who doesn't take my worldview from a columnist of the literary masterpiece of "Marijuana Moment". And has to use AI to make a point.

I am smart enough to check who is trying to bullshite me instead of brainlessly absorbing their absolute BS automatically at least.

quote:

---

Is it your opinion that the USA has exponentially increased the number of people it incarcerates to the country’s detriment?

---

And AGAIN you dodge. You get busted twisting again and again you bail out. Every. Damn. Time.

I don't care what the numbers are. I don't care if it doubles from now. If someone commits a crime. There is a home for them in a 5x8. It is stupid easy to not steal. To not assault. To not shoot. To not Rob. To not rape. To not ruin someone's else's life. Absolutely stupid easy.

Now. I know you will full on ignore this. You consistently do. But what is it that you must do to not get sent to prison? You may now avoid and run away from that.

quote:

---

Every license plate in Louisiana was made in prison. Are you suggesting a private company should form and produce its own LA license plates? Who would buy them?

---

So you cannot name a single thing made from prison labor that is in direct competition with anything made in the private sector that is causing this "wage suppression"? That the columnists from astute periodicals such as "Marijuana Moment" have programmed you to believe.

Why can you not support a damn thing you claim? Make a compelling argument for? Nothing.

quote:

---

inmates are living large aren’t they?

---

They are living EXACTLY like they need to be. Again. it's stupid easy to not go to prison. Nothing I posted is about them "living large". I SAID they don't require a living wage because their needs are supplied. Yet AGAIN you failed to twist it around.

quote:

---

I didnt drop anything. Post whatever you want about BLM and El Salvador. This is not a thread about El Salvador. I literally didn’t post anything about your pet side topic. You are shifting the narrative because all you have to say is “You are using AI to not post about what I want you to discuss.”

---

This thread isn't about a crab boil, wage suppression, prison living conditions, prison labor, private prisons, private property, etc, either is it? But yet AGAIN, in response to you posting:

quote:

---

Anyway the board thinks laws and prison are what keeps people civilized.

---

To which I brought up El Salvador that absolutely wrecks your statement. And you are still avoiding it because you are shown to be absolutely wrong. So you thrash about and say "that's not what this threads about" while you cry about private prisons in a thread about rights.

quote:

---

I never call people names on here but you are a fricking idiot.

---

something else you cannot prove. I'm sorry I made you mad for yet again exposing your moronic statements and proving you are nothing but a mindless, brainwashed, useful, drone that absolutely SUCKS at debate even with the help of Google AI.

Oh. And I know how to file a simple insurance claim and not drive around in a busted vehicle. Unlike someone else. Amirite?

However it is obvious you are also the epitome of an AWFL. You run back to your lily white enclave every day and brag to your AWFL friends about what you claim to do. And then you are so proud of sitting around and smelling your own farts that you attempt it here and get absolutely destroyed every time you try your bullshite.

That's important. This is just witnessing the guy from Lake Charles get increasingly more agitated.

Will read tomorrow-time to wind down. Can't believe I have to defend Natural Rights. It's like freshman level poli sci up in here, y'all.

That Kant ad was GREAT, but………

I KNEW Nietszche was behind it!!!

quote:

---

I judge their failures based on societal trial and error. Slavery was an error and we know that now.

---

By what standard?

quote:

---

Yes-the right PRECEDES it's recognition and full expression.The right to property existed IN HUMAN NATURE before it was formally codified-early humans still knew which bowl and spear and loin cloth belonged to them and which belonged to someone else.

Rights don't begin when people name them-they begin when human nature makes them neccesary. Hence NATURAL law.

---

It sounds you're equating possession with a right. The cave man who had control of a particular spear didn't have a right to it. He had control of it. Controlling something doesn't mean one is entitled to it.

Did the Native Americans have a right to the land they inhabited before Europeans showed up and slaughtered them? Or do rights only exist until someone with better weapons comes along and take possession of the right?

quote:

---

Control is the REALITY; a right is the MORAL CLAIM about what ought to be expected. If you reduce everything to force, then nothing is ever UNJUST, only overpowered.

---

Rights are not interchangeable with justice. That's our major disconnect. Legal rights are fluid. Blacks were not even considered human in this country at one point. White women were barely considered human but couldn't own anything or vote. If the ability own property is a natural rights, women were also denied this natural right until relatively recently.

Obviously things have changed because rights were granted. If you want to argue that those rights always existed but were merely denied, then what weight do rights even hold if they can be easily denied or recognized depending on the whims of governments? Rights look more like empty signifiers than anything significant.

Morality cannot be granted. It just is. Rights are not always moral. Justice as it is administered is not always moral, either. Justice may not always be achieved, just like morality may not always be achieved. Justice transcends our human systems, as does morality. Rights are instruments of our flawed human systems.

You are getting closer. You are actually describing the Natural Law position without calling it that. If rights were merely granted, then slavery and the exclusion of women weren't injustices-they were just the rules at the time. The fact that we say those rights were denied-, and not just created later, is exactly what gives them meaning.

Slaves were DENIED rights not given rights.
Women were DENIED rights not given rights.
This is Natural Law. This is innate human nature and moral reason brought to the law.

You say rights are "just granted" and "fluid" but then you appeal to morality and justice as something that transcends human systems-those two positions can't logically coexist. If morality and justice are real standards ABOVE society, then rights aren't empty postmodern constructs, they are our attempt to reflect those standards in law. If they are not, then there is no basis to call anything unjust at all-just different systems at different times.

I implore thee, oh Bestie-read that slowly several times and ponder that instead of giving me a kneejerk Marxist deconstruction. Think about what I said. Test it with your own examples.