CHRIS COMO: "OUR RIGHTS DON NOT COME FROM GOD"

Explain his thinking. I don't understand it. Como says our rights come from the collective consensus of man. If he is right, then man has no inherent right to be born, live, breath, or otherwise exist.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-rights-do-no/

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

So there were no rights or laws before what? I'm agnostic, so I obviously don't believe rights come from a god. They're an agreed upon set of statutes based on common compromise, like he says. Why do I need a god in order to have the right to exist, etc?

So you don't believe in the concept of "inalienable" rights?

Do you believe that owning humans as property is acceptable; if it is collectively agreed to thru "common compromise"?

To me it is a violation of human rights; our unalienable right to be free. A right conferred on man by right of existence, not by other men.

It seems to me that if you believe "man" has only the bundle of rights that are conferred upon him thru consensus based on common agreement, then there are no fundamental rights and by extension there can be no immorality like slavery if consensus exists. The unacceptable becomes acceptable thru mob rule.

And no you don't have to reason that God exists for you to exist. Obviously.

So there were no rights or laws before what? I'm agnostic, so I obviously don't believe rights come from a god. They're an agreed upon set of statutes based on common compromise, like he says. Why do I need a god in order to have the right to exist, etc? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I know that.

...........and quit calling me Don Nots.

So you don't believe in the concept of "inalienable" rights?

Do you believe that owning humans as property is acceptable; if it is collectively agreed to thru "common compromise"?

To me it is a violation of human rights; our unalienable right to be free. A right conferred on man by right of existence, not by other men.

It seems to me that if you believe "man" has only the bundle of rights that are conferred upon him thru consensus based on common agreement, then there are no fundamental rights and by extension there can be no immorality like slavery if consensus exists. The unacceptable becomes acceptable thru mob rule.

And no you don't have to reason that God exists for you to exist. Obviously. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You're mixing rights. There are natural rights and there are rights conferred by man. They're two different things. Freedom is a natural right, I would argue. Of course I don't believe slavery is acceptable. That's a terrible argument to use. I believe homosexuals are born that way. Therefore they should have the same natural right to freedom as anyone else. Marriage is a man made construct so that right is conferred by man and I believe they should be able to marry. And you're right, I don't have to believe in a diety to exist, just my parents lol.

I haven't mixed rights....................you are the one who said rights are conferred by consensus of man, not me.

I am applying your standard to understand what you (and Como) are saying. I thought you were agreeing with Como. Do you?

I am trying to understand what Como was saying.

Where do these "natural rights" come from? If not God, then man? If man defines what rights are and aren't "natural", then there can be no inalienable rights. Under Como's argument man can collectively pick and choose the bundle of rights at will.

You're mixing rights. There are natural rights and there are rights conferred by man. They're two different things. Freedom is a natural right, I would argue. Of course I don't believe slavery is acceptable. That's a terrible argument to use. I believe homosexuals are born that way. Therefore they should have the same natural right to freedom as anyone else. Marriage is a man made construct so that right is conferred by man and I believe they should be able to marry. And you're right, I don't have to believe in a diety to exist, just my parents lol. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Explain his thinking. I don't understand it. Como says our rights come from the collective consensus of man. If he is right, then man has no inherent right to be born, live, breath, or otherwise exist.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-rights-do-no/

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Man Kind has only two "God Given Rights" that is to be free and independent.


Jim

Is Chris Perry's son, Whir-LIE-turd?

My folks used to love his show ...

OK, dipshits. You can resume your circle jerk!

So there were no rights or laws before what? I'm agnostic, so I obviously don't believe rights come from a god. They're an agreed upon set of statutes based on common compromise, like he says. Why do I need a god in order to have the right to exist, etc? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Lets not go off into the stupid zone just yet.

Most institutions say that rights come from one of two sources; God (more on that in a second) or man.

Those who say God also say Nature. These are the natural rights people. Everyone born is not marked as a slave or a king. On the surface everyone is the same if you get away from familial connections. So before you go off on your atheist (or agnostic) high horse this also includes nature.

There are those who say man gives rights and of course the counter is that man can take them away. How to take them away? By consensus of course or by force. If you can convince the majority of the people (like in a representative republic) that one group deserves more rights then it can become law. Of course if you can convince the same group to take away rights then it too can become law.

An argument for God (or Nature) is that anyone who suggests or campaigns to obstruct those rights is really suggesting that they have a better idea than God or Nature. Pretty pompous if you ask me.

Those who go with man given rights (not laws, that is another topic) can always fall back on the position that the original law maker did not have all the information. Or course they could also be corrupt. Think of the Nuremburg Laws in Nazi Germany when the Nazi party decided that Jews did not rate the same rights as a "German" citizen.

God (or Natural) rights do not change rapidly if they change at all. Murder has been a crime for thousands of years, as has theft.

A man given right advocate can decide that murder is justified if the victim is unworthy of protection and make it into those man created laws.

The most obvious take away is that conservatives believe in God (or Nature) given rights whereas the left, specifically the socialist, anarchist, and Marxist movements.

You're mixing rights. There are natural rights and there are rights conferred by man. They're two different things. Freedom is a natural right, I would argue. Of course I don't believe slavery is acceptable. That's a terrible argument to use. I believe homosexuals are born that way. Therefore they should have the same natural right to freedom as anyone else. Marriage is a man made construct so that right is conferred by man and I believe they should be able to marry. And you're right, I don't have to believe in a diety to exist, just my parents lol. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

There are rights and there are laws. They are not the same but sometimes they do overlap. Slavery is not a right, it was law that allowed one man to own another. A law created by man. At this point someone will run to the bible and point out that slavery is not mentioned as evil in the book. I will point out that not every page or passage of the bible was about god. Parts of it are history (and you can believe in it or not but many parts of the history have been proven) and other parts are prose. Nature allows that each person has a right to do with their body as they will but man makes laws that say a person should go to jail for exchanging sex (pleasure) for money.
Some will say that the Constitution guarantees us the protection from having people enslave us but where did that idea come from? The founders relied on their idea of their understanding of God and Nature. If you read the document carefully the founders did not create anything new; we have a right to speak our minds, we have a right to self protection, we have a right to not incriminate ourselves, we have a right to the security of our homes, etc. Rights, not laws. Those came later.

Rights are sort of like free will, it is just something that we own. The most unfortunate thing is the diesre of others to have control over others and thus infringe upon their rights. As individuals we group together and determine what is to be controlled by a civil society without giving up the most basic of rights such as life and the means to protect our fives. The idea that others must protect me from my self by forcibly infringing upon my rights is what creates more issues than religion.

When it comes to government, and specifically our government, the most damaging to our rights are those controls that exist over generations. We live under laws that most of us have never had a say in. The failure to place sunset provisions on all of our laws is the greatest shortcoming of our government.

Governments do not grant rights but merely are the holders of the control of the rights that have been relinquished by a minimal majority. Often it is not even a majority but a majority of those that participate in selecting our governance. Democracy does not always mean that the playing field is even.

Lets not go off into the stupid zone just yet.

Most institutions say that rights come from one of two sources; God (more on that in a second) or man.

Those who say God also say Nature. These are the natural rights people. Everyone born is not marked as a slave or a king. On the surface everyone is the same if you get away from familial connections. So before you go off on your atheist (or agnostic) high horse this also includes nature.

There are those who say man gives rights and of course the counter is that man can take them away. How to take them away? By consensus of course or by force. If you can convince the majority of the people (like in a representative republic) that one group deserves more rights then it can become law. Of course if you can convince the same group to take away rights then it too can become law.

An argument for God (or Nature) is that anyone who suggests or campaigns to obstruct those rights is really suggesting that they have a better idea than God or Nature. Pretty pompous if you ask me.

Those who go with man given rights (not laws, that is another topic) can always fall back on the position that the original law maker did not have all the information. Or course they could also be corrupt. Think of the Nuremburg Laws in Nazi Germany when the Nazi party decided that Jews did not rate the same rights as a "German" citizen.

God (or Natural) rights do not change rapidly if they change at all. Murder has been a crime for thousands of years, as has theft.

A man given right advocate can decide that murder is justified if the victim is unworthy of protection and make it into those man created laws.

The most obvious take away is that conservatives believe in God (or Nature) given rights whereas the left, specifically the socialist, anarchist, and Marxist movements. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Go read Locke. Then get back to me.

I haven't mixed rights....................you are the one who said rights are conferred by consensus of man, not me.

I am applying your standard to understand what you (and Como) are saying. I thought you were agreeing with Como. Do you?

I am trying to understand what Como was saying.

Where do these "natural rights" come from? If not God, then man? If man defines what rights are and aren't "natural", then there can be no inalienable rights. Under Como's argument man can collectively pick and choose the bundle of rights at will. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

OK. I'm bored of this. They come from the universe. How the hell should I know? Freedom is a right you're born with. Of course not everyone enjoys that right. Whose fault is that? Man.

There are rights and there are laws. They are not the same but sometimes they do overlap. Slavery is not a right, it was law that allowed one man to own another. A law created by man. At this point someone will run to the bible and point out that slavery is not mentioned as evil in the book. I will point out that not every page or passage of the bible was about god. Parts of it are history (and you can believe in it or not but many parts of the history have been proven) and other parts are prose. Nature allows that each person has a right to do with their body as they will but man makes laws that say a person should go to jail for exchanging sex (pleasure) for money.
Some will say that the Constitution guarantees us the protection from having people enslave us but where did that idea come from? The founders relied on their idea of their understanding of God and Nature. If you read the document carefully the founders did not create anything new; we have a right to speak our minds, we have a right to self protection, we have a right to not incriminate ourselves, we have a right to the security of our homes, etc. Rights, not laws. Those came later. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Rights and laws are different? You're blowing my mind... Please tell me more

I've read Locke and Jefferson plus a few others besides. I notice that you didn't deny that man granted rights is a left wing, marxist concept. In fact I recommend a lefty that will turn your life around about what is left and right; Michel Foucault. His views sound very conservative until you realize that he is a left winger....an old fashioned left winger which goes to show how far left the left has gone.