BrickHorn

“This reasonable gun regulation would deny Americans the time-honored ignorance defense,” notes moron.

Texas has done this in the most counterproductive (and most Texas) way possible. Delta 8 THC and Delta 9 THC are widely available and completely unregulated here. There is a proportional weight limit, but I don’t think there’s an absolute amount limit per serving. And you can buy that shit anywhere, including shady independent businesses whose employees are more likely to sell to minors compared to the regulated dispensaries that operate in legal states. So weed is nominally illegal here. But it’s functionally far more available, especially to children. Which is completely fucked up.

What is the psychoactive ingredient in those? The manufacturer claims they do not include any THC, psilocybin, or even CBD.

That sounds just like the DT board.

A utilitarian approach is more likely to convince the CCP than is “the creator said so” or “Mother Nature decrees.”

“I have a natural right to life,” insists person doomed to die in accordance with natural law.

Bingo.

I bet all those Chinese kids who got steamrolled to death in Tiananmen Square are relieved to hear they have the right of free speech.

Right. I will never dispute that the state should be structure such that free speech is a protected right. But this hocus-pocus about deriving it from natural law or a divine creator is a distraction. And deferring to the whims of a make-believe deity or subjective notions about what nature decrees is dangerous, because those concepts are untethered to reality. It’s much safer to advocate for rights on the basis of the good outcomes they generate and the bad outcomes they avoid in the real world.

Yeah, I should have been asking more questions all along rather than explaining why the idea of natural rights is absurd. The answers from proponents of natural rights make the absurdity of their concept clearer than I ever could. It’s a natural right because we (read: I) say it is! What do a billion Chinese know? Or Russians? Or anyone who lived before 1783? The right to free speech was enshrined in the fabric of the universe at the very moment of creation. You won’t find it everywhere, or even in the vast majority of times and places. But the right to free speech is absolutely fundamental and universal and cannot possibly be denied any living human.* * Except in 99.99999999999999999% of circumstances.

“Can be done” is doing a lot of work. Who decides what you can or can’t do? Who clears the way when there is disagreement? Consider the example of free speech. In China, the government does not protect such a right. If you were to attempt to exercise that right without seeking approval to do so, you might find yourself censored, arrested, or even executed. Do you have a right to free speech in China? Why or why not?

It’s not circular. The authority that enforces a right need not be legal (although I listed many examples related to legal authority for the sake of illustration). It can be cultural or supernatural or natural, to give a few examples. The point is that the word “right” has meaning. It conveys an entitlement. It’s something more than just an aspiration about how things should be or a judgment about what is or is not moral. And the term “natural right” implies that a particular right somehow derives its authority from nature (which the Enlightenment thinkers who advocated this concept attributed ultimately to a supernatural source). My question is: in what sense does nature enforce any natural rights? If anything, nature seems hellbent on violating them. We all die, for example. As it pertains to life, the only inviolable law of nature is that it will inevitably be taken away from you. So how is the right to life in any sense protected by nature? From the time we’re born, nature is out to kill us. But maybe I’m assuming too much. Maybe those who claim natural rights exist merely mean something like: there are certain moral principles that seem obviously correct. Okay. If that’s your view, fine. But you’re talking about something else entirely and the word “right” is just misleading propaganda. That something is morally correct is insufficient to give anyone an entitlement to the morally correct outcome. Which makes labeling these concepts as “rights” misleading or at the very least confusing.

The announcers are openly calling out VAR for stealing the game. This season has been outrageous for just corrupt officiating. Unreal.

The record speaks for itself, no matter how badly you wish to put words in its mouth after the fact. Regardless, I’ll make it crystal clear: my point is not limited to nation states. Any societal authority that has ever existed, down to mutual agreement and respect for custom, will suffice. Now please tell us how it’s important to note that 99.9% of modern political entities are nation states, for some weird reason.

Good lord what a pile of nonsense. You stated that my point only existed in the present, given a relatively recent political development. That is a fucking temporal distinction, and it’s entirely irrelevant as I noted. Have fun continuing to confuse yourself. I appreciate your posts on other threads, so I’m going to politely withdraw from this weird Who’s on First? routine I seem to be in with you here.

Why not? Who says so? What law of nature draws that line? And the serial etceteras are doing some work there…

It’s an irrelevant point anyway. Every society has some authority, even if it’s merely mutual agreement between equal members.

Can you please pay attention to what you post? What you wrote was: Emphasis mine. Your point was that my argument only applies since nation states emerged. And when I rebutted that, you got confused about what your original point was. But it’s there in black and white for everyone to see, so I don’t see the sense in debating it further.

Right but your point was that my argument didn’t apply until nation states emerged. In other words, you argued that my argument did not apply in the past because there were no nation states at that time. When I noted that nation states were not necessary to the point and thus it still held in the past, you retorted with “yeah but it’s all nation states now.” Are you acting confused on purpose?

Why do you assume a nation state is the only authority that can enforce a right? It could be tribe or clan or family or whatever. The point is that a right is some behavioral limitation on members of a society, which is enforced by the authority that presides over that society. And mankind has lived in societies from the outset. /Costanza

The version of rights you and troph advocate is useless crap. They can be trampled. No one has to respect them. No one is punished then they violate them. They might not even know about them. But you have them and no one can ever take them away (except all the times they do so without consequence of even knowledge)!!! Magical little elves was an unfair comparison. Elves have more relevance to our lives than this impotent concept of rights.

If you posted them, I missed it. Even after a quick read back through the thread, I didn’t see any specific list of natural rights from you. Link?

You’re confusing two different issues. Human behavior and morality is gray. Whether natural rights exist is a black and white question. And the grayness of human morality resolves the question cleanly: because natural rights require a black and white morality independent of time and place, the grayness of human morality in fact demonstrates that natural rights do not exist. Well I’m sure Navalny and his surviving family will be relieved to hear that.