My question is this:Where did I say possession is a requirement for them to be inherent. In fact I said exactly the opposite. Want me to restate my position AGAIN?
Ok so you're either being purposely obtuse or you really don't comprehend things. I have said this at least twice and I'm not inclined to do it a third time.My question is this:
if I can deny you rights that you think are god-given, what is the practical difference between them being god-given, and being man-given?
Never mind going to the basis on which you would demand them back - that's abstract, and I've already said "no".
What is the practical difference.
You answer the question you want to be asked, rather than the one you are asked.Ok so you're either being purposely obtuse or you really don't comprehend things. I have said this at least twice and I'm not inclined to do it a third time.
There is a difference and once AGAIN if you don't own your rights you have no reason to demand them back if they are taken from you. Period. That's called stealing.You answer the question you want to be asked, rather than the one you are asked.
I will take it that your ungiven answer is "there is no practical difference", because if there were, you would have elucidated it.
Mugger walks up to me:
"Give me your wallet."
"No."
BANG,
I'm dead.
Mugger walks up to you.
"Give me your wallet."
"I have an INHERENT right to life!"
BANG.
You're dead.
No difference between our corpses.
The reason is that I want them back.There is a difference and once AGAIN if you don't own your rights you have no reason to demand them back if they are taken from you.
The government doesn't own my rights.That's called stealing.
But if you don't own them then nobody has any reason to care what you "want".The reason is that I want them back.
What more do I need?
The government doesn't own my rights.
It merely has the power to grant them, or not.
Well quite.I can't fathom why we have to argue with another human being that's your rights shouldnt be dependent on other people or govts.
What is the difference between the two corpses, then?There is a difference
Are they rights though?My question is this:
if I can deny you rights that you think are god-given, what is the practical difference between them being god-given, and being man-given?
Never mind going to the basis on which you would demand them back - that's abstract, and I've already said "no".
What is the practical difference.
And yet, people can reject the idea that rights come from gods and still do care about the rights of others.But if you don't own them then nobody has any reason to care what you "want".
Neither does the government.If your govt grants them to you then you don't own them.
Dying for a just cause is much different than dying because you're a whiner.What is the difference between the two corpses, then?
No it's not weird but you have no right to demand whats not yours.And yet, people can reject the idea that rights come from gods and still do care about the rights of others.
Weird, eh?
Neither does the government.
Depriving somebody of a thing doesn't mean you own that thing, yourself.
Before you ask about differences, what is the difference between a man and a woman in gender as opposed to bioligical sex?What is the difference between the two corpses, then?
How do we tell which corpse is which?Dying for a just cause is much different than dying because you're a whiner.
You don't need a right to demand rights.I've never claimed own our rights guarantees we get them but AGAIN I have no right to demand what isn't mine.
We are merely talking across each other.This seems nor and more like purposeful obtuseness
The government had no right to take it.No it's not weird but you have no right to demand whats not yours.
I am arguing that there is no practical difference betweenI like how you argue that your rights must come from the govt and you see no problem with it.
Not it's not irrelevant and I have told you three times now why. This is where the obtuseness shows itself.How do we tell which corpse is which?
You don't need a right to demand rights.
That's a bootstrap paradox.
We are merely talking across each other.
You care about where rights come from; I only care about how they are enforced.
If I - a human - can deny you a right that you think comes from a god, the origin is irrelevant.
I deny you a right.Not it's not irrelevant and I have told you three times now why. This is where the obtuseness shows itself.
This is what happens when people make govt their God
Not if they own them.The government had no right to take it.
I am arguing that there is no practical difference between
1. rights coming from a god, but being enforced by humans, and
2. rights coming from humans and being enforced by humans.
And the reason people like Hitler succeed is that your god doesn't step in and enforce the rights he supposedly grants to all the victims.Not if they own them.
The reason people like Hitler arise is people like you.
Its given to me from God.I deny you a right.
You say "but this right comes from my god! Give it back!"
Me: "No."
Now what?