Not a right as they are defined in Western law. People seem to have trouble differentiating between natural laws (thermodynamics, gravity) and positive laws (rights, jurisprudence).

Maybe schools shouldn't be ignoring the arts and humanities.

Iso high school philosophy electives

We obviously have very different moral codes if you truly believe that.
You guys are free to suggest murder, slavery, theft, and rape are morally acceptable unless Obama tells you otherwise, and i'll stick to my guns and say they are not.

I love how Skinned takes credit for John Locke on a routine basis and openly opposes the core of his philosophy.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jul 8 2014 04:51pm

might makes right until Gastly's gang of raiders strikes, them being Finns there's high chance that their military training will outperform any possible militia resistance
and the loot far outweighs the possibility of death amongst these fine young lads. some fine married pussy & slaves, a great deal of loot to buy drugs with and the sheer fun of bloodshed keep the Gasty Crew going at the day's end. looting and raiding are fine traditions that i think should be upheld!


is he opposing the social contract, Locke's view of humans as God-made on which much of his later work takes its' inspiration from (with thoughts such as life, liberty etc. being God-given), or is he opposing Locke's defence of empiricism?
philosophy didn't end at Locke

what would you say about Hobbes?

This post was edited by Gastly on Jul 8 2014 05:25pm

I did not say property I said ownership. Such concept encompasses more then physical property. The most basic ownership is that of ourselves. Ownership of our own person(s).
Our being is more then our bodies. Given a personal inclination to some spiritual beliefs I would argue that our thoughts are of a higher reality then our physical bodies. Metaphysical aside, people also leave their thoughts to us in their passing and we regard the information they shared as theirs. Like this is X users post.
or e=mc2 is Einstein's equation.
Therefore, it is also our mindsets to which we hold initial ownership. To such that we hold ownership to our differing opinions in the environment of many minds.
What gives this consciousness integrity ? It isn't force. It's assentation with provability.

When posters on this forum have disagreeing opinions they don't bash each other in the head to have our ideas recognized. No instead some of us attempt to prove what we are saying as true. So I fail to see where legal philosophy come into play here. Had I only been speaking of a proposed locality that might make sense. However I did not.
Indeed, I am applying an understanding of universal law. That which legal law should make more strides to resemble where possible. We should dispose of any delusional ideas in our laws which conflict with our understanding of environment. Why is it liberals pander themselves as environmentalist yet labor for our laws in society to conflict with nature causing so many human conflicts with nature? Easy. Liberals are delusional.

Property ownership is merely the next level of emergent ownership to the physical world outside our bodies. The ownership to the physical gains we have made by effective usage of our bodies & consciousness.
Our property is an extension of ourselves in this. It is the comprehension of this which gives us our rights to this property. Similarly to how your minds recognition of your arm gives you a right to it's mobility. If we have poured our life-force into acquiring currency that should be considered our property every bit as much as one of our arms. If we pour this currency into something it belongs to us similarly.
It is the comprehension of this that gives us these rights. We do not require government or force to have rights only our own free will.

Liberals would hack off one of our arms if they saw more utility in that to one of their "concepts" rather then allowing the individual who owns the arm to stay in possession of it.
Authority and force doesn't make that right. But that's what makes liberals fascist. Its just a different form of fascism.

A liberal goes about saying might makes right and carries on believing as if they happen the defender of the disadvantaged is not only hypocritical but also delusional.
Fact is they have create these disadvantages in others through their own carless actions which conflict with natural laws.
Then they penalize others who have success for not being a retarded liberals. This destroys any real progress humanity could be making, And it instill crippling dependencies in those these liberals claim to be helping.

Liberals are more then simple hypocrites. They are delusional fascists. Delusional fascist which would have people eating other people.

This post was edited by TradeBot on Jul 8 2014 05:23pm

I think Skinned is just acknowledging that we still have a reptilian brain. I would ask anyone who says life is a "right" to illuminate for me where along our anthropological timeline this right emerged.

love it

I got some good ones.