British family detained after 'accidentally' crossing the US border

First topic message reminder :

The family claim they have been mistreated in detention and have been subjected to "frigid" temperatures.

A British family have been detained after they accidentally crossed into the US while trying to avoid hitting an animal on the road.

David Connors, 30, his wife Eileen, 24, and their three-month-old son claim they took a wrong turn as they were driving across the US-Canada border near Vancouver during a family holiday on 3 October.

They were pulled over and arrested by a police officer who said they had entered the US state of Washington.

The family insist they were unaware they had crossed the border.

Mr Connors' brother Michael, his wife Grace, and their two-year-old twin daughters are also believed to have been detained.

The family's lawyer said the Connors have been left "traumatised" by the ordeal and allege they have been mistreated while in detention.

The couple say they were initially separated after their arrest - David Connors was taken to a Washington detention centre, while Grace was placed in a hotel with her son.

All three were later flown to the Berks Family Residential Centre (BFRC) in Leesport, Pennsylvania, where they have been held since 5 October.

They say they have been kept in "frigid" temperatures in their cells and their three-month-old baby appears to have an eye infection and "rough and blotchy skin" due to the poor conditions.

Bridget Cambria, of Aldea - The People's Justice Centre, filed a complaint on behalf of the family with the US Department of Homeland Security.

According to the complaint, Mrs Connors said her son's formula was confiscated for three days at BRFC.

She says in the complaint: "When I ask 'How I am supposed to keep my baby warm in this horrible cold?', all they tell me is to put a hat on him.

"My baby can't wear a hat all the time, he feels uncomfortable with hats and mittens and starts to cry."

However a statement from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says video footage shows the family's car entering the US by "slowly and deliberately driving through a ditch".

"The seven occupants of the vehicle, who are citizens of the United Kingdom, were arrested at approximately 9.13pm, in accordance with law as established by the Immigration and Nationality Act for illegally entering the United States without inspection," it said.

CBP claimed record checks showed two of the adults were previously denied authorisation to enter the United States.

It added: "Attempts were made to return the individuals to Canada, however, Canada refused to allow their return and two attempts to contact the consulate for the United Kingdom were unsuccessful."

The Foreign Office has confirmed the family are being held and says it is working with US authorities.


https://news.sky.com/story/british-family-detained-after-accidentally-crossing-the-us-border-11836492

Victorismyhero wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well Didge just showed his fascist side. Rights like free movement and free speech are inalienable. Meaning they're yours from birth, not that they're given to you.

Think about it. Free speech, free movement, free worship... all these freedoms derive from freedom of thought.

Who the hell can give anyone freedom of thought?

It's impossible to give and nearly as impossible to take away.

\i think that bloke over there with a machine gun would beg to differ.......

You and only you can control the things you think, feel and believe.

You can be thrown into prison for saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong thing, but nobody can take away your freedom to think whatever you like.

From the innate right to freedom of thought come freedoms of expression, worship, and movement -- i.e., to act upon your thoughts, within reason of course.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well Didge just showed his fascist side. Rights like free movement and free speech are inalienable. Meaning they're yours from birth, not that they're given to you.

Think about it. Free speech, free movement, free worship... all these freedoms derive from freedom of thought.

Who the hell can give anyone freedom of thought?

It's impossible to give and nearly as impossible to take away.

Oh dear, so when I easily show up your really immature argument you say my fascist side. Seriously grow the fuck up

Free speech and freedom of movement are again rights that are given. You are not born to them
As again some people are not born into a nation with free speech
Hence the point went over your head
I am not against people having rights, but your belief they are  inalienable. When already free speech is being eroded shows how out of touch with reality you are. We do not have free speech in any society in reality as there has always been consquences for certain speech.
Hence Free speech is not a  inalienable right
Like I said rights are given and I am glad we do have many rights, but that does not mean someone has an inalienable right to move where they want to. As for example you would not then want 100 people camped in your garden
Hence we have restrictions on this/
I have always been happy for people to follow their dreams and move where they want to, but it has to be by conscent by the nation in agreement for you to move there.

The point you miss is that rights are given,not born into as laws can and do change and for one we are constantly seeing Free speech being constantly curtailed and denied. Which often comes from the Far right and left.

The reality is there is an evolutionary nature, being that humans are animals that they will be territorial. The point you glaringly miss

You are born to all your rights. If you're born into a country without free speech, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to free speech, it means your country has unjustly taken away your right by means of force, i.e., your country sucks.

Animals aren't territorial in the same way as humans. A herd of grazing animals don't begrudge birds for accessing the same land. Even a tribe of chimps, who are very human-like, wouldn't try to force elephants, zebras, etc. off their territory. Animals deal with conflict when it arises rather than seeking out conflict, which we do whenever we build a wall or set up a customs official to regulate a line of people trying to enter a country.

Put it to you this way -- if we are not born with rights, then nobody ever did a bad thing by enslaving someone.

It is only because the person enslaved was born with the right to be free that makes slavery wrong.

If you don't not only see the logic of that, but feel it in your heart, then you must be a sociopath or a robot.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Oh dear, so when I easily show up your really immature argument you say my fascist side. Seriously grow the fuck up

Free speech and freedom of movement are again rights that are given. You are not born to them
As again some people are not born into a nation with free speech
Hence the point went over your head
I am not against people having rights, but your belief they are  inalienable. When already free speech is being eroded shows how out of touch with reality you are. We do not have free speech in any society in reality as there has always been consquences for certain speech.
Hence Free speech is not a  inalienable right
Like I said rights are given and I am glad we do have many rights, but that does not mean someone has an inalienable right to move where they want to. As for example you would not then want 100 people camped in your garden
Hence we have restrictions on this/
I have always been happy for people to follow their dreams and move where they want to, but it has to be by conscent by the nation in agreement for you to move there.

The point you miss is that rights are given,not born into as laws can and do change and for one we are constantly seeing Free speech being constantly curtailed and denied. Which often comes from the Far right and left.

The reality is there is an evolutionary nature, being that humans are animals that they will be territorial. The point you glaringly miss

You are born to all your rights. If you're born into a country without free speech, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to free speech, it means your country has unjustly taken away your right by means of force, i.e., your country sucks.

Animals aren't territorial in the same way as humans. A herd of grazing animals don't begrudge birds for accessing the same land. Even a tribe of chimps, who are very human-like, wouldn't try to force elephants, zebras, etc. off their territory. Animals deal with conflict when it arises rather than seeking out conflict, which we do whenever we build a wall or set up a customs official to regulate a line of people trying to enter a country.

Put it to you this way -- if we are not born with rights, then nobody ever did a bad thing by enslaving someone.

It is only because the person enslaved was born with the right to be free that makes slavery wrong.

If you don't not only see the logic of that, but feel it in your heart, then you must be a sociopath or a robot.

Animals are extremely territorial.

Why do you think people use dogs to guard their territory?

Lions kill Cheetah cubs to defend their hunting grounds from competition.

Hell, they engage in surplus killing for fun.

As for chimps...............


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jun/21/chimpanzees-territory-killing-neighbours

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Oh dear, so when I easily show up your really immature argument you say my fascist side. Seriously grow the fuck up

Free speech and freedom of movement are again rights that are given. You are not born to them
As again some people are not born into a nation with free speech
Hence the point went over your head
I am not against people having rights, but your belief they are  inalienable. When already free speech is being eroded shows how out of touch with reality you are. We do not have free speech in any society in reality as there has always been consquences for certain speech.
Hence Free speech is not a  inalienable right
Like I said rights are given and I am glad we do have many rights, but that does not mean someone has an inalienable right to move where they want to. As for example you would not then want 100 people camped in your garden
Hence we have restrictions on this/
I have always been happy for people to follow their dreams and move where they want to, but it has to be by conscent by the nation in agreement for you to move there.

The point you miss is that rights are given,not born into as laws can and do change and for one we are constantly seeing Free speech being constantly curtailed and denied. Which often comes from the Far right and left.

The reality is there is an evolutionary nature, being that humans are animals that they will be territorial. The point you glaringly miss

You are born to all your rights. If you're born into a country without free speech, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to free speech, it means your country has unjustly taken away your right by means of force, i.e., your country sucks.

Animals aren't territorial in the same way as humans. A herd of grazing animals don't begrudge birds for accessing the same land. Even a tribe of chimps, who are very human-like, wouldn't try to force elephants, zebras, etc. off their territory. Animals deal with conflict when it arises rather than seeking out conflict, which we do whenever we build a wall or set up a customs official to regulate a line of people trying to enter a country.

Put it to you this way -- if we are not born with rights, then nobody ever did a bad thing by enslaving someone.

It is only because the person enslaved was born with the right to be free that makes slavery wrong.

If you don't not only see the logic of that, but feel it in your heart, then you must be a sociopath or a robot.

How are you born to rights, when rights were created? Hence freedom of speech wqas created through laws. There is nothing natural about this. As such rights never existed in human history until the last couple of centuries.

Holy crap on a cracker? Humans are not territorial? And you believe in evolution? Are you telling me apes are not territorial now? You then equate this to other species, when they would look to stop many creatures entering their territory. Those they are able to. When other apes go into a territory, then fights break out. So you have no idea what you are talking about and humans descend from a species of apes. So to go off other animals, really fails to under territorial grop creatures.

Your next point is even more absurd. People were born into slavery because no such rights existed. At no point does this make slavery ok and have no idea how you come to this conclusion? Indeed for the time, those who enslaved in the main and for thousands of years did not view this as wrong. That does not mean we as societies today would view this as okay. It was only because people abolished slavery and gave all people the basic right to be free to live. It required those who did the enslaving to have people view this as wrong. It never took the person who was enslaved. Even when slavery was abolished it took many more years for people to have equally the same rights as everyone else through the law.

Seriously Ben, what history have you read?

So your claim to say logic here and then claim someone is a sociopath or a robot. Its just plainly even more absurd. Humans rights have been created to protect people from how we now today come to see wrongs. They never naturally happened. What happened was a growing number of people came to view something as wrong and to see people more equally. To be treated equally under laws and look to the well being of others.

The biggest problem with human rights though is they are never applied universally and often many countries including the US fall fould of breaking them themselves.

Ben can be a little naïve at times !

nicko wrote:Ben can be a little naïve at times !

You can be a bit tribalistic, band-wagonny and downright fick at times, but hey, I still like you!

Think for yourself.

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:Ben can be a little naïve at times !

You can be a bit tribalistic, band-wagonny and downright fick at times, but hey, I still like you!

Think for yourself.

He did think for himself by being in agreement with me.
Why not take with grace that some people do not think you have made a good reasoned point of view.
Where instead you tried to claim I hold fascist views on this, when I certainly do not. Even your own position requires checks for entry around crimibality. Thus rendering your view of allowing people to move where they want to. In complete conflict. As for people to do so would mean rendering having no checks and measures in place whatsoever.

You see I am not against people wanting to move where they want to. I am also not against a nation having reasonable checks and requirements in place for people to obtain or refuse citizenship.

Do I think your requirements to obtain citizenship are fair?

No, and this is a situation where I think this requirement is unfair and unreasonable

The reality is you are arguing in the exact same position as me. The only difference will be on what level of checks are necessary for people to gain access to become citizens.

That is the only difference and even on that the difference is negligible

I always think for my self that's why the lefty's don't like me, cause I don't follow the "herd" !

nicko wrote:I always think for my self that's why the lefty's don't like me, cause I don't follow the "herd"  !

+1

and even we do not agree at times mate.
Hence you hold your own

I do my best Didge !

phildidge wrote:What happened was a growing number of people came to view something as wrong and to see people more equally. To be treated equally under laws and look to the well being of others.

And how in the hell did anyone come to view something as wrong if they weren't born with the right to be treated equally?

If rights weren't based upon an innate sense of fairness (which they are), everyone would accept the world they were born into as it was. They wouldn't fight for freedom if they didn't feel the right to be free, which isn't a feeling that they got because someone gave them the idea that it would be nice if they were free.

They knew in their own reasoning, in their hearts or souls so to speak, that they deserved to have their innate rights recognized.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:What happened was a growing number of people came to view something as wrong and to see people more equally. To be treated equally under laws and look to the well being of others.

And how in the hell did anyone come to view something as wrong if they weren't born with the right to be treated equally?

If rights weren't based upon an innate sense of fairness (which they are), everyone would accept the world they were born into as it was. They wouldn't fight for freedom if they didn't feel the right to be free, which isn't a feeling that they got because someone gave them the idea that it would be nice if they were free.

They knew in their own reasoning, in their hearts or souls so to speak, that they deserved to have their innate rights recognized.

If someone is born into slavery they would never see any wrong in this and generally they never do.
In fact some slaves has risen to higher power in the past in kingdoms
Hence it is learn when and why people feel they are wronged
It takes learning to understand what it is to be free
I mean history would be littered with slavery uprisings. So why is there not more then the minor accounts of this Ben?
You simple have no idea what you are talking about
Its only when people have a tatse of someone they like, that they strive for this
Look at love for example

When you first spoke to eddie, was it love at first sight?
Or did over time did you yearn to want to be with her?
You were never born to be with her?
You met, you found you were soul mats and fell in love

"The Declaration of Independence also speaks about unalienable rights. It says that that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These rights cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime. Governments are instituted to “secure," not grant or create, these rights."

I think this is where Ben is coming from.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:What happened was a growing number of people came to view something as wrong and to see people more equally. To be treated equally under laws and look to the well being of others.

And how in the hell did anyone come to view something as wrong if they weren't born with the right to be treated equally?

If rights weren't based upon an innate sense of fairness (which they are), everyone would accept the world they were born into as it was. They wouldn't fight for freedom if they didn't feel the right to be free, which isn't a feeling that they got because someone gave them the idea that it would be nice if they were free.

They knew in their own reasoning, in their hearts or souls so to speak, that they deserved to have their innate rights recognized.

If someone is born into slavery they would never see any wrong in this and generally they never do.
In fact some slaves has risen to higher power in the past in kingdoms
Hence it is learn when and why people feel they are wronged
It takes learning to understand what it is to be free
I mean history would be littered with slavery uprisings. So why is there not more then the minor accounts of this Ben?
You simple have no idea what you are talking about
Its only when people have a tatse of someone they like, that they strive for this
Look at love for example

When you first spoke to eddie, was it love at first sight?
Or did over time did you yearn to want to be with her?
You were never born to be with her?
You met, you found you were soul mats and fell in love

First, you're talking shit -- me and eddie falling in love has nothing to do with basic human rights. I don't know if you're trying to do something by dragging her into this, but it's not going to work.

Second, history is littered with slave uprisings, and those are just the big, notable ones.

History is also littered with slaves who ran away or otherwise transcended their situation, and it's littered with slaves who never escaped but were freed and gave accounts of how much they hated being slaves.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

If someone is born into slavery they would never see any wrong in this and generally they never do.
In fact some slaves has risen to higher power in the past in kingdoms
Hence it is learn when and why people feel they are wronged
It takes learning to understand what it is to be free
I mean history would be littered with slavery uprisings. So why is there not more then the minor accounts of this Ben?
You simple have no idea what you are talking about
Its only when people have a tatse of someone they like, that they strive for this
Look at love for example

When you first spoke to eddie, was it love at first sight?
Or did over time did you yearn to want to be with her?
You were never born to be with her?
You met, you found you were soul mats and fell in love

First, you're talking shit -- me and eddie falling in love has nothing to do with basic human rights. I don't know if you're trying to do something by dragging her into this, but it's not going to work.

Second, history is littered with slave uprisings, and those are just the big, notable ones.

History is also littered with slaves who ran away or otherwise transcended their situation, and it's littered with slaves who never escaped but were freed and gave accounts of how much they hated being slaves.

1) Point went over your head it seems. You were never in love at first right? You fell in love which is actually natural
By your view of natural rights. Anyone could claim to love Eddie, yes?
Yet what matters is mutual love right?

2) And how many slave uprisings failed? I see again the point went over that pea brain head of yours

3) And with those slaves that ran away. In which case in history did they ever change the laws of a society?

If you are going to be an arse and fail to see my point. When i am not knokcing you and Eddie but showing a progression of people coming to love and understand each other. The fuck off you immature twat. The point is just about every aspect is learnt and passed on. New traits are learnt and they mainly come from those within a society that oppresses.

Go figure you arrogant prick

Maddog wrote:"The Declaration of Independence also speaks about unalienable rights. It says that that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These rights cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime. Governments are instituted to “secure," not grant or create, these rights."

I think this is where Ben is coming from.

And yet no men were created equal by such a Declaration, espcially women
Slavey continued to exist through this Declaration
It only existed to matter to people from certain European tribes

So the fact that a slave uprising failed means that the slaves who rose up didn't hate being slaves.

Okay, coming to this thread late, but if I’m correct, is didge saying we aren’t born with rights?

Let me be a child for a minute.....do I not have the right not to be sexually abused?

Ben Reilly wrote:So the fact that a slave uprising failed means that the slaves who rose up didn't hate being slaves.

The question to ask is why there never was mass uprisings?

Millions of Afrians slaves and in many areas they were the majority in areas

I dont doubt they hated being slaves

As they also did in Africa where slavery was also predominant

Here is the telling factor and somthing that will chill you to the bone Ben

It was the European sense of freedom that allowed the case for uprisings

Show me a case of African slaves uprising in Arabian slavery?

It was not islamic slavery that brought about a view of freedom, but European secularism

How does that pan out for you wetwipe?

eddie wrote:Okay, coming to this thread late, but if I’m correct, is didge saying we aren’t born with rights?

Let me be a child for a minute.....do I not have the right not to be sexually abused?

Tell that to every victim to sexual abuse

Nobody should be sexually abused Eddie

What rights stopped the tens of thousands of boys and girls being sexually abused?

You see what you and ben fail to understand eddie. Rights count for shit in reality.
As humans constantly abuse them
We constantly see this being abused in human history
Hence why human rights will only work when countries universally apply them

This never happens and the poorest people in society always suffer.
People only care forwht matters for themselves.

Does that make you serlfish Ben?

NO

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay, coming to this thread late, but if I’m correct, is didge saying we aren’t born with rights?

Let me be a child for a minute.....do I not have the right not to be sexually abused?

Tell that to every victim to sexual abuse

Nobody should be sexually abused Eddie

What rights stopped the tens of thousands of boys and girls being sexually abused?

But you’re saying that people aren’t born with rights?

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Tell that to every victim to sexual abuse

Nobody should be sexually abused Eddie

What rights stopped the tens of thousands of boys and girls being sexually abused?

But you’re saying that people aren’t born with rights?

What animals are born with rights Eddie?

Are they socially constructed?

If you were born into Pakistan. Would you have the same rights in the uk?

Its societies that have rights. Not humans per say. Humans have an arrogance to believe they have rights over all spiecies

The Amerivan view is, or used to be anyway, was that people are born with rights and it is siciety's job to protect them. Society doesn't always do that though.

Other people would say you're not born with rights at all but have rights given to you by society.

I think the bigger problem is the definition of rights. I only believe in negative rights as they dont require anything from anyone else for me to enjoy and exercise them.

The American view is written by Thomas Jefferson, and "born" rights are limited to three:

Tho. Jefferson wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [1] Life, [2] Liberty and [3] the pursuit of Happiness.

This is highly reminiscent of John Locke, who wrote:

John Locke,, Two Treatises... wrote:The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his [1] life, health, [2] liberty, or possessions… (and) [3] when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Despite the complexity of the third provision, this is generally reduced to: life, liberty and property. https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/497  The third in the Lockean formulation sounded too much like avarice, so Jefferson turned it into a happy phrase: pursuit of happiness.  But it means: right to make a living (turn the world into your own).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property

All other rights are derived (invented) and written down, and come from the Social Contract.  The Americans tried to reify the social contract, and make it into a constitution; hence the Constitution of the United States.  So, in the American view, the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments, plus the Civil War amendments) is an expansion of the original three of the Declaration to George III.

I just wonder how people ever end up asserting their rights, even when born into unjust societies, if they weren't born with those rights.

Even in societies that allowed slavery, slaves felt their right to be free deep down within themselves and revolted, escaped, or at least spread their horrific stories after being freed.

What makes someone demand to be treated a certain way even though society has never treated people like them that way?

The fact that they were born with a right that has been unjustly taken away from them.

Rights stem from an innate sense of fairness that not only human beings, but many other animals, are born with.

The truth of the phrase "all men are created equal" is reflected in this experiment with monkeys:



In this experiment with dogs:



These animals don't have to be taught history lessons or societal values to understand what is fair and what is unfair. They know it innately.

And our own understanding of the rights we were born with derives from our own innate sense of fairness.

It may all boil down to an evolved sense of self-preservation:

He is allowed to speak, move and worship freely, while I am not. Taking away those rights means it will be harder for me to survive and reproduce. Thus it's unfair that those rights have been taken from me.

Still yet again a poor argument. Failing to address al the points I made.
Nobody is born with rights. Societies have righst enshrined in law which have forever changed. Just because some people fight against mistreatment does not mean then everything qualifies as a right. As then you go down a very slippery slope that then you cannot disagree with someone. With a view someone may punch you if they feel agrieved at something you say. Hence there has to be balance and going off mistreatment is a flawed philosophy. As you woyuld then be arging for the justification of the rise of the Nazi's. Who used victimology in order to rise to power off the Versailles treaty.

Are you going to argue in defense of the Nazis Ben, based around the claimed perception of muistreatment of the Versailles treaty? In this instance laws were changed to deny people the same rights. If they were deemed unequal. So to go off a percieved view around mistreatment which then later kleads to the muder of millions of people. Shows again such views on mistreatment are subjective to say the least and can as seen be easily abused

Rights are also easily taken away when people commit crime. Many people have not had rights through history and many still do not have them today and to say people are born with rights when many people born today do not have them in places in the world. Shows the fallacious nature of your argument.

There Are No Natural Rights.

Man-Made Rights are Either in Ordered Anarchy or in Command-Obedience Relations

The literature of ethics and political philosophy presents an ideal human nature, notably free of conflicts between men. In this literature, basic rights are “natural.” There is no reason why anyone should accept this supposition about the basic character of men, and therefore no reason why rights would present themselves and function without purposeful human intervention. The stylized moral content of “natural rights” is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The individual whose moral content is in the search for happiness is not alone; he is in the vicinity of other individuals with the same moral content, and the two cannot fail to contradict or compete with each other. In this perspective, the natural right is morally inconsistent, and it is hard to see how a different perspective on the moral right of one individual compared with the others could be consistent. Instead of this natural right, which in fact fails to be consistent with humanity, rights are created and used as a means of peacefully regulating and resolving both real and potential conflicts. Rights are not natural moral ideas, but real man-made instruments which are expected to cope with human nature in all its variety. Rights, however, are imperfect. They are man-made, but their construction at best only approaches what human nature expects from them. Man-made rights would perhaps be something that classical liberalism should like to represent and which has evolved in the literature over the last half millennium.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/Jasaynonaturalrights.html

Ben wrote:I just wonder how people ever end up asserting their rights, even when born into unjust societies, if they weren't born with those rights.

They want them. It's just a demand or assertion. There is no natural law in man-made devices. The whole concept of natural law in politics (and social sciences) is based upon an analogy to the concepts of physical law. It was an attempt during the 17th century to strengthen ideas such as equality, freedom, and democracy by likening them to things like gravity and electricity. Hence: the law of nature, or natural laws.

It is what it is. Man makes what he is, by chance or choice.

Ben wrote:The truth of the phrase "all men are created equal" is reflected in this experiment with monkeys:

The monkeys are just sorting themselves out in a given situation. They are not building huge intellectual abstractions such as equality.

That said, if there is one natural law, it is equality. But, one has to back into the argument. That is, in a distributive sense, no one is entitled to more, hence all are entitled to the same = equality.

It's the same thing as saying, there are no rights because it is really dismissing all/any authority or entitlement. This leaves you with nothing, and nothing = equality. We are all nothing, in a no-rights world, and hence we are all equal.

I think i am going to actually faint. With Quill in near agreement with me lol

Oh and for the record Ben, I once thought as you did on this. Until I had a new arsehole torn for me by Victor around natural human rights. Hence I do listen and learn.

I think people should have rights of course and as Quill states through equality, but even that can come into conflict as we are seeing with sex based rights and gender rights.

Anyway hope everyone has a lovely evening

Original Quill wrote:

Ben wrote:The truth of the phrase "all men are created equal" is reflected in this experiment with monkeys:

The monkeys are just sorting themselves out in a given situation.  They are not building huge intellectual abstractions such as equality.

That said, if there is one natural law, it is equality.  But, one has to back into the argument.  That is, in a distributive sense, no one is entitled to more, hence all are entitled to the same = equality.

It's the same thing as saying, there are no rights because it is really dismissing all/any authority or entitlement.  This leaves you with nothing, and nothing = equality.  We are all nothing, in a no-rights world, and hence we are all equal.

Nonsense, just because monkeys aren't deriving philosophy about rights from their sense of unfairness doesn't mean they don't feel it when they're treated unfairly.

If monkeys feel that emotion, it must be natural. Monkeys don't do much in the way of transmitting culture from one generation to the next, outside of teaching their young some food-harvesting skills.

They're certainly incapable of writing or speaking about emotions. There's literally no way for a monkey to feel it's being treated unfairly unless that capability is innate.

So that shows that such a sense, an ability, to ascertain fair from unfair, is something we are born with as well.

To bring it back to basics, if you're born into a society in which you can legally be enslaved, it is not you who doesn't have the right to be free -- it is society which has trampled your right to be free.

And if rights were something given, we'd never know we had a right to be free in a society within which slavery is condoned.

Since we know we have the right to be free even in societies which don't recognize all of our rights, we know that we're born with these rights.

Okay how to ruin Bens argument in one second

Rights are created

Nobody is born with rights, as ask every single animal that is hunted by predators.

If you think humans are special. Then it is even more an inequality argument. Placing humans above all over species.

So wht natural rights do you really have?

Zero

They were created to protect people from wrongs, which many animal species do not have. Hence nobody is born into rights. They are born into a system that protects them with rights and only generally humans

phildidge wrote:Okay how to ruin Bens argument in one second

Rights are created

Nobody is born with rights, as ask every single animal that is hunted by predators.

If you think humans are special. Then it is even more an inequality argument. Placing humans above all over species.

So wht natural rights do you really have?

Zero

They were created to protect people from wrongs, which many animal species do not have. Hence nobody is born into rights. They are born into a system that protects them with rights and only generally humans

You think human beings aren't also subject to predators, both animal and human?

The presence of predators in no way negates the innate rights we're born with.

It's a bit of a stretch, but you could even argue that the survival instinct in hunted animals equates to a "right to life" in the Declaration of Independence sense.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:Okay how to ruin Bens argument in one second

Rights are created

Nobody is born with rights, as ask every single animal that is hunted by predators.

If you think humans are special. Then it is even more an inequality argument. Placing humans above all over species.

So wht natural rights do you really have?

Zero

They were created to protect people from wrongs, which many animal species do not have. Hence nobody is born into rights. They are born into a system that protects them with rights and only generally humans

You think human beings aren't also subject to predators, both animal and human?

The presence of predators in no way negates the innate rights we're born with.

It's a bit of a stretch, but you could even argue that the survival instinct in hunted animals equates to a "right to life" in the Declaration of Independence sense.

It certainly negates your argument on natural born rights
As they are a modern conception and nothing more.
Humans had to in the past survive and still do against predators in parts of the world.
Do you thoink a tiger gives a fuck about your rights when its hungry and needs to feed?
Do you think a tiger gives a tiny rats arse about the "Declaration of Independence"?

Do you not see how really idiotic your view point is here?

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:Okay how to ruin Bens argument in one second

Rights are created

Nobody is born with rights, as ask every single animal that is hunted by predators.

If you think humans are special. Then it is even more an inequality argument. Placing humans above all over species.

So wht natural rights do you really have?

Zero

They were created to protect people from wrongs, which many animal species do not have. Hence nobody is born into rights. They are born into a system that protects them with rights and only generally humans

You think human beings aren't also subject to predators, both animal and human?

The presence of predators in no way negates the innate rights we're born with.

It's a bit of a stretch, but you could even argue that the survival instinct in hunted animals equates to a "right to life" in the Declaration of Independence sense.

It certainly negates your argument on natural born rights
As they are a modern conception and nothing more.
Humans had to in the past survive and still do against predators in parts of the world.
Do you thoink a tiger gives a fuck about your rights when its hungry and needs to feed?
Do you think a tiger gives a tiny rats arse about the "Declaration of Independence"?

Do you not see how really idiotic your view point is here?

Do you not realize I've never once said that rights can't be violated by force?

My only argument is that rights are something we are born with.

You don't have to teach a baby that murder is wrong before killing the baby to make your deed a murder.

Do you?

If you don't, then that baby was born with rights!

Not only that, but the fact that the baby was born with rights is why people have fought to end all sorts of abuses against children over the years!

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

It certainly negates your argument on natural born rights
As they are a modern conception and nothing more.
Humans had to in the past survive and still do against predators in parts of the world.
Do you thoink a tiger gives a fuck about your rights when its hungry and needs to feed?
Do you think a tiger gives a tiny rats arse about the "Declaration of Independence"?

Do you not see how really idiotic your view point is here?

Do you not realize I've never once said that rights can't be violated by force?

My only argument is that rights are something we are born with.

You don't have to teach a baby that murder is wrong before killing the baby to make your deed a murder.

Do you?

If you don't, then that baby was born with rights!

Not only that, but the fact that the baby was born with rights is why people have fought to end all sorts of abuses against children over the years!

Yes i know what your argument is and again it holds no validity as its not universal

Even more its proven to be man made

No animal that is a predator would understand even a view or concept of murder

It would see the taking of life as natural

So humans are not born with rights. They are born through a time in history where they have a society that provides them with certain rights. Rights which again do not allow you to do certain things, like killing someone else. Unless its war of course and then the taking of life is allowed. Do you see how your notion of human rights is easily changeable with things like war?

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

It certainly negates your argument on natural born rights
As they are a modern conception and nothing more.
Humans had to in the past survive and still do against predators in parts of the world.
Do you thoink a tiger gives a fuck about your rights when its hungry and needs to feed?
Do you think a tiger gives a tiny rats arse about the "Declaration of Independence"?

Do you not see how really idiotic your view point is here?

Do you not realize I've never once said that rights can't be violated by force?

My only argument is that rights are something we are born with.

You don't have to teach a baby that murder is wrong before killing the baby to make your deed a murder.

Do you?

If you don't, then that baby was born with rights!

Not only that, but the fact that the baby was born with rights is why people have fought to end all sorts of abuses against children over the years!

Yes i know what your argument is and again it holds no validity as its not universal

Even more its proven to be man made

No animal that is a predator would understand even a view or concept of murder

It would see the taking of life as natural

So humans are not born with rights. They are born through a time in history where they have a society that provides them with certain rights. Rights which again do not allow you to do certain things, like killing someone else. Unless its war of course and then the taking of life is allowed. Do you see how your notion of human rights is easily changeable with things like war?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Unless you can show me hundreds of long-lived societies that have consistently embraced the values "you have no right to life, no right to liberty, and no right to pursue happiness," I can't help but see the fact that the majority of long-lived societies on the planet have embraced these values as overwhelming proof that they're a basic component of the human psyche; i.e. something we are born with.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Yes i know what your argument is and again it holds no validity as its not universal

Even more its proven to be man made

No animal that is a predator would understand even a view or concept of murder

It would see the taking of life as natural

So humans are not born with rights. They are born through a time in history where they have a society that provides them with certain rights. Rights which again do not allow you to do certain things, like killing someone else. Unless its war of course and then the taking of life is allowed. Do you see how your notion of human rights is easily changeable with things like war?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Unless you can show me hundreds of long-lived societies that have consistently embraced the values "you have no right to life, no right to liberty, and no right to pursue happiness," I can't help but see the fact that the majority of long-lived societies on the planet have embraced these values as overwhelming proof that they're a basic component of the human psyche; i.e. something we are born with.

Buuuuuut its only a human concept the bases for the right to life. Which as I have pointed out is thrown out of the window when it comes to war. There is no denying that people wish to embrace and live life and I am sure many animals feel the same way. But often needs overide this. Again i am not against human rights. I am simple stating Ben they are not natural in any shape or form. You have only come to see them this way as we as a socity in the mainj now respect life. Generally only though with humans

So yes lets agree to disagree

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The monkeys are just sorting themselves out in a given situation. They are not building huge intellectual abstractions such as equality.

That said, if there is one natural law, it is equality. But, one has to back into the argument. That is, in a distributive sense, no one is entitled to more, hence all are entitled to the same = equality.

It's the same thing as saying, there are no rights because it is really dismissing all/any authority or entitlement. This leaves you with nothing, and nothing = equality. We are all nothing, in a no-rights world, and hence we are all equal.

Nonsense, just because monkeys aren't deriving philosophy about rights from their sense of unfairness doesn't mean they don't feel it when they're treated unfairly.

If monkeys feel that emotion, it must be natural. Monkeys don't do much in the way of transmitting culture from one generation to the next, outside of teaching their young some food-harvesting skills.

They're certainly incapable of writing or speaking about emotions. There's literally no way for a monkey to feel it's being treated unfairly unless that capability is innate.

So that shows that such a sense, an ability, to ascertain fair from unfair, is something we are born with as well.

No, it's you attributing a philosophy to the actions of monkeys. I can equally infer that monkeys have literate skills (ie, can read and write), because someone must have written it all down for them to follow. I think you are looking for co-incident patterns, and when you find something that looks that way, you say ahah...there, I told you so.

Ben wrote:To bring it back to basics, if you're born into a society in which you can legally be enslaved, it is not you who doesn't have the right to be free -- it is society which has trampled your right to be free.

And if rights were something given, we'd never know we had a right to be free in a society within which slavery is condoned.

Since we know we have the right to be free even in societies which don't recognize all of our rights, we know that we're born with these rights.

It's all equality in the backwards way that I previously described it. It is unequal for you to be a slave, but the reverse is true: it's unequal for a slaver to be a master. By deduction, the natural station of man is equality.

Mans' relationship to man is all invented in the minds of men. Contemplate the mind/body distinction: the only thing that is actual about you are your bodily functions: your heartbeat, breathing, and excreting...stuff like that. Anything you may think about your primarily social existence is of your mind...and largely after-the-fact.

All ethics are 'situation ethics' until someone writes it down. Then they become 'rule ethics', and we call them laws, constitutions and regulations.

If you think you are observing patterns in situations, it's still you describing and labeling the patterns. Rights, like god, is a man-made creation.

I actually think that our concept of rights evolved right along with our own evolution. This separation of humanity from animals isn't natural, as science is showing more and more every day.

Existentialism will eventually be debunked by evolutionary psychology, at least that's what I think.

But it has already been shown that we act on far more instincts than we want to admit. We grew out of the Earth, we didn't land here in spaceships.

Ben Reilly wrote:I actually think that our concept of rights evolved right along with our own evolution. This separation of humanity from animals isn't natural, as science is showing more and more every day.

Existentialism will eventually be debunked by evolutionary psychology, at least that's what I think.

But it has already been shown that we act on far more instincts than we want to admit. We grew out of the Earth, we didn't land here in spaceships.

Alas, you are thinking in categories that nature never contemplated. Even true natural law--gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear force--we write words that are descriptions of them, not them in themselves. Indeed, that's why Einstein was able to improve upon the Newtonian system: all theories (descriptions) are corrigible. Just as we don't need a god for reality to exist, we don't need words for existence to exist. It'll go on without us.

Until we can isolate and distinguish a gene or genetic pattern that constitutes patterned behavior, we won't be able to reify the concept of Rights. Even then, we will have defined a gene or genetic pattern, and not a Right.