6 ms·

Which was exactly what the parent had said. i.e. > This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements. Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because

Which was exactly what the parent had said. i.e. > This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements. Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because the say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean that they are) Mind blown huh?

Natsu 9y ago
That's what they believed, but it isn't necessary. It's easier to see these arising out of very fundamental parts of human nature. Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Therein you have a basis for the first and second amendment, i.e. freedom to think and freedom to defend yourself.
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  > Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Curious wording. The vast majority of even modern human history seems to provide an incredible amount of contradictory evidence—at least if you’ll grant that “forced” can also mean socialized into a certain cultural and ideological narrative from birth. Sure, there are notable moments when resistance forms quietly, and perhaps even makes its way into the public sphere. However, resistance does not appear to me to be a default human trait. That’s usually only found in a smaller portion of what is typically non-boat-rocking humanity—those who hope to convince their fellow citizens to join them. The majority of humans appear to rarely make it habit to question anything at all.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    Well, that's the interesting thing, isn't it? We only resist ideas that appear to be forced on us and there are plenty of sneaky ways around that.
    - bobwaycott 9y ago
      I’m saying the vast majority of humans don’t even recognize when ideas are forced on them.
- manofstick 9y ago
  > Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Well not that I'm Christian, but Christian teaching is basically the opposite of this (Matthew 5:39 - i.e. turn the other cheek). And Gandhi's resistance was also an example of the opposite. In fact the opposite is the only way to deescalate a fight (or, as the US chooses to do, create the biggest weapons, but isn't that then affecting the rights of the people on the other side of the argument?) > Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Really? Advertising, religion, nation states, even your belief that these are "natural" laws are examples of your inherent bias. As a smaller example, even politeness - civility - is a counter example.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    The fact that people have to be taught other ways goes against saying it's human nature, doesn't it? Why would you teach someone to do things they already do? And then you bring up every method of manipulation as if people don't hate all of those things. Why would we need to invent clever tricks to manipulate people if it was human nature to like it? Sure, we're plenty effective both at hurting others and manipulating people, but it seems odd to express examples of our capability at doing that to unwilling people as evidence that we like those things being done to us... Why would we have to go to such lengths to develop these capabilities if it was something we naturally liked? You're kind of proving the opposite of the point you think you are here....
    - manofstick 9y ago
      Sigh. If you want to be closed minded, and not accept that you are choosing your axioms in the same way as someone else exposed to different upbringings is - as per my examples, then I guess I have no chance of convincing you otherwise.
      - Natsu 8y ago
        Well, you seem to be under the misconception that I think these are some kind of platonic ideals or whatnot. There was a time when the law tried to describe the values of the people rather than to dictate it and they came up with common law and some ideas about human rights after considering human nature and what did and did not work. You can say there's construction there, but there's a limit to it. I mean, just as you can't simply construct a functional bridge out of anything you want, neither can you reasonably construct any sort of right and have a functioning society. There are both positive and negative rights, tensions among the rights of different people, and responsibilities imposed on individuals and society by any particular conception of rights.
jemfinch 9y ago
> Which is what the US Constitution is. OP quoted the Declaration of Independence, which is neither law nor agreement.

Natsu 9y ago

That's what they believed, but it isn't necessary. It's easier to see these arising out of very fundamental parts of human nature. Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Therein you have a basis for the first and second amendment, i.e. freedom to think and freedom to defend yourself.

bobwaycott 9y ago
> Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Curious wording. The vast majority of even modern human history seems to provide an incredible amount of contradictory evidence—at least if you’ll grant that “forced” can also mean socialized into a certain cultural and ideological narrative from birth. Sure, there are notable moments when resistance forms quietly, and perhaps even makes its way into the public sphere. However, resistance does not appear to me to be a default human trait. That’s usually only found in a smaller portion of what is typically non-boat-rocking humanity—those who hope to convince their fellow citizens to join them. The majority of humans appear to rarely make it habit to question anything at all.
- Natsu 9y ago
  Well, that's the interesting thing, isn't it? We only resist ideas that appear to be forced on us and there are plenty of sneaky ways around that.
  - bobwaycott 9y ago
    I’m saying the vast majority of humans don’t even recognize when ideas are forced on them.
manofstick 9y ago
> Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back. Well not that I'm Christian, but Christian teaching is basically the opposite of this (Matthew 5:39 - i.e. turn the other cheek). And Gandhi's resistance was also an example of the opposite. In fact the opposite is the only way to deescalate a fight (or, as the US chooses to do, create the biggest weapons, but isn't that then affecting the rights of the people on the other side of the argument?) > Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea. Really? Advertising, religion, nation states, even your belief that these are "natural" laws are examples of your inherent bias. As a smaller example, even politeness - civility - is a counter example.
- Natsu 9y ago
  The fact that people have to be taught other ways goes against saying it's human nature, doesn't it? Why would you teach someone to do things they already do? And then you bring up every method of manipulation as if people don't hate all of those things. Why would we need to invent clever tricks to manipulate people if it was human nature to like it? Sure, we're plenty effective both at hurting others and manipulating people, but it seems odd to express examples of our capability at doing that to unwilling people as evidence that we like those things being done to us... Why would we have to go to such lengths to develop these capabilities if it was something we naturally liked? You're kind of proving the opposite of the point you think you are here....
  - manofstick 9y ago
    Sigh. If you want to be closed minded, and not accept that you are choosing your axioms in the same way as someone else exposed to different upbringings is - as per my examples, then I guess I have no chance of convincing you otherwise.
    - Natsu 8y ago
      Well, you seem to be under the misconception that I think these are some kind of platonic ideals or whatnot. There was a time when the law tried to describe the values of the people rather than to dictate it and they came up with common law and some ideas about human rights after considering human nature and what did and did not work. You can say there's construction there, but there's a limit to it. I mean, just as you can't simply construct a functional bridge out of anything you want, neither can you reasonably construct any sort of right and have a functioning society. There are both positive and negative rights, tensions among the rights of different people, and responsibilities imposed on individuals and society by any particular conception of rights.

jemfinch 9y ago

> Which is what the US Constitution is. OP quoted the Declaration of Independence, which is neither law nor agreement.