Guns anyone?

[billy rubin]

Nature has it that all have a right of self defense. However, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns. Nature gave the right to use those horns as needed.

what is a "right?"

if i live alone on a desert island, do i have rights?

[Old Seer]

Would this be an island without any other beings. Without other beings you don't need rights. What rights would you have on Kodiak is land. Rights only exist between beings. 

[billy rubin]

yez. completely alone.

youre saying rights only exist between beings. that makes sense to me.

so what are they? where do they come from?

everything that exizts comes from somewhere, i would think

[No one]

The mind of Minolta.

[billy rubin]

see, that's what i mean.

if i didn't have google to explain it to me, i would be utterly clueless about the stuff you say.

[Old Seer]

yez. completely alone.

youre saying rights only exist between beings. that makes sense to me.

so what are they? where do they come from?

everything that exizts comes from somewhere, i would think

Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

    The origin of rights is yourself because you have a right to be. We know this because you exist. (you are being) We know that there must "be" two in order for there to be rights. We know this because there must be another with the ability to impede the rights of the other, or, each other. Without rights there can be no impedance of an other's rights.   Without the ability to impede another there also can be no rights. Two existing without rights have no ability to impede the rights of each other. If, rights can be impeded by whatever forces automatically proves there,s rights. Material things can impede your rights, such as, a large rock in your path of travel. The rock impedes your right to travel in a straight line. However, we are into rights that interact between beings.
   All beings have the same rights, and it's a matter of "someone" willing to impede those rights and why, which is the item in question.  We know from history that if one acquires the right to impede the rights of other they will do so. The one(s) applying the impedance must have something to gain by doing so.

   Rights are not given by nature, they are nature. Once one understands their nature they also gain understanding of their own person, AND, everyone else's. Then, no one can hide from anyone, and all will know it.

[Michael Reilly]

There is not such thing as a right other than what human beings say it is. "Nature" does not provide us with a right to self-defense. Nature is indifferent to human beings. Living together in groups, we made decisions about what is, and is not, acceptable. But this whole 'natural rights' thing is--at the bottom--just people agreeing to certain propositions. There is no supernatural origin.

[billy rubin]

]Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

so rights come from nature.

you said this earlier:

However, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns . . . Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey.

nature gave me two hands. are there natural limits to whether i can strangle other people with them?

what are those limits, if any?

[billy rubin]

There is not such thing as a right other than what human beings say it is. "Nature" does not provide us with a right to self-defense. Nature is indifferent to human beings. Living together in groups, we made decisions about what is, and is not, acceptable. But this whole 'natural rights' thing is--at the bottom--just people agreeing to certain propositions. There is no supernatural origin.

if they come from nature, then they aren't supernatural, by definition.

but in my own opinion, i agree with you that rights (as i think of them) are human constructs linkd to an idea of right and wrong.

a "right" is something that it would be "wrong" to deny.

so its culture-specific and human, from the start.

[xSilverPhinx]

Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist. 

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted. 

[Old Seer]

]Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

so rights come from nature.

you said this earlier:

However, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns . . . Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey.

nature gave me two hands. are there natural limits to whether i can strangle other people with them?

what are those limits, if any?

No, :-) I did not say rights come from nature. I said, rights are nature. Rights are something you have automatically, they "are" you. Rights are elements of one's person, part of one's psychological makeup. If you don't agree that rights are a part of your nature then next time a book falls off the top shelf don't put your hands up to ward off the consequences. Just let them hit you on the head. If you, without thought or contemplation took action to avoid harm then you have a natural right of self defense.  Without that natural right you have no incentive to live. Having the incentive without intent proves the right to self defense. Without the right of natural self defense no one would be alive today. Without the right of self preservation you would fall off a cliff and do nothing to avoid it. Without the right of defense you're giving all other beings the right to offense. You're dead.

    The universe did not create right and wrong. It only created good and evil, there is a difference. Good and evil are consequences of being in the universe. Right and wrong are concepts of people control for reasons. Right and wrong can develop into good and evil, but right and wrong are mere concepts of inventing one's own idea of good and evil, either to cause it or to avoid it. It depends upon the intent of the developer(s) of the concept. If there were no beings in the universe there couldn't be right or wrong, good or evil, because there's no persons to right for wrong to be (on account of) Notice that right and wrong only applies if there are beings to create it. The universe cannot be right or wrong, good or evil to itself.
A rock rolling down hill harms a person, that is an evil brought about by the natural course of universal law. If the rock is rolled down the hill with "intent" by a person to do harm it is also just as evil, and can only be right or wrong if someone makes it that way. A hill nor gravity can be right or wrong. If gravity were wrong one could get rid of it. That can't be done. Right or wrong is relegated to whether something can be done to make change. However, gravity does cause evil.

  There is nothing in the universe that is supernatural. The universe has no need or ability to outdo itself. This is where Atheism comes into importance, but that's another subject. No man made government can declare the universe wrong and have an effect, but it can declare people wrong. So, right and wrong did not exist until there were beings.  If right and wrong were eliminated the universe would still contain good and evil.

[Old Seer]

There is not such thing as a right other than what human beings say it is. "Nature" does not provide us with a right to self-defense. Nature is indifferent to human beings. Living together in groups, we made decisions about what is, and is not, acceptable. But this whole 'natural rights' thing is--at the bottom--just people agreeing to certain propositions. There is no supernatural origin.

Human is also a matter of nature. Seers see human nature differently than the world. Human nature to us is a person adherent to specific standards of "being" or personality. If one has no right of defense then one cannot avoid a car crash as there would be no recognition of harm/danger. One doesn't need permission from a higher authority to avoid harm.

[billy rubin]

]Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

so rights come from nature.

you said this earlier:

However, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns . . . Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey.

nature gave me two hands. are there natural limits to whether i can strangle other people with them?

what are those limits, if any?

No, :-) I did not say rights come from nature. I said, rights are nature. Rights are something you have automatically, they "are" you. Rights are elements of one's person, part of one's psychological makeup. If you don't agree that rights are a part of your nature then next time a book falls off the top shelf don't put your hands up to ward off the consequences. Just let them hit you on the head. If you, without thought or contemplation took action to avoid harm then you have a natural right of self defense.  Without that natural right you have no incentive to live. Having the incentive without intent proves the right to self defense. Without the right of natural self defense no one would be alive today. Without the right of self preservation you would fall off a cliff and do nothing to avoid it. Without the right of defense you're giving all other beings the right to offense. You're dead.

    The universe did not create right and wrong. It only created good and evil, there is a difference. Good and evil are consequences of being in the universe. Right and wrong are concepts of people control for reasons. Right and wrong can develop into good and evil, but right and wrong are mere concepts of inventing one's own idea of good and evil, either to cause it or to avoid it. It depends upon the intent of the developer(s) of the concept. If there were no beings in the universe there couldn't be right or wrong, good or evil, because there's no persons to right for wrong to be (on account of) Notice that right and wrong only applies if there are beings to create it. The universe cannot be right or wrong, good or evil to itself.
A rock rolling down hill harms a person, that is an evil brought about by the natural course of universal law. If the rock is rolled down the hill with "intent" by a person to do harm it is also just as evil, and can only be right or wrong if someone makes it that way. A hill nor gravity can be right or wrong. If gravity were wrong one could get rid of it. That can't be done. Right or wrong is relegated to whether something can be done to make change. However, gravity does cause evil.

  There is nothing in the universe that is supernatural. The universe has no need or ability to outdo itself. This is where Atheism comes into importance, but that's another subject. No man made government can declare the universe wrong and have an effect, but it can declare people wrong. So, right and wrong did not exist until there were beings.  If right and wrong were eliminated the universe would still contain good and evil.

i agree with you regarding good, evil, right, wrong. i use the words differently but i understand your point.

with respect to rights, i think we re far apart. your useage of tbe term seems indisyinguishable from "inclination" or "drive." an evolved response, even a reflex, would zeem to fit your definition.

im talking about something closer to "entitlements" when i use the word. something which is owed, consciously

a book falling on my head incurs no conscious intrusion. i ward it off because i have an inclination to do so, but were i to have an entitlement, a right to self prezervation, then that is not something that an inanimate object could infringe.

you would call the harm from the book an evil. i would use the term misadventure.

i do not think rights can be asserted autonomously. ithink if they exist, they must be granted. this implies the prezence of a superior frame of reference, one which can justly enforce compliance with rights upon those who do not respect them.

how does this fit with your understanding?

[Old Seer]

]Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

so rights come from nature.

you said this earlier:

However, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns . . . Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey.

nature gave me two hands. are there natural limits to whether i can strangle other people with them?

what are those limits, if any?

No, :-) I did not say rights come from nature. I said, rights are nature. Rights are something you have automatically, they "are" you. Rights are elements of one's person, part of one's psychological makeup. If you don't agree that rights are a part of your nature then next time a book falls off the top shelf don't put your hands up to ward off the consequences. Just let them hit you on the head. If you, without thought or contemplation took action to avoid harm then you have a natural right of self defense.  Without that natural right you have no incentive to live. Having the incentive without intent proves the right to self defense. Without the right of natural self defense no one would be alive today. Without the right of self preservation you would fall off a cliff and do nothing to avoid it. Without the right of defense you're giving all other beings the right to offense. You're dead.

    The universe did not create right and wrong. It only created good and evil, there is a difference. Good and evil are consequences of being in the universe. Right and wrong are concepts of people control for reasons. Right and wrong can develop into good and evil, but right and wrong are mere concepts of inventing one's own idea of good and evil, either to cause it or to avoid it. It depends upon the intent of the developer(s) of the concept. If there were no beings in the universe there couldn't be right or wrong, good or evil, because there's no persons to right for wrong to be (on account of) Notice that right and wrong only applies if there are beings to create it. The universe cannot be right or wrong, good or evil to itself.
A rock rolling down hill harms a person, that is an evil brought about by the natural course of universal law. If the rock is rolled down the hill with "intent" by a person to do harm it is also just as evil, and can only be right or wrong if someone makes it that way. A hill nor gravity can be right or wrong. If gravity were wrong one could get rid of it. That can't be done. Right or wrong is relegated to whether something can be done to make change. However, gravity does cause evil.

  There is nothing in the universe that is supernatural. The universe has no need or ability to outdo itself. This is where Atheism comes into importance, but that's another subject. No man made government can declare the universe wrong and have an effect, but it can declare people wrong. So, right and wrong did not exist until there were beings.  If right and wrong were eliminated the universe would still contain good and evil.

i agree with you regarding good, evil, right, wrong. i use the words differently but i understand your point.

with respect to rights, i think we re far apart. your useage of tbe term seems indisyinguishable from "inclination" or "drive." an evolved response, even a reflex, would zeem to fit your definition.

im talking about something closer to "entitlements" when i use the word. something which is owed, consciously

a book falling on my head incurs no conscious intrusion. i ward it off because i have an inclination to do so, but were i to have an entitlement, a right to self prezervation, then that is not something that an inanimate object could infringe.

you would call the harm from the book an evil. i would use the term misadventure.

i do not think rights can be asserted autonomously. ithink if they exist, they must be granted. this implies the prezence of a superior frame of reference, one which can justly enforce compliance with rights upon those who do not respect them.

how does this fit with your understanding?

in·cli·na·tion
/ˌinkləˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: inclination; plural noun: inclinations

    1.
    a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity.
    "John was a scientist by training and inclination"
    h
    Similar:
    tendency

propensity
proclivity
leaning
predisposition
disposition
predilection
weakness
proneness
desire
wish
readiness
impulse
bent
list
humor
velleity
h

2.
a slope or slant.
"changes in inclination of the line on the graph"

    the action of inclining the body or head.
    "the questioner's inclination of his head"

[Bluenose]

I come from a country that, with a few exceptions, does not allow personal firearms, certainly nothing even remotely like in the USA and never for "personal protection".  The personal protection shibboleth is really an oxymoron, statistics show that owning a firearm, particularly a pistol, for personal protection dramatically increases your risk of being killed or injured, usually and ironically by your own firearm.

and people who own knives or bees are far more likly to be cut or stung than people who don't own them. In fact i got my first hive last year and was stung more in that year than i have the previous 40 years combined. However since i learned how to work with bees i do not even need a bee suit. the same is true for owning knives.. or hammers nails or any other tool. you are far more likely to be injured by something you are in close proximity to/own than something you do not own/have not been exposed to.

To answer your question, there is nothing about the Covid-19 situations with its isolation requirements and all, that has done the slightest bit to change my attitude to owning a fire arm.  What would change my opinion?  If I were to move out of the city I might invest in a long arm or two to shoot rabbits or deer for the table, but I just don't feel the need to have a firearm for security reasons.  We gain far more personal protection by acting collectively for the mutual good.  Stay the f***k at home!

Now if you considered my OP properly i changed your social structure and dynamic completely. This wasn't just about the virus. I said with the virus and a power grid shut down... which stops all perishable food stores and deliveries, city water supplies internet phones the whole lot.  Then i introduced my baseball bat, with the collapsed society, who would naturally have very limited access to police or medical. If I am 6'8" tall 275 lbs of angry hungry man with again a ball bat with no food. and you have a store of food, but no way to call for help. Would you want a way to defend yourself that did not need you to be athletic or to be skilled in any martial art form, or would you just hand over your supplies? or do i beat you to death or near death and take all you have?

Well, back in late 2019 and early 2020 my country experienced severe fires that did in fact destroy pretty much all infrastructure in many areas and people were left without power, communications, fresh water or, in many cases, even a house to live in (and of course, regrettably some lost even their lives, but that's not the point here.)  What did they do in these areas?  Did they start preying on each other, the strongest taking the lion's share of available resources?  No.  People banded together and did what they could to help each other.  They pooled their resources and made the best of what they had.  That is what people do. Disaster tends to bring communities together.  Even in wartime that's what happens - think of the Blitz in London during WWII.  The more the Germans bombed London the more the Londoners came together.  The same happened in Germany when Bomber Harris insisted the RAF bomb civilian areas in Germany.  Look at what happens in many war torn areas around the world, the actions of the warring parties only makes the ordinary people do more to help each other.  It's what people do.  I think your apocalyptic vision, while it make a fun book, and I've read my fair share of those, does not reflect reality.  Of course there will always be outliers, but the overwhelming majority of people try to be decent.