God given rights?

[Vociferous]

Cont....

Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm trying to understand. You're saying the "right to self-defense" is a natural right because if somebody else tries to kill you then you can try your best to kill them instead (or in response).
[snipped for brevity]
Maybe you're saying that the legal right to self defence follows in some way from the supposed natural right to self defence. But I'm not sure that's true. The "natural right to self defence" appears to mean little else than "sometimes people are able to defend themselves against attacks", which is just a statement about facts in the world. But the legal right to self defence is a moral judgment about what "acceptable behaviour" includes. I don't see any way to get from your "objective" facts-in-the-world to the moral "subjective" judgment about what kinds of behaviour ought to be protected.

I hope you can explain.

Not the "capacity" to take a certain kind of action, the necessity to take said action. You do not have the necessity to do just anything you can get away with.
Yes, all actions have potential consequences in a universe of cause and effect. Even without somebody else attendant to the action, your actions could still have bad consequences, like felling a tree on yourself.
Not sure why anyone else caring should matter for a right. Successful self-defense should matter to you, as it means your life continues.
And I'm equally puzzled as to why a right would entail proclaiming it. Either a natural or legal successful self-defense would result in the same outcome. You survived.
I guess in the legal sense, you maybe avoided dying twice. Once when attacked and again by avoiding the potential execution for murder. That could make the enforcement of rights, itself, a potential threat not found in nature. But I guess that's the trade-off for safety in numbers.

I would hope that most people have some sense of what is "acceptable behavior" without any external moral judgement at all. I would hope that you know that defending your own life is a moral good, just based on the objective fact that you survive. One's own survival would seem to be inherently good, and things that are inherently good should be trivially moral.

From your description, it seems to me that the only guaranteed protector of natural rights is the individual claiming those rights. Whereas granted or provided rights are not necessarily guaranteed, even by the individual claiming them. Is that correct? Would this be a valid way to distinguish natural rights from all other rights - the ability of the individual to enact the right on his own?

Yes, in nature, the only consequence from infringing upon the individual's rights comes from the individual himself. And yes, granted rights cannot be legally exercised without the agreement of the grantor (like requiring a license to drink a car), except where the supposedly granted right happens to coincide with a natural right (in which case, the revocation of the natural right by the supposed grantor is, itself, a potential violation of said natural right... like if some king claimed to grant your right to life and revoking it could means it is deemed forfeit). So yeah, that's a fair definition. Natural rights are inherent because the individual is capable of exercising such necessary actions on his own, whether successful or not. But even in granted rights, success is not necessarily guaranteed. Absolutes rarely obtain. Granted rights, like protected natural rights, just tend to have more authority behind their enforcement.

I haven't made any garbage claims about that. In fact, I haven't discussed with you how or whether the Australian constitution protects rights. I've made a correct statement that the Australian Constitution was modelled on the US Constitution. If you prefer, you can substitute the words "strongly influenced by" for the words "modelled on" if the latter form offends you for some reason.

Boy, that's one hell of a crappy model. None of the primary defining features are similar.

Habit or not, I'm accurate, as evidenced by your angry reference to "garbage claims" etc. That is hardly emotionally neutral language. Maybe you don't even realise you're doing it.

Really? You can't recognize garbage without being angry? Whew! What a life you must lead.

So the Australian Constitution now has a bill of rights and checks and balances between co-equal branches of government?

Not a bill of rights. We can put a big tick next to check and balances and co-equal branches of government, though.

We could have a separate discussion about how rights are recognised and implemented in the laws of Australia if you're interested in learning more.

Really? When the legislature can abolish judiciary courts, to get rid of tenured judges, and the PM is a member of the legislature?
I would suggest that your understanding of the US Constitution may be somewhat lacking. That's okay. I'm not 100% on yours either.

The separation of powers (SOP) theory from Locke and Blackstone is used for the SOP theory in Australia. In practice, the English rather than the American system of government and SOP is the model used for the Australian Commonwealth Government and SOP....The concept of the SOP in Australia is articulated by the High Court and is derived from the Blackstonian SOP theory rather than the Federalist SOP theory.
http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/The Separation of Powers in Australia Issues for the States.pdf


There are many who believe that the US system has too many checks and balances between the different branches of Government, rending them almost ungovernable. But we must remember, many Constitutions around the world, including the US Constitution, were written after years of conflict, when trust in people with power and institutions was low. They built their system with so many checks and balances for that reason. In Australia, we wrote our Constitution so that the six British colonies could join together to create a country. We weren’t fearful of Government institutions. So while we also have a strong separation of powers, our system was designed not to be held up too much by disagreements between the three arms of Government.
http://www.cefa.org.au/ccf/separation-powers-display-america​

So by American standards, your SOP is rather weak.

You're mistaken.

Okay, co-equally incestuous branches of government.

 

[Vociferous]

Cont...

Survival necessities may well be observable, but rights are somewhat more intangible I think.

Really? You're right to defend your own life is somewhat more intangible than what's necessary for your survival?

No. It doesn't help me much. I'm not convinced that an objective basis for rights can be found, as I said.

Then you are "different to [me] and have no objective basis for rights".

A bunch of controversial usages justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism.

How does it go? Oh yes. I'm supposed to respond with "Bare assertion" at this point, aren't I?

Only if you're a hypocrite, as you provided no support of your assertion on the matter.

Maybe you need a primer on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

So, largely philosophers and activists.
Well, I guess it's your business if you want to call that credible.

Maybe. Let me ask you some direct questions, then, so I'm not making unwarranted assumptions.

1. Do you find the apes (chimpanzees, Gorillas etc.) distasteful or repulsive, in general?
2. Do you accept that human beings and the apes evolved from a common ancestor?
3. Do you agree that chimpanzess share about 99% of their DNA with human beings, and gorillas around 98%?
4. Do you agree that there are many anatomical similarities between apes and human beings, which most likely result from the shared DNA?
5. Do you accept that apes can communicate with one another, and with human beings?
6. Do you accept that apes have complex brains, capable of formulating concepts, such as those that would be prerequisites for communication?
7. Do you accept that apes have the capacity to experience pain?
8. Do you regard the scientific evidence for features such as the shared DNA, the ability to communicate or feel pain, say, as "controversial usages justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism"?
9. If apes have the ability to communicate and feel pain, do they have any rights?

That will do for starters, to help to clarify things for me.

1. No, except when they eat poo.
2. Likely
3. Yes
4. Sure
5. Yes, so can my dog and I.
6. Yes, so can my dog.
7. Yes, most animals experience pain.
8. Of the word "person"? Yes. I also consider my 84% shared genetics with a pig, that can also learn to communicate with humans and feel pain, as "controversial usages justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism". That would seem to indicate that the anthropomorphism of apes is more about superficial, visual similarity than any other shared feature.
9. All life has some inherent natural rights, and most animals have some amount of recognized rights.

Mind reading is not necessary. Just careful reading combined with an application of one's own knowledge and experience of human behaviour and, in this case, commonly-observed behaviours of posters to internet forums.

If you say so. 9_9

Yes. You define it as a human being.

I think your definition is naively and arbitrarily restrictive, as well as being self-serving.

Well, everyone's got an opinion.

I haven't got the impression that you are at all interested in how I might define the word "person". In fact, I get the distinct impression that you have already decided that any definition other than your preferred one must necessarily be nothing more than a "controversial usage justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism". Let me know if this is incorrect and you want to explore the matter further. But please read the wikipedia article I linked, first.

Well, not impressed so far.

The group of humans isn't very narrow.

That's a matter of perspective!

Yeah, only about 7.8 billion of 'em lyin' about. Pretty damn scarce. Luckily, I'm fairly discerning about the company I keep. So plenty for me, with some left over even.

Really? Do you think it is sad and pathetic to have friends or associates online? Why is that? People are people, whether they are on the internet or off it, aren't they? It sounds like you might be just a little disappointed or maybe even jealous of the idea that I might have some online friends, and you're trying to make yourself feel better again by trying to put somebody else down.

Well, maybe I'm just old fashioned. Back in the stone ages, people use to roll their eyes, clear back into their heads, I tell ya, when someone would say they had 300 friends on this oddity called Facebook. Maybe you've heard of it. Anyway, I've had my share of pen pals, who I correspond with over personal email. Haven't met all of them in person, but I know their faces, real names, have mutual standing invites, share some not insignificant interests with them, etc.. Those aren't strangers. Anonymous, faceless people on a forum...strangers.

Now, I'm not judging if you like yourself some strange. Variety is the spice of life.

Do need a hug, Vociferous?

A virtual hug? 9_9