Rights again (was Re: [extropy-chat] SUV versus sedan etc)

[Samantha Atkins]

Since I assume later posts in a thread are summations or conclusions I 
don't see why I have to re-chew the entire thread that was hopefully 
sufficiently masticated by that point in order to meaningfully comment.

On Aug 23, 2004, at 12:32 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Samantha:
>
>> I have heard this before.  So you believe that if say, sharia law
>> became universal on earth, that humans would have no rights whatsoever
>> to oppose it?  Or that they can oppose it but not on the grounds that
>> it is a violation of their rights?   You believe in short that rights
>> are the gift of the state.   Doesn't the nature of human beings imply
>> some common requirements for their well being?  Couldn't you derive
>> rights from that common nature?
>
> You'd have to read *all* of the thread Samantha or you will just get
> your wires crossed.
>
> Brett Paatsch
>
> PS: I don't beLIEve anything. I know I have covered that before.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat