How is it ambiguous? It doesn’t say that rights are endowed by Man, Congress, or King George III.
It was a simple turn of phrase in a political manifesto, in no way evidence that there are natural rights, let alone that these rights come from a god. It has no official legal(and more importantly in this case scientific) standing, and was not designed to be a philosophical treatise on our status as humans.
That’s not exactly true. It’s part of the U.S. Code, as one of the Organic laws of the United States.
Sproul Plaza is literally a cultural landmark for the right of people to speak freely.
So the basis of your argument that rights are not created by man is a document, written by men, that states that rights are not created by man?
Well, according to that article, there were explosives (large firecrackers, I guess?) being detonated, and I suspect somebody made an assumption there. But I haven’t seen any such claims personally either (but that’s not surprising, since the only exposure I’ve had to this story at all is in this thread and the article I came upon while browsing through the latest articles at Snopes). It does seem more likely to me that a bottle would be used as a clubbing/slicing weapon than as part of an improvised explosive device, especially in the middle of a large brawl like this…
It’s worked pretty well for us for the last 240 years. 
And if new rights also worked, would you use them too?
It is ambiguous in that it does not define what “creator” means.
It does not say god, it does not say nature. Like I said, it could be referring to your parents, as they are your creator, in which case, it is merely saying that you are born with these rights.
It also does a poor job of defining who exactly is enforcing those rights. They are not being enforced by god or nature. In fact, the only enforcement arm at all to protect those rights is man.
That is a more than reasonable assumption to make.
They wouldn’t have canceled the parade simply because of the protestors. If they did, that’s pretty silly. That would mean that event organizers are willing to shut down the even in order to deny the protesters a chance to make their voice heard.
They wouldn’t have canceled it due to an anonymous email. At least, I really hope not, as this would set a disturbing precedent. If all it takes is one anonymous email to shut down an event, then far more power has been given to the “heckler’s veto” than is wise. That means that if I don’t like a speaker or an event, with little more than a few keystrokes and a chuckle, I can shut it down. If you want to make liberals look bad, it takes the same amount of effort on your part to plant that false flag. If the standard for shutting down a parade is an idiot with an email, then we can’t have parades anymore. Just wait until your founder’s day parade gets canceled because some internet troll a thousand miles away thought it would be funny to send a threatening email.
Now, what would make them cancel the parade would be if a leader of a group of violent anti-protesters who have, at the very least, been involved in violence in other venues, saying that they are going to go there and fight.
The first two may be annoyances, and may be a matter for police if they get out of hand, or the anonymous threat of “dragging them out of the parade” actually materializes. The last is actually a credible threat and predictor of violence.
You are literally the only person in the world that I have heard interpret the word Creator, as it is used in the Declaration, as “your parents”.
Our natural rights are inherent, and they do not come from Man.
The French have a similar Declaration, which says that the role of the government is to “recognize and secure” our rights; it pointedly does not say that the State creates said rights.
LOL, OK. :rolleyes:
You’re being absurd. If “we will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out” is merely an “annoyance” or “a matter for police if they get out of hand” then so is “with Trump we stand! Freedom fighting.”
I can’t imagine a scenario in which there exist “new rights”. Do you have any examples in mind?
It is not reasonable to make assumptions based on no evidence.
The purpose of the threatened riots and violence of the Antifa side is to prevent Ann Coulter’s voice from being heard.
Berkeley said they were cancelling the event because of credible and specific threats against Ann Coulter and those that wanted to hear her speak.
You are flailing around trying to find a reason that Antifa threats don’t count. That’s not reasonable.
Regards,
Shodan
I used that as an example of what could be your creator. As the declaration does not say god or nature, or bob, it can only be inferred that he was being metaphorical at best.
He was indicating that these rights are self evident, that they do not need an explanation or a reason, not that God came down and commanded that these are the rights of people.
Then tell me who enforces them. If they are inherent, they are inherently enforced. If they are not inherent, then they are enforced by man.
By recognizing and securing those rights, it most certainly does create those rights.
Like I said, you are basing this on one anonymous email.
If that is now the standard for shutting down an event, then we are in quite a bit of trouble. If they are actually shutting it down due to this anonymous email, then I am sorry, but no controversial speaker is ever going to be allowed to speak anywhere again.
The protest and the email may be cuase for concern, and probably a greater police presence, but the leader of a group of violent counter protests specifically saying that he is going to show up for a fight is a direct and credible threat to public safety.
I have condemned the violent side of the protests on this and other threads. My question is why is the violence of the counter protesters, who brag that they are going to show up and fight the protesters not condemned by your side?
You are flailing around trying to avoid condemning bad actors on your side of the political spectrum, how reasonable is that?
There are 27 examples of new rights that were thought of after the constitution was written.
Were these just rights that god had granted, and we just discovered, or were these rights that man decided that it wished to grant itself, and so did so?
The right to free speech was not part of the declaration of independance, the right to bear arms was not either. The right to be secure against search and seizure, or the right to a trial by your peers, not so much. But, those were bill of rights amendments, so maybe you feel that the touch of god was still upon those men, in elucidating the rights that god had already guaranteed us. What about later amendments, like women’s right to vote. Was that a right granted but unenforced by god until we discovered it about a hundred years ago, or was that a right that man recognized needed to be bestowed, and so therefore granted it?
Or are the only rights coming from the creator that you are claiming that we have are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that all the rest of the rights laid out in the constitution and bill of rights are rights that are created by man?
Milo says he’s going to be spending a week on Sproul Plaza in the fall holding “free speech” rallies. And if the University dares to interfere, he will extend it to a month. yeah, this is going to end well.
Are the rights that Americans have and the rights that French people have under their constitutions exactly the same? If not, is it because they have different gods? Which god do you think gave Americans rights, and why is that god’s opinion more important than any other god’s?
Looks like the excitement is about to start in Berkeley:
ETA: Tim Pool’s live stream. Nobody seems to like this guy, not really entirely sure why.
I wonder what the odds are on antifa winning this skirmish.