Unalienable Rights

Ah, the end. It is here. I shall number this particularly because it will be shorter and the issues had are not as extensive as prior. 1. "The point of bringing Democritus into the debate is just to show that scholars in the distant past were talking about freedom and causes of human happiness, whether, Jefferson read Democritus or not." (http://www.princeton.edu...(logic).html) The discussion on Unalienable Rights has nothing to do with Democritus. The understanding that people have been talking about happiness and Freedom and conceptualizing it for over a thousand years also holds no sway. The entirety of Democritus' being brought up was completely meaningless and demonstrated nothing relevant to Jefferson or the idea of Unalienable Rights. 2. Bremb's (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...) does not support the philosophical standard behind the older understanding of metaphysical Free Will. Not only this Bremb's doesn't provide evidence that liberty is or is not contrary to determinism particularly because Bremb's actually reworks the definition to no longer address the idea at all: "Of course, all of these neurobiologists are correct in that free will as a metaphysical entity indeed most probably is an illusion. Colloquial and historical use of the term "free will" has been inextricably linked with one variant or another of dualism. There have been so many and thorough recounts of the free will debate, that I will only reference some, which can serve to introduce the concepts used here [6"9]. Psychologists and neurobiologists have rightfully pointed out for decades now that there is no empirical support for any form of dualism. The interactionism proposed by Popper & Eccles was probably one of the last prominent accounts of dualism [10]. Since then, these and related positions have largely fallen into irrelevance. Today, the metaphysical concept of free will is largely devoid of any support, empirical or intellectual. (source, cited above, area #1)" Conclusively speaking this too also serves as a non-seqitur (though it is good information, you should read it, pretty interesting) as it doesn't provide evidence towards the intended proposition. It breaks philosophical links (which were applicable during Jefferson's time as dualism still was popular and not yet completely rejected http://plato.stanford.edu...) and adds physical links which do not necessarily support Jefferson's view or words or the standard for Unalienable Rights alone as the topic of rights is not brought up in the paper I cited which is a more extensive explanation of what the concept is. 3. The Constructual Law (http://www.wiley.com...), "First developed in the late 1990s, constructal theory holds that flow architecture arises from the natural evolutionary tendency to generate greater flow access in time and in flow configurations that are free to morph. It unites flow systems with solid mechanical structures, which are viewed as systems for the flow of stresses. Constructal theory unites nature with engineering, and helps us generate novel designs across the board, from high-density packages to vascular materials with new functionalities (self-healing, self-cooling), and from tree-shaped heat exchangers to svelte fluid-flow and solid structures." First and foremost my opponents video does not support Unalienable Rights. They are not mentioned. There is no particular "traceability" offered. Instead there is an error of correlation (http://rationalwiki.org...) where my opponent essentially decided that sociological structures must flow the same way. There is no evidence however of social presences activating this way. In particular we have items like civil rights; it would be easier to grant civil rights in "the flow" than it would be to blockade them, war is easier not fought, crime is easier to not commit, and most negative acts are not acts of convenience in the conventional sense where it would be for both the personal and societal value to create laws that support (even in debauchery) the standards of living of the current regime and philosophical outlook. And yet this is not. People are denied rights, wars do occur, violence still happens, and one of the largest factors in the decrease of all of these things is technology, development, and accessibility. Now while the parallel for accessibility lowering crime could be made because it's moderately true though still a reach there is no parallel for Unalienable Rights that I can see. 4. Adrian Bejan; the citation comes from page 80 in the book "Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organizations" with a proper attempt at citation to the source being (http://books.google.com...) however the source itself in it's contextual chapters says nothing of society and more of mobility in animals. It refers specifically to something completely unrelated and the allegorical value of "The pursuit of Survival" is not present or supported by this particular segment in that book. Furthermore I still assert that "Life" covers this, and it is a redundant proposal, because the "Pursuit of Survival" and "Life" don't seem to differ. It was never explained how they do if they do so I would state that it is as unsubstantiated as it was the round prior particularly because the Right to Life would consider your basic needs like food, water, (clothing, shelter) etc. 5. "Quite the contrary, Unalienable Rights is part of social evolution, where competing cultures tend to move in the direction benefiting the Unalienable Rights of humanity. Cultural blending is not always a peaceful event, however. For example, Adolph Hitler exercised his Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of his Happiness by obstructing the Unalienable Rights of others. This obstruction went against the Laws of Nature, causing distress, death, and a global nightmare. Nature fought back, for humans are part of nature. Hitler, who had an ideology that opposed nature, became history upon his demise, well before his natural time." First, Godwin's Law, (http://rationalwiki.org...'s_Law) particularly because this is an extreme example. It's not that it's false but it isn't valuable to the point; again we can look at very simple and small systems such as the allowance of certain practices and contention between State and Citizen. It does not require a massive system to see that one's "Pursuit of Happiness", ambiguous as it is, can be "obstructed" by simply not allowing one to do as they please when they please and can range from just sitting around drunk in a parking lot at 2pm because you feel like to stealing property and slaying others. The value of that contention is not black and white so the standard for Unalienable Rights is too prone to change, advancement, and may even be discarded for a greater ethical vantage point. Tribalism encompasses all of this, by the way, whether one wants to talk about Nazi Germany or one wants to simply refer to the "stoners versus the cops" these tribal groups continuously live in duress of one another. From those who support abortion to their relationship for those who are against to those who would fight with butter up versus butter down (http://www.amazon.com...) as long as these elements exist in human philosophy there will definitely be an ongoing standard for the evolution of the idea, the man-made conceptualization, of Unalienable Rights. There are some a to make about the Constitution and about the sociological evolution. The Constitution did not protect the rights of all people. It protected the rights of citizens. It protected the rights of those who it considered citizens. Citizenry was not afforded to all the humans, some of which weren't even afforded personhood, so it is in existence as an idea (as Bono states) but that idea did not arise from the crags of the universe but instead the natural desire for humans to not fight. I would say that all of Ethics has come from the desire for humans to not fight. Humans do not want to live and die for the majority on the battlefield traumatized and broken and so I would say that rather than the rights of "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" being a standard set forth for morality it is nothing more than an ethical spyglass for Law. It would be over a century after the writing of that idea that even a semblance of equality would come to over half of the populations present whether they were Asian on the railroad, Black and enslaved whether de jure or de facto, female and considered lesser, or even Irish or Jewish. Thank you.