Inalienable Rights

[Phil8659]

Everything I have read by anybody on inalienable rights and the social contract, I found to be pure rubbish. People think of their rights as if they were a dumb animal that is entitled, with special privilege's. Entitled people often use words under the wrong meaning. Inalienable rights apply not only to men, but the so-called gods as well. Plato tried to show it to men, but they are too illiterate to understand what he was saying. Inalienable rights are not only independent of gods and men, but also independent of the living and dead. No state or stature is alienated from them.

So, let us pretend you know the members of our grammar matrix, each has its own symbol set, and each has its own method of recursively applying them, but they all adhere to one fact, they are all the ways you can use binary recursion. But, what one thing do they all have in common?

Mathematical and logical operations are the same in each, for the operations performed in information processing is independent of the symbols and method of recursion. The foundation of them is, the Law of Identity, which transforms into All men are equal. The right is not in the grammar, the right is not in who wrote it, it is a logical, and mathematical fact
So, there you have it, your inalienable rights are, as biologically claimed, by what has been Biblically claimed, is judgment, provided by the laws of information processing. They are not axioms, they are not postulates, they are provable, each of them because binary can process all information using the same set of operators no matter which grammar we use.
Now, there are some simpletons who will disagree, but then they can argue with their own biology or their own computer, because they do not have any right to waste anyone's time.

[Impenitent]

no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

fine, don't bitch when someone kills you

-Imp

[Walker]

Do they involve consent?

[Phil8659]

no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

fine, don't bitch when someone kills you

-Imp

Go f u c k yourself if you think you have any right to tell me what to do.

[Phil8659]

This issue is demonstrated in dialogs I am processing now with A.I.
Crazy, Man! 1 and 2
Crazy, Man! is based on physical and biological fact.
A mind is potentially the most powerful life support system possible. It is an information processor, and we use grammar systems to process information.
In order to correctly process all information, a physical fact must be understood, the operations of information processing is independent of the grammar which uses those principles. Traditionally those principles have been called Logical and Mathematical, collectively they are called judgment.
Judgement must produce the same result on the same data using any system of information processing.
Judgment is independent of any grammar system, and thus independent of any particular thing in existence. What this means is that no person, whomever they may be, has any judicial authority over another. Judgment, in a metaphor, is of the Lord.
It is the fact that judgment is the same for everyone and everything which guarantees human equality, human justice systems. But that is not the case today, nor has it ever been the case in human history. Mankind, has therefore always been schizophrenic, divorced from realty.
During evolution, this is the case during the evolution of the mind until it becomes functional. Today, it is not.
Operations performed on the same data must always produce the same result regardless of the system of grammar used.

[Impenitent]

no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

fine, don't bitch when someone kills you

-Imp

Go f u c k yourself if you think you have any right to tell me what to do.

an inalienable one indeed

-Imp

[Phil8659]

no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

fine, don't bitch when someone kills you

-Imp

Go f u c k yourself if you think you have any right to tell me what to do.

an inalienable one indeed

-Imp

Has your neighbors ever complained about the barking dog in your house?

[Immanuel Can]

no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

fine, don't bitch when someone kills you

-Imp

It's not that he's not allowed to complain.

It's that (as he insists) he has no right to expect anybody to care, when he does.

[Phil8659]

no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

fine, don't bitch when someone kills you

-Imp

It's not that he's not allowed to complain.

It's that (as he insists) he has no right to expect anybody to care, when he does.

So, do you two live together that you can speak for each other?

[Immanuel Can]

no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

fine, don't bitch when someone kills you

-Imp

It's not that he's not allowed to complain.

It's that (as he insists) he has no right to expect anybody to care, when he does.

So, do you two live together that you can speak for each other?

Nobody was speaking for anybody. I was just pointing out the implications of your claim that there are no inalieneable rights.

You then can't have a right to be cared about when you complain. That's perfectly logical.

[Phil8659]

It's not that he's not allowed to complain.

It's that (as he insists) he has no right to expect anybody to care, when he does.

So, do you two live together that you can speak for each other?

Nobody was speaking for anybody. I was just pointing out the implications of your claim that there are no inalieneable rights.

You then can't have a right to be cared about when you complain. That's perfectly logical.

You might want to get someone who is literate to point out what you think was stated.

[Immanuel Can]

So, do you two live together that you can speak for each other?

Nobody was speaking for anybody. I was just pointing out the implications of your claim that there are no inalieneable rights.

You then can't have a right to be cared about when you complain. That's perfectly logical.

You might want to get someone who is literate to point out what you think was stated.

You stated it. You said there are no inalienable rights. I just pointed out what would be true if you were right.

Of course, you're not. But if you had been, those would have been the consequences.

[Phil8659]

Nobody was speaking for anybody. I was just pointing out the implications of your claim that there are no inalieneable rights.

You then can't have a right to be cared about when you complain. That's perfectly logical.

You might want to get someone who is literate to point out what you think was stated.

You stated it. You said there are no inalienable rights. I just pointed out what would be true if you were right.

Of course, you're not. But if you had been, those would have been the consequences.

You never answered. Do your neighbors complain about the barking dog in your house?

[Immanuel Can]

You might want to get someone who is literate to point out what you think was stated.

You stated it. You said there are no inalienable rights. I just pointed out what would be true if you were right.

Of course, you're not. But if you had been, those would have been the consequences.

You never answered.

Yeah, I did. You just didn't understand the answer. That's quite different from not answering.

[Phil8659]

You stated it. You said there are no inalienable rights. I just pointed out what would be true if you were right.

Of course, you're not. But if you had been, those would have been the consequences.

You never answered.

Yeah, I did. You just didn't understand the answer. That's quite different from not answering.

Oh, I get it you have a seeing eye dog. Might want to get it fitted with glasses.