• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A practical, application based walk

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. Do you agree, in order to preserve your own (you don't get to be a tyrant), to observe rights to life, expression and self defense?

2. Everyone answers yes. It's a socially natural agreement. These agreements serve species preservation. These agreements are pending no authority; they're part of mankind.

One, above, is self evidence. Two is inalienable (inseparable, part of us - socially, does not equal inviolable). These natural social agreements have always been violated and always will, if not by the state then individuals. They are, nonetheless, inalienable, inseparable, part of our natural social preservation of species. A government, or other authority, does not grant these rights; they are ours as human beings. The US (and all other Western constitutions) are based on this understanding and must be read in such context. The government is assigned to protect these rights, not to create them.

Someday we'll all be free to exercise these natural rights.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't mean to be impatient, but I was looking forward to...

Hey, man, you ain't got no rights unless the boss man says so. So just sit tight and be glad we let you live!


Come on, tell me there's no such thing. This is just my imagination and the foundation of the Western world is a trick.
 
Last edited:

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
33,266
Reaction score
16,014
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't mean to be impatient, but I was looking forward to...

Hey, man, you ain't got no rights unless the boss man says so. So just sit tight and be glad we let you live!


Come on, tell me there's no such thing. This is just my imagination and the foundation of the Western world is a trick.



1. Do you agree, in order to preserve your own (you don't get to be a tyrant), to observe rights to life, expression and self defense?

I really dont understand what this question is asking, either you mistyped something or it just went over my head.
but if you really want me to.....

Hey, man, you ain't got no rights unless the boss man says so. So just sit tight and be glad we let you live!

Feel better? ;)
 
Last edited:

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Rephrased?

1. In order to have for yourself these 3 rights (you cannot be a tyrant, having rights while violating others'), do you agree to observe rights to life, expression and self defense (liberty). We'll leave aside the pursuit of happiness for the moment.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
33,266
Reaction score
16,014
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rephrased?

1. In order to have for yourself these 3 rights (you cannot be a tyrant, having rights while violating others'), do you agree to observe rights to life, expression and self defense (liberty). We'll leave aside the pursuit of happiness for the moment.

You can agree all you want but if you agree not to take anothers life, let them have freedom of expression and self defence it doesnt mean that other person will be obliged to respect your rights. Rights only exist because they are society decides they exist.
However what those rights are also depend upon what the society decides they are. It changes depending on the time/place/society we are talking about.

The man you were you wanted someone to speak of in their reply doesnt really exist unless it is some form of dictatorship (something your question says not to use) .
In a democracy it is society as a whole that decides what rights exist and how they should be applied and enforced.

Is that what you wanted to hear?
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
1. Do you agree, in order to preserve your own (you don't get to be a tyrant), to observe rights to life, expression and self defense?

2. Everyone answers yes. It's a socially natural agreement. These agreements serve species preservation. These agreements are pending no authority; they're part of mankind.

One, above, is self evidence. Two is inalienable (inseparable, part of us - socially, does not equal inviolable). These natural social agreements have always been violated and always will, if not by the state then individuals. They are, nonetheless, inalienable, inseparable, part of our natural social preservation of species. A government, or other authority, does not grant these rights; they are ours as human beings. The US (and all other Western constitutions) are based on this understanding and must be read in such context. The government is assigned to protect these rights, not to create them.

Someday we'll all be free to exercise these natural rights.

There's no such thing. Natural rights are imaginary.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
1. Do you agree, in order to preserve your own (you don't get to be a tyrant), to observe rights to life, expression and self defense?

2. Everyone answers yes. It's a socially natural agreement. These agreements serve species preservation. These agreements are pending no authority; they're part of mankind.

One, above, is self evidence. Two is inalienable (inseparable, part of us - socially, does not equal inviolable). These natural social agreements have always been violated and always will, if not by the state then individuals. They are, nonetheless, inalienable, inseparable, part of our natural social preservation of species. A government, or other authority, does not grant these rights; they are ours as human beings. The US (and all other Western constitutions) are based on this understanding and must be read in such context. The government is assigned to protect these rights, not to create them.

Someday we'll all be free to exercise these natural rights.

I'm not one of these people who will jump to the conclusion that there are no natural rights without having explored the concept first. But if we do explore the concept, will we reach the same conclusion you are coming to? or did you jump to your own conclusion based on absolutely nothing just like those who jump to the conclusion that there are no natural rights?

Here's my proposal. If there is such a thing as natural rights; if this is somehow ingrained in us. Then, we should see evidence of its existence in every culture throughout history. So, let's pick a few different cultures throughout history that seem to, at least on the surface, hold entirely different views on "rights" and see if you can find evidence that these beliefs existed in those cultures. How about:

1. Japan during the early Sengoku Jidai
2. New Kingdom Egypt
3. Medieval India

I don't actually expect you will do this. Partly, because it's a lot of work; and more importantly, because you don't need it in order to continue believing what you currently believe. But here's what I think would happen if you did do this research. I think you would find that the concept of natural rights is not innate, it comes to us from Aristotle via Aquinas, Hobbes, and Kant and is thus heavily grounded in the Western philosophical tradition. If we move outside of the west and explore far Eastern cultures (or pre-Aristotlian cultures) we don't find these concepts. This puts a serious dent in the notion that rights are, in any real sense, natural. If they were natural, how come they only appear in cultures influenced by Western philosophical thought?
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
16,693
Reaction score
5,629
Location
There's my hat.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
ecofarm said:
<snip>"rights to life, expression and self defense (liberty)." <snip>

Those are 3 inalienable rights that you receive at birth, long before you know them, or know what to do with them.

After they are taught to you, you must know them and remember them. Others will attempt to take them away from you.

Live free or die!
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not one of these people who will jump to the conclusion that there are no natural rights without having explored the concept first. But if we do explore the concept, will we reach the same conclusion you are coming to? or did you jump to your own conclusion based on absolutely nothing just like those who jump to the conclusion that there are no natural rights?

Here's my proposal. If there is such a thing as natural rights; if this is somehow ingrained in us. Then, we should see evidence of its existence in every culture throughout history. So, let's pick a few different cultures throughout history that seem to, at least on the surface, hold entirely different views on "rights" and see if you can find evidence that these beliefs existed in those cultures. How about:

1. Japan during the early Sengoku Jidai
2. New Kingdom Egypt
3. Medieval India

I don't actually expect you will do this. Partly, because it's a lot of work; and more importantly, because you don't need it in order to continue believing what you currently believe. But here's what I think would happen if you did do this research. I think you would find that the concept of natural rights is not innate, it comes to us from Aristotle via Aquinas, Hobbes, and Kant and is thus heavily grounded in the Western philosophical tradition. If we move outside of the west and explore far Eastern cultures (or pre-Aristotlian cultures) we don't find these concepts. This puts a serious dent in the notion that rights are, in any real sense, natural. If they were natural, how come they only appear in cultures influenced by Western philosophical thought?

Inalienable does not mean inviolable. Please repeat that 50 times or until it sinks in. If someone cannot understand that, then one will be incapable of understanding this exercise. In each of those societies listed above, people of equal legal power agreed to observe each other's rights to life, expression and self defense. Just because tyranny exists does not mean that natural rights do not. Go back to the OP and just answer the question. You will answer 'yes', as will every person you will ever meet.

By denying the existence of agreements made between all people of equal legal power, you are supporting fascism and denying the very foundation of the Western world. You are not a super genius able to see the "truth" while every great mind of The Enlightenment is a fool, you're just ignorant of the concept and trying to feel special. Denying Enlightenment understanding is unbecoming.


ps. You also need to understand that a right is not a mandate, it's an opportunity. But that's probably beyond your grasp as well.
 
Last edited:

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Inalienable does not mean inviolable. Please repeat that 50 times or until it sinks in. If someone cannot understand that, then one will be incapable of understanding this exercise. In each of those societies listed above, people of equal legal power agreed to observe each other's rights to life, expression and self defense. Just because tyranny exists does not mean that natural rights do not. Go back to the OP and just answer the question. You will answer 'yes', as will every person you will ever meet.

By denying the existence of agreements made between all people of equal legal power, you are supporting fascism and denying the very foundation of the Western world. You are not a super genius able to see the "truth" while every great mind of The Enlightenment is a fool, you're just ignorant of the concept and trying to feel special. Denying Enlightenment understanding is unbecoming.


ps. You also need to understand that a right is not a mandate, it's an opportunity. But that's probably beyond your grasp as well.

Lol.

Based on this response, it appears you aren't worth having a conversation with. So, nevermind. I withdraw my previous comment. I'm obviously too ignorant to be talking to you. :roll:
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lol.

Based on this response, it appears you aren't worth having a conversation with. So, nevermind. I withdraw my previous comment. I'm obviously too ignorant to be talking to you. :roll:

Well, it takes a special kind of ignorant to fail to understand natural rights as a concept. It's the kind of ignorance that makes people feel proud and special. Like all the great minds of The Enlightenment are fools and you're just so super smart that you're not fooled by their concepts. But, please, go on supporting fascism and pretending that all rights come from government authority.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Well, it takes a special kind of ignorant to fail to understand natural rights as a concept. It's the kind of ignorance that makes people feel proud and special. Like all the great minds of The Enlightenment are fools and you're just so super smart that you're not fooled by their concepts. But, please, go on supporting fascism and pretending that all rights come from government authority.

1. All the minds of the enlightenment don't say what you think they said.
2. Since the enlightenment, we have moved into the modern era and then the post-modern era after that. You are proud of being three generations behind in your thinking?
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. All the minds of the enlightenment don't say what you think they said.
2. Since the enlightenment, we have moved into the modern era and then the post-modern era after that. You are proud of being three generations behind in your thinking?

You're the one generations behind. You can't understand the concept of natural rights. You claim all rights come from government. You're living in the political dark ages and pretending that's some sort of special knowledge or virtue. Your claim is that the US and all Western constitutions are based on a lie, a farce, a trick. That's pathetic and backwards.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
You're the one generations behind. You can't understand the concept of natural rights. You claim all rights come from government. You're living in the political dark ages and pretending that's some sort of special knowledge or virtue. Your claim is that the US and all Western constitutions are based on a lie, a farce, a trick. That's pathetic and backwards.

I invite anyone who reads this to go back and read my posts on this thread (there's only about three of them). See for yourself whether I said what ecofarm is claiming I said in this post. Then use this to develop an opinion on whether we can trust ecofarm's ability to understand what the enlightenment thinkers actually said.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I invite anyone who reads this to go back and read my posts on this thread (there's only about three of them). See for yourself whether I said what ecofarm is claiming I said in this post. Then use this to develop an opinion on whether we can trust ecofarm's ability to understand what the enlightenment thinkers actually said.

So then you do understand that natural rights are a sociological fact? You understand that they are socially natural abstract objects and not dependent on any government authority?

Regarding your initial ignorance, herein:
Then, we should see evidence of its existence in every culture throughout history.

We do see it. Among people of equal legal power. You're trying to use the existence of tyranny to exclude the existence of natural rights. That's backwards and pathetic. Once again, inalienable =/= inviolable.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
So then you do understand that natural rights are a sociological fact? You understand that they are socially natural abstract objects and not dependent on any government authority?

Regarding your initial ignorance, herein:

We do see it. Among people of equal legal power. You're trying to use the existence of tyranny to exclude the existence of natural rights. That's backwards and pathetic. Once again, inalienable =/= inviolable.

special kind of ignorant
backwards
fascist
pathetic
incapable of understanding
unbecoming
beyond your grasp

All phrases you have used in reference to me, and all in a span of like...3 posts! Now, maybe you're an aspie and don't realize what you are doing there. But if you aren't, then you're just an abrasive bully. Even if your point were valid, you lost the argument when you made everyone dislike you.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
special kind of ignorant
backwards
fascist
pathetic
incapable of understanding
unbecoming
beyond your grasp

All phrases you have used in reference to me,

No, in reference to your position. But, please, if you feel the need to play the victim go ahead. I understand if only feeling personally insulted will allow your ignorant position to stand tall.

Now, tell us again how the US and all Western constitutions are founded on a lie.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
I understand if only feeling personally insulted will allow your ignorant position to stand tall.

Lol! and you keep going!

Keep digging!
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lol! and you keep going!

Keep digging!

Well, it seems obvious to me. When confronted with the fact that your position is BS and based on ignorance, you can only cry "he insulted me!"

You need to look at this objectively and accept intellectual correction. Natural rights are a sociological fact based on logic and reason beyond question or debate. Just because you would like to believe that The Enlightenment, French Revolution, American Revolution and all Western constitutions are founded on a lie does not mean anyone should respect such crap.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Well, it seems obvious to me. When confronted with the fact that your position is BS and based on ignorance, you can only cry "he insulted me!"

You need to look at this objectively and accept intellectual correction. Natural rights are a sociological fact based on logic and reason beyond question or debate. Just because you would like to believe that The Enlightenment, French Revolution, American Revolution and all Western constitutions are founded on a lie does not mean anyone should respect such crap.

Beyond question or debate eh?

Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hmm...seems one of the major views within the field of philosophy disagrees with you. It would seem that not only is it worthy of debate but that philosophers have been doing just that for centuries! It seems you don't know about Wittgenstein, or Kant. But of course you don't, you quit at the Enlightenment. You missed Kant's Copernican shift and the revolutionary ideas of modern and post-modern philosophy. You have two centuries worth of philosophical thought to catch up on.


Ironically, I'm actually a moral realist myself. I do believe in inalienable rights. My disagreement is in terms of which ones are inalienable. But alas...we never got that far in the discussion.
 
Last edited:

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Beyond question or debate eh?

Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hmm...seems one of the major views within the field of philosophy disagrees with you. It would seem that not only is it worthy of debate but that philosophers have been doing just that for centuries! It seems you don't know about Wittgenstein, or Kant. But of course you don't, you quit at the Enlightenment. You missed Kant's Copernican shift and the revolutionary ideas of modern and post-modern philosophy.

Relativism in no way disproves the sociological fact that socially natural rights exist.

You fail to understand a number of things regarding this concept.

1. Natural = socially natural.
1a. What is socially natural can only be discerned in an environment of being equal before the law. Tyranny (and insanity) must be excluded from the study.
1b. All groups of sane and equal-before-law people, throughout time and place, agree to observe rights to life, expression and self defense.
1c. In the case of sociology, natural means occurring in all samples.

2. Inalienable =/= inviolable.
2a. Natural rights are a part of human society as a result of the need for species preservation.
2b. Just because these rights are violated does not mean they do not exist.

3. Self evident.
3a. Read the OP.


We have rights that are derived by sociological observation and experimentation resulting in empirical evidence of such rights being natural. We do not need any government to tell us we have these rights. This understanding is the basis of The Enlightenment and aforementioned political revolutions. This understanding is not a lie, farce or trick.

Good luck grasping the concept.
 
Top Bottom