• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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.

Are rights objectively real?

RAMOSS said:
I am curious, how do you think that counters my point? How shows that what are rights is a matter of opinion, sometimes formalized into law, and other times part of society and peer pressure??
Click to expand...

what is saying is, when laws are make by government that violates a right, it is challenged in court, and the court determines if the law is unconstitutional because of that violation, by recognizing the right.......... the congress is trying to legislate over people
 
Master PO said:
what is saying is, when laws are make by government that violates a right, it is challenged in court, and the court determines if the law is unconstitutional because of that violation, by recognizing the right.......... the congress is trying to legislate over people
Click to expand...

Well, that is your opinion. I do not see that opinion to be true. You make lots of claims you don't back up with sources...
 
Master PO said:
oh, tell how the court works in decisions of rights.
Click to expand...

They read the laws, as written by man, and give their opinion on it. How else do you think they work?? Let's see you actually answer the question rather than go into big diversionary tactics.
 
RAMOSS said:
They read the laws, as written by man, and give their opinion on it. How else do you think they work?? Let's see you actually answer the question rather than go into big diversionary tactics.
Click to expand...

the courts look at the law, and rule is it within the constitution.

if not its unconstitutional.

when laws are challenged, because those challenging it claim their rights are being violated, the court renders a decision, does the law violate the rights of does it not.

like privacy - which is not in the constitution,.the court recognized that right that each person has, and states government could not violate that right by creating anti-abortion laws.
 
Master PO said:
the courts look at the law, and rule is it within the constitution.

if not its unconstitutional.

when laws are challenged, because those challenging it claim their rights are being violated, the court renders a decision, does the law violate the rights of does it not.

like privacy - which is not in the constitution,.the court recognized that right that each person has, and states government could not violate that right by creating anti-abortion laws.
Click to expand...

And, how does that show it is not a person's opinion?? It seems you are arguing a different subject than what this thread is about.
 
Master PO said:
yes they are, i have a natural ability to walk, talk create, defend myself, associate, these rights/abilities have already been recognized
Click to expand...

No they are abilities not rights
 
Master PO said:
i have an ablitiy to speak, and i EXERCISE that ability

right to free speech is an ------->exercisable right
Click to expand...

The right to free speach is no the ability to speak it means you are free to say what you want (with a minimal amount of restrictions) without fear of reprisal.
 
quag said:
the right to free speach is no the ability to speak it means you are free to say what you want (with a minimal amount of restrictions) without fear of reprisal.
Click to expand...

oh? ....the right to self defense means you are free to defend yourself?

when someone hits you, what is your natural reaction to do, defend yourself by a phycial ability,
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
oh? ....the right to self defense means you are free to defend yourself?

when someone hits you, what is your natural reaction to do, defend yourself by a phycial ability,
Click to expand...

The ability to fight back is not a right it is an ability, a quadrapalegic has not the ability but the right to defend himself.
The right to defend yourself varies from jurisdiction to jurtisdiction.
In some places protecting your property is justification for deadly force, in others protecting yourself from harm is and in others only self preservation is.
Think guy stealing your wallet, guy punching you in the nose and guy pointing a loaded pistol at you while clearly agitated.
 
Master PO said:
not....
Click to expand...

Refusal to comprehend the difference between the ability to speak and the right to freedom of speach is something you need to learn.
 
quag said:
the ability to fight back is not a right it is an ability, a quadrapalegic has not the ability but the right to defend himself.
The right to defend yourself varies from jurisdiction to jurtisdiction.
In some places protecting your property is justification for deadly force, in others protecting yourself from harm is and in others only self preservation is.
Think guy stealing your wallet, guy punching you in the nose and guy pointing a loaded pistol at you while clearly agitated.
Click to expand...
the right of self defense it is.
 
Master PO said:
the right of self defense it is.
Click to expand...

The right of self defence varies depending on where you live. If you are in North Korea you do not have the right to defend yourself from Dear Leader, in other places it is limited as I described.
An ability is not a right
 
Master PO said:
we may as well agreed you arenot going to change me, as i am not going to change you
Click to expand...
Clearly we can agree that you are not going to change your opinion, I knew that way back. We can also agree that you have not presented anything that supports your position.
 
Master PO said:
i posted much, and you on the other hand have not.
Click to expand...
You have posted claims, nothing more than that. I have seen nothing compelling from you however, one service you have provided is to make me think about 'rights' and help me to consolidate my thoughts on them. I am now even more convinced that they are not objectively real.
 
William Rea said:
You have posted claims, nothing more than that. I have seen nothing compelling from you however, one service you have provided is to make me think about 'rights' and help me to consolidate my thoughts on them. I am now even more convinced that they are not objectively real.
Click to expand...

oh, i posted info for my claims, what have you posted, .....nothing but what you had to said.
 
Master PO said:
oh, i posted info for my claims, what have you posted, .....nothing but what you had to said.
Click to expand...
Your info was merely claims made by other people that you repeated. That is still a claim, even if it dates back to the 1700s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom