Are rights objectively real?

[RAMOSS]

every person born in the world is free and to exercise their natural rights, their own inner gifts, it is tyrannical governments of the world which makes them subjects

some people because of their government suppress all their natural rights.

some governments allow some natural rights and even create rights which are not natural, but they do it by stating they gave them the rights, but this still make people government subjects.

"we the people" - our government was created to secure rights of the people, and not suppress them, this is the sole purpose of government, because if every person got along with each other and could always work out differences between them, then no government would be necessary .


James Madison - "if men were angels no government would be necessary"

the point of government is about rights and nothing more

That is the philosophy and the opinion of the philosphy, yes. Can you show that it has existence above and beyond what people think about it?

That's the issue.

 

[Master PO]

That is the philosophy and the opinion of the philosphy, yes. Can you show that it has existence above and beyond what people think about it?

That's the issue.

i have already stated people are born with speech and walk and create, these are ones own gifts, ones own rights.

you have your rights and i have mine, they are individual rights, unto ones self.

government recognizes these rights and secures them with law.

 

[William Rea]

every person born in the world is free and to exercise their natural rights, their own inner gifts, it is tyrannical governments of the world which makes them subjects

some people because of their government suppress all their natural rights.

some governments allow some natural rights and even create rights which are not natural, but they do it by stating they gave them the rights, but this still make people government subjects.

"we the people" - our government was created to secure rights of the people, and not suppress them, this is the sole purpose of government, because if every person got along with each other and could always work out differences between them, then no government would be necessary .


James Madison - "if men were angels no government would be necessary"

the point of government is about rights and nothing more, we are not subjects

And, if you close your eyes and wish hard it might make them objective. That is your best chance now because you have completely failed in here and are simply trying to deflect the problem that you have. Welcome to the Philosophy forum section.

 

[William Rea]

i have already stated people are born with speech and walk and create, these are ones own gifts, ones own rights.

you have your rights and i have mine, they are individual rights, unto ones self.

government recognizes these rights and secures them with law.

No one is arguing that people are born with abilities so why do you keep repeating that argument?

If you are going to go down this road then you have to show that people are born with objective rights, I have evidence that we are born with a sense of atruism. Point me to the 'rights gene'?

 

[RAMOSS]

i have already stated people are born with speech and walk and create, these are ones own gifts, ones own rights.

you have your rights and i have mine, they are individual rights, unto ones self.

government recognizes these rights and secures them with law.

As was pointed out, those are not 'rights'.. those are abilities. It is only an opinion or philosphical position (i.e. subjective) to consider them 'rights'.

 

[Master PO]

And, if you close your eyes and wish hard it might make them objective. That is your best chance now because you have completely failed in here and are simply trying to deflect the problem that you have. Welcome to the Philosophy forum section.

have have made my point from the beginning, and you have made none, and you never will because you cant produce anything for your argument.

 

[Master PO]

As was pointed out, those are not 'rights'.. those are abilities. It is only an opinion or philosphical position (i.e. subjective) to consider them 'rights'.

then what are rights?. tell me what they are show be how they are created.

 

[Master PO]

No one is arguing that people are born with abilities so why do you keep repeating that argument?

If you are going to go down this road then you have to show that people are born with objective rights, I have evidence that we are born with a sense of atruism. Point me to the 'rights gene'?

:lamo.....

 

[RAMOSS]

then what are rights?. tell me what they are show be how they are created.

Ah. I see.. You are attempting to do the logical fallacy known as 'shifting the burden of proof'. I see.

 

[Master PO]

Ah. I see.. You are attempting to do the logical fallacy known as 'shifting the burden of proof'. I see.

IF you have a point, then make it, because i have made mine.

if you don't have a point why are you discussing rights with me?

 

[RAMOSS]

IF you have a point, then make it, because i have made mine.

if you don't have a point why are you discussing rights with me?

The fact you can't see the point I am making doesn't mean I am not making a point.

 

[Master PO]

The fact you can't see the point I am making doesn't mean I am not making a point.

the fact is you have no point, all you are doing is telling me i am wrong.

if you have a point then you need to explain how i am wrong.

present something other then denials of what i have said.

 

[RAMOSS]

the fact is you have no point, all you are doing is telling me i am wrong.

if you have a point then you need to explain how i am wrong.

present something other then denials of what i have said.

Well, your mind reading seems to be very inaccurate. How very wonderful.

 

[Master PO]

Well, your mind reading seems to be very inaccurate. How very wonderful.

if you intend to just say I am wrong, and not present a case of why I am wrong BY posting something proving it or explaining what rights are and how they came to be.

then your are really wasting your time, because it not a debate, but just a set of denials

 

[Quag]

No one is arguing that people are born with abilities so why do you keep repeating that argument?

If you are going to go down this road then you have to show that people are born with objective rights, I have evidence that we are born with a sense of atruism. Point me to the 'rights gene'?

Actually He claims we are born with innate gifts and these abilities are rights, such as the right to speech.
Unfortunately we are not born with the ability to speak, that has to be learned, same with walking and pretty much everything else. We are pretty helpless and useless when born.

 

[Quag]

if you intend to just say I am wrong, and not present a case of why I am wrong BY posting something proving it or explaining what rights are and how they came to be.

then your are really wasting your time, because it not a debate, but just a set of denials

I have stated you ARE wrong because
1. Abilities are not rights.
2. Opinions are subjective.
3. Rights change depending on the time/place society you look at.

All you have done is post some opinions (which are subjective) and confuse abilities with rights.
You not only havent made any arguments against what I have said, you have failed to make an actual argument for yourself.

 

[Master PO]

I have stated you ARE wrong because
1. Abilities are not rights.
2. Opinions are subjective.
3. Rights change depending on the time/place society you look at.

All you have done is post some opinions (which are subjective) and confuse abilities with rights.
You not only havent made any arguments against what I have said, you have failed to make an actual argument for yourself.

and all you have said is, you are wrong, you have presented no case for your argument of why you say i am wrong.

you see from the beginning i knew you could not present anything, which is why i asked, and you cannot , i have argued this issue of rights many times before, and your side can never produce anything to prove their point.

1 what are rights then?

2 i didn't give opinion on rights, i gave an objective judgement of rights, i know i can exercise my gifts

3 when did society create them, where are they for people to see, since they are man's creation.

 

[William Rea]

IF you have a point, then make it, because i have made mine.

if you don't have a point why are you discussing rights with me?

Because it is interesting and helps consolidate or change perspectives. Welcome to the Philosophy forum section where, if you can't show it, you don't know it.

 

[Quag]

and all you have said is, you are wrong, you have presented no case for your argument of why you say i am wrong.

BS did you not read the previous post?

you see from the beginning i knew you could not present anything, which is why i asked, and you cannot , i have argued this issue of rights many times before, and your side can never produce anything to prove their point.

No from the begining you closed your mind around your belief and refused to be enlightned.
I have shown you exatly whay you are wrong and you continue to repeat the same things somehow pretending that ingoring your errors will make them go away, it wont.

1 what are rights then?

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

2 i didn't give opinion on rights, i gave an objective judgement of rights, i know i can exercise my gifts

No that was an opinion if it was objective you could show us objectively what it was based on. The reason you cannot is because it IS an opinion.

3 when did society create them, where are they for people to see, since they are man's creation.

Rights evolve with soceity, when humanity`s ancestors began to form soceity they began to develop rights.

 

[Quag]

Because it is interesting and helps consolidate or change perspectives. Welcome to the Philosophy forum section where, if you can't show it, you don't know it.

But you are free to believe it

 

[Master PO]

Because it is interesting and helps consolidate or change perspectives. Welcome to the Philosophy forum section where, if you can't show it, you don't know it.

self evident!

 

[Master PO]

BS did you not read the previous post?



No from the begining you closed your mind around your belief and refused to be enlightned.
I have shown you exatly whay you are wrong and you continue to repeat the same things somehow pretending that ingoring your errors will make them go away, it wont.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights


No that was an opinion if it was objective you could show us objectively what it was based on. The reason you cannot is because it IS an opinion.


Rights evolve with soceity, when humanity`s ancestors began to form soceity they began to develop rights.

your problem is that you cannot produce anything for your point.

if society created rights you claim that they do, when where are they?, they would be on paper for people to see and read, they would be written law and you would be able to produce something...

natural law/rights are unwritten law and are self evident to man, i know i have natural rights/ abilities.

natural right are not legal rights, legal rights are privileges of the constitution.

privileges and natural rights of the people are both mentioned in the constitution in amendment 14th

 

[Quag]

your problem is that you cannot produce anything for your point.

if society created rights you claim, when where are they?, they would be on paper, for people to see and read, they would be written law, and you would be able to produce something...

natural law/rights are unwritten law and are self evident, i know i have natural rights/ abilities.

Obviously natural rights are not self evident or there would be no need for discussion, that is just a cop out on your part because you cannot point to anything showing they exist.

As to rights themsleves, no they need not be written down for them to exist.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rightseed not be specifically written down to become law.

A common law legal system is characterized by case law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals, when giving decisions in individual cases that have precedential effect on future cases.[2][3][4][5] The body of past common law binds judges deciding later cases to ensure consistent treatment and so that consistent principles applied to similar facts yield similar outcomes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

However it can be

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

I noticed you didnt even try to deal with any of my 3 points, instead you tried to throw the burden of proof onto me.
I will repeat them.
1. Abilities are not rights.
2. Opinions are subjective.
3. Rights change depending on the time/place society you look at.

 

[Master PO]

Obviously natural rights are not self evident or there would be no need for discussion, that is just a cop out on your part because you cannot point to anything showing they exist.

As to rights themsleves, no they need not be written down for them to exist.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rightseed not be specifically written down to become law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

However it can be

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

I noticed you didnt even try to deal with any of my 3 points, instead you tried to throw the burden of proof onto me.
I will repeat them.
1. Abilities are not rights.
2. Opinions are subjective.
3. Rights change depending on the time/place society you look at.

1 link shows nothing, the other is about the common law system of america, what are you trying to prove with it?

yes abilities are, ...which i already showed, and you have not

i never rendered opinion, you used that word, not me.

please show rights which have changed for us, name them.

Canada?

 

[Quag]

1 link shows nothing,

Sorry the link was this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

the other is about the common law system of america, what are you trying to prove with it?

Not the system of America but the common law systemm, a ssytem the USA inherited from Britain.
It shows that jurisprudence is a form of law, not everythign has to be explicitly written for it.

yes abilities are, ...which i already showed, and you have not

Abilities are what? Rights? no they are not they are abilities.

i never rendered opinion, you used that word, not me.

Yes you have, you just refuse to call it an opinion to avoid admitting they are subjective.

please show rights which have changed for us, name them.

Freedom of conscience and religion; even today some soceities do not have this
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; Again not everyone has this

The Pakistani government does not restrict religious publishing per se. However, it restricts the right to freedom of speech with regard to religion. Speaking in opposition to Islam and publishing an attack on Islam or its prophets are prohibited. Pakistan's penal code mandates the death penalty or life in prison for anyone defiling the name of Muhammad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

Now your turn try and show that rights have not changed
Show that rights exist independant of society.
Show that they are objective.
You have failed on all 3 points, the only one you attempted was the third when you tried to use a subjective opinion to prove that they were objective.

Canada?

Yes Canada do you have a problem with America's northern neighbor?