• 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!

Charlize Theron Is An Idiot

ecofarm said:
Do you agree to observe the rights to life, expression and self defense in order to preserve your own? Yes: self evident.

It's universal: inalienable

A universal agreement is socially natural. What drives social nature? Survival of species.
Click to expand...

Doesnt mean that rights are 'inherent.' We dont inherit rights from our parents.** If rights are a natural inherent characteristic, why dont other animals have them?

Religion and laws/rules (there can be laws without rights) are also social constructs that developed to enable the survival of our species in social groups....and they are all man-made concepts.

**My bad...in some cultures you do! Like the English feudal system. And that is totally a man-made structure.
 
Lursa said:
Doesnt mean that rights are 'inherent.' We dont inherit rights from our parents. If rights are a natural inherent characteristic, why dont other animals have them?
Click to expand...

It's socially natural for humans. It's not biologically natural.

Religion and laws/rules (there can be laws without rights) are also social constructs that developed to enable the survival of our species in social groups....and they are all man-made concepts.
Click to expand...

Rights are man made. Some are universal agreements and thus socially, not biologically, natural.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
But they don't come from the law. The law merely protects them by meting justice to those that violate them.
Click to expand...

But they are just beliefs. And your beliefs about self defense are different from mine. But the law is the same for everyone
 
ecofarm said:
It's socially natural for humans. It's not biologically natural.



Rights are man made. Some are universal agreements and thus socially, not biologically, natural.
Click to expand...

Its just philosophy until it is made into law.
 
ecofarm said:
It's socially natural for humans. It's not biologically natural.



Rights are man made. Some are universal agreements and thus socially, not biologically, natural.
Click to expand...

Rights are a conscious mechanism created by a social species in order to live together peaceably to protect resources and reproduce successfully. So is religion. So are laws and rules.

I understand the semantic issue here. Is sociology a science? Hmm. Because I can see that any of these mechanisms allowing humans to live together without killing each other are naturally-occuring constructs. But they are conscious constructs...they dont just exist in our DNA or in the air that we are 'entitled to.'
 
Lursa said:
Rights are a conscious mechanism created by a social species in order to live together peaceably to protect resources and reproduce successfully. So is religion. So are laws and rules.
Click to expand...

Of course. When the founders wrote "endowed by Creator" they meant socially natural, not dependent on a deity.

What separates natural rights from the other things you've listed is universal, in time and place, agreement.

I understand the semantic issue here. Is sociology a science? Hmm. Because I can see that any of these mechanisms allowing humans to live together without killing each other are naturally-occuring constructs.
Click to expand...

Sociology is science. The questions I asked earlier... it's a poll. The results are universal. Universality is what makes the agreement, the right, socially natural.

Not socially natural meaning anything someone one might do. Socially natural meaning universal for the species.
 

But its not universal. And the founders got a lot wrong too.
 
ecofarm said:
No, there's a scientific experiment and empirical evidence. Religion does not have that.
Click to expand...

So you are saying everyone believes in the right to self defense despite the scientific evidence to the contrary
 

It is socially natural that a social species like humans come up with mechanisms that enable them to live together successfully in groups. Rights are one of many consciously developed concepts that enable that. So I think we agree.

My objections come from the belief that they are conferred by some higher authority or are biologically inherent...and thus that there is some magic entitlement that we have. (And many people describe them like that and 'use' them like that as justification.)
 
vegas giants said:
But its not universal. And the founders got a lot wrong too.
Click to expand...

For the sane and equal before the law, it is universal. The experiment is sociological, thus the insane are not relevant. As it is a given that all rights are violated, equal before the law accounts for tyranny.
 
ecofarm said:
For the sane and equal before the law, it is universal. The experiment is sociological, thus the insane are not relevant. As it is a given that all rights are violated, equal before the law accounts for tyranny.
Click to expand...

Quakers are insane? Pacifist groups are insane? Some Buddhist monks are insane? You are denying the scientific evidence
 
Is the statement, "rights are given by the government and they can also take them" reasonable? Some things we call rights are not rights if my previous statements applies to them.
 
Lursa said:
It is socially natural that a social species like humans come up with mechanisms that enable them to live together successfully in groups. Rights are one of many consciously developed concepts that enable that. So I think we agree.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Rights are one of many social constructs.


Not conferred by authority and not biologically natural. Merely universal social constructs. There's only three I can think of: life, expression (1st Amendment) and self defense (2nd).
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Is the statement, "rights are given by the government and they can also take them" reasonable? Some things we call rights are not rights if my previous statements applies to them.
Click to expand...

The government grants rights and denies them all the time. In a democracy thru the people but that is not always the case
 
ecofarm said:
Agreed. Rights are one of many social constructs.



Not conferred by authority and not biologically natural. Merely universal social constructs. There's only three I can think of: life, expression (1st Amendment) and self defense (2nd).
Click to expand...

Liberty?
 
Lursa said:
Liberty?
Click to expand...

Liberty encompasses life, expression and self defense. Expression encompasses metaphysical (religion), press, speech, voting...

All rights derive from the three natural ones.
 
vegas giants said:
The government grants rights and denies them all the time. In a democracy thru the people but that is not always the case
Click to expand...

In that case they are a conditional "granting" if you will. I think of rights as rock solid and inviolatable (with out some legal trouble) What it boils down to is, you have what rights you are given. He who has superior force, gives and takes them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…