• 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

Well.. now you are getting around to the point where your rights end and someone elses begin.

You do have the right to walk around naked.

BUT when you exercise that right and it impinges on my rights or on me.. then your right is curtailed.



Not really sure I agree with that.

You have a right to walk around naked. What law specifically tells you that you can walk naked around in your house? What law SPECIFICALLY recognizes that you can walk around naked at the local nudist colony?

Generally societies don't operate that way you describe. they don't recognize your right.. because your rights are innumerable, instead.. they only curtail or regulate the exercising of certain rights...

So.. there is no laws stating "you may be nude in your bathroom, your kitchen, your private beach, the local nudist colony, the doctors office, the...".

There is a law saying.. " you may not be nude in non private or publically viewed areas".

sadly, many gun haters operate under the disgusting belief that in order for you to do SOMETHING, there must be a law that allows it while those who support freedom believe you have the power to do anything you choose as long as its not prohibited by a valid law
 
Yes that is nice isn't it. I notice you failed to mention the quakers. LOL As you are wrong on natural rights. They are just your beliefs....like the easter bunny. LOL

Only because you are wrong on the Quackers as well. Many Quackers feel that self defense is not only a right but a duty.
 
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.'
Actually they probable DO exist in our DNA to some extent.
 
Only because you are wrong on the Quackers as well. Many Quackers feel that self defense is not only a right but a duty.

You did not say all. I accept your concession
 
sadly, many gun haters operate under the disgusting belief that in order for you to do SOMETHING, there must be a law that allows it while those who support freedom believe you have the power to do anything you choose as long as its not prohibited by a valid law

unfortunately not just "gun haters".

Though generally I find that most folks are simply inconsistent with their premise.

they will adamantly argue that there is no specific right granting you an AR in the constitution..

And then adamantly argue that a woman has a right to an abortion. which DEFINITELY is not specifically granted in the constitution.
 
Which means they only exist as a personal belief until they become law

Sure.. so? It still means that rights are inherent and stem from belief and NOT from laws.

Which is why despite the LAW.. we recognize that a persons rights are being violated.
 
You did not say all. I accept your concession

don't have to.. YOU are the one that maintained that all did not believe in self defense.

I pointed out that you are wrong..

and were wrong about Gandhi as well.

(you know. it never stops to amaze me just how much you continue even when you have been flat out shown to be wrong. You never even pause to take a minute after you have been proven absolutely incorrect.. Reminds my of that Monty Python skit.. "its just a flesh wound").
 
Sure.. so? It still means that rights are inherent and stem from belief and NOT from laws.

Which is why despite the LAW.. we recognize that a persons rights are being violated.

How can they be inherent if many many people do not believe in them
 
don't have to.. YOU are the one that maintained that all did not believe in self defense.

I pointed out that you are wrong..

and were wrong about Gandhi as well.

(you know. it never stops to amaze me just how much you continue even when you have been flat out shown to be wrong. You never even pause to take a minute after you have been proven absolutely incorrect.. Reminds my of that Monty Python skit.. "its just a flesh wound").
You have admitted not all believe your beliefs. Something most of us knew already. Lol
 
Just like a person can know that stealing is wrong.. and do it anyway.
Wrong. Many people have a different belief than you. It crushes your argument
 
You have admitted not all believe your beliefs. Something most of us knew already. Lol

So? Why do you think that is necessary for my premise to be true?

YOU sir have admitted that people have to have those beliefs for it to BECOME a law.

thus rights stem from those beliefs.. and NOT from law.

My premise wins.

all that's left is semantics.
 
why is that funny,.

\You don't think that human consciousness and social constructs/behavior have a genetic component?

You find me a scientist that says inherent rights are in your dna! That is freaking hilarious
 
So? Why do you think that is necessary for my premise to be true?

YOU sir have admitted that people have to have those beliefs for it to BECOME a law.

thus rights stem from those beliefs.. and NOT from law.

My premise wins.

all that's left is semantics.

Then the belief in gun control must be inherent. Thanks. Lol
 
Then the belief in gun control must be inherent. Thanks. Lol

Hmmm.. you may have a point... people do have a tendency to fear what they cannot or will not understand...
 
You find me a scientist that says inherent rights are in your dna! That is freaking hilarious

Hmmm

Social psychologists have long held that attitudes--whether about America's role in Iraq or the importance of one's physical appearance--are largely the product of environmental forces, a combination of upbringing and culture.

But a handful of studies show not only that attitudes are partly, though indirectly, heritable, but that attitudes with high heritability influence people's actions more strongly than those with weaker genetic bases. Indeed, highly heritable attitudes, such as political persuasions, may even steer our choices of the social "niches" we carve out for ourselves, such as where and with whom to live, according to one line of psychological research.

"When I first started this work in the 1970s, the definition of an attitude was a response conditioned 100 percent by an individual's experiences," notes University of Georgia social psychologist Abraham Tesser, PhD, who has conducted innovative studies on the social implications of highly heritable attitudes. "I think the zeitgeist has changed since the advent of the Human Genome Project--the idea that a behavioral system has a strong genetic component is hardly an issue anymore."

Recent studies build on this knowledge base. A 2001 study of 195 identical twin pairs and 141 fraternal twin pairs by social psychologist James Olson, PhD, of the University of Western Ontario and colleagues, for instance, adds to the range of attitudes studied--in the past, largely religious and political beliefs--and directly examines possible genetic factors that may influence attitude formation.

Reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 80, No. 6), the study found significant heritability effects for 26 of the 30 attitude items studied, including such diverse items as attitudes toward reading books, open-door immigration policies and roller-coaster rides

Are beliefs inherited?
 
Back
Top Bottom