i can understand not being able to grasp sociological concepts (the world needs ditch diggers), but failing on basic constitutional facts as well creates a farce.
You pulled that definition out of your ass. The definition of "right" is most certainly not "behavior that is recognized and protected by the government".
You are like the amateur geometrician who insists that a square is a 7 sided figure.
To the extent that rights exist, that is exactly what they are. I am in the "rights" are what we call pretentious privileges camp. As for whether or not there is a 7 sided square, that may depend upon which dimension you are viewing it in and from.
slavery was outlawed when the american people decided it was an abomination and violated the very claims the founders made in starting this nation.
please define the word "right".
and not do give me a general statement you yourself created.
are you new here?
He did:
Right (n.) - a pretentious privilege.
haha
please define the word "right".
"that which does not exist, but people feel better believing that they do. See Santa Clause, Easter Bunny"
I can't believe anyone takes such crap seriously.
you need to do a great deal of reading...because you have committed errors .
ERROR....the constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 making it binding.....not Sept 13 1788
ERROR..the bill of rights was ratified on December 15, 1791 and becomes law
The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals – passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation.
The Articles Congress certified eleven ratification conventions had adopted the proposed Constitution for their states on September 13, 1788, and in accordance with its resolution, the new Constitutional government began March 4, 1789.[42] (See above Ratification and beginning.)
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792.[58]
what claims are those?............please list them from the founders, and not do give me a general statement you yourself created.
RIGHT: 2c - a power, privilege or immunity vested in one (as by authority or social custom), 2d(1) - a power or privilege vested in a person by the law to demand action or forbearance by another: a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will not will do or will not do a given act: a capacity or privilege, the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law
This is from the three volume authoritative Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged.... Merriam Webster 1981 - Chicago, Illinois its the set that comes with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Volume II, page 1955, column 2 on that page,
RIGHT: 2c - a power, privilege or immunity vested in one (as by authority or social custom), 2d(1) - a power or privilege vested in a person by the law to demand action or forbearance by another: a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will not will do or will not do a given act: a capacity or privilege, the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law
There you have it. Note that both variations include the language about the government AS BY AUTHORITY and BY THE LAW and the additional element that it be LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE and SECURED TO A PERSON BY LAW. I have maintained that a RIGHT is a behavior protected and recognized by the government. The definitions provided confirm that with the elements I stated.
Very interesting, and telling, that you ignored the meanings provided in 2, 2a, and 2b.
I ignored 15 other definitions also or variations that did not apply to you asking me to provide a definition that confirmed the one I gave you. And that is exactly what I did.
You keep repeating this lie over and over and it appears you will likely be uneducable on this point as you are on so many others. The Founders believed in the principles they espoused. What they didn't do was apply these principles consistently and universally. That, however, does not invalidate the principles or make liars of the Founders. It makes a liar of you.The claim that all men are created equal and have certain rights and among those are the rights to life and liberty.
That was false when they wrote it and they knew it as their daily behavior and priorities were the exact opposite as the hypocrite Jefferson and other signers of the Dec Of Ind held human beings in a condition of slavery where they had none of the rights they gave lip service to on paper.
Good for you.
And just so you know, when I say the word right I pretty much mean "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." (per https://www.google.com/search?q=define+right)
And now you can share your self-imposed belief that people don't have a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
You keep repeating this lie over and over and it appears you will likely be uneducable on this point as you are on so many others. The Founders believed in the principles they espoused. What they didn't do was apply these principles consistently and universally. That, however, does not invalidate the principles or make liars of the Founders. It makes a liar of you.
For those who believe in such things - it works for them. For those who do not subscribe to it - we still have rights and have them because the people exerted enough power or influence upon the government to get them to protect those behaviors. And that does not rely one iota on any belief. It is simply observable fact and history.
And by the law - you just gave up half of your argument when you conceded the LEGAL ENTITLEMENT provision. One can only be legally entitled to anything if it is provided in the legal system provided by the law . Which again supports my definition.
You sure are not left with much to which to cling.
I cannot believe one would blind themselves with ideology so not to see what is obviously in practice everyday.
I'm left with exactly what I had before, namely that a right is a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
You and I just differ in our beliefs regarding moral entitlement. According to your belief system, people have no moral entitlement to anything, while I believe that people are entitled to life, liberty, and property.
You have the belief.
I do not.
There is no "our beliefs".
Given that your position's perspective, reasoning, logic, comprehension and cognitive grasp are lacking to the level of a mildly intelligent monkey, your musing regarding the understanding of others is rather lost in humor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?