Define "rights".

[johndylan1]

If a person said they were against pedophilia at the very moment they were buggering a 12 year old - would you take their so called principled stand against the action as true or would you call it a lie?

I would be against pedophilia, and call the police. Two separate questions assessed separately.

One can write a law that says do not steal, believing it is wrong to steal, and then steal without the law loosing it's goodness, no?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I don't care whether it's called "natural law" or "law founded upon human nature", but that's what natural law is and has been. It is law based upon the nearly universal subjective preferences of human beings.

I care. Because now we go back to the OP: "Define 'rights'", he said. There are no real, actual rights aside from the right to think as you wish. Everything else is just an artifact of human opinion. None of them are real. But, in their hubris, Enlightenment thinkers wanted to call what they wanted to be applied "natural" when it wasn't natural at all.

So define rights? 99% of them are just some made up ****. The only right you truly have is the right to think what you want. Case closed.

 

[Green Man]

I care. Because now we go back to the OP: "Define 'rights'", he said. There are no real, actual rights aside from the right to think as you wish. Everything else is just an artifact of human opinion. None of them are real. But, in their hubris, Enlightenment thinkers wanted to call what they wanted to be applied "natural" when it wasn't natural at all.

Saying that people invent rights doesn't imply that they are "real". They are just rules established among people. Natural rights do, however, stem from the fact that humans universally and naturally exhibit certain subjective preferences about behavior. That's why those established rights are called natural rights.

So define rights? 99% of them are just some made up ****. The only right you truly have is the right to think what you want. Case closed.

All rights are made up. They are a social construct.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Saying that people invent rights doesn't imply that they are "real".

I know.

They are just rules established among people.

I know.

Natural rights do, however, stem from the fact that humans universally and naturally exhibit certain subjective preferences about behavior. That's why those established rights are called natural rights.

Universal implies that not even one person, in even one circumstance, fails to adhere to something. That's not the case.

All rights are made up. They are a social construct.

Not the right to think what you want. That's an ACTUAL, REAL natural, universal, and inalienable right. That's why I'm arguing that people want to lump nonsensical **** like the "right to life" or "right to free speech" or "right to free education" in with it. No matter how good (or bad?) those other, artificial rights are, they're not the same as that, one, actual natural, inalienable, and universal right.

 

[Green Man]

Universal implies that not even one person, in even one circumstance, fails to adhere to something. That's not the case.

Natural rights stem from the fact that humans naturally exhibit certain subjective preferences, such as the preference that a person ought not be killed for no reason.

Not the right to think what you want. That's an ACTUAL, REAL natural, universal, and inalienable right. That's why I'm arguing that people want to lump nonsensical **** like the "right to life" or "right to free speech" or "right to free education" in with it. No matter how good (or bad?) those other, artificial rights are, they're not the same as that, one, actual natural, inalienable, and universal right.

You don't have a RIGHT to think what you want. You have the ABILITY to think what you want. Nobody but you controls your brain.

 

[PirateMk1]

No I don't. I don't know of anyone who would disagree with the proposition that if a person doesn't deserve it, he ought not be be killed. Such a subjective preference appears to me to be so nearly universal so as to be natural to people.



Yes, that's what I'm saying. That it is natural for people to have certain subjective preferences regarding how others should be treated. These preferences are the foundation of natural law and natural rights.

I know people that would kill simply for looking at them funny. I also know of people who kill for even less. Basically what you said was it was ok for them to kill as that is preference and therefor right and a right.

Like I said before rights are sovereign liberties that must be secured. The beauty of our country we live in is the government framework acknowledged that instead of being subjects, each of us was a sovereign individual equal in stature legally to the next. Governments unfortunately do not exist by law alone but by the threat and use of force, otherwise the government would be stillborn. Unfortunately true sovereignty requires the active ability to secure and defend your liberties. When you think of our government think of it as a treaty between nations similar to say NATO, except it is a treaty amongst ourselves. Government power does not come directly from the individual per say, but from a collection of individuals exercising their collective power in unison.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Natural rights stem from the fact that humans naturally exhibit certain subjective preferences, such as the preference that a person ought not be killed for no reason.

What are called "natural rights" stem from Enlightenment thinkers, not from reality or what is actually natural.

You don't have a RIGHT to think what you want. You have the ABILITY to think what you want. Nobody but you controls your brain.

That's why you have an actual inalienable right to do so.

I don't understand the issue. The question asks what rights are. You can answer based upon what is a positive law wherever you live. You can answer based upon what Enlightenment thinkers thought should be rights among all people, or you can answer what's actually a right that you actually have, no matter what.

But don't say the second category is the third category, just because you wish it were so.

 

[johndylan1]

Was this a serious post? It was horrible. Who judges what's equal and what's not? You have no idea what you're talking about and your logic makes we weep. What do you do for a living?

Yes it is serious. Horrible? how so? Do you really not know how to judge equality in an objective way?

Here's what I'm talking about:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

The first premise is that all men are created equal.
This is important because "self evident" truths can logically only be applied to oneself. However, if there is a natural equality the application of the truth can be extended to all persons.

This first premise also instructs us as to who these rights apply to, all men (persons).

Now remember that a right is a justified potential or real act. The judgement is one of equal application.

For example: If I assert a right to life, while all other men are entitled to life; the right is judged as equal. If I assert a right to tie you up, while I remain free; the assertion is found unequal and therefore unjust.

 

[johndylan1]

I care. Because now we go back to the OP: "Define 'rights'", he said. There are no real, actual rights aside from the right to think as you wish. Everything else is just an artifact of human opinion. None of them are real. But, in their hubris, Enlightenment thinkers wanted to call what they wanted to be applied "natural" when it wasn't natural at all.

So define rights? 99% of them are just some made up ****. The only right you truly have is the right to think what you want. Case closed.

What is the real and substantial distinction between the "natural right" to think as you wish and the "natural right" to move (liberty) as you wish? serious question

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Yes it is serious. Horrible? how so? Do you really not know how to judge equality in an objective way?

No, I don't. Tell me. Is it equality of result or equality of opportunity? What if someone disagrees with you? Are they just wrong?

Here's what I'm talking about:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

The first premise is that all men are created equal.
This is important because "self evident" truths can logically only be applied to oneself. However, if there is a natural equality the application of the truth can be extended to all persons.

This first premise also instructs us as to who these rights apply to, all men (persons).

Now remember that a right is a justified potential or real act. The judgement is one of equal application.

For example: If I assert a right to life, while all other men are entitled to life; the right is judged as equal. If I assert a right to tie you up, while I remain free; the assertion is found unequal and therefore unjust.

Would you stop talking about positive law? It's not the issue here.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

What is the real and substantial distinction between the "natural right" to think as you wish and the "natural right" to move (liberty) as you wish? serious question

No one can stop you from thinking something, people can stop you from moving. One is an actual right that you have and no one can take away from you, the other is not- it can be taken from you.

 

[johndylan1]

No one can stop you from thinking something, people can stop you from moving. One is an actual right that you have and no one can take away from you, the other is not- it can be taken from you.

Is that really your answer? I can imagine someone performing a lobotomy on another and removing that too! So maybe you can try again.
Let's try this. Is there a distinction between having a right violated and not having a right at all? If so What?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Is that really your answer? I can imagine someone performing a lobotomy on another and removing that too!

Well, as long as it remains in your imagination....

Remember I said think what you want not just "think" or "think well".

So maybe you can try again.

Maybe you can read it again, Mr. "Whatever I see in the mirror is a right".

Let's try this. Is there a distinction between having a right violated and not having a right at all? If so What?

Legally, yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[johndylan1]

If someone has to "establish" something, it's not actually natural. I think the problem here is that as rhetoric or propaganda or however you want to phrase it, those Enlightenment thinkers called those things natural and universal and inalienable, because they wanted them to be embraced by the entire world. But they're not actually. That's the dispute.

OK this is the dispute, and I know you'll think of this as a rehash of the same ol crap, but...

Can we agree that natural rights are universal?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

OK this is the dispute, and I know you'll think of this as a rehash of the same ol crap, but...

Can we agree that natural rights are universal?

Natural, universal, and inalienable are, for all intents and purposes, synonyms for this conversation, so yes.

 

[johndylan1]

ME: Let's try this. Is there a distinction between having a right violated and not having a right at all? If so What?

Legally, yes. Otherwise, no.

So there is a legal distinction? How does the law determine a right has been violated?

You do realize, that this means that according to you. There are no rights without government. Is this correct?

 

[johndylan1]

Natural, universal, and inalienable are, for all intents and purposes, synonyms for this conversation, so yes.

Can we agree that natural right do not depend on government, but pre exists government?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

So there is a legal distinction? How does the law determine a right has been violated?

Because local laws enumerate what isn't a right?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Can we agree that natural right do not depend on government, but pre exists government?

Sorta? The real, actual natural right of thinking what you want? Yes. The artificial rights called natural rights by Enlightenment thinkers? Depends on how old the government is.

 

[johndylan1]

Sorta? The real, actual natural right of thinking what you want? Yes. The artificial rights called natural rights by Enlightenment thinkers? Depends on how old the government is.

We would assume that people, how ever long ago, and prior to the advent of governments and complex societies, would have had natural rights too (if they exist). Right?
So to my question, natural rights pre exist government? Yes?

 

[TML]

You have the right to think when you're alive.

Thus, you have the right to stay alive.
It’s amazing that I have to spell it out for you after you already agreed that natural rights exist.

Anyway, that doesn't mean you have a right to continuing life. Again: sorry?

Sorry for being an idiot? :2wave:

 

[OldWorldOrder]

We would assume that people, how ever long ago, and prior to the advent of governments and complex societies, would have had natural rights too (if they exist). Right?
So to my question, natural rights pre exist government? Yes?

Natural rights as the Enlightenment thinks considered them? No.

The natural right to think what you want? Yes.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Thus, you have the right to stay alive.

lol, no you don't. You have the right to think while you're alive. Why would you even jump to that conclusion?

It’s amazing that I have to spell it out for you after you already agreed that natural rights exist.

hahahahahah

Sorry for being an idiot? :2wave:

hahahahah you're great. You make such dumb arguments, I love it.

 

[johndylan1]

Because local laws enumerate what isn't a right?

So can a local law declare anything at all isn't a right? Or do law makers have to use an objective standard for what isn't a right?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

So can a local law declare anything at all isn't a right? Or do law makers have to use an objective standard for what isn't a right?

No, when they're talking about positive rights, it's up to the legislature of the land. There's no objective standard.