- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If humans had a natural right to life, then God could never have killed anyone since natural rights cannot be alienated.
Are you saying natural rights don't exist, or that God doesn't exist?
I get that we don't do that sort of thing here, but that is because we have laws based upon the concept of innate, individual rights. The problem is, the governing authority in Mosul Iraq has declared that throwing gays from tall buildings is a just and proper act. Why are they wrong? Or aren't they?
WRONG!
the bill of rights do not grants any right at all...and since no rights are granted by the bill of rights, you cannot repeal such.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Anything in the US Constitution can be changed via Amendment. There is NO provision it it which prevents that.
You're able to own yourself so long as those stronger do not wish to own you more.
that is correct....no doubt about it!
BUT!!!,.......the bill of rights does not grant any rights.......so how can you repeal what has not been granted....
Go back and read your post and your own glaring error should scream out at you like 50,000 fans cheering on their teams grand slam home run in the bottom of the ninth.
I get that we don't do that sort of thing here, but that is because we have laws based upon the concept of innate, individual rights. The problem is, the governing authority in Mosul Iraq has declared that throwing gays from tall buildings is a just and proper act. Why are they wrong? Or aren't they?
There are many English dictionaries. I checked Merriam-Webster, and you definition is not listed under "natural right." Which are you reading that states "A Natural Right is any Human Right which cannot be forcibly denied by any means whatsoever"? Please provide a quote.The dictionary.
The dictionary.
I don't know any philosophers who have written modern dictionaries.
From their perspective, they aren't wrong, that's why they're doing it. We have a different perspective. Neither side is objectively right or objectively wrong. Welcome to reality.
But that's the point. Once you accept that fact that rights are an objective aspect of human nature, there is no confusion as to who is right and who is wrong on the issue.Sure we have laws based on rights. Where would you get the impression we do not?
And laws range from nation to nation and culture to culture.
I would NOT support a government which allows what you describe? Is that "wrong"? I guess that would depend on whose definition you are using - ours or the nation you described.
The reality I live in is objective. And I have no difficulty of declaring that what they are doing is not only wrong, but objectively so. That you struggle with it is really your problem, not mine.
i already know my own words,
you can repeal the restrictions which are placed on the federal government by the bill of rights, but you cannot repeal rights, since the bill of rights is not granting any at all.
But that's the point. Once you accept that fact that rights are an objective aspect of human nature, there is no confusion as to who is right and who is wrong on the issue.
Rights are a moral concept though. In fact, it is in the very name: rights, as in right and wrong. Specific rights such as life and liberty are answers to the question 'what is right for man to live as man?'
WRONG!
the bill of rights do not grants any right at all...and since no rights are granted by the bill of rights, you cannot repeal such.
the bill of rights are ONLY declaratory and restrictive clauses placed on the federal government.
james Madison is the author of the bill of rights.
HERE is the preamble to the bill of rights.
The U.S. Bill of Rights
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [FEDERAL] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
the father of the constitution and author of the bill of rights.....speaking about the bill of rights, stating they are declaratory and restrictive clauses ONLY!
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
Jan. 1800Writings 6:385--401
but the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."
Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs24.html
rights which are not granted by law, cannot be taken away by law, and the bill of rights grants no rights at all!
"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments:
Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."---John Adams
Nope. Those don't mean the same thing. One is a noun the other isn't. You can have a right to do something and it still be viewed as morally wrong to do it.
Take same sex marriage. It could easily be declared people have a right to same sex marriage. And do people not have a right to mate with who they want? Do they have a right to be in an intimate relationship with the person/adult of their choice? Even if they, like everyone else, have a right to form those relationships (regardless of whether there is a right for them to be treated under the law as the exact same as opposite sex relationships), whether such relationships are right or wrong is a separate issue and subjective.
It doesn't answer the question at all. Here it is again: explain to me why it is immoral for ISIS to toss gays to their deaths from tall buildings?
I was going to make the same comment until I read your reply. I mean, it's nice that we can have written laws without natural rights, but then if you're gay, your written law is the Holy Quran, and your government is ISIS, you're pretty much ****ed unless you learn how to fly before you hit the ground.
Organization is more efficient than disorganization. General mayhem is disorganization.
You are confusing innate rights with what we refer to as civil rights. Marriage is not an innate right. It is civil contract. The innate right you have in this regard is the right to associate with whomever you choose. Two men have the innate right to engage in whatever consensual conduct they wish. There is no innate right to have that association labeled anything at all by your fellow man.
The innate rights you have, you have by virtue of you being a rational animal. Which is why irrational animals cannot be said to possess right of any kind.
But that's the point. Once you accept that fact that rights are an objective aspect of human nature, there is no confusion as to who is right and who is wrong on the issue.
I know why its immoral. I suspect you know why its immoral. The reason is we both believe that humans have innate rights no matter where they live. Those who deny the existence of such rights have no ability to make a moral case against such evil.
Rights are relative to many different things and only objective in what they have been declared by a group to be.
There is plenty of question as to who is right or wrong about this, proving that rights are in fact subjective in how we are discussing them.
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?