- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No they're not the same
God given means god given. Natural rights mean that they are derived from human's natural state. Unalienable says nothing about the source of rights but merely describes a characteristic of the right(s).
I say they are the same as I have defined them. You are welcome to define them any way you choose and or pick a term that describes what they are. Or not.
It doesn't matter what term or phrase we use. What matters is the concept that the term or phrase means. So I ask you again to define the terms in a coherent way that others will understand what you mean.
No, individuals (neither you nor I) don't get to define what words mean. They get their meaning from being commonly understood (ie common usage) by large #'s of people to mean something and not by you claiming they mean what you say they mean.
Then stop insisting we use your preferred terms and give them the meaning you insist they be given.
And you can ask me as many times as you wish, but I am not going to frame the issue in the way you prefer. I will argue for rights in the manner *I* prefer.
No they're not the same
God given means god given. Natural rights mean that they are derived from human's natural state. Unalienable says nothing about the source of rights but merely describes a characteristic of the right(s).
Look. When you're ready to discuss the concept, get back to me. I am not interested in derailing the discussion with a silly argument over what term is used to describe the concept. You have refused to furnish your own term or definition for my terms, so as long as your only argument is I'm wrong without any rationale for why I am wrong, your argument is not useful.
If you don't like those definitions, then how about this one:
Rights that all humans beings SHOULD possess, that SHOULD be recognized, enumerated and protected by any good government, because those rights are in accord with the nature of human existence and needs.
AKA the right to Life, Liberty and Property, and those rights that clearly stem from the fundamental three.
I have discussed the concept and argued against it while presenting and explaining what I think is a better understanding of the true nature of rights as something that is socially-constructed. As a member of this convention, I am under no obligation to accept the concepts you present and I am completely at liberty to criticize your concepts and present concepts of my own.
I'll just refer you to my previous posts which you didn't hear or represent accurately either.
If you don't like those definitions, then how about this one:
Rights that all humans beings SHOULD possess, that SHOULD be recognized, enumerated and protected by any good government, because those rights are in accord with the nature of human existence and needs.
AKA the right to Life, Liberty and Property, and those rights that clearly stem from the fundamental three.
And then we get bogged down in what is a SHOULD.
I will still argue for my definition of 'unalienable rights' (by whatever term we choose to call these) as what requires no contribution or participation by any other. If I am not requiring any contribution by any other and require no involuntary participation in any way of any other, then whatever I think, believe, speak, or act or however I choose to use my private property is my unalienable right to do.
Whatever does require contribution or participation, voluntary or involuntary, by any other person is subject to scrutiny and possible regulation.
I don't really care how it is defined, or whether people cite God, Nature, philosophy or ethics or what have you.... as long as those three rights and the rights that naturally stem from them are enshrined and respected as something that should not be infringed upon, neither by a small elite, nor by the momentary whim of a mere majority.
I don't really care how it is defined, or whether people cite God, Nature, philosophy or ethics or what have you.... as long as those three rights and the rights that naturally stem from them are enshrined and respected as something that should not be infringed upon, neither by a small elite, nor by the momentary whim of a mere majority.
Inalienable rights, rights that cannot be transferred, what one is born with and dies with, natural and/or God given rights.
Human rights, shelter, food, clothing, basic necessities and protection can and is afforded by a society of sorts.
Yes, no, may be?
What was the question again?
And then we get bogged down in what is a SHOULD.
I will still argue for my definition of 'unalienable rights' (by whatever term we choose to call these) as what requires no contribution or participation by any other. If I am not requiring any contribution by any other and require no involuntary participation in any way of any other, then whatever I think, believe, speak, or act or however I choose to use my private property is my unalienable right to do.
Whatever does require contribution or participation, voluntary or involuntary, by any other person is subject to scrutiny and possible regulation.
As I understand things, some rights may be inalienable (or unalienable if you prefer), but that cannot be proven.I say they are the same as I have defined them. You are welcome to define them any way you choose and or pick a term that describes what they are. Or not. But until somebody is willing to debate the concept with me and the few others who acknowledge the existence of unalienable rights as I have defined them, we are stuck on petty semantics and will get nowhere.
It doesn't matter what term or phrase we use. What matters is the concept that the term or phrase means. So I ask you again to define the terms in a coherent way that others will understand what you mean.
I agree that the constitution should protect rights to life, breathing, thinking etc etc etc. However I do not believe they are natural rights. So I reject the concept in the poll
I also believe that the concept of human rights comes from society itself. They arise from the people. The government are the people, and so it is up to the government to define what these rights are.
In terms of what the constitution should protect, I think we can include multiple rights under broader umbrellas. If we have to specify each and every one, it'll be pages and pages.
EDIT: aaaannd I accidently clicked the wrong checkbox lol....
ahhh!... the unraveling of the constitutional convention.
this is a prime example of why a constitutional convention of the states should never take place.
Explain, please, why you think this is unraveling.ahhh!... the unraveling of the constitutional convention.
this is a prime example of why a constitutional convention of the states should never take place.
Explain, please, why you think this is unraveling.
Possibly we should codify no rights whatsoever, beyond the right to not be harmed involuntarily.our current Constitution embodies the principles of the declaration of independence.
there are those who do not want our Constitution tied to those principles, those maxims, those self evident truths.
instead of rule of law, they wish for people to be law among themselves....they wish for democracy, while others want to return to a true republic structure of 1788.
we have for the most part people who want to create a Constitution from opposites ends of the spectrum.
already the problems have begun....... national vs federal , and positive rights vs negative rights.
it going to be fun for me, to see people argue their positions, of why a central government should leave the people alone vs why we should be subjects of a central government.
think about this, anyone or any entity that has the power of rights creation, ...also has the power to deny to or take away rights.
so if government has the power to define rights, then it can give them to some and not others, since it hold the keys to that power.
natural rights are unwritten law, and no one/entity has power over them to create or deny anyone those rights.....
when you have the power to create, you also have the power to destroy.
Possibly we should codify no rights whatsoever, beyond the right to not be harmed involuntarily.
Of course, determining what that means is then a serious issue...
But basically the judicial system would have to build up case law on the subject, or refer to past case law.
Then the legislature/executive would need to add **** to the constitution if the situation warranted.
Of course I suspect that's where we got the bill of rights in the first place?
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?