EpicDude86
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 822
- Location
- Epic Mountain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Lots of stuff didn't exist in the early stages of development for the human race. It doesn't mean they don't exist or weren't discovered or weren't learned about later on. Rights are an abstract idea, realized when man was able to comprehend the abstract.
There seems to be an overall rejection by those refusing to acknowledge rights in qualitative data. As such, I would ask again if you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics and if you can show me their proofs.
Our entire system of governent is predicated on the idea that rights, being inherent and innate to our being, pre-exist government, and that the government exists to protect those rights.
If that not your basic argument, then our system of government won't work for you.
You define everything off of probability and possible outcome. Because we can be killed, there's no right to life. Because someone can steal our stuff, there's no right to property. It's not an argument I find to be very valid. There's lots of probabilities, but that doesn't mean bases don't exist. I find the arbitrary placement of rights to be very dangerous. You in essence say I cannot be in the right for defending myself, that rather I am subject to the whims of the government on the matter. I don't accept that.
The exercise of rights can be infringed upon by force.
You and others keep making arguments that because something is possible means there are no base rights. We are mortal, there's no right to life. I can be murdered, true, it doesn't mean that I didn't have a right to life. It means that right was infringed upon. The questions I asked earlier were not outcome based. It was a question on whether or not just action is taken.
If you accept the stated premise, then the fact that the government doesn't recognize your rights can only mean the government is wrong.As much as I agree with you, I can't help but notice that: that's how our government thinks, other governments don't agree with that. So...rights are granted by nature by virtue of the fact that our government believes so?
Arbitrary placement of rights is exceptionally dangerous.
That's how the world works.
The Messiah is trying to arbitrarily impose an artrificial "right" to health care on our nation, and in the process He MUST infringe on our legally defined "right" to hold property by raising enough taxes to pay for health care.
If these rights were absolute, this could not be done. You're taking concepts out of context and applying them inaccurately.
You're also confusing your image of moral "rightness" with the existence of 'rights". Homonyms cause confusion, what can I say?
In the eyes of Osama bin Laden, it was morally right to murder three thousand Americans. His only concern has been to escape capture.
No, the argument I'm making is, since something is 'possible' you'd better be careful cause 'possible' are odds I'm scared of. The Action taken on the infringement of rights is another Man made thing. Prior to laws on Murder, Was there a right to life?
If you accept the stated premise, then the fact that the government doesn't recognize your rights can only mean the government is wrong.
I think I addressed this - the fact that the government doesn't recognize your rights can only mean the government is wrong.They recognize the rights they gave me, I appreciate that. But what about rights I think I should have?
I think I addressed this - the fact that the government doesn't recognize your rights can only mean the government is wrong.
That's found in the acceptance of your premise.But who's to say I'm right?
That's found in the acceptance of your premise.
If you do not accept that premise, then our system of government won't work for you.
I personally subscribe to the natural rights theory -- I just wanted to see how far your position went. Most people that subscribe to the social contract theory will otherwise complain about human rghts violations in China, etc.
Well, sure -- but this in and of itself precludes arguing 'human rights' as it accepts the premise that rights a society-dependent and not universal.Because they see things in terms of the rights they enjoy in their particular society.
It's not insult, it's truth. If you place the power of "rights" in the hands of some government force, you authorize some very dangerous practices. The base of this nation was built upon understanding and accepting the innate and inalienable nature of rights. If the government decides there is no "right to life" and sets up death troops, according to you we have no rightful place to resist or protest or dissent. But I say the right to life is innate to my very being. And in doing so, revolt against the death troops becomes am acceptable solution.
Tell me, do you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics? Can you show me where they are derived from?
Well, sure -- but this in and of itself precludes arguing 'human rights' as it accepts the premise that rights a society-dependent and not universal.
Then don't use the word "right", you're discussing priveleges.
And we're actually on the same page.
I was wondering if you were going to come up with some religious claptrap nonsense, such as the Declaration of Independence and it's "endowed by our Creator" babble.
No, certain degrees of moral rightness indicate a base right.
You're confusing right and privilege and applying them inaccurately.
You keep thinking that if something is a right, there is absolutely no way it can be violated.
Force can be applied to infringe upon the exercise of rights. Having a right doesn't guarantee it's exercise or that you'll be free from outside forces. Those have to be fought for. Understanding that was the very basis of this country.
Obviously not since I'm an atheist. However, I am just using the terminology used by people who think we have "natural rights" and pointing out that its' all a fantasy. No matter what it says in the Bill of Rights, there isn't a single right we enjoy in this country that is inalienable or limitless. People need to deal with the reality of the situation, not the philosophical fantasy they wish were true.
Our entire system of governent is predicated on the idea that rights, being inherent and innate to our being, pre-exist government, and that the government exists to protect those rights.
If that not your basic argument, then our system of government won't work for you.
Yep... and in doing so, they undermine their own position.Unfortunately, humans have the tendency to play the "might makes right" game and attempt to impose their standards on others.
No, of course not.
Note that the First Amendment doesn't grant a right to free speech. It removes the authority of congress to legislate speech controls.
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?