Page 62 of 64 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #611
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If we are fundamentally different, natural rights cannot exist.
    Fine that's your argument. Great, I'm not disputing it. Like you say, it's hard to develop these ideas on message boards.

    But you are, in fact, begging the question. What you say is that you cannot be a positivist and account for rights. But this rests on your definition of rights. Put very simply, your argument is "Rights emanate from a divine source, therefore you can only account for rights as emanating from a divine source."

    A positivist definition of rights, simply put, goes like "Rights are affirmatively assented to by law." Boom, that's their accounting of rights. If you want to dispute it, that's all well and good, but you're equivocating on two very different issues, the argument in favor of the natural rights theory on the one hand and the argument that positivists simply cannot account for rights by definition.

    Here we are only concerned with your latter point, which hinges on your very attenuated and obscure definition of rights, which you can only arrive at by way of your larger point in favor of natural rights theory. We're not concerned with your larger point, we're only talking about what positivists say and what naturalists say. They both talk about the same rights and the same equality, they just have different ways of getting there.

    If you think that the positivist account is not convincing, it doesn't really matter to this discussion, I'm actually a proponent of natural rights theory myself. But since you are also arguing that the positivist account of rights doesn't exist at all because it conflicts with your definition of "right" then you are begging the question.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-08-10 at 01:19 PM.

  2. #612
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    I didn't claim any divine source. People can search for whatever reasons they want, and if they want to say some god; well that's their choice. But you don't need gods to explain the existence of natural rights. It can all be discovered through thought as well. There are various ways to see the existence of natural rights. Mine is more philosophical based on the readings of people like Locke and Kant and such. I'm not saying that there is no other way to realize natural rights. I am saying that on the condition of humanity, natural rights are born from equality.

    In the end, I don't even know what the **** you're talking about or what you're definition of "positivist" is or what your arguments for natural rights are.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #613
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    You don't know what my argument for natural rights is because I never told you, seeing as how we aren't debating the existence of natural rights. Do you recall saying this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Fundamentally it comes down to this realization. Do you think all humans are created equally, that fundamentally we are all the same? If yes, you're in the natural rights side. If no, you're in the no natural rights side.
    That is an incorrect statement of facts. People like Captain Courtesy, who do not derive their idea of rights from "natural rights" can still very much "think all humans are created equally, that fundamentally we are all the same." (In fact, it's almost a slur to suggest otherwise, because the equality of humanity is a very important value to most people). Typically these theories are "positivist" in nature, in the sense that they do not recognize "natural" rights (natural in this case is synonymous with divine or supernatural, and if you aren't deriving your from some sort of divine source I would argue that what you believe really can't rightly be called "natural" rights).

    I suggest that you aren't really thinking about this issue "philosophically" at all, because your thought is clearly quite a muddle on the subject. You need to be able to keep mere definitions separate from arguments for and against a particular point of view. Moreover, if you're basing your ideas on Kant and Locke then you're neglecting the latest literature that has thoroughly debunked a lot of the claims of those authors, particularly Lockean property rights which are entirely baseless. These men were quite brilliant but writing in a prescientific era, and modern sensibilities rankle at many of their unfounded assumptions (although Kant is in many ways still a "living" philosopher, in many other significant ways he is not. Did you ever read Kant's theory on Angels?) I suggest you read John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" and Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia," and perhaps H. L. A. Hart's "The Concept of Law" to get a little more up to date.

  4. #614
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    That statement is not incorrect. It's in fact very valid. Of course people can argue against it, and you can say that people who deny natural rights can still say that all people are created equal. It's true, it's physically possible to do so. However, to do so also means that there are unseen truths yet to be discovered. If you think that all humans are equal, how can you not then believe in natural rights? If you consider the full of the system, I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion. It's like dropping a ball over and over again and then claiming that gravity repels masses. At least, that's how I see it. What does it mean to be equal?

    Additionally, natural rights are natural. Which means that they are part in parcel to being human. You don't need gods to have them, you need humans to have them. I don't understand your insistence that for natural rights there must be "divine" or "supernatural" origins. It's like saying the existence of nature requires divine or supernatural origins. Not necessarily, nature exists but it doesn't necessitate a god. It just is. What is is, and what is is the existence of humans and you can go from there. Are humans equal? What does it mean to be equal? That's it, and from there you can explore the world of natural rights.

    I would also say that people like CC have no concept of rights. What they call rights are actually government granted privilege and social contract.
    Last edited by Ikari; 07-08-10 at 02:07 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #615
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I would also say that people like CC have no concept of rights. What they call rights are actually government granted privilege and social contract.
    You're totally missing the point. You can dispute CC's concept of right, but nevertheless he has one. The fact is that equality can be argued on grounds other than natural rights theory. You just stated it above, so Q.E.D., you proved my point for me. I must again emphasize that we are not talking about which is more persuasive, but mere issues of definition. You don't seem to be able to avoid equivocating between those separate and distinct concepts. You may not find positivist account of equality compelling, but it is nonetheless an account of equality. "What a positivist calls "rights" are government granted privileges" and what a natural rights theorist calls right are privileges granted from some other, usually supernatural, source. They are both accounts of the existence of rights. It is folly to deny this fact.

    Moreover, you are misstating facts when you claim that a divine or otherwise supernatural source is unnecessary to a natural rights theory. You say yourself: "Additionally, natural rights are natural. Which means that they are part in parcel to being human." Rights are not biological, nor are they governed by the laws of physics. Since rights are not scientifically describable parts of the natural world, how are they part and parcel to being human if not by some supernatural means? God, or the Creator, is most commonly considered the source for natural rights by most natural rights theorists, though it could be some other transcendent principle. The point is that the source of "natural rights" must by definition be something supernatural in order to imbue the rights with a "natural" character, since they are not otherwise found in nature. Without the supernatural source you are just talking about positivism, and if that's what you're doing you're actually on the same side as Capt. Courtesy without even realizing it. Considering how confused you are about this subject that wouldn't surprise me at all actually.

    Regardless, you need to keep your head clear, because you fall over and over again into the mistake of arguing issues of definition as if they are issue of the merits. This is the fallacy of equivocation. You might have a compelling argument for natural rights (still haven't seen it though), but that does not detract from the fact that Capt. Courtesy also has what he sees as a compelling argument for positivism. They both account for the equality of humanity and the existence of rights, but in different ways. One may be right and the other wrong, but they are both accounts of equality and rights, and that is the point.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-08-10 at 03:10 PM.

  6. #616
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    You're totally missing the point. You can dispute CC's concept of right, but nevertheless he has one. The fact is that equality can be argued on grounds other than natural rights theory. You just stated it above, so Q.E.D., you proved my point for me. I must again emphasize that we are not talking about which is more persuasive, but mere issues of definition. You don't seem to be able to avoid equivocating between those separate and distinct concepts. You may not find positivist account of equality compelling, but it is nonetheless an account of equality. "What a positivist calls "rights" are government granted privileges" and what a natural rights theorist calls right are privileges granted from some other, usually supernatural, source. They are both accounts of the existence of rights. It is folly to deny this fact.
    I don't even know what you're saying here. It's a bunch of mumbo jumbo and miscommunication. A right is something innate and inalienable. It's possessed by the individual. Things governments give and take cannot be innate; thus they cannot be rights. Things society agrees with cannot be innate, thus they cannot be rights. So some people may want to redefine what a "right" is in order to implement it into their rhetoric; but at heart a right is a right. If you have a right to something, that means there's no higher source you must go to for permission. Which means it's an innate piece of the individual themselves. That means it cannot be granted by government nor society. Thus everything we talk about in regards to government and society is privilege and social contract. There's nothing wrong with these things, and they certainly exist. But that is properly what they are called.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Moreover, you are misstating facts when you claim that a divine or otherwise supernatural source is unnecessary to a natural rights theory. You say yourself: "Additionally, natural rights are natural. Which means that they are part in parcel to being human." Rights are not biological, nor are they governed by the laws of physics. Since rights are not scientifically describable parts of the natural world, how are they part and parcel to being human if not by some supernatural means? God, or the Creator, is most commonly considered the source for natural rights by most natural rights theorists, though it could be some other transcendent principle. The point is that the source of "natural rights" must by definition be something supernatural in order to imbue the rights with a "natural" character, since they are not otherwise found in nature. Without the supernatural source you are just talking about positivism, and if that's what you're doing you're actually on the same side as Capt. Courtesy without even realizing it. Considering how confused you are about this subject that wouldn't surprise me at all actually.
    The confusion is not on my part, sorry to burst your snide bubble there. There is no need for the supernatural when it comes to the existence of natural rights. Natural rights can be understood solely through intellect, intellect being a natural ability of humans. There is no necessity for a deity, there is no necessity on the supernatural. Humans have intelligence, that's the starting point. We can understand through that intelligence the existence of natural rights, the understanding that humans are equal and through that equality understand what a natural right is and accept its existence. There is no supernatural there, there is no deity. It seems you are very confused on the concept and cannot imagine it without the supernatural; and thus repeat that it must have one without any evidence towards that point. Natural rights is a realist point, born from human intelligence and philosophy; not the acts of gods.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Regardless, you need to keep your head clear, because you fall over and over again into the mistake of arguing issues of definition as if they are issue of the merits. This is the fallacy of equivocation. You might have a compelling argument for natural rights (still haven't seen it though), but that does not detract from the fact that Capt. Courtesy also has what he sees as a compelling argument for positivism. They both account for the equality of humanity and the existence of rights, but in different ways. One may be right and the other wrong, but they are both accounts of equality and rights, and that is the point.
    Definitions are important as they define what we are talking about and makes clear the concepts and arguments. If I start calling an apple a banana and jump on your case when you say it's an apple by saying the definition is not important, that's not necessarily a true statement. Sure if you were physically demonstrating how to eat an apple then calling a banana an apple has little to do with it. But if you're trying to argue the existence of banana in some way, the definition is important. You must define what a banana is, and it's not an apple.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #617
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    You are avoiding the point that I am making against your assertion,.... that the government has the right to dictate the "use" of our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
    I'm not avoiding that at all. I've already demonstrated that this is true.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #618
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Actually is precisely the opposite. But more to the point, if you are on the natural rights side your thinking is advanced and you can easily grasp the abstract. You can understand things such as empathy and note the common thread which makes all human human. If you are not, your thinking is more limited and tends to be more concrete. People are not equal, and are subject only to the circumstances and whims of their birth. Believing in natural rights is also the side of personal responsibility. The people make the decisions on what they can and cannot do, and the consequences are born to that individual making the choice.
    Actually, everything you said is exactly the opposite of what the concepts actually mean. The rigidity of the natural rights position is completely evident with the inability of natural rightsers to understand the flexibility of how changes in society affect societal needs. Natural rightsers do not see people as equal; they see people as part of a rigid equation, based on some ambiguous belief system. Believeing in natural rights takes away any responsibility one has to themselves, and instead puts it in the hands of some unknown source. Those who do not buy into the fallacy of natural rights have the flexibility to make choices and changes in the society in which they live. Natural rightsers do not have this ability.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #619
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    In any application, in terms of rights, it does actually. If there is no natural rights, because are not equal. What I have cannot be properly demanded by another. We are subject only to circumstance of birth. I in America am different than some guy in Africa and my fundamental rights are different as well by serendipity of birth. Sucks, but that's the way of it. Without natural rights, it doesn't matter. The conditions that people are born under are the conditions they are born under and they should accept it without quarrel. They have no right to rise up after all, say if they belong to some despot. No legal or moral justification to change the lot. They are different than us, not the same human, with a different set of rights. When you consider the base of humanity, however, and ponder in the natural state we can see that humans are human in the end. We are all the same, and thus fundamentally we must all possess a shared set of rights; these being the natural rights. There can be other social contract within varying countries given various circumstances, but all humans have a common set of rights. It can be no other way, not if we're all equal.

    Thus if you believe all humans are truly created equal, you accept the existence of natural rights. If not, then you are not, you deny that existence.
    And none of what you say here is accurate. One who is not controlled by natural rights has the ability to change rigid systems. Natural rightsers do not have this ability. The system is the system. That's it. You also are mixing being born equal with being born in equal circumstances. People are not born in equal circumstances; however, when a system is not as rigid as natural rightsers see it, one can easily change their circumstances, even to changing the scenario of the society in which they live. Natural rightsers do not have this ability. The system is the system.

    A basis of your disconnect, is that you confuse rights with desires and instincts.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #620
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I don't think you understand. First off for terms, there are rights and there is social contract/privilege. These are different things. A government does not have the power to grant rights, but is can make privilege. A society does not have the power to grant rights, but it can construct social contract. Privilege and contract are different from rights. It's also hard to fully develop these arguments about rights on an internet board since both time and patience run short in these places. So to formally construct the full argument you're making essentially chapters of a book. But you were incorrect in your assertion that it was all "begging the question". Essentially there is a choice along the line, humans are equal or humans are not equal. I happen to think that if you consider the natural state, there is no other conclusion other than human is human and that fundamentally we are the same. So we take that premise, if humans are fundamentally the same, so what? What does it mean that we are fundamentally the same? There's a common basis, beyond standard physical characteristics. There's something we share, by virtue of being human; and those are natural rights. Every last human has these, because we are fundamentally the same we have the similar desires and no one man's desires are of more value than another's. They're equal. The equality requires stasis and in that stasis is where we find natural rights.

    The point being is that natural rights are innate to the equality of the species as a whole. If all humans are created equal, if fundamentally human is human; natural rights have to exist. It can be no other way.

    If we are fundamentally different, natural rights cannot exist.

    Those are the two states of being. You get to choose.
    In bold. This is the problem with your argument. The fundemental characteristic we share are basic desires and instincts. These are not rights. These get morphed into rights by the society in which we live.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •