View Poll Results: Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    36 41.38%
  • No

    51 58.62%
Page 67 of 100 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 994

Thread: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

  1. #661
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    25,837

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Well our dictionary definitions must have no relevance to you either so far as the definitions of inalienable/unalienable and hypothetical go. I know it is difficult for non-Americans to understand the concept of unalienable rights as the basis of what true liberty is because you've never experienced it.
    Oh please! Save such self-righteous nonsense for those from less, rather than more democratic nations.

    Our Founders understood it quite well and a lot of us Americans understand it quite well today too. Unfortunately we seem to have a sizeable group of Americans with no clue about what that was all about, who resent those who do, and who would dismantle it in a heartbeat. And that is a tragedy.
    I see you decide to resort to rhetoric rather than grapple with the untenable, illogical position you've talked yourself into. No amount of brain-twisting semantics can maintain your double-think. You may dismiss Hobbes, Bentham, Burke and Rousseau, but in the absence of any refuting argument, your position is 'nonsense on stilts'.

    You also seem to be falling into the Appeal to Nature fallacy, since it seems evident that you believe that there is something 'naturally' superior about a 'right' being deemed 'natural'. As we've seen, the fact that your natural rights' 'inalienable' nature is purely conceptual, apt to be denied in reality, there appear to be no rights that are in practice 'inalienable'. Please let's not continue with this semantic debate on the definition of 'inalienable' since however much you wish it to be, your definition is not universally, or even predominantly accepted. And let's stay away from bringing the US DoI or Constitution into this as it lends no authority to an argument, given that it's not a universally accepted statement of the real nature of rights.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  2. #662
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The so called 'people of the time' did NOT write the statement of natural rights in the Declaration. Thomas Jefferson did. And Jefferson clearly and unmistakably said it applied to ALL MEN and we know that Jefferson considered Africans held as slaves as human beings and men.

    Thus, Jefferson did not even believe the statement himself and live a long life doing just the opposite of the hollow words he put on paper to awe the world with meaningless nonsense.
    guy you seem to be looking for argument from me at every turn....but again BOOM! TO YOU.

    The Rights of the Colonists

    November 20, 1772


    I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

    Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

  3. #663
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    your post to me makes no sense with the lead in you reproduced.
    fine then.... Let it go!

  4. #664
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,619
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Oh please! Save such self-righteous nonsense for those from less, rather than more democratic nations.

    I see you decide to resort to rhetoric rather than grapple with the untenable, illogical position you've talked yourself into. No amount of brain-twisting semantics can maintain your double-think. You may dismiss Hobbes, Bentham, Burke and Rousseau, but in the absence of any refuting argument, your position is 'nonsense on stilts'.

    You also seem to be falling into the Appeal to Nature fallacy, since it seems evident that you believe that there is something 'naturally' superior about a 'right' being deemed 'natural'. As we've seen, the fact that your natural rights' 'inalienable' nature is purely conceptual, apt to be denied in reality, there appear to be no rights that are in practice 'inalienable'. Please let's not continue with this semantic debate on the definition of 'inalienable' since however much you wish it to be, your definition is not universally, or even predominantly accepted. And let's stay away from bringing the US DoI or Constitution into this as it lends no authority to an argument, given that it's not a universally accepted statement of the real nature of rights.
    Sorry, but I will express myself and my understanding of the way things are as I choose and if you find that unacceptable or offensive, I suggest you put me on ignore--there is that capability here at DP is there not?--or just scroll over my posts. I prefer to discuss topics with those who can do so by making a better argument and who don't think being personally insulting and critical is valid debate. The topic is whether we believe in natural rights. I have addressed the topic and have made my argument for why I hold the opinion that I do.

    I suppose a person saying that he does not believe in natural rights because they do not exist is a valid reason for holding that opinion. But that alone wouldn't get a person very far in a formal debate.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  5. #665
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    I cannot think of a single unalienable/inalienable right that we can waive for any reason which is why such rights are unalienable/inalienable. All we can do is be denied the ability to ACT on those rights in a public way--and that can be via legal means or by illegal means--or we can choose not to ACT on those rights in a public way and again that can be via legal means or not. Again I think we are probably in agreement but differ a bit in the definitions.

    Anyhow I have a truckload of groceries to help unload and put away here, so you have a good day too.
    one thing i want to point out is the words are not very much different...one incapable of being alienated....and one not lawfully alienated.

    "can i search you car"......"sure go ahead"........i just waive my right.

    i hope you brought me some fruit, i need some fresh strawberries.

  6. #666
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    You and I do not have a power within us to create a right, therefore it is impossible for us to elect someone to office and grant them a power to create rights, since we do not possess the power to begin with"
    Last edited by Master PO; 05-21-15 at 01:22 PM.

  7. #667
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,619
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    one thing i want to point out is the words are not very much different...one incapable of being alienated....and one not lawfully alienated.

    "can i search you car"......"sure go ahead"........i just waive my right.

    i hope you brought me some fruit, i need some fresh strawberries.
    Well we can split hairs over whether the definition of each word is different, but the dictionary and encyclopedia draw no such distinction but are pretty clear that it is the same word--just spelled differently.

    We cannot buy, barter, steal, or otherwise receive an unalienable right from somebody else nor can we sell, barter, or give an unalienable right to anybody else. That is what makes the condition that is identified as a 'natural right' unalienable. But you are right that somebody can prevent us from exercising such a right as we choose and it was to prevent the central government from having any authority to do that which formed the basic concept of the U.S. Constitution.

    And you are right that we can waive our right to exercise our unalienable rights and people do that all the time via social contract. For example, everybody gives up their ability to use their property in certain ways to ensure that everybody's property values are secured--such choices are for the mutual benefit of all. Or the illustration that you used in waiving my right to personal privacy to allow search of my car because I consider reasonable laws for the protection, safety, and aesthetic enjoyment of all to also be of mutual benefit of all.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  8. #668
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 10:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Well we can split hairs over whether the definition of each word is different, but the dictionary and encyclopedia draw no such distinction but are pretty clear that it is the same word--just spelled differently.

    We cannot buy, barter, steal, or otherwise receive an unalienable right from somebody else nor can we sell, barter, or give an unalienable right to anybody else. That is what makes the condition that is identified as a 'natural right' unalienable. But you are right that somebody can prevent us from exercising such a right as we choose and it was to prevent the central government from having any authority to do that which formed the basic concept of the U.S. Constitution.

    And you are right that we can waive our right to exercise our unalienable rights and people do that all the time via social contract. For example, everybody gives up their ability to use their property in certain ways to ensure that everybody's property values are secured--such choices are for the mutual benefit of all. Or the illustration that you used in waiving my right to personal privacy to allow search of my car because I consider reasonable laws for the protection, safety, and aesthetic enjoyment of all to also be of mutual benefit of all.

    well ok, but their is clearly two definitions into past....today both words are lumped together.

    indentured servitude......Miranda warning.

  9. #669
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,619
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    well ok, but their is clearly two definitions into past....today both words are lumped together.

    indentured servitude......Miranda warning.
    I am saying that the words inalienable and unalienable are synonyms. They both mean exactly the same thing.

    When used as an adjective with 'rights', they become a specific identifiable concept and puts such unalienable or inalienable or natural or God-given rights--all can be used interchangeably--into its own context different from any other and with its own definition.

    It is just like the adjective 'social' has a specific definition and the noun 'contract' has a specific definition. But when you say 'social contract' it is its own term with its own context and definition different from any other.

    Same with 'inate' and 'characteristic', each with a specific dictionary definition, but when you say 'inate characteristic', the phrase has its own definition different from each word defined by itself.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  10. #670
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    25,837

    Re: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    I am saying that the words inalienable and unalienable are synonyms. They both mean exactly the same thing.

    When used as an adjective with 'rights', they become a specific identifiable concept and puts such unalienable or inalienable or natural or God-given rights--all can be used interchangeably--into its own context different from any other and with its own definition.
    And yet you haven't been able to work out the is/ought problem, at all. You merely bumble on regardless, as if it wasn't the fundamental flaw in your argument that it is.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Page 67 of 100 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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