View Poll Results: Are we really born with inalienable rights?

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

    35 59.32%
  • No

    21 35.59%
  • Other (explain)

    3 5.08%
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 119

Thread: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,648

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    While his language is....colorful George Carlin said it best I think when it came to peoples "rights". Before ou play this video...Beware! Foul language is in it! Do not let your kids watch it if you care about language!

    YouTube - YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin
    I take it you didn't make it to post #7?

  2. #92
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Everyone CAN kill somebody... they don't have the "right" to do it though.
    I would argue that it is their right, but society has dictated that the free exercise of this right is illegal.

  3. #93
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I would argue that it is their right, but society has dictated that the free exercise of this right is illegal.
    Are you defining "right" as "anything you can do, you have a right to do so."?
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  4. #94
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Even in society there is no way to really stop somebody from killing another. Everyone has the right to kill right now, today, in this society. Everyone.

    It will just have consequences if one engages in this right.
    No, everyone has the *ABILITY* to kill people, if they had the right to do it, there would be no consequences because there would be nothing wrong with it in the eyes of society.

    The fact that society does punish people for doing it, at least under some circumstances, proves that it isn't a social right.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #95
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by The silenced majority View Post
    I take it you didn't make it to post #7?
    oops, nope.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #96
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    Are you defining "right" as "anything you can do, you have a right to do so."?
    I would define a right as anything that you have the potential ability to do. You may not have the means or desire, but if you have the potential ability to do it, it is a right.

    Rights are potential actions that may or may not be exercised by persons. Free speech, right to defend one's life, etc.

    These actions are freely accessible in the absence of society.

    Even if society dictates that someone cannot engage in an action, this alone cannot stop one form engaging in that action. Free speech is universal. Anyone, anywhere can exercise this natural right. Unfortunately, in some places, they will create consequences for a person who exercises this right. But the existence of consequences do not deny the right. The right still exists. The person can make a choice to accept the consequences for exercising their right. There is no way anyone, anywhere can actually prevent someone from exercising their rights if they make this choice.

    Even under threat of death, a person can still choose to exercise their rights.

    Another example would be that I wouldn't say a person has a right to life, but they do have a right to defend their life. They may not succeed, but nobody, no law, can prevent them from trying to defend their lives.

    basically, I define "rights" as the capability to perform potential actions where this capability is granted by virtue of existence and cannot be denied to a person who chooses to engage in that action regardless of consequence.

    They can exist in the absence of society.

    What people are discussing here is what I would call "freely exercised rights". The ability to freely exercise ones rights is entirely dictated by society. Any society may choose to create laws which implement consequences for exercising certain rights, thus negating the ability to freely exercise those rights without fear of consequence, but they cannot actually prevent people from exercising those rights if the people so choose.

    You can only implement consequences after the fact. So they are still inalienable. You cannot alienate a person from their rights, you can only punish them for exercising them.

  7. #97
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I would define a right as anything that you have the potential ability to do. You may not have the means or desire, but if you have the potential ability to do it, it is a right.

    Rights are potential actions that may or may not be exercised by persons. Free speech, right to defend one's life, etc.

    These actions are freely accessible in the absence of society.

    Even if society dictates that someone cannot engage in an action, this alone cannot stop one form engaging in that action. Free speech is universal. Anyone, anywhere can exercise this natural right. Unfortunately, in some places, they will create consequences for a person who exercises this right. But the existence of consequences do not deny the right. The right still exists. The person can make a choice to accept the consequences for exercising their right. There is no way anyone, anywhere can actually prevent someone from exercising their rights if they make this choice.

    Even under threat of death, a person can still choose to exercise their rights.

    Another example would be that I wouldn't say a person has a right to life, but they do have a right to defend their life. They may not succeed, but nobody, no law, can prevent them from trying to defend their lives.

    basically, I define "rights" as the capability to perform potential actions where this capability is granted by virtue of existence and cannot be denied to a person who chooses to engage in that action regardless of consequence.

    They can exist in the absence of society.
    Which is an entirely uninteresting discussion. I don't think anyone would claim that people don't have the faculties to speak freely, or defend themselves, or otherwise express themselves and their will.

    What people are discussing here is what I would call "freely exercised rights". The ability to freely exercise ones rights is entirely dictated by society. Any society may choose to create laws which implement consequences for exercising certain rights, thus negating the ability to freely exercise those rights without fear of consequence, but they cannot actually prevent people from exercising those rights if the people so choose.

    You can only implement consequences after the fact. So they are still inalienable. You cannot alienate a person from their rights, you can only punish them for exercising them.
    I believe the notion is that there exists some objective universal morality therefore there is some set of human actions which are always just and right. Therefore such actions would be deemed inalienable despite the fact that some people or societies suppress them.

    I find the notion of universal objective morals lacking because there is always some hypothetical situation where even the most heinous of actions can be right or morally neutral or where even the most benevolent, gracious, etc, action can be deemed neutral or even wrong. That is, we see right and wrong from our value based perspective rather than from a perspective free of our subjective world view. This highlights two of the problems: 1) the problem with being non-omniscient. We only can base our opinions off what we have experienced. In the future our opinions may radically change as new knowledge becomes available. But for the time being let's assume that what we know now will always hold true for morality. But there is still a problem.

    2) Thesecond problem is that morals are based on subjective goals. What this means is that actions we assume are right or just in all conceivable circumstances are "inalienable rights" because they are optimal actions in meeting or attaining our goals/purpose. The problem is there is no apparent universal purpose/goal in life. It is subjective. Some peoples goal is to be happy. Others is to achieve enlightenment. For others its to please their God. Thus, certain actions may be optimal for achieving a purported goal or purpose but that is the extent to the universality.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  8. #98
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I would define a right as anything that you have the potential ability to do. You may not have the means or desire, but if you have the potential ability to do it, it is a right.
    Then the word loses all meaning. By your reasoning, rape is a right because people have the potential ability to do it.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    If a person doesn't acknowledge inalienable human rights then they are exhibiting unconscionable behavior and should be treated as less than human.

  10. #100
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
    If a person doesn't acknowledge inalienable human rights then they are exhibiting unconscionable behavior and should be treated as less than human.
    this is a false, but all too common of a misunderstanding.

    Simply because one does not recognize inalienable rights does not necessarily mean one does not find value or truth in certain rights.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 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
  •