Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

Cephus said:

Then the word loses all meaning. By your reasoning, rape is a right because people have the potential ability to do it.

Click to expand...

It would seem so.

It all depends on what you define a "right" as.

Cephus said:

Then the word loses all meaning. By your reasoning, rape is a right because people have the potential ability to do it.

Click to expand...

Yes.

But I really don't see your point because by your own reasoning raping could be a right, depending on the society in question.

I don't see all rights as moral simply because morality is subjective, while rights are not.

A specific social morality will dictate which rights will be freely exercised. In some cultures, rape is a freely exercised right. In others it receives consequences.

The Mark said:

It would seem so.

It all depends on what you define a "right" as.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if you define it as an ability, which is seemingly what he's doing, we already have a perfectly good word for that, why not just use "ability" if that's what you mean?

Cephus said:

Yes, but if you define it as an ability, which is seemingly what he's doing, we already have a perfectly good word for that, why not just use "ability" if that's what you mean?

Click to expand...

Because ability is individualized. I have the ability to play the guitar. I'm not talking about individual, nor actually having the physical capabilities.

I'm talking about potential abilities that exist for all people, regardless of their personal capabilities. For example, a mute would not be able to speak "freely" per se, but that person still has the right to speak freely, he would just need to awquire the means to do so first.

That would be a person who is unable, still having the right to do something, albeit without the ability to do so.

That's why "ability" doesn't work, and is not a perfectly good word for it.

Tucker Case said:

Because ability is individualized. I have the ability to play the guitar. I'm not talking about individual, nor actually having the physical capabilities.

I'm talking about potential abilities that exist for all people, regardless of their personal capabilities. For example, a mute would not be able to speak "freely" per se, but that person still has the right to speak freely, he would just need to awquire the means to do so first.

That would be a person who is unable, still having the right to do something, albeit without the ability to do so.

That's why "ability" doesn't work, and is not a perfectly good word for it.

Click to expand...

Great, we all have the "right" to flap our arms and fly, even though we don't have the ability to. :roll:

Cephus said:

Great, we all have the "right" to flap our arms and fly, even though we don't have the ability to. :roll:

Click to expand...

Flap our arms? Yes.

Fly? Of course not.

But one sure sign that a person has failed to grasp the logic is when they use a nonsense retort and mistake it for wit.

Tucker Case said:

Flap our arms? Yes.

Fly? Of course not.

But one sure sign that a person has failed to grasp the logic is when they use a nonsense retort and mistake it for wit.

Click to expand...

That's not what you said:

Tucker Case said:

That would be a person who is unable, still having the right to do something, albeit without the ability to do so.

Click to expand...

Make up your mind.

A more important question is whether: Aliens have inhumanable rights.:shock:Blew your mind.

Cephus said:

That's not what you said:



Make up your mind.

Click to expand...

Perhap context is important considering my use of "that" is a dead giveaway that I was talking about a specific example in THAT sentence.

But here's the complete quote:

I'm talking about potential abilities that exist for all people, regardless of their personal capabilities. For example, a mute would not be able to speak "freely" per se, but that person still has the right to speak freely, he would just need to awquire the means to do so first.

That would be a person who is unable, still having the right to do something, albeit without the ability to do so.

Click to expand...

See, now what I bolded clearly states "potential abilities". Since flying is not a potential ability for anyone, it would obviously not qualify as a right. If it were a potential ability for ANY person, it would be a right, but since it cannot EVER be a potential ability, it cannot EVER be a right.

But since flapping your arms is a potential ability for almost every damned person on the ****ing planet, it qualifies as a right.

I've made up my mind, you just can't keep up.

Tucker Case said:

See, now what I bolded clearly states "potential abilities". Since flying is not a potential ability for anyone, it would obviously not qualify as a right. If it were a potential ability for ANY person, it would be a right, but since it cannot EVER be a potential ability, it cannot EVER be a right.

Click to expand...

Why not? After all, we can all get on airplanes and fly, that's "acquiring the means to do so" isn't it? So I guess you're saying that we all have the right to board an airplane, with or without any training, certification or regulation, and fly if we so choose. After all, it's our right!

I've made up my mind, you just can't keep up.

Click to expand...

Most of us are far beyond you, we're still waiting for you to catch up and realize that what you're saying makes no logical sense.

Cephus said:

Why not? After all, we can all get on airplanes and fly, that's "acquiring the means to do so" isn't it? So I guess you're saying that we all have the right to board an airplane, with or without any training, certification or regulation, and fly if we so choose. After all, it's our right!

Click to expand...

Well since you said "flap our arms and fly" your intellectual dishonesty is now fully exposed by your moving the goalposts. Thanks for playing.

Most of us are far beyond you, we're still waiting for you to catch up and realize that what you're saying makes no logical sense.

Click to expand...

Seeing as you can't even keep up with yourself (see above moving of the goalposts) I'm going to logically conclude your opinion in this is highly flawed.

Tucker Case said:

Well since you said "flap our arms and fly" your intellectual dishonesty is now fully exposed by your moving the goalposts. Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting you have no credible response. :roll:

Cephus said:

Thanks for admitting you have no credible response. :roll:

Click to expand...

Why don't you tell me how "flapping your arms and flying" relates in any way to flying an airplane.

Everyone knows only a complete retard would think that "flapping your arms and flying" is identical to "flying an airplane".

Since we know full well that you are not a complete retard, the only conclusion we can come to is that your attempt at scorn for my argument failed miserably because it went over your head, so instead of realizing your error, you now rely on equivocation in order to continue the failed point because, in your world, dancing around your failures and relying on intellectual dishonesty > admitting an error and an inability to grasp a point.

The saddest thing is, even with your intellectually dishonest equivocation, you failed.

Fly in that context means operate an airplane. Still, it is the airplane that flies, not the human. The human rides. Just like when a person rides a horse, and the horse breaks into a run, i9t is obvious that the human is not running. so it would follow, that if a person were to ride a giant bird that were able to fly, and it breaks into flight, that the person is not flying any more than they would be running if they were on the horse. Obviously they would be riding. So the same holds true for the person in the airplane. they do not fly. They ride.


Also, using my logic, every person does have a right to fly an airplane. More accurately and to avoid further equivocating gibberish: they have the right to operate an airplane, because humans have the potential ability to operate an airplane. It doesn't mean that the individual actually has the ability to do so.

But because that potential ability exists, it becomes the right of all humans to do so.

Now, in our society, we have decided -smartly- that this right should not be freely exercised. We've decided that the exercise of this right should be limited to those who actually have the ability to operate these machines and that anyone caught exercising this right without the necessary documentation of that ability will be punished.

Of course, that doesn't prevent anyone from exercising that right, but it does institute consequences for exercising that right.

Now, is there some outside chance that you can respond to what I've said intelligently, or am I going to be subjected to more nonsense that fails on every level?

Tucker, I am sorry it has taken so long to respond.

I asked about your definition because I wanted to understand the context. I think most people view a right as something you "should be able to do". That's why it is a social construct. Otherwise, if you include anything you can do, then lots of deplorable and despicable acts you would have a right to. People are going to disagree with that for obvious reasons.

independent_thinker2002 said:

Tucker, I am sorry it has taken so long to respond.

I asked about your definition because I wanted to understand the context. I think most people view a right as something you "should be able to do". That's why it is a social construct. Otherwise, if you include anything you can do, then lots of deplorable and despicable acts you would have a right to. People are going to disagree with that for obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

True.

People want to place morality upon all rights, but morality is fluid whereas natural rights remain constant.

What morality applies to is the free exercise of rights. Which rights that a society deems should be accessible without consequence.

Societies alter which rights they feel should be freely exercised almost daily. If a law passes that "removes" a certain right, the right still exists, and is not removed. What the law actually does is implement consequences for exercising that right.

If a law could actually remove a right, the ability would also be removed. All it does is limit the free exercise of that right.

Morality has **** all to do with what rights exist, but it has everything to do with which rights are exercised without consequences.

Just because it is a right, doesn't mean it should be engaged by everyone. One person's rights can, and often do, infringe upon the rights of another.

In my moral world view, that should be the determining factor on which rights should be freely exercised.

In other words, morality is the social construct.

Tucker Case said:

True.

People want to place morality upon all rights, but morality is fluid whereas natural rights remain constant.

What morality applies to is the free exercise of rights. Which rights that a society deems should be accessible without consequence.

Societies alter which rights they feel should be freely exercised almost daily. If a law passes that "removes" a certain right, the right still exists, and is not removed. What the law actually does is implement consequences for exercising that right.

If a law could actually remove a right, the ability would also be removed. All it does is limit the free exercise of that right.

Morality has **** all to do with what rights exist, but it has everything to do with which rights are exercised without consequences.

Just because it is a right, doesn't mean it should be engaged by everyone. One person's rights can, and often do, infringe upon the rights of another.

In my moral world view, that should be the determining factor on which rights should be freely exercised.

Click to expand...

Excellent post, IMO.

I find myself in complete agreement with your points.

OTOH, you have now incurred my wrath because you leave me nothing to add. :mrgreen:

kaya'08 said:

The term "inalienable" rights only came about on the founding of the constitution. How about before then? Was our rights inalienable? Why are humans subject to "inalienable rights", yet other animals are not, and who says we should have such rights, what makes us deserving of such rights, is the term inalienable rights simply a factor of social construct aimed at providing the Human a false term of importance, or a system of civilization?

Are we really born with Inalienable rights? Or is it merely a figment of the social structure we have developed as humans?

Click to expand...

Well,,, there are "humans" that revert back to being animals. :lol: I'm guessing that's what you want?:roll:

Let's understand what a right is.

A right is something you do for yourself--live (whatever lifestyle), own and use property, work and earn a living, run a business, travel, etc. as long as you don't violate other people's right to do likewise.

Yes, these things are unalienable, and government (or anybody else) should NEVER violate them.

You do NOT have a right to force other people to provide things for you--education, health care, housing, food, etc. However, you DO have a right to provide them for yourself and your family.