View Poll Results: Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

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

    40 88.89%
  • No

    2 4.44%
  • Other

    3 6.67%
Page 12 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 377

Thread: The right to -not- exercise a right?

  1. #111
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    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.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I think I addressed this - the fact that the government doesn't recognize your rights can only mean the government is wrong.
    But who's to say I'm right?

  3. #113
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    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.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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 DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE ANYMORE!!!!!!!

    But seriously, I don't think that means the entire Governmental system is lost on me, it just means i need to get into Politics. And then again, it's not about ME it's about US

  5. #115
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    Because they see things in terms of the rights they enjoy in their particular society. People from other countries with different sets of rights will likely look at your society and disagree with your particular set of rights. Everyone has a different opinion.
    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!

  6. #116
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Because they see things in terms of the rights they enjoy in their particular society.
    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.

  7. #117
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    Only insofar as the people are the source of the government's power and ultimately are responsible for determining via group consensus what rights people will have and under which conditions they will have them. If the government denies certain rights that the people have asserted, then the government is no longer operating under public mandate. and thus, the people have every right, for lack of a better term, to topple that government and set up another which operates as a representative of the people.

    Tell me, do you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics? Can you show me where they are derived from?
    Where the laws are derived from? Certainly. They are derived from human observation and testing. All physical laws are simply statements that we have made based upon observation of the world around us. Outside of our own heads, the "laws of thermodynamics" have no meaning. Thermodynamics does, the laws that we created to explain thermodynamics do not.
    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!

  8. #118
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    Unfortunately, humans have the tendency to play the "might makes right" game and attempt to impose their standards on others. Humans make international laws which may infringe on the social rights of some because those people don't have any political, military or financial power to oppose it. For instance, the current move by the UN to make blasphemy laws contradicts the American (and other) right to free speech. If we had less political power in the UN, they might be able to make those laws applicable in the US. As it stands now, the UN can pass any resolutions they want, we can ignore them at our leisure because we've got an excessive amount of worldwide political, financial and military power.
    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. #119
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.
    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.
    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!

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, certain degrees of moral rightness indicate a base right.
    No. It just feels good to think that way. Since there are no "base rights", since rights are defined by human consensus, what you say is flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You're confusing right and privilege and applying them inaccurately.
    No, I'm recognizing that rights are legally defined abstract constructs with no corporeal existence serving solely to codify baseline moral behavior in society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You keep thinking that if something is a right, there is absolutely no way it can be violated.
    No, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your argument.

    To put it bluntly rights have no reality in the world.

    Power exists.

    Rights are CREATED, as a legal fiction, to put limits on the otherwise unrestrained uses of power.

    Anita Dunn's hero, Mao, had unlimited power...and the Chinese had no rights.

    By your standards you may claim they had a right to life....they did not, because the only function of a right is to limit the power of the sovereign over his subjects.

    You may seek to impose your concept of rights on the world. To do so effectively means making war on those sovereigns who reject your vision. This is what the United States is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. If successful, those people will be GRANTED rights they never had before.

    There's no magic about rights. They're NOTHING BUT a CONCEPT.

    Let's say you're right....er correct. Mao then violated the "rights" of 30,000,000 chinese.

    So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    Yes, the rights have to be created in the legal system, by force or by politics. Before that they do not "exist in any meaningful way.

Page 12 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •