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 16 of 38 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 377

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

  1. #151
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Your 'Rights' didn't exist until Civilization came up with them.
    Completely untrue, the rights were always there, they are just recognized because of hundreds of years of philosophical and idealogical works that have finally pinpointed them, works such as Plato's Republic, the works of Socrates, etc.
    Ancient cultures had different rights than we did now, so what happened to those rights?
    Wrong, they had different liberties, but the rights and freedoms still existed, this is the concept of freedom and liberty, they are similar but completely incompatible, rights are inaliable, liberties are infringable.
    Did they stop being rights or what? In medieval Denmark you could kill someone so long as you paid their worth to the family, that was a 'right' so to speak.
    There was a consequence directly related to the action, and this was a fine, so how could it be considered a "right to murder"?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #152
    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
    You can't test the laws of thermodynamics either. You can see if they've been violated in some way, but they cannot be proven from first principle.
    One: You can test the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Two: If they'd ever failed those tests, they wouldn't be Laws.

    And two of the laws ARE first principles, ie, axioms, the second law can be derived from statistics, and the fourth is an expression of the ..ummm..."rest state" of matter, ie, that it's not possible to extract all the energy from a system at absolute zero.

    But they are all defined by observations of the universe.

    RIGHTS, however, are just definitions and feelings, and culturally dependent.

  3. #153
    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: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    One: You can test the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Two: If they'd ever failed those tests, they wouldn't be Laws.

    And two of the laws ARE first principles, ie, axioms, the second law can be derived from statistics, and the fourth is an expression of the ..ummm..."rest state" of matter, ie, that it's not possible to extract all the energy from a system at absolute zero.
    Mostly correct. Statistical mechanics uses the laws of thermodynamics. None of the laws of thermo (0-3) have been proven from first principle. You can measure thermodynamic systems and compare those to the laws to see if violation have occurred. But that is a qualitative test of the laws of thermodynamics, not quantitative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    But they are all defined by observations of the universe.
    Indeed, observation has led to the discovery of these laws. Just as rights can be discovered through qualitative measurement and understanding of philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    RIGHTS, however, are just definitions and feelings, and culturally dependent.
    Rights were discovered via observation. Societies provide just as decent a system to observe as a thermodynamic experiment.
    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."

  4. #154
    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
    Mostly correct. Statistical mechanics uses the laws of thermodynamics. None of the laws of thermo (0-3) have been proven from first principle. You can measure thermodynamic systems and compare those to the laws to see if violation have occurred. But that is a qualitative test of the laws of thermodynamics, not quantitative.
    No, measuring the energy output of a oil fired steam system driving turbogenerators is a quantitative measure of the validity of thermodynamics, and the measured outputs can be compared against thermodynamic theory. When results are found to be in conflict with the Laws of thermodynamics, it's the exeriment that's flawed. No experiment has ever successfully demonstrated a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy, it's not a good idea, it's the Law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Indeed, observation has led to the discovery of these laws. Just as rights can be discovered through qualitative measurement and understanding of philosophy.
    No, "rights" can be created, not "discovered".

    There's a difference.

    Columbus discovered America, he didn't create the continents.

    Mothers create babies, they're not discovered.

    Let's assume the independent absolute existence of the right to life is an innate property of human individuals as you claim.

    In 1972 it was determined that women have a "right to choose to commit abortion" upon their unborn babies.

    Since the baby is human, it has now been denied the right to life, and it's existence is now dependent upon the whim of the individual carrying it.

    But...if the right to commit abortions was discovered, as you claim new rights are from time to time, then the mother has always had the right to commit abortion, and therefore the unborn baby's right to life never existed.

    Since the mother was at one time an unborn child herself, she herself never had the right to life.

    Since the science of life shows that the unborn fetus, from the moment of conception, is a genetically distinct individual, and physically distinct from the mother in that body fluids are not exchanged across the placenta, there is no naturally mile stone in the fetal development that says "human rights start here". Not a one, because the fetus is already human, from conception.

    So, the human fetus, which also has the "right to choose to commit abortion", since by the standards of the argument presented so far, exist independently of the individuals ability to exercise them or even understand them, is denied it's right to life...from the moment of conception to a legally defined and pretty much arbitrary condition, that of birth.

    How can, therefore a baby's right to life co-exist with the right someone else has to murder that same child?

    Answer: It cannot. The "right" to life is at present legally defined to allow the newly created "right to murder unborn babies" an existence for the convenience of a particular class of voters.

    And that is only possible because neither right is an absolute. instead, both are constructs of human law, and nothing but.

  5. #155
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No, measuring the energy output of a oil fired steam system driving turbogenerators is a quantitative measure of the validity of thermodynamics, and the measured outputs can be compared against thermodynamic theory. When results are found to be in conflict with the Laws of thermodynamics, it's the exeriment that's flawed. No experiment has ever successfully demonstrated a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy, it's not a good idea, it's the Law.



    No, "rights" can be created, not "discovered".

    There's a difference.

    Columbus discovered America, he didn't create the continents.

    Mothers create babies, they're not discovered.

    Let's assume the independent absolute existence of the right to life is an innate property of human individuals as you claim.

    In 1972 it was determined that women have a "right to choose to commit abortion" upon their unborn babies.

    Since the baby is human, it has now been denied the right to life, and it's existence is now dependent upon the whim of the individual carrying it.

    But...if the right to commit abortions was discovered, as you claim new rights are from time to time, then the mother has always had the right to commit abortion, and therefore the unborn baby's right to life never existed.

    Since the mother was at one time an unborn child herself, she herself never had the right to life.

    Since the science of life shows that the unborn fetus, from the moment of conception, is a genetically distinct individual, and physically distinct from the mother in that body fluids are not exchanged across the placenta, there is no naturally mile stone in the fetal development that says "human rights start here". Not a one, because the fetus is already human, from conception.

    So, the human fetus, which also has the "right to choose to commit abortion", since by the standards of the argument presented so far, exist independently of the individuals ability to exercise them or even understand them, is denied it's right to life...from the moment of conception to a legally defined and pretty much arbitrary condition, that of birth.

    How can, therefore a baby's right to life co-exist with the right someone else has to murder that same child?

    Answer: It cannot. The "right" to life is at present legally defined to allow the newly created "right to murder unborn babies" an existence for the convenience of a particular class of voters.

    And that is only possible because neither right is an absolute. instead, both are constructs of human law, and nothing but.
    They're gonna get you with that "Well a fetus isn't a person until..." line. Which then leads me to ask...At what stage in pregnancy do rights materialize?

  6. #156
    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: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No, measuring the energy output of a oil fired steam system driving turbogenerators is a quantitative measure of the validity of thermodynamics, and the measured outputs can be compared against thermodynamic theory. When results are found to be in conflict with the Laws of thermodynamics, it's the exeriment that's flawed. No experiment has ever successfully demonstrated a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy, it's not a good idea, it's the Law.
    It's quantitative measurement of the system. But not a direct probe of the law, that is inferred from the data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No, "rights" can be created, not "discovered".

    There's a difference.
    I know the difference, the wording was purposeful. The rights were discovered and acknowledged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Columbus discovered America, he didn't create the continents.

    Mothers create babies, they're not discovered.

    Let's assume the independent absolute existence of the right to life is an innate property of human individuals as you claim.

    In 1972 it was determined that women have a "right to choose to commit abortion" upon their unborn babies.

    Since the baby is human, it has now been denied the right to life, and it's existence is now dependent upon the whim of the individual carrying it.

    But...if the right to commit abortions was discovered, as you claim new rights are from time to time, then the mother has always had the right to commit abortion, and therefore the unborn baby's right to life never existed.

    Since the mother was at one time an unborn child herself, she herself never had the right to life.

    Since the science of life shows that the unborn fetus, from the moment of conception, is a genetically distinct individual, and physically distinct from the mother in that body fluids are not exchanged across the placenta, there is no naturally mile stone in the fetal development that says "human rights start here". Not a one, because the fetus is already human, from conception.

    So, the human fetus, which also has the "right to choose to commit abortion", since by the standards of the argument presented so far, exist independently of the individuals ability to exercise them or even understand them, is denied it's right to life...from the moment of conception to a legally defined and pretty much arbitrary condition, that of birth.

    How can, therefore a baby's right to life co-exist with the right someone else has to murder that same child?

    Answer: It cannot. The "right" to life is at present legally defined to allow the newly created "right to murder unborn babies" an existence for the convenience of a particular class of voters.

    And that is only possible because neither right is an absolute. instead, both are constructs of human law, and nothing but.
    As much of a tragedy abortion is; government force can suppress rights. We had slaves at one time too, we didn't recognize their rights as humans. Didn't mean they didn't have those rights, it meant force was used to suppress the exercise there of.
    Last edited by Ikari; 11-05-09 at 06:20 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."

  7. #157
    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 Ikari View Post
    As much of a tragedy abortion is; government force can suppress rights. We had slaves at one time too, we didn't recognize their rights as humans. Didn't mean they didn't have those rights, it meant force was used to suppress the exercise there of.
    I think they were like a 1/5 of a person or something like that.

    And yes it did mean they didn't have those rights. As a slave you have no "rights" unless they are given to you. That's what a slave is. Am I right or have I gotten lost in an old dictionary...

  8. #158
    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: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    I think they were like a 1/5 of a person or something like that.

    And yes it did mean they didn't have those rights. As a slave you have no "rights" unless they are given to you. That's what a slave is. Am I right or have I gotten lost in an old dictionary...
    Slaves do not have any of their rights recognized, nor are they free to exercise them. That is what makes them slaves. Freemen have their rights recognized and can freely exercise them at their leisure.
    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."

  9. #159
    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 EpicDude86 View Post
    They're gonna get you with that "Well a fetus isn't a person until..." line. Which then leads me to ask...At what stage in pregnancy do rights materialize?
    Yes, they're going to claim that a fetus isn't a person.

    Of course, I said "human", not person, but never mind that. The pro-aborts have to make that argument because the right to life cannot co-exist with the right to commit murder.

    So what do they always do? They start arguing the semanitcs of when being "human" is attached to the growing fetus, never admitting that it's human from conception. So, they use legal posturing to establish that rights are an absolute...by arbitrarily defining terms. I do not know what Ikari is going to say, though, I'm discussing generalities.

  10. #160
    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: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Yes, they're going to claim that a fetus isn't a person.

    Of course, I said "human", not person, but never mind that. The pro-aborts have to make that argument because the right to life cannot co-exist with the right to commit murder.

    So what do they always do? They start arguing the semanitcs of when being "human" is attached to the growing fetus, never admitting that it's human from conception. So, they use legal posturing to establish that rights are an absolute...by arbitrarily defining terms. I do not know what Ikari is going to say, though, I'm discussing generalities.
    I'd say that I'm pro-life in the strictest of senses (anti-death penalty and war as well). And I will also agree that the "personhood" argument is a dangerous one at that. Human is the best way to describe it as an unborn child is without doubt a human life. People want to argue privacy and property, but the end result is that I think some are perhaps upset at the inequality of biology and want to escape responsibility for life created. Though the exact topic of abortion may be a bit off target for this thread, which is broader implications on overall rights and their origin.
    Last edited by Ikari; 11-05-09 at 06:31 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."

Page 16 of 38 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •