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 17 of 38 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 377

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

  1. #161
    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
    It's quantitative measurement of the system. But not a direct probe of the law, that is inferred from the data.
    It's a direct probe of the law. What, are you assuming that the Laws of Thermodynamics must be PROVED? That's not how science works. Science works by the process of elimination, the bad theories are shown to be fatally flawed and discarded. That's what quantitative experimentation is for, to enable the scientist to distinguish which theories best fit the facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I know the difference, the wording was purposeful. The rights were discovered and acknowledged.
    Then you're simply wrong, as I showed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    As much of a tragedy abortion is; government force can suppress rights.
    Nope, not what I said.

    The GOVERNMENT, to use your word, "discovered" the right to commit abortion.

    Do you deny the existence of this right? Yes or no.

    If you affirm the "discovery" of this right, and you claim humans have the right to life, how do you reconcile the existence of mutually contradictory rights?

    Is the mother's right to murder her unborn child superior? The law today certainly says that the case.

    Yet, if the child's right to life is inferior to the mother's right to commit murder upon her baby, did the child ever have the the right to live in the first place?

    The answer to that must be "no", because contradictory rights can't exist.

    Only if the unborn child is protected by law from murder by her mother can it be said to have a right to life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We had slaves at one time too, we didn't recognize their rights as humans.
    Right.

    White people at one time had the right to own black people.

    White people lost the freedom to exercise that right.

    Do white people still have the right to own black people?

    According to your arguments, a supressed right still exists regardless of the individual's ability to express it.

    However, since the blacks have the right to be their owners of their own bodies, how is this supposed right to own black people reconciled with the black person's right to own his own body?

    Answer: The right to own black people was a fiction of the law during a certain period of history, and the right of black people and white people to own their own bodies is a legal fiction of this time, and in future times the roles can be reversed or changed in any way possible. Because its the law that exists, and the laws define the rights contained within it.

    There are no innate rights.

  2. #162
    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?

    There was never a "right" to own another human. There was bigotry and force employed to suppress the rights of a certain group based on superficial qualities, but that's about it.
    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."

  3. #163
    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
    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.
    The topic was introduced for illustrative purposes and shouldn't hijack the discussion of rights, I hope.

    Also, I'm not using "you" or "your" to indicate any sense of your personal views, since I didn't know them. I'm merely arguing that the application of the concept of rights as absolute properties introduces irreconciable conflicts in the logic, which means the logic of the innateness of "rights" is flawed. Hence rights are not innate properties of human beings.

  4. #164
    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
    There was never a "right" to own another human. There was bigotry and force employed to suppress the rights of a certain group based on superficial qualities, but that's about it.
    Yes there was.

    The Dredd Scott decision affirmed that slaves were property and that merely conveying slaves from a slave state to a non-slave state did not alter their status as property and thus could not be removed from their owners without due process.

    Owners have the right to own property.

    Slaves were property.

    Ergo, the owners of slaves possessed the right to own slaves.

    Since your postulate is that rights are innate, then slave owners had an innate right to own slaves.

    Then slavery was ended.

    So slaves not only were not property, they were no longer slaves.

    So other people were no longer allowed to exercise their innate right to own slaves.

    Do they or do they not still possess that innate right to own slaves, or was that right snuffed out by legal and military action?

  5. #165
    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
    There was never a "right" to own another human. There was bigotry and force employed to suppress the rights of a certain group based on superficial qualities, but that's about it.

    Most of History might disagree with you, so...at what point did it stop being a right? When most of civilization accepted it as immoral?

  6. #166
    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 there was.

    The Dredd Scott decision affirmed that slaves were property and that merely conveying slaves from a slave state to a non-slave state did not alter their status as property and thus could not be removed from their owners without due process.

    Owners have the right to own property.

    Slaves were property.

    Ergo, the owners of slaves possessed the right to own slaves.

    Since your postulate is that rights are innate, then slave owners had an innate right to own slaves.

    Then slavery was ended.

    So slaves not only were not property, they were no longer slaves.

    So other people were no longer allowed to exercise their innate right to own slaves.

    Do they or do they not still possess that innate right to own slaves, or was that right snuffed out by legal and military action?
    I think we've reached the end road. You refuse to listen and try to at least understand in some way my argument. This written here is clear indication of just that. You have confused issues to misrepresent my point. As it has been rather stubbornly demonstrated by you in this thread that this is the behavior you choose, we're done. Spinning wheels gets us nowhere and I have much better things to do with my time than to slam my head against a brick wall repeatedly.

    If you choose to engage in honest, open debate to try to understand at least in some part where I am coming from; perhaps we can pick it up there. Till then, there's nothing else I can write to promote this debate in a healthy and meaningful manner. It's up to you.
    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. #167
    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
    I think we've reached the end road. You refuse to listen and try to at least understand in some way my argument. This written here is clear indication of just that. You have confused issues to misrepresent my point. As it has been rather stubbornly demonstrated by you in this thread that this is the behavior you choose, we're done. Spinning wheels gets us nowhere and I have much better things to do with my time than to slam my head against a brick wall repeatedly.

    If you choose to engage in honest, open debate to try to understand at least in some part where I am coming from; perhaps we can pick it up there. Till then, there's nothing else I can write to promote this debate in a healthy and meaningful manner. It's up to you.

    Well you kinda come off the same way. Neither of you are listening to the other one's side, you're just refuting it. It's fun to watch though, I'll give you that. I'm learning lots.

  8. #168
    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
    Well you kinda come off the same way. Neither of you are listening to the other one's side, you're just refuting it. It's fun to watch though, I'll give you that. I'm learning lots.
    No, I understand perfectly the other side. They define rights through utility and functionality. Ideals and laws of societies change, as they change the perceived rights of those people change as well. What was a right at some point loses the status when enough of society rejects that notion as a right. We have the right to bear arms because enough people have agreed that it is a right and it's guaranteed, we can exercise it. If people change their mind and laws to prohibit gun ownership are established, the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

    I simply disagree with the floppy definition of rights, and instead root them in the human race. All humans have the same base rights; everything stems from life, liberty, and property.
    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. #169
    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
    No, I understand perfectly the other side. They define rights through utility and functionality. Ideals and laws of societies change, as they change the perceived rights of those people change as well. What was a right at some point loses the status when enough of society rejects that notion as a right. We have the right to bear arms because enough people have agreed that it is a right and it's guaranteed, we can exercise it. If people change their mind and laws to prohibit gun ownership are established, the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

    I simply disagree with the floppy definition of rights, and instead root them in the human race. All humans have the same base rights; everything stems from life, liberty, and property.
    The floppy definition of rights IS indeed the problem here in this conversation.

    Define these base rights for me? Because I'm assuming most of what you're going to list would be contrary to some basic human instincts.

  10. #170
    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
    I think we've reached the end road. You refuse to listen and try to at least understand in some way my argument.
    I have listened.

    I do understand your argument.

    It's not my fault you're wrong.

    I've presented clear logic demonstrating the flaws in your argument.

    When are you going to present the flaws in the logic, of which there are none?


    Your point is that rights are innate, and that people still have those rights when their expression of them is suppressed by abusive government.

    I presented two separate examples of systems of mutually exclusive rights and you've refused to address either scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If you choose to engage in honest, open debate to try to understand at least in some part where I am coming from; perhaps we can pick it up there. Till then, there's nothing else I can write to promote this debate in a healthy and meaningful manner. It's up to you.
    If you wish to resign from the debate you've lost, please submit your request in more transparent phrasing.

    If you wish to continue the discussion, try discussing the points I've been making. Repeatedly insisting that rights are innate while refusing to acknowledge the multiple examples demonstrating the falsity of that claim that have been presented is not how you conduct a .... ummm...what did you say?...oh, yeah, an "honest, open debate".

    I comprehend your position.

    It's false.

    It's been demonstrated to be false.

    Rights are legal constructs, not innate possessions of individuals of the species.

Page 17 of 38 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •