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 19 of 38 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 377

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

  1. #181
    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
    Constitution'd
    Though the only part I could think of remotely like this would be Article IV Sec. 2.
    And -that- is only barely remotely close.

  2. #182
    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
    And -that- is only barely remotely close.
    Yeah, it has more to do with the rights of extradition lol. Not really a right I want to have imposed on me LOL

  3. #183
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I'll give you something very simple to do then:
    Cite the text of the US Constitution that grants the people of the United States their rights.
    Interesting how you mention only the Constitution and not, for instance, the Bill of Rights. That's like saying "show me in Harry Potter where the founding fathers granted rights". If you only allow documents where you know it wasn't done, you can't declare victory.
    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!

  4. #184
    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
    Interesting how you mention only the Constitution and not, for instance, the Bill of Rights.
    All of the amendments, including the Bill of Rights, being amendments to the Constituion, are part of the Constitution, necesitating no seperate mention.

    So...
    Cite the text of the US Constitution that grants the people of the United States their rights.

  5. #185
    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 Cephus View Post
    Interesting how you mention only the Constitution and not, for instance, the Bill of Rights. That's like saying "show me in Harry Potter where the founding fathers granted rights". If you only allow documents where you know it wasn't done, you can't declare victory.
    Not to take sides, but the Bill of Rights and other Amendments are amendments to the Constitution so I guess they would qualify as part of it? Since, for example I think it's the 12th Amendment effectively nullifies some text inside the original Constitution.

    Living document, etc.

    It's all in how you word stuff around here. lol.

  6. #186
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    You have proven the laws of thermodynamics from first principle! Wow, since it's never been done before, color me impressed. Can I see these proofs?
    We've shown you that the laws of thermodynamics have application and are testable, let's see you give that a try for your view of rights. What you're basically doing is saying "Aha! I think there are magical rights-giving pixies and if you can't solve Pi to the last digit, I must be right!" Like it or not, the laws of thermodynamics and rights have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You have the responsibility to back up your claims. Even if we could not in any way, shape or form defend the laws of thermodynamics, that doesn't alter your responsibility to support your claims on rights.

    Get to work or admit failure.

    You're defining "rights" through utility.
    No, I'm using the only manner we can actually use to defend and give evidence for them. If you want to define them another way, demonstrate that your way has any actual realistic application. You don't get to just define things into existence on your say so. Put up or shut up.

    Then, even if you still don't agree, you can maybe be less of an ass about it.
    And when can we expect you to stop?
    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!

  7. #187
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Not to take sides, but the Bill of Rights and other Amendments are amendments to the Constitution so I guess they would qualify as part of it? Since, for example I think it's the 12th Amendment effectively nullifies some text inside the original Constitution.

    Living document, etc.

    It's all in how you word stuff around here. lol.
    Yes, I know, but I'm just pointing out that he's taking a particular document, which doesn't represent the whole of American law, and expecting everything to come from that one specific document. Perhaps using the Bill of Rights wasn't a good choice, but I've honestly had some people claim that the Bill of Rights and other founding documents are not sufficient because they fall outside of their particular narrow view of things.
    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. #188
    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
    Yes, I know, but I'm just pointing out that he's taking a particular document, which doesn't represent the whole of American law, and expecting everything to come from that one specific document.
    Were you going to cite the text of the US Constitution that grants the people of the United States their rights, or not?

    If you like, you can also cite from federal law, state constitutions, and state law as well.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-06-09 at 04:24 PM.

  9. #189
    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 Cephus View Post
    We've shown you that the laws of thermodynamics have application and are testable, let's see you give that a try for your view of rights. What you're basically doing is saying "Aha! I think there are magical rights-giving pixies and if you can't solve Pi to the last digit, I must be right!" Like it or not, the laws of thermodynamics and rights have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You have the responsibility to back up your claims. Even if we could not in any way, shape or form defend the laws of thermodynamics, that doesn't alter your responsibility to support your claims on rights.

    Get to work or admit failure.
    You either can't understand or refuse to understand the point. You want definite proof of the origin of rights. Well first off, you have never provided definitive proof of your position. You've merely stated I was wrong and used examples of functionality to try to advance your case. Secondly, thermodynamics cannot be proven from first principle, they are based on observation. Which if we take the laws of thermodynamics to be true that observation can lead to revelation and we can then phenomenologically model said observation. Which is the point here. Definitive proof, there's probably nothing you could offer me or I could offer you to satisfy that point. Thus we can make observation and model ideas and theories off of that observation. The absolute nature of rights is made in that light. We've observed humans for quite some time, and in doing so we can discover the base rights which are innate and inalienable to people at large. It's a large part of what is covered by the ideals of natural rights.

    All you really did is say that I'm wrong, demand proof, but don't hold yourself to your own standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, I'm using the only manner we can actually use to defend and give evidence for them. If you want to define them another way, demonstrate that your way has any actual realistic application. You don't get to just define things into existence on your say so. Put up or shut up.
    You are doing the same god damned thing. Why do you get to do it, but I can't? The hypocrisy coming from you is getting annoying. You've defined "rights" in some way. You've defined privilege and social contract as rights. You've provided nothign to back up your claims. You don't get to just define things into existence on your say so. Put up or shut up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    And when can we expect you to stop?
    You from the start have acted condescending and rude towards my ideals. Again, hold yourself to the standards you're tying to hold me to. I've explained my position of natural rights, even given you a direction to which you could learn more. You've provided nothing for your claims other than saying I'm wrong. Put up or shut up.
    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."

  10. #190
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    You want definite proof of the origin of rights.
    I want some kind of logical justification for your claims and evidence and well-reasoned arguments that demonstrate that they are at all likely to be true. That's not so much to ask for.

    All you've been doing is running around waving your arms screaming "I'm right I'm right I'm right I'm right I'm right I'm right!" When people ask you to prove it, you keep running in circles screaming "I'm right I'm right I'm right I'm right!" That doesn't demonstrate your case, it just proves you don't have one.

    You from the start have acted condescending and rude towards my ideals.
    That's because you've never demonstrated one whit that your ideals are valid. Just because you make some crap up and spout it doesn't mean it deserves respect. You have not once justified your ideals and when people have directly asked you to defend them, you've ignored them. If anything, you've proven that your ideals are not worthy of respect.

    You want to believe stupid, unsupported, nonsensical crap, go ahead. I'll just be sure to point it out as what it is: stupid, unsupported, nonsensical crap. You can change that by actually SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIMS!

    That's what rational people do.
    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!

Page 19 of 38 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... 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
  •