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 21 of 38 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 377

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

  1. #201
    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 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.
    Amendment Nine.

  2. #202
    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
    Rights are innate and inalienable to humans.
    Like what? Examples? More looking for a why and how they are inalienable.

    also, Comic relief:

    Last edited by EpicDude86; 11-06-09 at 07:10 PM.

  3. #203
    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
    The idea of natural rights is not new. I didn't make it up. It was subject of debate for some time, and codified in many political philosophies such as those proposed by Hobbes and Locke.
    Just because the idea is old doesn't make it right.

    Again.

    You claimed rights are innate and always exist.

    I provided two examples illustrating how this leads to irreconciliable contradictions and some "rights" of today cannot have always existed and that they trump pre-existing rights. Ergo, rights are not innate, they are not eternal, and they're nothing but man made constructs defining human relationships.

    The existence of the mother's right to murder babies alienates the right of the baby to live.

    The right of the baby to live alienates the right of the mother to murder the baby.

    Which one is innate, when either trumps the other?
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 11-06-09 at 07:18 PM.

  4. #204
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Just because the idea is old doesn't make it right.

    Again.

    You claimed rights are innate and always exist.

    I provided two examples illustrating how this leads to irreconciliable contradictions and some "rights" of today cannot have always existed and that they trump pre-existing rights. Ergo, rights are not innate, they are not eternal, and they're nothing but man made constructs defining human relationships.

    The existence of the mother's right to murder babies alienates the right of the baby to live.

    The right of the baby to live alienates the right of the mother to murder the baby.

    Which one is innate, when either trumps the other?
    It is important to remember that even though there is no "unalienable rights" for the individual, because there is circumstances when any protection of an individual should be violated. As people are talking about rights in this discussion, I get the impression it involves that the rights can not be violated under any circumstances.

    For the extreme, protecting all people's rights except for one always trumpts protecting the rights of one individual.


    This means that "rights" exist, but only in that there is protections for individuals that should be promoted for as many people as possible.

    So even if life isn't a right for an indvidiual for all circumstances, the only time that life for someone is violated is only to protect the rights of someone else. Death penalty as punnishment for violating someone's else's right to their own life.
    Last edited by nerv14; 11-07-09 at 12:28 AM.

  5. #205
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-03-11 @ 03:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    174

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

    Nobody has the "right" to goods and services that are the result of others labor unless they have the ability to pay for those goods and services.

    If you claim to have the "right" to take and use the services of the doctor, but you do not have the ability to pay said doctor, then that is nothing more than stealing. By extension, you do not have the "right" to confiscate the results of my labor (taxation) to provide those goods and services to someone else. By doing so you are depriving me the "right" to benefit from the results of my labor and by extension you are depriving me of my "right" to provide for my family and better their lives (pursuit of happiness).

    Ideally, we should abolish most health insurance and just expand the idea of Health Savings accounts with high deductible catastrophic policies. This would encourage better usage of the health services and would also reinforce the importance of saving for emergencies.

    If I get hurt, I promise not to burden any of you with the cost of my care. If I can't afford it, I will not ask for it. Period.

    Now, if everyone else would just do the same.

  6. #206
    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 1 Easy Target View Post
    If I get hurt, I promise not to burden any of you with the cost of my care. If I can't afford it, I will not ask for it. Period.
    Just for that, I'd donate some spare change if you got hurt.

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I never said you made it up, I said you can't justify it. Neither could Hobbes or Locke. Just because someone says something, even if it's a philosopher, that still doesn't make it so.

    Now I'm still waiting for your EVIDENCE that rights exist outside of human society.
    You want evidence that a moral concept exists? What kind of a stupid question is that?

  8. #208
    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 Ethereal View Post
    You want evidence that a moral concept exists? What kind of a stupid question is that?
    I believe it can be answereded! A Moral Concept DOES exist. It's an abstract idea. It's been noted and passed on. now is there are concrete evidence of morals? Eh...not really, 'cept for those who choose to practice morality.

  9. #209
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

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

    The right to -not- exercise a right?
    Abortion is a good example; it is a right.
    Males and non-pregnant females don't have the capacity to exercise this right, although they still have it.
    Pregnant females do have the capacity to exercise this right, although they certainly have the right not to.

  10. #210
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The Laws of Thermodynamics are taken as Law because they've never been observed to have been broken.

    Your assertion that rights are innate has been shown false by the existence of mutually exclusive rights, thereby creating paradox. Paradox does not exist in nature, and hence your claim that rights are innate has been proven false.

    Your choices now are to provide an argument that invalidates the proof, you concede defeat, or you pretend the proof was wrong and none of us evil people are LISTENING, DAMMIT!




    Merely restating your hypothesis is not proof of the hypothesis.

    Circular reasoning is failed reasoning.
    There is no such thing as mutually exclusive rights. Negative individual liberties, by their very definition, cannot be defined as such if they exclude the rightful exercise of another's liberty. Jefferson already came up with the perfect litmus test:

    Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

    Jefferson on Politics & Government: Inalienable Rights

Page 21 of 38 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •