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 23 of 38 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 377

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

  1. #221
    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 EpicDude86 View Post
    Like there's concrete evidence of behaviors and other naturally occuring 'phenomena'.

    I think we're saying something similar here?
    I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean.

    I agree that "morals" only exist in the abstract but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Triangles only exist in the abstract but that doesn't mean we deny their existence, or ask for evidence of their existence.

    It's still a theory, created by man's mind. But yeah, I see where you're going with this.
    Well, yes, I agree that it's largely subjective but so are all moral precepts. That doesn't mean they aren't logical. Natural rights theory comes to a moral conclusion (which is largely subjective) but that conclusion is based upon biological and psychological axioms (which are largely objective).

    So, you can disagree with the morality of the conclusions, but I don't know why anyone would. I mean, do you think that people living in accordance with their wills is immoral?
    Last edited by Ethereal; 11-07-09 at 06:43 PM.

  2. #222
    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
    I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean.

    I agree that "morals" only exist in the abstract but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Triangles only exist in the abstract but that doesn't mean we deny their existence, or ask for evidence of their existence.



    Well, yes, I agree that it's largely subjective but so are all moral precepts. That doesn't mean they aren't logical. Natural rights theory comes to a moral conclusion (which is largely subjective) but that conclusion is based upon biological and psychological axioms (which are largely objective).

    So, you can disagree with the morality of the conclusions, but I don't know why anyone would. I mean, do you think that people living in accordance with their wills is immoral?


    I guess the best way to describe it would be that morals don't occur naturally and isn't observable naturally as something like rainfall, an aurora borealis, or an animal's instincts maybe? I'm just confusing myself now lol. I do that a lot when I over-analyze.

  3. #223
    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 Ethereal View Post
    How does one prove a moral concept to be "factually true"? Can you prove that raping children is "factually immoral"?
    Morality, like rights, is an entirely socially-derived concept. Without humanity, there are no such things. I never claimed raping children is "factually immoral", in fact I'd say in no uncertain terms that it is not. However, in our society, we have subjectively determined that we will accept that raping children is unacceptable and against the law and that those who engage in such will be punished.

    But that doesn't change anything for the people who would claim that raping children is "factually immoral", they'd be expected to back it up, just like the people who think rights exist outside of the social order. If they cannot, then their claims about morality or rights are simply false.
    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. #224
    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
    How does one prove a moral concept to be "factually true"? Can you prove that raping children is "factually immoral"?
    Not unless you use the Moral set from our Society as your facts.

  5. #225
    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
    Morality, like rights, is an entirely socially-derived concept. Without humanity, there are no such things.
    How is morality entirely derived from society when ideas can only originate from individuals? Additionally, your logic dictates that society and humanity don't really exist either, so why even mention them?

    I never claimed raping children is "factually immoral"...
    I never said you did. I just asked you a question.

    ...in fact I'd say in no uncertain terms that it is not.
    Then you're a nihilist. Raping children is immoral. I don't care what kind of convoluted nonsense you conjure up in an attempt to win a stupid internet argument but raping children is just immoral and there's no intellectual wiggle room. If you're going to suggest otherwise then you've already proven how silly you are.

    However, in our society, we have subjectively determined that we will accept that raping children is unacceptable and against the law and that those who engage in such will be punished.
    And how did society (which doesn't actually exist) arrive at this conclusion? I mean, what's the rationale for it? Do you just agree with things because society says so?

    Also, society has already subjectively determined the morality of natural rights. It's the philosophical cornerstone of our Republic. So I guess that means it exists, according to your logic.

    But that doesn't change anything for the people who would claim that raping children is "factually immoral", they'd be expected to back it up, just like the people who think rights exist outside of the social order. If they cannot, then their claims about morality or rights are simply false.
    Show me factual evidence of a triangle's existence.

  6. #226
    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?

    Then you're a nihilist. Raping children is immoral.
    But in other societies, in other times, it was not considered "immoral".
    It was considered perfectly okay.
    The point is that morals are relative to the time and place.

  7. #227
    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 1069 View Post
    But in other societies, in other times, it was not considered "immoral".
    It was considered perfectly okay.
    The point is that morals are relative to the time and place.
    Moral Relativity. Morals = Time/'Square' People


    Get it, that's a joke.


    We can try and define morality and society til we're blue in the face...Instead of what we're doing, which I can see is like trying to find Wonder Woman's plane at night, Let's apply default morality, or our own morality, to some examples of times that one would exercise, or not exercise, a right, regardless of where the right came from.


    Like, seeing a car crash. What are you responsible for for reporting or doing?

    Or if you see someone drowning.

  8. #228
    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 Ethereal
    How is morality entirely derived from society when ideas can only originate from individuals?
    Society is a collection of individuals. Don't tell me you didn't know that.

    Then you're a nihilist.
    Hardly, and if I was, that doesn't mean squat.

    Raping children is immoral.
    I entirely agree with you, I just disagree where that morality comes from. You think that morality comes from some outside source, apparently, I recognize that it comes from the people as a generally agreed-upon set of standards to which the members of society will be held. That doesn't stop individual people from disagreeing with the moral standards, as codified in law, that's why we have pedophiles and sex offenders.

    I don't care what kind of convoluted nonsense you conjure up in an attempt to win a stupid internet argument but raping children is just immoral and there's no intellectual wiggle room.
    That's the problem, you don't care about the justification, you just care about stomping your feet and demanding you're right. You have no logical basis for your claims, you just want to be right without having to defend yourself.

    Also, society has already subjectively determined the morality of natural rights.
    Prove natural rights exist at all. Back up your claim. Do something for crying out loud.

    Show me factual evidence of a triangle's existence.
    It can be defined and represented. I can point to a triangle and explain why it is a triangle. Do that with natural rights.

    Come on, stop running away from direct questions and ANSWER THEM!
    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. #229
    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
    It can be defined and represented. I can point to a triangle and explain why it is a triangle. Do that with natural rights.
    Well...ok...

    *points at head* These are my natural rights. Well, they're IN there. They are electrical signals stored in my brain and translated to English when necessary, then subsequently into words or thoughts about what I have the right to do, own, or am entitled to. There are scientific studies, videos, and graphs representing how this process works.


  10. #230
    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 teamosil View Post
    No, not neccesarily. For example, you have the right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to refuse to bear arms if you get drafted.
    Induction into the military via selective serivce has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

    Or, you have the right to free speech, but you do not have a right to remain silent, for example, if you know that someone committed a murder.
    Sure you do -- there's nothing that requires you to report a murder, or any other crime. As was noted to me, misprision of a felony is not a crime any any state (unless that's changed recently), and for federal crimes, it requires actual concealment, not merely failure to report it.

    You can be be forced to the witness stand, but you can only be forced to testfy if the testomony does not incriminate you.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-09-09 at 12:34 PM.

Page 23 of 38 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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
  •