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 24 of 38 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 377

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

  1. #231
    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
    I did point you to one such case, you just don't want to pay attention. If you want to go look at the text of the case, Google is your friend. I provided one source, there are many, many, many more.
    After a full weekend, I still don't see your citations of text from US federal or state laws. In this, you;re like a '77 Mustang -- All show and no go...

    Now, cite the txt that grants the rights, or admit you cannot.

  2. #232
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Amendment Nine.
    What part of the text GRANTS the rights mentioned therein?

  3. #233
    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
    No, I want evidence that this so-called moral concept is factually true.
    Likewise.
    Otherwise, it's just a bunch of mindless, fanatical handwaving nonsense.

  4. #234
    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?

    The proving natural rights things is a little ridiculous though. Because it's a product of intelligence and philosophy. You may as well ask to prove love. By defining the argument in a particular manner, one can try to subvert the whole of the discussion without entertaining in the least the arguments of the other side. Yet much of our advancement, even in the realm of science, has been pushed heavily by philosophy and abstract ideals are an important part of the human race. Without philosophy, we wouldn't have advanced as far, it was these thoughts and ideals which really took hold and pushed further exploration. With such real world results, no one can doubt the power of philosophy or merely dismiss without effort some of the more important ideals proposed by such.

    While legal "rights" vary from society to society, at the base all society is created by humans. Either humans are the same or society itself defines varying sub-species of human. If humans are all the same in the end, then there must be a common set of base rights which exist within all of us. Rejecting natural rights says that humans are a product of their individual habitation alone, that we can in fact be very different on the most basic of levels. It doesn't seem rational to me that humans are different depending on where we are from. Thoughts of that can very easily excuse things such as slavery. Instead, by examining the free nature of man it's easy to see that at heart, while legal "rights" can vary, there is a base which is inherent to us all. A man is entitled to his life, he is entitled to the sweat of his brow, he is entitled to decided for himself his actions and choices, in short; life, liberty, and property are a base by which all humans are entitled their right to. As for any concrete "proof", well prove any abstract in that context. Calling for "proof" is pointless, not because natural rights are not real but rather because of nature of what rights are and how we discover them.

    Though it would be interesting for me to know if people who do not believe in natural rights believe in other abstracts or products of philosophy or even gods.
    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."

  5. #235
    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
    you;re like a '77 Mustang -- All show and no go...
    BWAHAHAHA! Someone just got F-Body'd

  6. #236
    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 proving natural rights things is a little ridiculous though. Because it's a product of intelligence and philosophy. You may as well ask to prove love. By defining the argument in a particular manner, one can try to subvert the whole of the discussion without entertaining in the least the arguments of the other side. Yet much of our advancement, even in the realm of science, has been pushed heavily by philosophy and abstract ideals are an important part of the human race. Without philosophy, we wouldn't have advanced as far, it was these thoughts and ideals which really took hold and pushed further exploration. With such real world results, no one can doubt the power of philosophy or merely dismiss without effort some of the more important ideals proposed by such.

    While legal "rights" vary from society to society, at the base all society is created by humans. Either humans are the same or society itself defines varying sub-species of human. If humans are all the same in the end, then there must be a common set of base rights which exist within all of us. Rejecting natural rights says that humans are a product of their individual habitation alone, that we can in fact be very different on the most basic of levels. It doesn't seem rational to me that humans are different depending on where we are from. Thoughts of that can very easily excuse things such as slavery. Instead, by examining the free nature of man it's easy to see that at heart, while legal "rights" can vary, there is a base which is inherent to us all. A man is entitled to his life, he is entitled to the sweat of his brow, he is entitled to decided for himself his actions and choices, in short; life, liberty, and property are a base by which all humans are entitled their right to. As for any concrete "proof", well prove any abstract in that context. Calling for "proof" is pointless, not because natural rights are not real but rather because of nature of what rights are and how we discover them.

    Though it would be interesting for me to know if people who do not believe in natural rights believe in other abstracts or products of philosophy or even gods.
    One can prove the existence of atoms.

    One can't prove the existence of "natural rights".

    However, since I've already proven that 'rights' can be mutually contradictory, I have proven that 'rights' are not natural, but human sociological constructs.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 11-09-09 at 01:41 PM.

  7. #237
    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 can prove the existence of atoms.

    One can't prove the existence of "natural rights".
    One cannot prove "love", one cannot prove gods; yet we accept these things as real. Concepts of science and engineering have their roots in philosophy. Just because there's no "rights meter" doesn't mean that we can't argue for the existence of natural rights or discover a basis on which they could exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    However, since I've already proven that 'rights' can be mutually contradictory, I have proven that 'rights' are not natural, but human sociological constructs.
    The understanding and acknowledgment of rights is a product of rational thought and intelligence. It is not replicated in nature outside of humans as no other animal has the intelligence and extelligence of humans.
    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."

  8. #238
    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
    One cannot prove "love", one cannot prove gods; yet we accept these things as real.
    Love is an emotion, which are chemically created influences on the brain.

    Gods don't exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Concepts of science and engineering have their roots in philosophy.
    Only because at one time science was called "natural philosophy".

    Really, and trust me on this, airplane wings generate lift solely because of their shape and the movement of air across their surfaces, and they care about neither Calvin nor Hobbes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Just because there's no "rights meter" doesn't mean that we can't argue for the existence of natural rights or discover a basis on which they could exist.
    Right.

    We can't argue about the existence of natural rights because I've already proven they can't exist because it's possible to construct pairs of mutually exclusive rights.

    Matter and anti-matter can exist only so long as they're kept apart, rights and anti-rights can't exist in the same person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The understanding and acknowledgment of rights is a product of rational thought and intelligence. It is not replicated in nature outside of humans as no other animal has the intelligence and extelligence of humans.
    Yes.

    Humans can invent things that never before existed that aren't part of their natural evolutionary heritage.

    Pacemakers, for one example.

    Rights, for another.

    "extelligence"

    Why not "outelligence" or "uptelligence" or "insideouttelligence"?
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 11-09-09 at 02:05 PM.

  9. #239
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    We can't argue about the existence of natural rights because I've already proven they can't exist because it's possible to construct pairs of mutually exclusive rights.
    What was the example that proved this?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-09-09 at 02:19 PM.

  10. #240
    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
    Gods don't exist.
    In the Land of Live In-Home Entertainment, I am a God

Page 24 of 38 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •