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 26 of 38 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 377

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

  1. #251
    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
    You didn't prove anything.
    I proved that rights cannot be innate.

    That's all that was needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You intentionally mistake natural and lawful right to make a point.
    No I didn't.

    I purposely selected "rights" people possess today to demonstrate that natural rights can't exist, that they all are lawful rights.

    Just because it shatters the foundation of your belief system doesn't make it wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's why I stopped talking to you earlier.
    Yes, people have a habit of doing that when they lose the argument.

    Then they continue arguing with someone else on the same thread as if the rest haven't read of their defeat.

    Happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Intellectually dishonest debate gets us nowhere and I don't engage in it.
    Yes, when you lose, you stop debating and start pretending you haven't lost.

    That's pretty dishonest of you.

    But you're right. You don't engage in "intellectually dishonest debate", because you stopped debating at that point.

  2. #252
    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
    Example:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    Yes, we forced our government to recognize our rights, and in so doing the rights of the individual became constraints upon the government's power. The second amendment, however, did not make the right to keep and bear arms. It merely specifies that it may not be infringed upon.
    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. #253
    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
    Example:
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    This is a limit on the action of the government, not a limit on the actions of thje people, or a grant of a right.
    So, I am not sure what this is supposed to prove.

    Want a match for when you're done building your strawman?
    You said:
    Until the government existed, [the right] couldn't have limits placed on it.
    This -necessarily- means that the right pre-existed the government, as all government did was limit that right.

  4. #254
    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 Goobieman View Post
    Ok... and which "mutually contradictory 'rights'" were those?
    Still looking for an asnwer to this.

  5. #255
    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
    Yes, we forced our government to recognize our rights,
    No. We denied the government the power to control our ownership of guns.

    Just because a peice of paper says a right exists doesn't mean it's "natural", it means it's a limit placed on the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    and in so doing the rights of the individual became constraints upon the government's power.
    No.

    The constraints placed upon government was their statement of what they wanted their rights to be. In other words, they defined the limits they wanted on their government. Perfectly ouroboros.

    Where's the "natural" part in this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The second amendment, however, did not make the right to keep and bear arms. It merely specifies that it may not be infringed upon.
    Exactly.

    There was no pre-existing natural right to own firearms. That would imply that firearms existed before people, or were at least contemporary with humanity throughout all of human history. The flaw in that argument is that Brutus poked Caesar with a knife, and didn't shoot him, because he didn't have a gun.

  6. #256
    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
    I proved that rights cannot be innate.

    That's all that was needed.



    No I didn't.

    I purposely selected "rights" people possess today to demonstrate that natural rights can't exist, that they all are lawful rights.

    Just because it shatters the foundation of your belief system doesn't make it wrong.



    Yes, people have a habit of doing that when they lose the argument.

    Then they continue arguing with someone else on the same thread as if the rest haven't read of their defeat.

    Happens.



    Yes, when you lose, you stop debating and start pretending you haven't lost.

    That's pretty dishonest of you.

    But you're right. You don't engage in "intellectually dishonest debate", because you stopped debating at that point.
    It doesn't shatter anything. You flat out refuse any amount of consideration for natural rights, even given the base existence. When asked about it, you use probability of outcome to deny argument. Such as being able to be murdered means you don't have the right to life. It's all been about the deflect for you. Don't try to turn it around just because you're being called on your actions. You won't consider argument, you give flimsy argument back and purposefully confuse definitions to try to advance your point. You never once proved there is not a set of rights innate to humans. Keep lying all you want, keep misrepresenting all you want, but it's clear from your arguments that you've merely constructed straw man and knocked it down. That's not an impressive argument.

    Prove I don't have the right to defend myself
    Prove I don't have any just reason to protect my property, that if stolen or otherwise defaced that I don't have reason for restitution.
    Prove that I have no rightful objection to being enslaved.

    While legal rights may vary, and in fact can use the force of government to unjustly infringe upon some natural rights; there is a base to which all humans share the same right. Since we are all essentially the same creature. Life, liberty, and property are natural rights. Every man has right to his life, every man has right to the sweat of his brow, every man has right to his actions and thoughts. No amount of weaseling and definitions can change that.
    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. #257
    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?



    (I hope everyone sees the comedy that was intended in this and nothing else)

  8. #258
    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
    No. We denied the government the power to control our ownership of guns.

    Just because a peice of paper says a right exists doesn't mean it's "natural", it means it's a limit placed on the government.
    Nope, it doesn't mean it's a natural right. But the right to keep and bear arms comes directly from life, liberty, and property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No.

    The constraints placed upon government was their statement of what they wanted their rights to be. In other words, they defined the limits they wanted on their government. Perfectly ouroboros.

    Where's the "natural" part in this?
    The natural part is the understanding and accepting of our rights. We constructed a government to respect and protect those rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Exactly.

    There was no pre-existing natural right to own firearms. That would imply that firearms existed before people, or were at least contemporary with humanity throughout all of human history. The flaw in that argument is that Brutus poked Caesar with a knife, and didn't shoot him, because he didn't have a gun.
    No, there was pre-existing natural right to life, liberty, and property. The right to keep and bear arms is directly from all three of these things. And the importance of that right is the recognition that the sovereign is not the State, but the People and that the People must have the tools to defend life, liberty, and property from any threat including the government itself (as the founder's realized the innate dangers of government itself).

    It's a profound right which recognizes the full of the base of natural rights.
    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. #259
    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 doesn't shatter anything.
    Not physically.

    Since it demonstrated that rights can't be natural attributes of human beings, it shattered that notion quite completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You flat out refuse any amount of consideration for natural rights, even given the base existence.
    What do you think it means when a theory is proven false? Does one continue to use that theory to explain things, or does one move on to examine other theories that might still be valid?

    Okay, you want to continue using the theory of natural rights I've already shown to be false, and you're getting all emotional that I'm not using the theory of natural rights you like because I've already shown it to be wrong.

    What do you want from me, custard pi?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    When asked about it, you use probability of outcome to deny argument. Such as being able to be murdered means you don't have the right to life.
    Wrong.

    Try reading the arguments presented.

    A woman with the "right" to murder her baby means the baby can't have the right to life.

    That's different that what you're saying, which is that someone who commits murder that then faces legal sanctions deprives their victim of their life, not of their right to it. After all, if they didn't have the right to live, there'd be no basis for prosecuting the murder.

    Oh, wait. The LAW denies the unborn their right to life when it allows the incubator the "right" to kill that child. What the law can giveth, the law can taketh away, and if it wasn't the law that gave the child the right to life in the first place, it couldn't have taken it away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's all been about the deflect for you.
    No, it's all about the fact that the theory of natural rights is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Don't try to turn it around just because you're being called on your actions.
    Whatever.

    How about if you start discussing the actual arguments presented?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You won't consider argument,
    Sure I will.

    When will you provide any?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    you give flimsy argument back and purposefully confuse definitions to try to advance your point.
    You mean I'm using your definitions as provided.

    You're the one that claimed "not created, but discovered" when commenting on those fascinating newly minted rights emitted by our legislatures and courts.

    I'm merely pointing out the actually meaning of what you're claiming. So you're personally attacking the messenger because the message he brings is irrefutable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You never once proved there is not a set of rights innate to humans.
    Ya think?

    Gee, I wonder what "theory of natural rights is wrong" means?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Keep lying all you want,
    "Lying"?

    Just because your theory is proven wrong doesn't mean I'm a liar. It means my logic is more coherent than yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    keep misrepresenting all you want,
    Cite specific "misrepresentations".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    but it's clear from your arguments that you've merely constructed straw man and knocked it down. That's not an impressive argument.
    No, the impressive argument was where I used your own definitions to demolish your theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Prove I don't have the right to defend myself
    If Elias Gonzalez uncle had picked up a gun when the government stormed his home, he would have been shot dead and no legal repercussions would have accrued upon his killer. If the uncle did not die, he would have been subject to prosecution and almost certainly would have spent time in prison.

    Hence the law removed his "right" to defend himself.

    The can only do that because it's the law that allowed those rights in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Prove I don't have any just reason to protect my property, that if stolen or otherwise defaced that I don't have reason for restitution.
    The Constitution defines what the federal government is allowed to do. The federal government routinely exceeds these limits and all taxation above that required to finance constitutionally allowed programs is theft.

    Good luck on your restitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Prove that I have no rightful objection to being enslaved.
    What's "rights" got to do with your feelings or what you think?


    Under the US Constitution prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, slaves could object all they wanted to. And if they got too annoying, their owners could whip them mercilessly. The law didn't award slaves rights, but property owners had rights under the law.

    If a man has a right to own slaves, the slaves do not have the right to be not owned.

    It's really that simple.

    For your homework I suggest you start thinking about POWER, not rights.

    Power is what exists in the real world. The boot stamping on the human face forever imagery from 1984. The reality of Zyclone B. The gulag and the killing fields.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    While legal rights may vary, and in fact can use the force of government to unjustly infringe upon some natural rights;
    So you're saying abortion is an injustice?

    Oh! What you're saying is that there's a magical difference between right to life and right to control your own body. That one is inborn, the other is granted by the government. But isn't the right to not be a slave the essence of the right to control your own body? There are natural limits on the right to control your own body so that it isn't a contradiction to have a right to control your body so you can kill someone else, thereby depriving them of their life, hence violating their right to life?

    Good luck with that.

    Honest people admit that theories presenting essential inescapable incompatible and mutually contradictory conclusions cannot be valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    there is a base to which all humans share the same right. Since we are all essentially the same creature. Life, liberty, and property are natural rights.
    So which right is "right"? The right to liberty or the right to own property, ie, slaves?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Every man has right to his life
    You mean the government should be forbidden from killing him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    every man has right to the sweat of his brow,
    I'm sure the slave owners didn't steal their property's sweat, not from his brow, not from his pits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    every man has right to his actions and thoughts.
    What if his action is to pull a trigger on a fully-automatic rifle in a crowded mall?

    What about hate-crime laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No amount of weaseling and definitions can change that.
    You mean besides the fact that it isn't true, that you're using your definition of natural rights to present examples of natural rights to support your definition in a purely circular fashion?

  10. #260
    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 natural part is the understanding and accepting of our rights. We constructed a government to respect and protect those rights.
    We constructed a government to protect what our freedoms. That does not prove "natural rights" exist. The government was engineered to satisfy the desires of the people of the time, irrespective of the reality of "natural rights" or not.

    (Yawn)

Page 26 of 38 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •