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 29 of 38 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 377

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

  1. #281
    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
    Seriously, you don't really think this answers my question, do you?

    I asked you "Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government" and your respons is... government?

    Please try harder next time.
    Certainly does.

    Freedoms the fulfillment of behavioral desires.

    That's it.

    Governments protect them, or crush them, as circumstances have it.

    There's nothing magical about "freedom". Sea cucumbers are free, too.

  2. #282
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The peasant who uses his pitchfork to kill the prince raping his daughter doesn't have the right to do that. Just ask the king who orders him drawn and quartered.

    You may FEEL the peasant had the right to do this, from your 21st century perspective, but since he wasn't strong enough to place limits on his government, the king, he didn't have that right. He only had emotions and desires.
    Just wow... the individual does not have the ability to place limits on a king, which is why he's a peasant. The rights of the individual are not supplanted by a king or any other man mad or invented decree - it's inherent in all men regardless of their station, color, creed, etc. This is why uprisings did occur and were not based on just emotion but many were desires - desires to remove the oppression of one's people. Talk to the Irish, Scots, and French (ie. Revolution), as well as American revolution.

    You must read up on your history and you'll see many who rose up against their monarchs not for greed or want of higher position, but for literally - freedom.

  3. #283
    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 Ockham View Post
    Just wow... the individual does not have the ability to place limits on a king, which is why he's a peasant. The rights of the individual are not supplanted by a king or any other man mad or invented decree - it's inherent in all men regardless of their station, color, creed, etc. This is why uprisings did occur and were not based on just emotion but many were desires - desires to remove the oppression of one's people. Talk to the Irish, Scots, and French (ie. Revolution), as well as American revolution.

    You must read up on your history and you'll see many who rose up against their monarchs not for greed or want of higher position, but for literally - freedom.
    So you believe that simply restating the proposition that's already been disproven somehow magically erases argument showing the proposition false?

    Well, have fun with that.

    People create their rights and their protection from their king by sticking a whole lot of knights with pitchforks until it's more profitable for the king to grant their wishes than it is to keep killing the peasants who can't work the fields if they're dead.

    That's how human rights have historically been invented and defended.

  4. #284
    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
    Certainly does.
    Freedom [is] the fulfillment of behavioral desires.
    Yes. But this is NOT the answer you originally gave me.
    Thank you for trying harder -- I knew you could do it.

  5. #285
    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
    Yes. But this is NOT the answer you originally gave me.
    Thank you for trying harder -- I knew you could do it.

    Yeah, I didn't think it was necessary for me to do your thinking for you.

    You proved me wrong.

    Congratulations, that doesn't happen often.

  6. #286
    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
    Yeah, I didn't think it was necessary for me to do your thinking for you.
    Maybe you ought to stop worrying about others and start thinking for yourself -- there was nothing in your orignal asnwer that logically leads to your second asnwer.

  7. #287
    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
    Keep building those strawmen. It seems to be your favorite way to win an argument, by arguing against yourself. Of course, you also lose the argument at the same time, but what the hey, if it makes you happy, who are we to complain?
    It's not strawman, it's what you're doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Actually, I said since the broad has the right to murder babies, from conception, and according to you , it was "disovered", not created, that means all woman had this mysterious right. But all woman start out as babies (amazing, isn't it?) who presumably have this right to life thingy. But their incubator has this right to murder babies inside them thingy. The babies have it, too. So which right actually exists? One can't really have the right to life when your mother has the right to kill you, regardless of her choice to exercise it. You yourself claim that innate rights can't go away just because someon chooses not to exercise them.
    Nope, this is ONCE AGAIN a misrepresentation of what I've said. I have explicitly talked about this one. You CONTINUE TO NOT READ what I write so you can regurgitate your defeated argument. Go back, read some posts, come back when you're educated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    So, since the incubator's right to murder babies inside her conflicts with the baby-inside-the-incubator's right to live, one of those rights cannot exist.

    Since each right is equal, the only conclusion is that neither the right to kill babies and the right to live have any reality, and they're only moral concepts invented by the living.

    I ain't wasting my time reading the rest of your drivel, until you acknowledge the logic presented above and either refute it or concede. If you simply restate your assertion without any attached logical argument or evidence, you're conceding.
    Already been done. Your drivel is the same. Puke puke puke up the same ol' trite argument that's been dispensed. Misrepresent what is being said. Make strawman, and cry about crap when you're called on your intellectually lazy and dishonest debate.
    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. #288
    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
    The peasant who uses his pitchfork to kill the prince raping his daughter doesn't have the right to do that. Just ask the king who orders him drawn and quartered.
    K, so your base is that humans are fundamentally unequal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You may FEEL the peasant had the right to do this, from your 21st century perspective, but since he wasn't strong enough to place limits on his government, the king, he didn't have that right. He only had emotions and desires.
    Understanding and accepting natural rights automatically places restrictions upon government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Ya see, if someone has the right to do something, there's no legal consequences for exercising that right. Rights are really nothing more than specially defined privileges the majority defines for the society.
    Incorrect. A right is fundamental, but force can be used to prevent the exercise of it. You keep defining rights merely through legal and functional means (and oddly enough, you claim I was making a strawman before, but pretty much admit to exactly what you are doing here...hypocrisy much?). If someone has the ability to do X, he has the right to do X. If they are forbidden from doing X, they have no right to do X. That's not correct for natural rights. That's only applicable for legal rights. Natural rights are fundamental to humans in general. And they always exist, but force can be used to suppress the exercise of the rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Is there some reason you have to pretend rights are mystical gifts from the Invisible Impalpable Sky Pixie?
    Is there some reason why some people think that we can't progress, understand, and accept rights through rational thought and reason?
    Last edited by Ikari; 11-10-09 at 01:56 PM.
    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. #289
    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
    So you believe that simply restating the proposition that's already been disproven somehow magically erases argument showing the proposition false?
    You've yet to prove anything false. All you've done is said "nu uh...I'm right!"
    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. #290
    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
    Maybe you ought to stop worrying about others and start thinking for yourself -- there was nothing in your orignal asnwer that logically leads to your second asnwer.
    Yeah, you managed to get that from my post in what way?

    Meanwhile, since you agreed with me, rights are not innate, and freedom is not innate.

Page 29 of 38 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... 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
  •