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 30 of 38 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 377

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

  1. #291
    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
    K, so your base is that humans are fundamentally unequal.
    You never figured that out?

    That's why we have to write a specific amendment to the Constitution requiring that all persons be treated equally before the law....and why it took another 90 years before that Constitutional equality began to be implemented in a realistic way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Understanding and accepting natural rights automatically places restrictions upon government.
    No, restrictions on governments are established with bullets, sometime ballots, but only if the ballots are credibly backed up with the threat of bullets.

    Welcome to human history.

    Lots and lots of slaves wanted to pretend they had "natural rights" (and didn't, of course, no one does) who died in bondage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Incorrect. A right is fundamental,
    This assumption has already been disproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    but force can be used to prevent the exercise of it. You keep defining rights merely through legal and functional means
    Yes, I keep defining rights correctly.

    Funny how I keep doing that, isn't it? I mean, I demolish the theory of natural rights, and the only alternative is legislated rights, and well, by golly, that's how I construct view of rights, the correct view.

    If they're "natural", please point to the DNA codons that express them.

    If they're "god given", please prove your god exists.

    If they're legislated, please point to the MEN that defined the law.

    Oh, well, the last is possible. The other two aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Is there some reason why some people think that we can't progress, understand, and accept rights through rational thought and reason?
    I have progressed and I do understand and accept what rights are through rational thought and reason.

    You can, too, if you ever choose to use rational thought and reason.

  2. #292
    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've yet to prove anything false. All you've done is said "nu uh...I'm right!"
    Wrong.

    The proof is on this thread.

    Read it sometime.

  3. #293
    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
    You never figured that out?

    That's why we have to write a specific amendment to the Constitution requiring that all persons be treated equally before the law....and why it took another 90 years before that Constitutional equality began to be implemented in a realistic way.
    K, then there is no way we can agree. And it's not that I can't "prove" my point. It's that our base assumptions are different. I say all humans are at base, human. We are on some level equal because on the most basic, natural of levels we are the same. You're going to say we're not. Thus we can have slavery and all that and it's fine. If the society says it's ok, it's ok. You'd have no moral problem with slavery so long as enough people thought it was good and it was codified in law.

    My base assumption is different and I would have a problem with slavery even if enough people thought it was ok and it was codified in law. That's the break. And it's not that natural rights don't exist, it's that you won't acknowledge humans as equals on any level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No, restrictions on governments are established with bullets, sometime ballots, but only if the ballots are credibly backed up with the threat of bullets.

    Welcome to human history.

    Lots and lots of slaves wanted to pretend they had "natural rights" (and didn't, of course, no one does) who died in bondage.
    Freedom has to be fought for since you are taking power away from the authority and they don't take too kindly to that. However, it's not that the rights don't exist. The idea of natural rights was contrary to the monarchy itself. Whereas in the past the king was said to be divinely appointed. He was better than everyone else, he had the blessings of some god. He could take what we wanted, when he wanted and you couldn't complain.

    In fact, by your definitions and ideals, those slaves who wanted to pretend they had natural rights who died in bondage had no legitimate claim to complain about their condition. You'd even state, they have no right to bitch about being slaves, they have no legitimate reason to rebel against being slaves. They are slaves, that's that, deal with it. That is the consequence of not having natural rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    This assumption has already been disproven.
    No, it really hasn't. You haven't disproven anything. You've redefined things in your terms and declared yourself right. That's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Yes, I keep defining rights correctly.
    No, you define rights only to fit your argument so you can reverse engineer your "win".

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Funny how I keep doing that, isn't it? I mean, I demolish the theory of natural rights, and the only alternative is legislated rights, and well, by golly, that's how I construct view of rights, the correct view.

    If they're "natural", please point to the DNA codons that express them.

    If they're "god given", please prove your god exists.

    If they're legislated, please point to the MEN that defined the law.

    Oh, well, the last is possible. The other two aren't.
    Natural rights can be discovered through rational thought. You want the DNA codons, they are the one's responsible for our intelligence.

    So I guess that means I win, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I have progressed and I do understand and accept what rights are through rational thought and reason.

    You can, too, if you ever choose to use rational thought and reason.
    I have. And through the use of intellect and rational thought I have concluded that all humans are fundamentally human and thus fundamentally the same. You've somehow concluded the opposite. All humans are not fundamentally human, and thus are not fundamentally the same. Some are innately better than others.
    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."

  4. #294
    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
    Wrong.

    The proof is on this thread.

    Read it sometime.
    Wow...you just proved me right. I said all you have is saying "uh uh, I'm right", and that's what you did. The thread is proof of your continued dodges, misrepresentations, redefinitions, and overall sloppy and dishonest debate style.
    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. #295
    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, you managed to get that from my post in what way?
    That your two responses to my question had no logcal relationship?
    Well, lets see:

    I asked:

    Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government?
    You responded:
    Techinically, the smallest government possible is the nuclear family, or even smaller, two people alone in a cave, on an island, in the middle of the Great American Prairie, where they have to come to agreements, derived by any means imaginable, on the limits of behavior.
    And then:
    Freedom [is] the fulfillment of behavioral desires.
    Please: Show how the two responses are logically related -- that is, show how anyone reading the first response would necessarily reach the conclusion of the second response.

    Meanwhile, since you agreed with me...
    Where did you get that idea?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-10-09 at 02:38 PM.

  6. #296
    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
    K, then there is no way we can agree.
    You refuse to recognize proof when it's in front of you.

    Since I'm not wrong, I've no need to agree with you.

    Let me know when you're ready to be honest.

  7. #297
    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
    You refuse to recognize proof when it's in front of you.

    Since I'm not wrong, I've no need to agree with you.

    Let me know when you're ready to be honest.
    HAHAHAHA

    What a pile of absolute garbage. This is something I'd expect out of TD.

    You offered no proof, you've offered your opinion based on your assumption that humans in the natural state are not equal. You don't read what I write, you misrepresent my arguments, you continually redefine terms to fit your arguments, and then you have the gall to call me dishonest!?

    You are being intellectually weak, sloppy, and totally dishonest here. Let me know when you're ready to be honest and can engage on a higher intellectual level.
    Last edited by Ikari; 11-10-09 at 03:47 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."

  8. #298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

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

    Everyone should exercise. It should be mandated.

  9. #299
    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
    While we don't necessarily know all the details yet, we can at least provide objective evidence that love, as an emotion, exists. It might be wildly impractical, but we could test to see if someone is, in fact, in love or just lying about it by hooking them up to a bunch of machines. There is an objective way to test for the presence or absence of love by doing blood tests and brain scans.
    Then explain it to me.

    How do you measure love by testing someone's blood?

    What is the operational definition of love as it pertains to neural activity?

    No, it's a statement about reality and as such needs to be backed up. You need to make a logical case, one that you claim can be proven yet you have done nothing whatsoever to prove it. Precisely how do you know that natural law exists? Exactly how is it that you can tell which specific laws are natural and which ones are not? These are questions that keep getting asked and keep getting ignored by the libertarian crowd.
    Once again, natural law is a moral theory, which means its "existence" cannot be proven. A moral theory doesn't have to "exist" in order to be valid.

    That's like saying you either agree with gravity or you don't. If you don't like gravity, you're still bound by it. Therefore, either natural law is a true postion, at which point everyone is bound by it like it or not, or it's a false position, at which point no one is bound by it like it or not. But in either case, it needs to be a defensible position, not one that you simply embrace because it appeals to you emotionally and you want it to be true.

    So far, that's all you libertarians have done. It's a religious faith to you, nothing more.
    You're conflating a scientific theory with a moral theory.

    Scientific theories are subject to the rigors of the scientific method, whereas moral theories are not.

    I hope that clears things up for you.

  10. #300
    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
    Axioms are by definition, unproven assumptions about initial conditions.
    They are taken as self-evident, which means they can be proven but they don't have to be.

    Do I really need to prove that humans want to live in accordance with their will?

Page 30 of 38 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... 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
  •