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 32 of 38 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 377

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

  1. #311
    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 agree, but what's your point?
    My point is I want us to be agreeable.

    Epic + Ethereal 1
    Disagreement 0

  2. #312
    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 Ikari View Post
    Their argument is that because of the abstract nature of the debate, that natural rights cannot exist.
    How are we defining "exist"?

  3. #313
    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
    My point is I want us to be agreeable.

    Epic + Ethereal 1
    Disagreement 0
    I'm not trying to be disagreeable. I just don't understand the argument.


  4. #314
    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 Ethereal View Post
    How are we defining "exist"?
    Something which can be properly evoked. Are there a base set of rights to all humans, or is it all legal rights (which are actually privileges)? Can we claim that there is properly a set of rights which are inalienable to humans, which regardless of culture or freedom or tyranny that one lives under is contained by all humans. I would imagine it would be something along those lines. Clearly, you cannot hold your rights in your hands and say "here". So it's about legitimacy of claim I suppose.
    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. #315
    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 not trying to be disagreeable. I just don't understand the argument.

    That's because we're in agreement.

  6. #316
    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 Ethereal View Post
    They are taken as self-evident, which means they can be proven but they don't have to be.
    No.

    Axioms are not necessarily self-evidenct, and no, they cannot be proven from inside the system.

    One of the axioms of Euclidean geometry is the two straight lines are either parallel, remaining a constant distance apart, or they intersect at one point and only one point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Do I really need to prove that humans want to live in accordance with their will?
    Just because a bunch of people want something doesn't mean they have a natural innate right to it.

    They have to fight for it.

  7. #317
    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?

    Having to fight for something doesn't mean you don't have the right to it. It means that force is being applied to try to prevent you exercise of your rights and you must secure the exercise of your 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."

  8. #318
    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
    Something which can be properly evoked. Are there a base set of rights to all humans, or is it all legal rights (which are actually privileges)?
    All legal, all derived from societal evolution and the evolution of human thought over the ages.

    That's already been proven on this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Can we claim that there is properly a set of rights which are inalienable to humans, which regardless of culture or freedom or tyranny that one lives under is contained by all humans.
    No, you can't.

    You can identify a core set of basic freedoms that all people want, because people in general want the same thing, freedom to live their lives free of any bosses, air, water, food, shelter, sex.

    You can't identify a single basic right that are the people's genetic birthright.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I would imagine it would be something along those lines. Clearly, you cannot hold your rights in your hands and say "here". So it's about legitimacy of claim I suppose.
    Yes, you're imagining.

    The reality is that the people who gain power define what they'll allow the others, without any regard for their "rights", no, not at all, because rights don't exist in reality, but with regard for what they can get away with, because they're human, and just as much an animal as the wolf and the cockroach.

    All this has already been proven.

  9. #319
    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
    No.

    Axioms are not necessarily self-evidenct, and no, they cannot be proven from inside the system.

    One of the axioms of Euclidean geometry is the two straight lines are either parallel, remaining a constant distance apart, or they intersect at one point and only one point.
    You're talking about a mathematical axiom. An axiom can also be defined as:

    1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
    2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

    Axiom Definition | Definition of Axiom at Dictionary.com
    In this case, the moral conclusions espoused in the theory of natural law are based upon certain axioms pertaining to humans; the main axiom being our innate desire to live in accordance with our will.

    Just because a bunch of people want something doesn't mean they have a natural innate right to it.

    They have to fight for it.
    All I'm saying is they have a moral claim to their life and liberty. Natural law is just a moral sentiment.

  10. #320
    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
    Having to fight for something doesn't mean you don't have the right to it. It means that force is being applied to try to prevent you exercise of your rights and you must secure the exercise of your rights.
    Hmmmm......I have the Hope Diamond in my pocket. Should I continue to fight to gain possession of it? No, I already have possession of it.

    I'd have to fight to keep it and display.

    Oh, wait, the Hope Diamond is in some museum somewhere, I don't have it.

    I guess I can't display it until I get it.

    People fight to alter the power of government to create and expand rights. Until the government's power is altered, they don't have the right they're fighting for.

    It would be different if they were born with rights, but it's been proven they do not, so there's no point in arguing as if they do.

Page 32 of 38 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... 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
  •