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 33 of 38 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 377

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

  1. #321
    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
    All legal, all derived from societal evolution and the evolution of human thought over the ages.

    That's already been proven on this thread.
    Again, no it hasn't. You stating it's "been proven" time and time again doesn't make it so. You did not prove anything other than your ability to misrepresent what I say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.
    Only through your own definitions is that true. That's the only way you make this point. By continual denial of arguments for natural rights and convenient definitions to fit your argument. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.
    Nothing has been proven. Force can be used to suppress the exercise of rights. There is a thing called tyranny and treason. Restricting the exercise of rights does not remove the 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."

  2. #322
    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
    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.
    That's because you only accept functional definitions of rights. You refuse to listen to any argument which acknowledges natural rights. The whole of this thread is testament to 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."

  3. #323
    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
    You're talking about a mathematical axiom. An axiom can also be defined as:
    Yeah. An axiom is an unproven assumption forming the basis for later logical development.

    Any other use, especially uses in which the alleged "axiom" is subject to proof inside the logical system it's the foundation of, is improper.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.
    The innate desire of people to live according to their will is an observed fact, not an axiomatic assumption.

    Moral conclusions are predicated upon societal bias.

    Today we say, "People are not property, hence it's immoral to own people, and by extension immoral to command them to alter their behaviors solely for their own good."

    That's the basis of libertarianism.

    In the Nineteenth Century, the White Man had his Burden, and he treated other races as possessions and inferiors because that was the only possible moral justification for European imperialism. Non-whites were objectified to establish a avoid moral conflict with evolving European/Christian values regarding the equality of man before his God. If the Roman Empire hadn't been contaminated with Christianity, Rome would have treated the New World natives as it treated the Gauls....if they had enough power, they conquered. No question of "morality" intruded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    All I'm saying is they have a moral claim to their life and liberty. Natural law is just a moral sentiment.
    Depends on the basis of the morality used to judge their claim.

    Nazis had one moral set, Americans had another, the Japanese had a third, and the Swiss bankers with all the Jewish gold teeth in their vaults had none.

  4. #324
    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
    That's because you only accept functional definitions of rights. You refuse to listen to any argument which acknowledges natural rights. The whole of this thread is testament to that.
    Yes, as I've already shown, since the theory of natural rights has been shown to be false, I'm not required to shape my world view on it, just as I don't use phlogiston when describing the theory of combustion.

  5. #325
    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
    Yes, as I've already shown, since the theory of natural rights has been shown to be false, I'm not required to shape my world view on it, just as I don't use phlogiston when describing the theory of combustion.
    You have not shown anything to be true. You can keep spouting the lie, but all it does is make you a liar.
    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."

  6. #326
    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?

    Are you guys just going to keep calling each other liars? If you ask someone to prove something and they say they did, go quote their damn post if the information isn't present. Does anyone know how to scroll backwards???

    I wanted to join this discussion again but there's really nowhere to join in unless I start by calling someone a liar.

  7. #327
    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
    Again, no it hasn't. You stating it's "been proven" time and time again doesn't make it so. You did not prove anything other than your ability to misrepresent what I say.
    Yes, I'm stating it's been proven because....it's been proven.

    Your failure to accept the proof isn't a refutation of the proof. You've failed to refute it and choose instead to ignore it because you can't refute it.

    Your conceptual blindesses aren't my problem are they?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Only through your own definitions is that true. That's the only way you make this point. By continual denial of arguments for natural rights and convenient definitions to fit your argument. Nothing more, nothing less.
    No, I made the point independently, and I'm now using the point to establish other theorems.

    That's how the standard mathematical process of proof works.

    Your theorem of "natural" rights was shown false by mutual contradiction.

    It's no longer my problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Nothing has been proven.
    Denial isn't reall a river in Egypt, you know. It's not on any map.

    You can prove the above statement wrong by providing a map showing Denial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Force can be used to suppress the exercise of rights.
    Yes, and if enough force is used to change the government permanently, the right no longer exists.

    People in Afghanistan under the Taliban did not have the right to practice another religion. That's the fact. Just because outsiders claim those people had innate unproven non-demonstrated "rights" doesn't mean those people had rights. Saying they had "rights" is nothing more than a statement of moral outrage over their lack of freedom you personally feel they should have.

    I too felt they should have the freedom of expression.

    That doesn't mean I pretend it's a right. It means merely that I empathize with them and wish they could enjoy a better life, because I'm a nice guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There is a thing called tyranny and treason. Restricting the exercise of rights does not remove the right.
    It does if the law is changed.

    That's because I've already proven that rights descend from law, not nature.

  8. #328
    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 EpicDude86 View Post
    Are you guys just going to keep calling each other liars? If you ask someone to prove something and they say they did, go quote their damn post if the information isn't present. Does anyone know how to scroll backwards???

    I wanted to join this discussion again but there's really nowhere to join in unless I start by calling someone a liar.
    There's nothing to quote from him as there's not the proof he claims is presented.

    You can jump in whenever you want. I had stated long ago that most of the debate is pointless because one side flat out refuses to accept or listen to arguments of our side; and it's been well shown correct. If you want to engage in the debate in an intellectually honest manner, I'm more than happy to facilitate the conversation. But if you just want to flap your gums and make claims which aren't real; SA's got that covered.
    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. #329
    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
    Yes, I'm stating it's been proven because....it's been proven.

    Your failure to accept the proof isn't a refutation of the proof. You've failed to refute it and choose instead to ignore it because you can't refute it.

    Your conceptual blindesses aren't my problem are they?




    No, I made the point independently, and I'm now using the point to establish other theorems.

    That's how the standard mathematical process of proof works.

    Your theorem of "natural" rights was shown false by mutual contradiction.

    It's no longer my problem.



    Denial isn't reall a river in Egypt, you know. It's not on any map.

    You can prove the above statement wrong by providing a map showing Denial.



    Yes, and if enough force is used to change the government permanently, the right no longer exists.

    People in Afghanistan under the Taliban did not have the right to practice another religion. That's the fact. Just because outsiders claim those people had innate unproven non-demonstrated "rights" doesn't mean those people had rights. Saying they had "rights" is nothing more than a statement of moral outrage over their lack of freedom you personally feel they should have.

    I too felt they should have the freedom of expression.

    That doesn't mean I pretend it's a right. It means merely that I empathize with them and wish they could enjoy a better life, because I'm a nice guy.



    It does if the law is changed.

    That's because I've already proven that rights descend from law, not nature.
    What's your proof? Was it your abortion argument which was a misrepresentation of my argument that was the proof. How about the slavery argument which was a misrepresentation of my argument which was the proof? Which one of your misrepresentations of my argument disproved my argument?
    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. #330
    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
    Yeah. An axiom is an unproven assumption forming the basis for later logical development.

    Any other use, especially uses in which the alleged "axiom" is subject to proof inside the logical system it's the foundation of, is improper.
    Okay, forget the term "axiom" then. Natural law is based upon certain truths concerning humanity.

    The innate desire of people to live according to their will is an observed fact, not an axiomatic assumption.
    Even better.

    Moral conclusions are predicated upon societal bias.

    Today we say, "People are not property, hence it's immoral to own people, and by extension immoral to command them to alter their behaviors solely for their own good."

    That's the basis of libertarianism.

    In the Nineteenth Century, the White Man had his Burden, and he treated other races as possessions and inferiors because that was the only possible moral justification for European imperialism. Non-whites were objectified to establish a avoid moral conflict with evolving European/Christian values regarding the equality of man before his God. If the Roman Empire hadn't been contaminated with Christianity, Rome would have treated the New World natives as it treated the Gauls....if they had enough power, they conquered. No question of "morality" intruded.

    Depends on the basis of the morality used to judge their claim.

    Nazis had one moral set, Americans had another, the Japanese had a third, and the Swiss bankers with all the Jewish gold teeth in their vaults had none.
    I don't disagree that "morality" is subjective. What I'm saying is that the physical non-existence of natural law isn't relevant to its validity as a moral sentiment.

    You can say you disagree with natural law, but claiming it's worthless because it doesn't "exist" is just perplexing.

Page 33 of 38 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... 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
  •