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 35 of 38 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 377

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

  1. #341
    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're misrepresenting the argument.

    A) Natural rights aren't the only "rights". There are also Legal "rights" (though I'd call them privilege)
    All rights are legal rights.

    That aside, which is the natural right, the right of the baby to live, or the right of the woman to "control her own body"?

    Hmmm?

    Let's put it this way, I'm not going to make the effort the replace "right to commit murder on her unborn child" to "right to control who and if anyone occupies her uterus". That's not a material alteration since for the purposes of this argument it was assumed, and I hope it didn't need to be stated, that the process of murdering the child was merely the abortion procedure of your choice.

    So state explicitly: Is the right of a woman to control her body and thereby the occupancy of her uterus a natural right in your theory, or is it not?

    This question must be answered by you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    B) While all humans share the same base rights (natural rights), the use of violence and force can affect the exercise of those rights.
    Demonstrate relevance to refutation of proof I've provided, otherwise it's just a non-sequitur.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    C) Legal rights and natural rights can be in conflict with each other, the one which "wins" is the one enforced through government force.
    Uh-huh. And can the natural right of the unborn human to live be in conflict with the natural right of the incubating mother to control her own body?

    Which right does not exist as a natural right? Remember, since rights are innate, there cannot exist a temporary suspension of the right of the mother to control her own body while knocked up. Look up the word "inalienable" sometime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    D) Even if a natural right is not exercisable by a group does not mean the right does not exist.
    We're not discussing a group. We're discussing two people whose natural rights cancel out. One right ceases to exist. That isn't possible for inalienable rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The natural right still exists, it's merely being suppressed. Legal rights are floppy and can be "removed" (hence my labeling of them as privilege). Natural rights are static.
    Under no point in the proof rejecting natural rights did I confuse a "natural right" with a "legal right".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Hence, both of your arguments are MISREPRESENTATIONS of the argument.
    This conclusion is based on the false assumption that I'm positing a legal right as a natural right. Since your assumption is false, your conclusion is not valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    As I had stated from the get go.
    Yes, you're still wrong, see the preceding remark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Because you're pretending that all rights are either legal rights or natural rights
    Identify the other classes outside of legal and natural.

    We're turning blue in anticipation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    and by defining rights through purely functional means.
    Did anyone ever inform you that rights, be they natural or legal, are merely definitions of allowable expressions of human behavior, ie "functional"?

    If you disagree, name a non-functional right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Okay, Let's take your slave argument for instance.
    By all means, don't go anywhere near the rightfully deadly mother and rightfully living unborn child.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There were slaves, true. But slavery was never a right, it was a legal process codified through a govenrment; but it was not a right.
    You sure about that? What government authorized Robinson Crusoe to make Friday his slave, to use an example from fiction for easy reference.

    Slavery predates government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You don't have the right to own another human as you infringe upon their right of life, liberty, and property (not withstanding that you can't actually have alludial title over another human).
    If the government grants the title, they can have title. Just ask Dred Scot. Since slaves were born, lived, and died in bondage, at every instant of their lives subject to sale for cash, they were nothing but property and had no legal basis for presenting suits in court.

    That's the fact of human slavery in the United States. If you're trying to say the soul can't be owned, that's nice. The box the soul was in was very much for sale and ownership.

    You're problem is you've decided that you're going to be the arbiter of what is and what is not a "natural" right, and your feelings tell you that people can't be owned, which flies in the face of human history.

    As you stated, rights exist whether they're expressed or not. Presently, force is being used to suppress the rights of people to own other people. If and when that force expires, rest assured that people will resume their habit of owning others.

    You're assuming that today's state of affairs, based on your innate moral sense, somehow reflects reality. You can't show that slave ownership is not a natural right. You've argued that natural rights exist even in suppression. Merely because some people own slaves and suprress their slaves right to own others does not contrue proof that slave ownership is not a natural right.

    What you're really arguing here is that because people have a natural right to be free then people can't have a natural right to own slaves, and you're blind to the fact that the opposite statement is equally true, namely, that if people have a natural right to own slaves, then people can't have a natural right to be free.

    Your emotions, not logic, cause you to decide that one is "natural" and not the other, even though you yourself claim that rights exist in suppression.

    Logically, EITHER alternative, given your postulates, is possible and real. You're stating that mutually exclusive rights exist.

    Viable cultures have existed in history in which the natural right to own slaves is exercised, and others in which the natural right to not be owned are exercised. That the latter case is the modern norm does not alter the facts of history.

    You've failed to define what a "natural right" is to the exclusion of their contradictory opposites.

    Since either alternative may exist, it's simple to recognize that neither, in fact, have any need to exist, and that human societies are expressions of the balance of powers between groups and individuals, and that discussions of "rights" are nothing more than discussiong on the limitations of those powers.

    YOU established the existence of non-expressed rights. That axiom leads ineluctably to the conclusion that the idea of rights is not an essential element in discussing human societies, merely a verbal atavism held over from the superstitious times when it was assumed the rights of society descended from God.

    You can't understand this because you can't surrender your superstitions.

    It took me years to gain the epiphany, and I know many aren't up to the task. But it can't hurt you to try.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The slaves still had the right to life, liberty, and property; the exercise of these rights were forcibly suppressed via the government.
    So, don't tell me you didn't say that rights suppressed don't exist. Current society suppresses the right of people to own other people.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    This is understood explicitly in the rise and fight against slavery. If the slaves truly had no right to life, liberty, or property than there is no justifiable reason by which they could revolt or run away or even complain. However, we recognize and understand that anyone enslaved would have obvious contention to that state of being. That is because innately that person has the right to liberty.
    And the right to own other people is suppressed. Exactly.

    What you've failed to do is prove that the right to own others does not exist.

    I've proved that the use of the concept of rights in language is a convenience encouraging mental sloth, and nothing but a convenience. It is not an accurate description of processes of human interaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The same with abortion, a legal "right" is enforced via government force at the cost of suppression of the exercise of a natural right. The human life has its right, and its right to life is violently suppressed by the government. It's not that the right doesn't exist, it's that force has been applied to suppress the exercise of it. In the natural state, free of force, all humans enjoy the right to life, liberty, and property.
    So you're arguing that the woman's natural right to control her own body does not exist? Women have to pretend that the technologies developed in the last century can't be applied to them in certain circumstances?

    What I was arguing in that case was that the free expression of one right, that of bodily ownership and control, contradicts and nullifies the free expression of another right, that of life. We're not discussing an abuse of power suppressing rights, but the free expression of the rights themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Hence all your arguments are misrepresentations of the natural rights argument
    No, actually, the right of a woman to control her own bod is a natural right. That modern technology enables a more in-depth control than was previously experienced is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    and you actually didn't prove a single thing other than you're able to completely mischaracterize an argument. Though I wouldn't tout that as a good thing.
    Yeah, you're still wrong. I've point out, again, at length, again, your errors, and you'll continue to refuse to use your mind productively and will continue to wallow in your emotional substitute for reason.

  2. #342
    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
    Your starting assumptions are wrong, my post above.
    Which are wrong?

    (1)? You're saying that not everyone has the same rights?

    (2)? You're saying that not everyone has innate right? I don't think so:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    My insistence for rights being innate comes in a very similar form.
    (3)? You're saying that rights are created, not discovered? I don't think so:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I know the difference, the wording was purposeful. The rights were discovered and acknowledged.
    (4)? You're saying that rights are not inalienable? I don't think so:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The base of this nation was built upon understanding and accepting the innate and inalienable nature of rights.
    Which are wrong? Be specific.

    Better yet, be brief.

    Anyway, if you're insisting my assumptions are wrong, assumptions taken solely because they're the basis for your arguments that I was demolishing, then you're only admitting that your own arguments are incorrect.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 11-10-09 at 10:21 PM.

  3. #343
    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 Ikari View Post
    Hahah, maybe. Natural rights are innate, legal "rights" are not.
    Natural rights are not 'self-defining'.

  4. #344
    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?

    I'll thank your post, SA, because you took the time to explain your position. The problem here is that you and I start from different fundamental assumptions. And those assumptions are going to lead us in different directions and conclusions. While you claim it was a right for people to own slaves because they were able to purchase slaves, I'd say there was never a right to own a slave. People were able to own slaves through force of government over the slaves. The slaves innate rights to life, liberty, and property were infringed upon by the government.

    There's a big difference in that logic. The natural rights of life, liberty, and property are a fundamental to all humans. It doesn't mean the exercise of such cannot be infringed upon by an outside force. Outside forces can always influence a system, be that force just or unjust. To say that someone could own a slave and thus their right to own a slave superseded the slaves right to life, liberty, and property and the ultimate conclusion that natural rights changed because people once were able to own slaves and now couldn't is confusing natural and legal rights. You're in essence saying that because there was a legal "right", the natural right vanished. But this is counter to the philosophy of natural rights. While legal "rights" can be changed, such as slave owning; the natural rights to life, liberty, and property never vanished.

    Abortion can, if you choose to take the argument there, highlight the natural limit to rights; that is one's rights end at the rights of another. Without just reason, you cannot justifiably infringe upon the rights of another. So while a woman may have the right to control her body, at some point there are consequences of biology and a created human has the right to life. A right by which outside force is used to infringe upon it. In this case, government force (which is one of the most notable forces when it comes to infringement upon exercise of rights).

    Logic can indeed bring us to the understanding of natural rights if you wish to entertain those arguments. If you don't wish to entertain the arguments, then this is the end. There's no point to either of us going on ad nauseum about our own personal political philosophies if said arguments fall upon deaf ears. While I understand the argument from functionality, I reject the notion that there is not a base which is common to all humans. For to me human is human and while we have different cultures and societies and social contract, in the natural state free of force if we're all the same we share a base set of rights. If, however, your assumption is the opposite; that humans cannot be disentangled from their societies, cultures, social contract, etc. and thus humans in the natural state are fundamentally different you'll arrive at a purely functional definition of 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."

  5. #345
    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
    I'll thank your post, SA, because you took the time to explain your position. The problem here is that you and I start from different fundamental assumptions.
    No.

    I used your assumptions, not mine.

    Your assumptions disprove "natural rights", not mine.

    ======

    My assumption is that if it doesn't have physical reality, its a construct of human experience and thus is subjective, not actual.

    Physical force is real and measureable.

    The human capacity to use force is demonstrable.

    The human capacity to do what I'll call "evil" is undisputed.

    The human capacity for kindness, generousity, compassion is also undisputed.

    My position that rights are but the mere expression of the human desire for the limits on the power of others to commit evil is consistent with observed fact.

    Your assumptions simply lead to inconsistency and illogic and serve no purpose but to provide a mystical foundation for concepts that can be expressed empirically and effectively.

    The concept of rights is sloppy muddied thinking.

    Start instead with three observed facts:

    Rights have no actual existence.
    Power exists to control others, and always has.
    People desire to limit the power others have over their lives.


    With these facts one can assemble a coherent picture of what's actually happening and what's actually happened in the past.

  6. #346
    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?

    If you had used my base assumption and had understood my arguments, you couldn't have come to the conclusion you posted earlier. That's the end all be all. You have to confuse terms and misrepresent the argument to draw the conclusions you did from my base assumption that all humans are equal.
    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. #347
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,804

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Natural rights are not 'self-defining'.
    Nor is there any reason to think they exist at all.

    You know, I was thinking. If "natural rights" exist outside of humanity and outside of human society, how long have they been around? Since the dawn of human civilization? Since the dawn of the universe? Are they seriously expecting us to believe that these "natural rights" hung around for 13.6 or so billion years waiting for mankind to evolve? And when did they start to apply to mankind? Did Neanderthals have rights? Or did it have to wait until Homo erectus or maybe even Homo sapiens to have any application?

    Yet we can keep asking these questions and the best we get from the libertarians is "WE'RE RIGHT! SO THERE!"
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #348
    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 Cephus View Post
    Nor is there any reason to think they exist at all.
    Still looking for your response.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1058356246

    Get to work or admit failure

  9. #349
    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 Cephus View Post
    Yet we can keep asking these questions and the best we get from the libertarians is "WE'RE RIGHT! SO THERE!"
    I've encountered this argument more from your side in this thread than anyone else.
    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. #350
    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 Cephus View Post
    Nor is there any reason to think they exist at all.

    You know, I was thinking. If "natural rights" exist outside of humanity and outside of human society, how long have they been around? Since the dawn of human civilization? Since the dawn of the universe? Are they seriously expecting us to believe that these "natural rights" hung around for 13.6 or so billion years waiting for mankind to evolve? And when did they start to apply to mankind? Did Neanderthals have rights? Or did it have to wait until Homo erectus or maybe even Homo sapiens to have any application?

    Yet we can keep asking these questions and the best we get from the libertarians is "WE'RE RIGHT! SO THERE!"
    Deep, daddy-o. Deep.


    Let's face it, there's about as much hard evidence in Natural Rights as there is in God. What really defines Natural Rights? Well, the same thing that defines God. Faith. Believing that truly these things exist is what gives them their pseudo-concrete form. amirite or amirite?
    Last edited by EpicDude86; 11-11-09 at 11:59 AM.

Page 35 of 38 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... 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
  •