• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The right to -not- exercise a right?

Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

  • Total voters
    38
Ikari said:
Again, this is a definition of functionality. You're basically saying that because I can be killed, I don't have the right to life.
Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.
 
Goobieman said:
Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government?
Click to expand...

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.

That wasn't that hard to figure out, was it?

Seriously, tell me you didn't have problems figuring that out and your question was merely rhetorical. That you knew that "freedom" is just another word for nothing left to lose.
 
Ethereal said:
Natural law is a conclusion about morality. Morality cannot be proven, though it can be rational and logical. The morality of natural law is based upon biological and psychological axioms which can be proven,
Click to expand...

Axioms are by definition, unproven assumptions about initial conditions.
 
Ikari said:
No, you have. My questions weren't a question of ability. The ability is there. The questions were asking whether or not it is just action, defendable action, if it's right to take that course of action.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

Is there some reason you have to pretend rights are mystical gifts from the Invisible Impalpable Sky Pixie?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.

That wasn't that hard to figure out, was it?

Seriously, tell me you didn't have problems figuring that out and your question was merely rhetorical.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Certainly does.
Freedom [is] the fulfillment of behavioral desires.
Click to expand...
Yes. But this is NOT the answer you originally gave me.
Thank you for trying harder -- I knew you could do it.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. But this is NOT the answer you originally gave me.
Thank you for trying harder -- I knew you could do it.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah, I didn't think it was necessary for me to do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's not strawman, it's what you're doing.

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

K, so your base is that humans are fundamentally unequal.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Understanding and accepting natural rights automatically places restrictions upon government.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Is there some reason you have to pretend rights are mystical gifts from the Invisible Impalpable Sky Pixie?
Click to expand...

Is there some reason why some people think that we can't progress, understand, and accept rights through rational thought and reason?
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you believe that simply restating the proposition that's already been disproven somehow magically erases argument showing the proposition false?
Click to expand...

You've yet to prove anything false. All you've done is said "nu uh...I'm right!"
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
K, so your base is that humans are fundamentally unequal.
Click to expand...

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.

Ikari said:
Understanding and accepting natural rights automatically places restrictions upon government.
Click to expand...

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.

Ikari said:
Incorrect. A right is fundamental,
Click to expand...

This assumption has already been disproven.

Ikari said:
but force can be used to prevent the exercise of it. You keep defining rights merely through legal and functional means
Click to expand...

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.

Ikari said:
Is there some reason why some people think that we can't progress, understand, and accept rights through rational thought and reason?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
This assumption has already been disproven.
Click to expand...

No, it really hasn't. You haven't disproven anything. You've redefined things in your terms and declared yourself right. That's it.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, I keep defining rights correctly.
Click to expand...

No, you define rights only to fit your argument so you can reverse engineer your "win".

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Wrong.

The proof is on this thread.

Read it sometime.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah, you managed to get that from my post in what way?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
And then:
Freedom [is] the fulfillment of behavioral desires.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...
Where did you get that idea?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
K, then there is no way we can agree.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Everyone should exercise. It should be mandated. ;)
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Axioms are by definition, unproven assumptions about initial conditions.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom