• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

No.

What I said was the proof is already in the thread and I don't see any need to repeat it.

What you have are assumptions proven wrong.
 
Ikari said:
You offered no proof,
Click to expand...

Proof is in the thread.

You don't understand logic?

Not my problem.

You can't refute the fact that the proof has been presented by saying the proof hasn't been presented.

It's in the friggin' thread.

Try reading it.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Yeah but then you get into the issue of who/what/how does man get the right to give out rights
Click to expand...

Rights aren't meant to be viewed as objects or things to be taken and given. Instead, one must view them as morally justifiable acts.

People can’t argue against “natural rights” until they establish a valid premise.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Rights aren't meant to be viewed as objects or things to be taken and given. They are a righteous act.

People can’t argue against “natural rights” until they establish a valid premise.
Click to expand...

Rights are viewed as abstract (that is non-concrete) possessions.

But I kinda see what you're saying...
 
EpicDude86 said:
Rights are viewed as abstract (that is non-concrete) possessions.
Click to expand...

According to who? From what I've read it's simply a morally justifiable act or claim. Natural law is a simple affirmation of individual liberty.
 
Ethereal said:
According to who? From what I've read it's simply a morally justifiable act or claim. Natural law is a simple affirmation of individual liberty.
Click to expand...

It's an abstract idea. Regardless of their morality or meanings, Rights, like many other words, are abstract ideas floating around within the heads of men. Some of these ideas take form and become more concrete as they are put into practice, but at the end of the day, they're still just in our head.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Proof is in the thread.

You don't understand logic?
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought we weren't taking "logic" as proof.

Don't get all snippy just because I keep calling you on your terrible debate style. Get some intellectual integrity and honesty and come back if you don't like it. You haven't offered any proof. The proof in this thread is your deflection, your redefining of terms, and you misrepresentation of my points. That's it. You have no concrete proof of anything else. Nor can you since this is a philosophical debate based on the natural state of humans. And on that accord, you and I differ. I believe humans are essentially the same at base, you do not. I won't allow slavery as just action, you would. With that difference, we're not going to agree.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You can't refute the fact that the proof has been presented by saying the proof hasn't been presented.

It's in the friggin' thread.

Try reading it.
Click to expand...

There is no proof you've presented. You've presented misrepresentation of my point and confusion of legal and natural rights. But no proof.

That's your problem
 
EpicDude86 said:
It's an abstract idea. Regardless of their morality or meanings, Rights, like many other words, are abstract ideas floating around within the heads of men. Some of these ideas take form and become more concrete as they are put into practice, but at the end of the day, they're still just in our head.
Click to expand...

I agree, but what's your point?
 
Ethereal said:
I agree, but what's your point?
Click to expand...

Their argument is that because of the abstract nature of the debate, that natural rights cannot exist.
 
Ethereal said:
How are we defining "exist"?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ethereal said:
They are taken as self-evident, which means they can be proven but they don't have to be.
Click to expand...

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.

Ethereal said:
Do I really need to prove that humans want to live in accordance with their will?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Ikari said:
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)?
Click to expand...

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

That's already been proven on this thread.

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is they have a moral claim to their life and liberty. Natural law is just a moral sentiment.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
All legal, all derived from societal evolution and the evolution of human thought over the ages.

That's already been proven on this thread.
Click to expand...

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Ethereal said:
You're talking about a mathematical axiom. An axiom can also be defined as:
Click to expand...

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.


Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Ethereal said:
All I'm saying is they have a moral claim to their life and liberty. Natural law is just a moral sentiment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

You have not shown anything to be true. You can keep spouting the lie, but all it does is make you a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom