View Poll Results: I have a "right" to...

Voters
112. You may not vote on this poll
  • Health care

    30 26.79%
  • Food

    35 31.25%
  • Water

    39 34.82%
  • Other people's wealth

    7 6.25%
  • A job

    17 15.18%
  • A minimum or "living" wage

    30 26.79%
  • None of the above

    61 54.46%
  • Other

    26 23.21%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 27 of 35 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 349

Thread: I have a "right" to...

  1. #261
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No, that is what you said.
    OK...I will revise:
    Its your preference that you should get to do what you want to do.
    And that creates a sound argument to that effect.... how?

    And, again:
    What you wont admit to me, but are certainly saying to yourself, is that you have the right to do what you want to do, and to not do what you do not want to do.

  2. #262
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Here is what the Constitution said about unalienable "rights" regarding slavery:

    "The Constitution and Slavery:
    Provisions in the Original Constitution
    Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

    Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
    Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
    ...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article."
    The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

    Are these unalienable "rights," or just horse hockey we made up?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #263
    Advisor Iwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Illinois. I wish i lived in a Socialist country.
    Last Seen
    04-25-11 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    443

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Quote Originally Posted by catawba View Post
    here is what the constitution said about unalienable "rights" regarding slavery:

    "the constitution and slavery:
    Provisions in the original constitution
    article i, section. 2 [slaves count as 3/5 persons]representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons [i.e., slaves].

    Article i, section. 9, clause 1. [no power to ban slavery until 1808]
    the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    Article iv, section. 2. [free states cannot protect slaves]
    no person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.
    Article v [no constitutional amendment to ban slavery until 1808]
    ...no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article."
    the thirteenth amendment: Slavery and the constitution

    are these unalienable "rights," or just horse hockey we made up?
    fraction man!!!!
    It's not rape if you scream "SURPRISE" first.

  4. #264
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Iwa View Post
    fraction man!!!!
    Yeah, ain't it a hoot, African Americans apparently have the "unalienable right" to be counted as 3/5 persons.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #265
    Advisor Iwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Illinois. I wish i lived in a Socialist country.
    Last Seen
    04-25-11 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    443

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yeah, ain't it a hoot, African Americans apparently have the "unalienable right" to be counted as 3/5 persons.
    so theyve been mis calculating the votes...McCain actually won O.o oh *.*.*.* dont tell them that.
    It's not rape if you scream "SURPRISE" first.

  6. #266
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yeah, ain't it a hoot, African Americans apparently have the "unalienable right" to be counted as 3/5 persons.
    Which is why this discussion has descended into some solipsistic US w**kfest. The thread, I thought, was about a general discussion on the idea of rights. Not rights as enshrined in the US constitution (which is relevant to about 5% of the World's population) but to the overall question of what does or does not constitute a "natural" right. A "human" right, not an American right , a European right, a Japanese right, but an "inalienable right" - i.e. one that cannot be taken away, cannot be denied.

    As George Carlin says, "A right isn't a right if someone can just take it away. Then it's a privilege and that's all we have."

    I would like society, all human society, to guarantee a number of rights. I would like all human society to ensure certain things that all people can depend on and that no authority can violate because they are "natural rights". I'd like to believe in the right for kids not to die of starvation in a world that has more than enough food to go around. I'd like for every individual to be able to decide what kind of family unit (if any) they wish to be a part of and for no one to discriminate against them because of the choice they make. Unfortunately, I can't. Neither can anyone.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  7. #267
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,522
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Which is why this discussion has descended into some solipsistic US w**kfest. The thread, I thought, was about a general discussion on the idea of rights. Not rights as enshrined in the US constitution (which is relevant to about 5% of the World's population) but to the overall question of what does or does not constitute a "natural" right. A "human" right, not an American right , a European right, a Japanese right, but an "inalienable right" - i.e. one that cannot be taken away, cannot be denied.

    As George Carlin says, "A right isn't a right if someone can just take it away. Then it's a privilege and that's all we have."

    I would like society, all human society, to guarantee a number of rights. I would like all human society to ensure certain things that all people can depend on and that no authority can violate because they are "natural rights". I'd like to believe in the right for kids not to die of starvation in a world that has more than enough food to go around. I'd like for every individual to be able to decide what kind of family unit (if any) they wish to be a part of and for no one to discriminate against them because of the choice they make. Unfortunately, I can't. Neither can anyone.
    The reason I keep returning to the U.S. Constitution, though, is because our Constitution, unlike any other at the time it was presented and maybe even now, was not a document by which the people would be governed. It was a document by which the government is charged to secure the people's unalienable rights so that the people could then govern themselves.

    Those rights, capsulized in the Declaration's short list: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are outlined in our Bill of Rights.

    For a child, the only way he or she can enjoy life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is by the care and protection of adults responsible for his/her well being. His/her civil and legal rights were intended to be bestowed when s/he reached the age of majority and would take responsibility for his/her own destiny.

    We have unalienable rights to our opinions, thoughts, prejudices, biases, beliefs, quirks, and foibles. There is no unalienable right, however, to require that society order itself as we would prefer or provide any material benefit to us or like us or approve of us or appreciate us. All that is decided by mutual social contract and there will always be those who disapprove of the society we choose to form.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  8. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    More idiotic strawmen coming from the usual suspects.

    A "right" is just a philosophical construct based upon human nature, hence the term, "natural rights". When someone says they "have" a right they don't mean they physically possess something; it's just a moral sentiment derived from a human universal. A simple affirmation of ownership over our own person. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. It's really quite simple.

  9. #269
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    More idiotic strawmen coming from the usual suspects.

    A "right" is just a philosophical construct based upon human nature, hence the term, "natural rights". When someone says they "have" a right they don't mean they physically possess something; it's just a moral sentiment derived from a human universal. A simple affirmation of ownership over our own person. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. It's really quite simple.
    Dear Lord, I think we agree. Do we? Are you saying that claiming a right is a psychological reification of self? That it has nothing to do with universally accepted and applicable "inalienable" "rights"?

    I'm kind of scared at the idea we may agree on this.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  10. #270
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,522
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: I have a "right" to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    More idiotic strawmen coming from the usual suspects.

    A "right" is just a philosophical construct based upon human nature, hence the term, "natural rights". When someone says they "have" a right they don't mean they physically possess something; it's just a moral sentiment derived from a human universal. A simple affirmation of ownership over our own person. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. It's really quite simple.
    If 'natural rights' is a philosophical construct based upon human nature, then why was the US Constitution so unique a document? And why was that relatively small group of visionary post-Revolutionaries who hammered it out apparently the only ones in the world who had thought out the concepts and presume to put them into practice?

    Wouldn't 'human nature' span a much broader base?

    I will agree that it is ingrained in humankind to defend our own lives and to value freedom. And I suppose everybody dreams or hopes of things not yet achieved. No doubt the Founders recognized that and believed such traits are God given, i.e. 'natural rights'.

    But it seems to me that it is more human nature to want an authority figure to lead, and the people who have none will clamor for a king. The idea of self governance seems to me to be a relatively unique concept, one that many Americans don't even understand or embrace. The Founders did understand it as well as what constituted an unalienable right.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

Page 27 of 35 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... 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
  •