• 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!

I have a "right" to...

I have a "right" to...


  • Total voters
    84
You ONLY have the 'right' but because we have a constitution that guarantees it. You DONT have that same right in other countries.

No.

Other countries deny the expression of that right, they can't deny the right itself.

That's called a human rights violation.
 
Yes... A right to bear arms...
A right to access water
A right to access food

The right to bear arms is a right yet no one gets a gun for free
The right to food is a right yet, you're saying people are going to expect to get it for free?

If we don't have the right to food... then it follows that access to food can be restricted. No one has answered the argument in inverse so far.
 
You only have that right as a citizen of a country, governed by a document set in place centuries ago, that decided the rights of the individual should be paramount over the rights of the government.

Hint: Governments do not have rights. Government is a group and group rights do not exist. What government is given is authority to exercise power.

That's it.

The Constituiton places specific permissions and restrictions on how government can use power.

What all governments attempt to do is to expand it's available power to as far as the people government will allow. National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq under Hussein, other places, all succeeded in getting government with no limits on power. What Obama and the Left seek in America is government with no limits on power. In the US this conflict is fought on one front as expansions of non-existent rights that expand government power at the expense of real rights.

To put the blunt point on the matter, when a flaming libtard says "health care is a right", the FL is NOT saying "gee, people should not be legally denied a doctor's care by government edict". No, they're not saying that.

When the flaming libtard says "healthcare is a right", the little animal means that "you, the taxpayer, are a greedy cheap selfish son of a bitch who has to pay a boatload more in taxes to make sure total strangers get medical care that doesn't cost them a dime."

Whenever they say that this isn't what they mean, they're lying. The heart of socialist propaganda is the Lie.

Well, health care isn't a right, no matter how often the Useful Idiots proclaim that it is. When their paradise of socialised medicine is imposed on the US, the first thing that will happen will be the establisment of budgets that lead to rationing of this "right".

When the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting a man's freedom to own and carry a gun.

Thus, if the flaming libtards are saying that "health care is a right" but don't actually mean that you, the greedy cheapskate stingy selfish taxpayer will be gouged to provide free services for someone else, then their onus is to provide examples of how the government is actively moving to legally restrict health care access to Americans.

No one disagrees that people who can pay their doctor should be denied access to health care, hence that aspect of "health care" as a right is moot. The discussion of health care or food or water or air or housing or heating as "rights" to be denied by legislative fiat is not on the table. What is implied by calling those "rights" is the presumption that someone else will pay for them.

So, should anyone be required for someone else's health care/food/water/air/housing/clothing/transportation/recreation?
 
Most people receive more in services and benefits than they pay out in taxes, and I'm not just talking about the minority who abuse the welfare system. Wealth is already redistributed in this way. The rich continuously pay out more for the rest of us, including the average middle class person.

People pick on the poor as the leeches of society, but the majority of people are "leeches" (if you go by that definition). If people are truly against redistribution of other people's money, then they should petition for the abolition of taxation altogether. That way they can pay for high ways, the postal system, national security, and the military out of their own wallets when asked. And if they don't, then they can look forward to the rapid deterioration of infrastructure.

The biggest threat to government is a population that is healthy and educated. If you are healthy then you have the vitality to protest causes; if you are educated then you are informed about the nature of the system you live in. Every American should want both of these things for all people in order to make the nation stronger.
 
My starting place is that all rights are biological imperatives, which living obviously is one. Everything an organism does is to live. Liberty and pursuit of happiness would apply to complex social structure...I don't see how we could find those rights among earthworms...so I'm not sure.

Except it's clear that among animals, especially prey species, they don't have a "right to life" no matter what their biological imperative says. So long as some of them live long enough to breed and there are more surviving than dying, the species goes on. Rights don't enter into it.
 
It doesn't matter if I agree with it, it was Jefferson's opinion and he was certainly entitled to it. That doesn't make it objectively true and therefore, irrelevant to the argument.

:doh

Just answer the question!!!
 
Except it's clear that among animals, especially prey species, they don't have a "right to life" no matter what their biological imperative says. So long as some of them live long enough to breed and there are more surviving than dying, the species goes on. Rights don't enter into it.

The notion of a right is what makes an animal think it has any business protecting its young.

Coin the turn of phrase "what gives you the right to..." A right is the authority to do a thing, a right is not a tangible thing you could hold in your hand.

So a 'right to life' would be authorization to live.

The 'right to choose' would be the authority to deny permission to live.
 
Last edited:
The notion of a right is what makes an animal think it has any business protecting its young.

Coin the turn of phrase "what gives you the right to..." A right is the authority to do a thing, a right is not a tangible thing you could hold in your hand.

So a 'right to life' would be authorization to live.

The 'right to choose' would be the authority to deny permission to live.

Authorization from who? You'd have to demonstrate that there is actually some authority which grants a right to live. Get to work.

Besides, animals, non-human animals in any case, don't have to "think it has any business protecting its young", it has instincts and evolution to thank for it's actions. Somehow, I just can't picture the Thompson's Gazelle arguing with the cheetah that it has a "right to life".
 
Christians have no business comparing humans to animals, since they believe humans are above animals. The kingdom of animals is here to serve us, no more, no less. Since humans are above animals, we deserve more rights than them.
 
Christians have no business comparing humans to animals, since they believe humans are above animals. The kingdom of animals is here to serve us, no more, no less. Since humans are above animals, we deserve more rights than them.

That only demonstrates that the religious (not limited to Christians) are delusional. When you manage to actually demonstrate that your imaginary friend in the sky is real, we'll talk. Until then, it's just an unsupported assertion, no more credible than claiming that the flying spaghetti monster gives us rights.
 
Authorization from who?

We the people, by our mutual consent, agree to afford each-other such authorities and permissions equally.

The right to live may very well not exist outside of our agreement, but among ourselves, in accordance with your agreement, we each give ourselves and everyone else the right to live, and they of us.

As to an animal, a pack may agree that the leader has the right to first quarter of any kill, so we can see that animals don't need to draft a constitution for various authorities to exist.

You'd have to demonstrate that there is actually some authority which grants a right to live. Get to work.

I just wrote this from the hip, tell me what you think...

U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Besides, animals, non-human animals in any case, don't have to "think it has any business protecting its young", it has instincts and evolution to thank for it's actions. Somehow, I just can't picture the Thompson's Gazelle arguing with the cheetah that it has a "right to life".

If it has synapses firing in it's head, it can "think".
 
Last edited:
No.

Other countries deny the expression of that right, they can't deny the right itself.

That's called a human rights violation.

Human rights violation as defined by the UN charter...
 
Christians have no business comparing humans to animals, since they believe humans are above animals. The kingdom of animals is here to serve us, no more, no less. Since humans are above animals, we deserve more rights than them.

That's a perfect example of what happens when you don't have authority to force what you want; notice how Christians don't comply with your will ;)
 
Sure it thinks, in abstractions relating directly to the context of its life. But where you have the idea that an animal has some sort of conception of a 'right' to things as we do in a social sense, I don't know, I have to disagree.
 
We the people, by our mutual consent, agree to afford each-other such authorities and permissions equally.

The right to live may very well not exist outside of our agreement, but among ourselves, in accordance with your agreement, we each give ourselves and everyone else the right to live, and they of us.

Which is entirely what I've been arguing all along. Society, ie. we the people, make up these "rights" and we enforce them inside of our social group. Those rights do not exist outside of our group, at least not unless other groups have similarly adopted them. Rights are subjective, they have zero objective meaning.

I just wrote this from the hip, tell me what you think...

U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

I'd have to read that later, just don't have the time to spend concentrating on it at the moment. I'll take a look though.

If it has synapses firing in it's head, it can "think".

That doesn't necessarily mean that it does when taking instinct-instructed actions. Certainly, I don't think animals sit around and reason their way through their daily lives. They do what evolution has programmed them to do most of the time. There's no conscious decision to eat or drink or breed, etc. They just do it because that's what their instincts tell them to do.
 
Hint: Governments do not have rights. Government is a group and group rights do not exist. What government is given is authority to exercise power.

That's it.

The Constituiton places specific permissions and restrictions on how government can use power.

What all governments attempt to do is to expand it's available power to as far as the people government will allow. National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq under Hussein, other places, all succeeded in getting government with no limits on power. What Obama and the Left seek in America is government with no limits on power. In the US this conflict is fought on one front as expansions of non-existent rights that expand government power at the expense of real rights.

To put the blunt point on the matter, when a flaming libtard says "health care is a right", the FL is NOT saying "gee, people should not be legally denied a doctor's care by government edict". No, they're not saying that.

When the flaming libtard says "healthcare is a right", the little animal means that "you, the taxpayer, are a greedy cheap selfish son of a bitch who has to pay a boatload more in taxes to make sure total strangers get medical care that doesn't cost them a dime."

Whenever they say that this isn't what they mean, they're lying. The heart of socialist propaganda is the Lie.

Well, health care isn't a right, no matter how often the Useful Idiots proclaim that it is. When their paradise of socialised medicine is imposed on the US, the first thing that will happen will be the establisment of budgets that lead to rationing of this "right".

When the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting a man's freedom to own and carry a gun.

Thus, if the flaming libtards are saying that "health care is a right" but don't actually mean that you, the greedy cheapskate stingy selfish taxpayer will be gouged to provide free services for someone else, then their onus is to provide examples of how the government is actively moving to legally restrict health care access to Americans.

No one disagrees that people who can pay their doctor should be denied access to health care, hence that aspect of "health care" as a right is moot. The discussion of health care or food or water or air or housing or heating as "rights" to be denied by legislative fiat is not on the table. What is implied by calling those "rights" is the presumption that someone else will pay for them.

So, should anyone be required for someone else's health care/food/water/air/housing/clothing/transportation/recreation?

If you were to be picked up and placed in the middle of a desert if you dont WORK for it, eventually you would die because in spite of your fantasy 'right' to food, water, and shelter, UNLESS you worked for it, you wouldnt HAVE it.

I know...silly example...yet this is a lot of peoples reality DAILY. Someone forgot to tell them to chill and relax...it's all gwanna be alright...because they have the RIGHT to food water and shelter...
 
Sure it thinks, in abstractions relating directly to the context of its life. But where you have the idea that an animal has some sort of conception of a 'right' to things as we do in a social sense, I don't know, I have to disagree.

An alpha wolf's right to first quarter, a male lion's right to kill the young of it's predecessor....the animal kingdom is teeming with examples. It's quite obvious.
 
Which is entirely what I've been arguing all along. Society, ie. we the people, make up these "rights" and we enforce them inside of our social group. Those rights do not exist outside of our group, at least not unless other groups have similarly adopted them. Rights are subjective, they have zero objective meaning.

Since a right is a rule governing social interaction, I don't see how they could exist outside of social interactions.

If you're all by yourself on an island then the concept of rights is quite meaningless. You would have to have something, anything, to interact with for rights to enter the picture; even if all you had to interact with were animals.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it does when taking instinct-instructed actions. Certainly, I don't think animals sit around and reason their way through their daily lives. They do what evolution has programmed them to do most of the time. There's no conscious decision to eat or drink or breed, etc. They just do it because that's what their instincts tell them to do.

Right, because humans would never simply breed to the point of over population or constantly engage in tribal warfare with other groups across the globe in order to fulfill basic needs (oil), yes we're soooo much more advanced.
 
Last edited:
Right, because humans would never simply breed to the point of over population or constantly engage in tribal warfare with other groups across the globe in order to fulfill basic needs (oil), yes we're soooo much more advanced.

Hey, we're just animals too, just as programmed by our genetics as they are. We have the ability to over-ride that programming, that doesn't mean we always do.
 
Wait, the natural rights analogous to those between animals are not conceptually the same as the natural rights we traditionally ascribe to in our social contracts...

The rights between animals are a function of anarchy but if Im not mistaken we are arguing the basis for rights is social or a mitigation of such anarchy.
 
If you are arguing, Jerry for a state of anarchy between societies I would have to agree with you.
 
Wait, the natural rights analogous to those between animals are not conceptually the same as the natural rights we traditionally ascribe to in our social contracts...

The rights between animals are a function of anarchy but if Im not mistaken we are arguing the basis for rights is social or a mitigation of such anarchy.

I don't think that rights between animals have any meaning. "Animal rights" only exist within human societies, they don't mean squat on the savannah.
 
I don't think that rights between animals have any meaning. "Animal rights" only exist within human societies, they don't mean squat on the savannah.

I'm not talking about "animal rights" lol. Maybe your joking? Take Jerry's examples posted above.

for example: A territorial animal gains a 'right' to a particular territory or an animal in conflict for a mate wins the 'right' to the prize.
 
If you are arguing, Jerry for a state of anarchy between societies I would have to agree with you.

My understating of global history would agree that there is a state of anarchy between societies. In the absence of a social order I don't see what else there could be. Formal order may come out of that chaos but imo that just proves that chaos will always be there until such formal order is established. That is to say, humans need order to coexist. We are not (or at least, not yet) a species who can peacefully coexist without a ruling authority over us.
 
Back
Top Bottom