View Poll Results: is access to the internet a fundamental right?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because....

    8 20.51%
  • No, because...

    31 79.49%
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93

Thread: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

  1. #31
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    legality should always be based in morality and in philosophy.
    I agree, however everyone has their own take on what is the correct morality and philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    If it is philosophically or morally unsound, it doesn't belong in the law.
    I agree, but there is no objective standard since each culture is unique.

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    And I agree they can derive their idea of rights from any source they please. I derive my idea of rights from the constitution. I am an American afterall. And I don't think any law should be created outside the morals and philosophy of the constitution as it was intended (and often times, that intent was intently left open for debate)
    I derive my rights from the constitution as well as it is the law that sits above other laws, but I don't care so much about original intent since those people are dead and its our country today.

  2. #32
    Sage
    Arcana XV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 10:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,412

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    No, it's not a fundamental right. I have no issue with countries making it a legal right, though. In today's increasingly technology-dependent world, it makes complete sense. I'm not surprised Finland is leading the way.
    "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

  3. #33
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    Yes it is in Finland. And some other places too pretty much.
    PeteEU

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    No, access to the internet is not a fundamental right.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  5. #35
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I agree, however everyone has their own take on what is the correct morality and philosophy.



    I agree, but there is no objective standard since each culture is unique.



    I derive my rights from the constitution as well as it is the law that sits above other laws, but I don't care so much about original intent since those people are dead and its our country today.
    But the specific intents of the constitution are philosophical and full of moral truths. That cannot be wrong no matter what the times are during which we live. And to clarify, my point in saying that laws are derived in morals and philosophy (with which you agree) is a response to your quote: "ultimately, what a person can or cannot do is determined by law, not philosophy". This was your argument against me using the philosophy behind a proposed law to show that it is unsound. And now you are agreeing that laws ought to be based in morality and philosophy. And if morals and philosophy remain true across generations, I'm not sure I understand your conclusion.

    You agree with my premise - laws are formed from philosophy and morals. But disagree with me because I use a philosophical argument against a law. I'm not trying to be picky - just trying to understand. I know you are intelligent from past conversations, so I must assume that I am misunderstanding your reasoning.
    Last edited by fredmertz; 07-02-10 at 03:59 PM.

  6. #36
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    You agree with my premise - laws are formed from philosophy and morals. But disagree with me because I use a philosophical argument against a law. I'm not trying to be picky - just trying to understand. I know you are intelligent from past conversations, so I must assume that I am misunderstanding your reasoning.
    You are.
    His reasonng isnt really reasoning, rather a set of things he says are true because he says so - there's no supportable sound reasoning behind those things, just his say-so.

  7. #37
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    But the specific intents of the constitution are philosophical and full of moral truths. That cannot be wrong no matter what the times are during which we live.
    To me that statement appears as if you were confusing opinion with fact. There is no such thing as a moral truth as all morality is relative and depends on opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    And to clarify, my point in saying that laws are derived in morals and philosophy (with which you agree) is a response to your quote: "ultimately, what a person can or cannot do is determined by law, not philosophy". This was your argument against me using the philosophy behind a proposed law to show that it is unsound. And now you are agreeing that laws ought to be based in morality and philosophy. And if morals and philosophy remain true across generations, I'm not sure I understand your conclusion.
    Sorry, I was not clear. What you can or cannot do is determined by the limitations to your freedom. In this case, I meant that if there were laws against something and you are caught doing it, you will be punished. Morality and philosophy are just rules a person places on themselves. Both are sets of limitations (not that either is automatically bad, but they do limit freedoms).

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    You agree with my premise - laws are formed from philosophy and morals. But disagree with me because I use a philosophical argument against a law. I'm not trying to be picky - just trying to understand. I know you are intelligent from past conversations, so I must assume that I am misunderstanding your reasoning.
    Laws are formed by legislative bodies. Philosophy and morals may be the motivation for it, but so might other things, such as a feeling of emergency (such as the case of TARP) or payback for campaign contributions. Ideally we try to make laws from our beliefs, but not always.

  8. #38
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    To me that statement appears as if you were confusing opinion with fact. There is no such thing as a moral truth as all morality is relative and depends on opinion.



    Sorry, I was not clear. What you can or cannot do is determined by the limitations to your freedom. In this case, I meant that if there were laws against something and you are caught doing it, you will be punished. Morality and philosophy are just rules a person places on themselves. Both are sets of limitations (not that either is automatically bad, but they do limit freedoms).
    Look here! I learned to sub-quote! Anyway - I do not believe laws should limit freedoms. Morally. If they do, they should be abolished. The government is suppose to protect our freedom, not take it away, even if it is 'for the good of the people'. The government as it is set up is suppose to do what is 'good for the person' and their freedom. This, I believe, is at the heart of our disagreement, this difference in opinion as to what government should do in an ideal world.



    Laws are formed by legislative bodies. Philosophy and morals may be the motivation for it, but so might other things, such as a feeling of emergency (such as the case of TARP) or payback for campaign contributions. Ideally we try to make laws from our beliefs, but not always.
    And again, I believe philosophy and morals ought to be the only motivation. If you do something based on a feeling of emergency that is morally or philosophically unsound, you should not do it. I don't see areas of grey in this matter. Again, this is the heart of our disagreement.

  9. #39
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    No, access to the internet is not a fundamental right.
    It is in Finland now.. so somewhere in the world it is a fundamental right to them.
    PeteEU

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Access to the internet - a fundamental right?

    I said yes, but mostly because of my personal understanding of a right, as in nobody can emove your right to access the internet. As time progresses with technology and social contracts become greater I could only expect peoples 'rights' which were once privileges to be expanded.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •