- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Not if they want their argument to that effect to carry any weight.A person can derive their idea of rights from any source they please.
Not if they want their argument to that effect to carry any weight.A person can derive their idea of rights from any source they please.
A person can derive their idea of rights from any source they please. In your case, I am guessing you are looking at it from the lense of 1700s enlightenment. However, ultimately, what a person can or cannot do is determined by law, not philosophy. You can say that government protects rights (which morally, could be a correct argument) and another person says that government gives rights (which legally, could be a correct argument) and ultimately, those two arguments have nothing to do with each other as I think you are talking about morality and Kandahar is talking about legality.
Similarly, rights are not given, provileges are.Rights can't be taken away. Privileges can.
Rights can't be taken away. Privileges can. This is just a dumbed-down version. In addition, a right is only a right when it doesn't negate another's right.
Having the internet is simply nothing more than a privilege. There is no way you can justify the assumption that anyone is entitled to have the internet, no matter what. You create a very slippery slope if you even attempt to justify it.
legality should always be based in morality and in philosophy.
If it is philosophically or morally unsound, it doesn't belong in the law.
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 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.
You are.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.
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.
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.
No, access to the internet is not a fundamental right.
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.
You can say so all you want - if you cannot provide a sound argument to support them, then all you're doing is spouting babble. If all -you- want to do is see what other people think, that's fine, but its rather assuming of you to take issue with people who are here foe other reasons and challenge others to show sound support for their beliefs.He says his are so just as I say mine are so.
There is a difference between "correct" and "sound".I will not be so arrogant as to assume my beliefs are, without doubt, the 'correct' beliefs.
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.
When you classify something as a fundamental right, that's -exactly- what you are doing.
This is completely incorrect.
Rghts are not granted by government, privileges are. Nowhere in the constitution or in federal law are you granted the right to free speech, the right to arms, etc.
This means what I said is wrong, because...?You're just arguing semantics, not policy...and you're doing it in the context of a foreign nation which doesn't even operate under the same legal principles as the United States does.
I would say any 'fundamental' right exists because we live. That's how I define a fundamental right. A right that you have merely because you live.
fredmertz said:You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government doesn't give these rights.
fredmertz said:It protects them. The government can protect your right to have internet, but it cannot 'give' it to you. So I counter-challenge you to explain how any fundamental right is given to us by the government. I cannot think of one.
This means what I said is wrong, because...?