• 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 rights of man and the duty of citizens

American said:
You could start by showing how current Democrat candidates are still in agreement with Kennedy and others of his era. If you can't/won't, then current Democrats are out of phase, as I said.
Click to expand...

You cited a lofty speech by JFK, not a truly great action. As an actual President, he wasn't so great despite his popularity. Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, constantly running women in and out of the WH, etc. He just wasn't that good and his constant philandering showed disrespect for the office. (Meanwhile today, people get spastic about Clinton's beej...)

I'd say the Democrats are precisely in phase. Obama gave tons of lofty speeches. It's what he's best at. But as an actual President, he just wasn't all that good.




The only reason JFK is remembered so fondly is that he was murdered at such a young age. He's practically been sainted because of it. If he'd served out his term, he wouldn't be so beloved.
 
People can be religious and still remain completely in harmony with the Constitution personally.

The Constitution covers our laws and morality just fine without needing to resort to religious principles. There are many areas of overlap.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You also have a right to have a nose and ears…using that reasoning. But if you want to participate meaningfully in the discussion in context…you probably should leave those things out.
Click to expand...

False dilemma. You don't have a right to a nose because not everyone is born with one. Nor are all creatures on our planet born with a nose. Yet what is the one characteristic ALL creatures born on Earth share? The drive/desire to survive.

Every living organism on Earth has this drive and they act in one way or another to do so.

Frank Apisa said:
Go try to exercise your right to self-expression in Pyongyang…and then tell me about how you exercise it on your own. See how that works out.
Click to expand...

It does not matter "how it works out." What matters is that I can do so of my own free will regardless of the consequences. Fear of consequences are irrelevant. Only MY choice to act or not to act is.

Frank Apisa said:
ny rights you have, within the context of JFK’s remarks (and my response), are rights people have fought and died for…not rights granted by any gods.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned God(s)? I spoke of FREE WILL. You think free will is a gift from deity? Or is it an innate characteristic of any sentient being?

So I repeat. My rights to self-defense and self-expression are beholden to no government or any other person. They are exercised by my own free will and to the best of my ability.
 
haymarket said:
Actually there is a difference between your ability to defend yourself and a legal right to exercise self defense. The first is a mere physical ability of our species and most organisms as part of the instinct of self preservation. It has nothing at all to do with any rights one has as it is an ability.

The second is a recognition by the nation you live in and its legal system that there are certain situations and conditions under which the law will excuse you taking physical actions against another which would otherwise be viewed as a possible assault or attack but under a legal provision of self defense are accepted as legitimate.

The two are different and distinct.
Click to expand...

Sorry but no. All the law does is recognize that each person has a pre-exiting right to defend themselves. The law does not grant it, the law acknowledges it as a valid defense when this action causes death or harm to others.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Sorry but no. All the law does is recognize that each person has a pre-exiting right to defend themselves. The law does not grant it, the law acknowledges it as a valid defense when this action causes death or harm to others.
Click to expand...

Where exactly did this so called RIGHT pre-exist before government decided it was a right?
 
The kind of RIGHTS meant in this thread...

...are the kind of rights people have fought and died to obtain...and others will probably fight and die to retain.

The rest of this stuff is just Internet Forum attitude and feistiness.

There are no god-given rights...whether there are gods or not.
 
haymarket said:
Where exactly did this so called RIGHT pre-exist before government decided it was a right?
Click to expand...

I have never heard a rational defense of the notion of pre-existing rights. A pre-existing right would have to be objectively real, existing in objective reality independent of the existence of humans.


Some people tie rights to God. But belief in God is irrational, beyond proof or disproof. And then there's a further problem that God isn't telling me what are the natural rights, they are telling me what they think their unprovable God says is a natural right.

Others cite Jefferson's statements in the declaration of independence. But if one man's writings are objective proof, then we might as well believe in Morgoth or Dirk Gently.

Other's just assert they are pre-existing as if this proposition is "self-evident", but of course, it is not. So, what...the big bang happened. Matter, energy, the laws of physics and....."rights" came into existence? Rights that just floated around the universe for 13 billion years, waiting specifically for humans to evolve on one speck of dust to enjoy them? Makes zero sense. And, of course, every other objectively real thing can be detected, and if it cannot be detected, it isn't accepted as truth.



At the end of the day, claiming rights are "pre-existing" actually doesn't sound much different to me than a Godwin violation (calling someone a nazi); it's a maneuver that's used as if it strengthens an argument, but really just shows its weakness.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I liked JFK...very much. He was a popular president with a hot wife.

I know of very few who think he was one of the best Democratic presidents, though.

FDR was a great Democratic president; Harry S Truman was a great Democratic president; LBJ was a damn good Democratic president.

JFK got some things done...and made us feel good about politics for a while.

And while I acknowledge he was a Democrat...he was far from a leftist...so your 180 turn comment was self-serving.
Click to expand...

True... JFK would be considered extreme right today by the Democrat party.
 
RetiredUSN said:
True... JFK would be considered extreme right today by the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

with the speed the Democrats here are shunning him and moving away from any principles pertaining to our rights.... i'd say you just might have a point.
 
Mr Person said:
I have never heard a rational defense of the notion of pre-existing rights. A pre-existing right would have to be objectively real, existing in objective reality independent of the existence of humans.


Some people tie rights to God. But belief in God is irrational, beyond proof or disproof. And then there's a further problem that God isn't telling me what are the natural rights, they are telling me what they think their unprovable God says is a natural right.

Others cite Jefferson's statements in the declaration of independence. But if one man's writings are objective proof, then we might as well believe in Morgoth or Dirk Gently.

Other's just assert they are pre-existing as if this proposition is "self-evident", but of course, it is not. So, what...the big bang happened. Matter, energy, the laws of physics and....."rights" came into existence? Rights that just floated around the universe for 13 billion years, waiting specifically for humans to evolve on one speck of dust to enjoy them? Makes zero sense. And, of course, every other objectively real thing can be detected, and if it cannot be detected, it isn't accepted as truth.



At the end of the day, claiming rights are "pre-existing" actually doesn't sound much different to me than a Godwin violation (calling someone a nazi); it's a maneuver that's used as if it strengthens an argument, but really just shows its weakness.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. This theory has been around for more than 300 years and nobody has been able to prove it exists outside of a believers own willful belief.

And you are right about not being self evident for if it were nobody would be arguing about it.
 
Mr Person said:
I have never heard a rational defense of the notion of pre-existing rights. A pre-existing right would have to be objectively real, existing in objective reality independent of the existence of humans.
Click to expand...
are you trying to say the philosophies in which our country was founded didn't exist until after it was founded?
 
haymarket said:
Excellent point. This theory has been around for more than 300 years and nobody has been able to prove it exists outside of a believers own willful belief.
Click to expand...
it's philosophy, and it's been around for much longer than 300 years...it finds its roots about 2400 years ago...


And you are right about not being self evident for if it were nobody would be arguing about it.
Click to expand...
the only ones really arguing is those whom believe in the theory that the US government dreamed up rights from whole cloth and granted them to the subjugated masses...IE, the illiberal among us.
 
Thrilla said:
it's philosophy, and it's been around for much longer than 300 years...it finds its roots about 2400 years ago...


the only ones really arguing is those whom believe in the theory that the US government dreamed up rights from whole cloth and granted them to the subjugated masses...IE, the illiberal among us.
Click to expand...

So where exactly were these so called PRE EXISTING RIGHTS before government decided they were rights?
 
Thrilla said:
are you trying to say the philosophies in which our country was founded didn't exist until after it was founded?
Click to expand...

Philosophy is no more provable than religion...it's a set of beliefs, nothing more.
 
Thrilla said:
in the minds of people.... you know, it's the place where ideas,concepts and understanding resides.
Click to expand...

Yes, people 'conceived' the idea of rights and the rights themselves.
 
haymarket said:
Where exactly did this so called RIGHT pre-exist before government decided it was a right?
Click to expand...

This has been explained before. In a state of nature do human beings typically allow themselves to be killed? Or do they typically try to defend themselves by any means necessary?

Is the existence of any form of government necessary to guarantee this right? :no:

Of course not. They exercise free will and do so to the best of their ability.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This has been explained before. In a state of nature do human beings typically allow themselves to be killed? Or do they typically try to defend themselves by any means necessary?

Is the existence of any form of government necessary to guarantee this right? :no:

Of course not. They exercise free will and do so to the best of their ability.
Click to expand...

In the state of nature, is it the nature of humans...or other animals...to eat? To defend territory/resources? To reproduce? This last is a good one actually.

No one has a right to any of those things yet humans and most other animals MUST do them. That doesnt mean they have a right to live or eat or reproduce, etc. The exercise of free will to do something does not define a right.

(If there was a 'right to life' then there would be no fighting to the death for mates, for ex. which some species...including man in the past...do/did.)
 
Lursa said:
In the state of nature, is it the nature of humans...or other animals...to eat? To defend territory/resources? To reproduce? This last is a good one actually.

No one has a right to any of those things yet humans and most other animals MUST do them. That doesnt mean they have a right to live or eat or reproduce, etc. The exercise of free will to do something does not define a right.

(If there was a 'right to life' then there would be no fighting to the death for mates, for ex. which some species...including man in the past...do/did.)
Click to expand...

I've already answered that too.

When the Founder's referred to a "right to life" they did not mean a right not to die.

They meant that Man, as a living creature, has the right to preserve his own life. Death is inevitable, but one has the right to fight to stay alive.

It is considered a natural right because it is shared by just about every living creature on Earth. And as with every other living creature on Earth, there is no guarantee one will succeed and survive every encounter.

Government does not grant this right. It is not a "civil" right, nor a "legal" right. It is one of the rights we claim as living, breathing creatures called Humans.

We enforce it within the limits of our individual strength to do so. I make those choices, no one can require anything of me without my consent. They may harm me, they may imprison me, they may even kill me. I am still the master of my destiny by the choices I make.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
When JFK was done with his speech, did he provide any actual verifiable evidence for his two statements of belief
1- in God
2- that God gives us rights independent of any involvement or action by man?
Click to expand...

Nice evasion. The OP is about the change inteh Dem. party from one that had as one of it's greatest leaders a man who's most famous statement is trampled in the mud by the very people who hold him in such esteem. Let's talk about that instead of using the thread as your soapbox for your anti-God screeds...
 
Lursa said:
Yes, people 'conceived' the idea of rights and the rights themselves.
Click to expand...

that's very true.... though those conceptions aren't based on thin air .. they are based in the human condition, as studied and researched for thousands of years.
 
I think that what Pres. Kennedy was trying to communicate is that the rights which are defined by society are the result of people carrying out the responsibilities of being a part of a society. They do not exist in a vacuum, absent any responsibility of our own, but rather exist as being dependent upon the exercise of those responsibilities. Too many in our society think that they have can have rights without carrying out their responsibilities and that is one of the greatest dangers to our society. When a society thinks that it's rights outweigh it's responsibilities, then it is on a dangerous downward trend.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I've already answered that too.

When the Founder's referred to a "right to life" they did not mean a right not to die.

They meant that Man, as a living creature, has the right to preserve his own life. Death is inevitable, but one has the right to fight to stay alive.

It is considered a natural right because it is shared by just about every living creature on Earth. And as with every other living creature on Earth, there is no guarantee one will succeed and survive every encounter.

Government does not grant this right. It is not a "civil" right, nor a "legal" right. It is one of the rights we claim as living, breathing creatures called Humans.

We enforce it within the limits of our individual strength to do so. I make those choices, no one can require anything of me without my consent. They may harm me, they may imprison me, they may even kill me. I am still the master of my destiny by the choices I make.
Click to expand...

That does not refute what I wrote at all. The things I also listed are common with all other animals too.

Rights are not granted in the US, they are agreed up (recognized) then codified and protected and adjudicated.
 
Lursa said:
In the state of nature, is it the nature of humans...or other animals...to eat? To defend territory/resources? To reproduce? This last is a good one actually.

No one has a right to any of those things yet humans and most other animals MUST do them. That doesnt mean they have a right to live or eat or reproduce, etc. The exercise of free will to do something does not define a right.

(If there was a 'right to life' then there would be no fighting to the death for mates, for ex. which some species...including man in the past...do/did.)
Click to expand...

so I seems you are one of those whom believes the only rights that exist are those granted by government... is this true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom