• 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!

Praying for Protection

Rich2018 said:
Then we differ - a right that's not attainable doesn't exist
Click to expand...

Well, that is nt true, and your own word useage shows you agree. In your parlance, a right is the "should", not the "is".

If a US Muslim claimed a natural right to perform an honor killing, does he have that right ?
Click to expand...

No, because a right does not infringe on the rights of others. As I have said a few times now, rights are personal, that which your exert over someone else is not a right.

If you can't exercise it, you don't have it
Click to expand...

Yes, you do. Again, you have a right to pursue happiness.. if you decide tomorrow that you want to learn the accordion, then tomorrow you can buy an accordion. That you haven't yet chosen to act on the right to own an accordion doesn't mean you don't have a right to own an accordion.

You're like a slave saying he should be free
Click to expand...

Because a slave shoul be free. Do you disagree with that?

Natural rights exist on in a person's Utopia of the mind.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, history is filled with people who have pulled closer to that utopia because they believed in what should be.

It's a wish list and nothing more.
Click to expand...

False. If you truly believed that then you would forgo all political opinion because what is today is what it should be.

No, you're speaking about liberties and state granted rights
Click to expand...

Nope. The state doesn't grant rights, the state only impedes rights or protects rights. It doesn't grant them.

Your mind is yours while you have it
Click to expand...

Not by your argument. If you believe that ownership of self is an illusion and future theft is the proof, then you don't own yourself right now. By your argument you can't claim ownership to anything that can be taken from you.

Poor question, ownership is a legal status, theft is illegal
Click to expand...

Well, no it isn't. The law is to protect your rights, not to grant them to you. By your argument a person who has stolen your phone is the rightful owner. Also, by your argument, you can't argue with the law if the government takes your phone because there is nothing above the law to judge it by. You no doubt disagree with many laws, which defeats your definition of what rights are.

No, a right exists if you have the ability to exercise it
Click to expand...

You are now changing your argument. You have the ABILITY to exercise a right even if the law tells you not to. People buy marijuana all the time even when the law tells them not to. They are exercising their right to pursue of happiness regardless of the law that tells them not to.

Anyone who supports the legalization of pot is, whether intended or not, presenting a natural rights argument.

Yes it does
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. A right is not an outcome.

If you government denies you what you think is/should be a right, then you don't have it.
Again you're confused with what should be the case
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. My RIGHT is the expression of what I SHOULD be able to to, my RIGHT is what drives me to abolish the law that impedes my effort to exercise my right. Again (and again and again and again) a right is not an outcome.

No, I meant you might have a different list of rights you should have..another man might have a diiferent list
You might disagree with his list and he with yours.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but there is a simple calculus to natural rights that reduces rights to a set group of indivisible truths that are self evident. If you don't believe you have the right to life, liberty and happiness apart from what government grants you then that is your own personal hell, don't expect the rest of us to go along with that.
 
Praying for protection....thats what the crippled and dependent leftists do when they are confronted with evil ****ers and have no way (or will) to defend themselves.
 
Logicman said:
Nope.

What do you think is going to happen to you when you belly up? You have a plan for that?
Click to expand...

When that finally happens, I'll no longer have to worry about "bellying up".


OM
 
VanceMack said:
Praying for protection....thats what the crippled and dependent leftists do when they are confronted with evil ****ers and have no way (or will) to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

That is a an ugly, bigoted statement.
 
devildavid said:
There is your bigotry again.
Click to expand...
If that IS who you are referencing, then I reckon tis a fair cop. I dont see much value in idiot leftists and crippled dependent leftist pets...especially those that are that way by choice.
 
devildavid said:
Getting in the way of someone feeding themself is infringing on their need and ability to feed themselves. No rights are involved that aren't granted by and backed by the society you exist in. If they exist in a competitive, might makes right society then its whoever competes the best. There is no should, except as dictated and backed up by each society.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The individuals efforts to feed themselves, to sustain their life, and find happiness will happen whether or not there is a society in which the individual lives. Since these rights exist with or without society, they can not be attributed to society. Society can only protect or infringe on the right that exists apart from the society.
 
Last edited:
Are there no crippled and dependant rightists?
 
jmotivator said:
Wrong. The individuals efforts to feed themselves, to sustain their life, and find happiness will happen whether or not there is a society in which the individual lives. Since these rights exist with or without society, they can not be attributed to society. Society can only protect or infringe on the right that exists apart from the society.
Click to expand...

Is that a true statement?? Can you show that it's more than a philosophical position based on preconceptions? Let's see you support those statements, and show it's more than philosophical musings. I think the first step is to demostrate that 'Rights exist with or without society'. Prove that statement, using tangible and objective evidence, and not mere 'because I said so', or 'THis person said so'
 
RAMOSS said:
Is that a true statement?? Can you show that it's more than a philosophical position based on preconceptions? Let's see you support those statements, and show it's more than philosophical musings. I think the first step is to demostrate that 'Rights exist with or without society'. Prove that statement, using tangible and objective evidence, and not mere 'because I said so', or 'THis person said so'
Click to expand...

Do I honestly need to provide proof that left your yourself you would seek food and happiness? :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
Do I honestly need to provide proof that left your yourself you would seek food and happiness? :roll:
Click to expand...

How is biological necessity a 'right'? And, hate is 'seeking happiness'?? That sounds very metaphysical to me.
 
RAMOSS said:
How is biological necessity a 'right'?
Click to expand...

Needs and rights are also not the same thing. A right can be said to be the ability to attempt to fulfill a need, but it is not a need or the fulfillment of a need. Rights don't guarantee outcomes.

And, hate is 'seeking happiness'?? That sounds very metaphysical to me.
Click to expand...

Hate is not seeking happiness in and of itself, but you could view it as a conscious observance of things that make you unhappy, and avoiding them will aid in your pursuit of happiness. Hate doesn't do anything by itself, and is harmless until acting on it infringes on the rights of others... at which point the person is no longer exercising a right.
 
jmotivator said:
Needs and rights are also not the same thing. A right can be said to be the ability to attempt to fulfill a need, but it is not a need or the fulfillment of a need. Rights don't guarantee outcomes.



Hate is not seeking happiness in and of itself, but you could view it as a conscious observance of things that make you unhappy, and avoiding them will aid in your pursuit of happiness. Hate doesn't do anything by itself, and is harmless until acting on it infringes on the rights of others... at which point the person is no longer exercising a right.
Click to expand...

THat is right.. needs and rights are not the same thing. SNow how feeding yourself is a right, not a need. Let's see you show that rights are more than a philosophical stance saying "this is how I want to be treated'
 
jmotivator said:
Needs and rights are also not the same thing. A right can be said to be the ability to attempt to fulfill a need, but it is not a need or the fulfillment of a need. Rights don't guarantee outcomes.



Hate is not seeking happiness in and of itself, but you could view it as a conscious observance of things that make you unhappy, and avoiding them will aid in your pursuit of happiness. Hate doesn't do anything by itself, and is harmless until acting on it infringes on the rights of others... at which point the person is no longer exercising a right.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said is supporting your position, nor is it addressing my question.
 
RAMOSS said:
THat is right.. needs and rights are not the same thing. SNow how feeding yourself is a right, not a need.
Click to expand...

Because rights are not actions or outcomes. Feeding yourself is an action.

Let's see you show that rights are more than a philosophical stance saying "this is how I want to be treated'
Click to expand...

Because it is self evident. Because the human motives to seek life, liberty and happiness are universal. Again, you need proof of that? It surrounds you.
 
jmotivator said:
Because rights are not actions or outcomes. Feeding yourself is an action.



Because it is self evident. Because the human motives to seek life, liberty and happiness are universal. Again, you need proof of that? It surrounds you.
Click to expand...

Ah, the self evident piece of nonsense. I find when something is declared 'self evident', it's because someone can't defend it logically or rationally. The claim of something being self evident is an indication to me that someone can not show that they are speaking the truth.

I see the term 'self evident' to be a rhetoric device.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Ah, the self evident piece of nonsense. I find when something is declared 'self evident', it's because someone can't defend it logically or rationally. The claim of something being self evident is an indication to me that someone can not show that they are speaking the truth.

I see the term 'self evident' to be a rhetoric device.
Click to expand...

The problem I see with your argument is that you're not a believer in individuals being born with inalienable rights. What man does via government procedure such as the U.S has done with the constitution is to protect those rights. The constitution protects rights that a corrupt government might seek to take away. Man doesn't grant inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are in place as soon as a baby takes their first breath. Why don't you understand this? And yes, these rights are "self-evident" does apply to the inalienable rights, the natural rights all people are born with.
 
trixare4kids said:
The problem I see with your argument is that you're not a believer in individuals being born with inalienable rights. What man does via government procedure such as the U.S has done with the constitution is to protect those rights. The constitution protects rights that a corrupt government might seek to take away. Man doesn't grant inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are in place as soon as a baby takes their first breath. Why don't you understand this? And yes, these rights are "self-evident" does apply to the inalienable rights, the natural rights all people are born with.
Click to expand...

That's right. I see it as metaphysical concepts that basically is saying 'This is how people aught to treat each other'. It's just opinion. Mind you, it might be a good idea, and productive, but claiming something is 'inalienable' does not make it so. You have to look at what the Declaration of Independence is. One thing it is not is a philosophical dissertation. It was a political document that was being used to sway opinion, and a propaganda tool. It is a rhetorical device for a specific political purpose.

It doesn't mean the concept are WRONG, but no one has been able to show those are more than man made concepts and philosophical positions.
 
jmotivator said:
Needs and rights are also not the same thing. A right can be said to be the ability to attempt to fulfill a need, but it is not a need or the fulfillment of a need. Rights don't guarantee outcomes.



Hate is not seeking happiness in and of itself, but you could view it as a conscious observance of things that make you unhappy, and avoiding them will aid in your pursuit of happiness. Hate doesn't do anything by itself, and is harmless until acting on it infringes on the rights of others... at which point the person is no longer exercising a right.
Click to expand...

If rights don't guarantee outcomes, they are meaningless, and really no different than the ability to fulfill a need. Having the right to live means nothing if one can't avail themselves of the necessities to keep living.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, that is not true, and your own word useage shows you agree. In your parlance, a right is the "should", not the "is"....
Click to expand...

Yes and it's totally subjective

Rights are what you have, not what you wish you had.


...a right does not infringe on the rights of others...
Click to expand...

That's your belief, not one who believes in honor killings

What are your list of "Natural Rights"
What is your criteria for them ?

...you have a right to pursue happiness...
Click to expand...

Says who ?

If it made me happy to become first violin in an orchestra, is that a natural right
If yes what about the other guy who wanted it but was rejected when I got the job.


...Because a slave should be free. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

In 1776 slaves should be free but they weren't


...if you truly believed that then you would forgo all political opinion because what is today is what it should be...
Click to expand...

How is wishing for rights I don't have, forgoing all political opinion ?

...the state doesn't grant rights, the state only impedes rights or protects rights. It doesn't grant them....
Click to expand...

In 1776 the infant USA thought it granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Today you have the rights that the Constitution and other laws give yu

If you can't exercise a right, you don't have it whether you think it natural or not.

...if you believe that ownership of self is an illusion and future theft is the proof, then you don't own yourself ..
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're saying here. The mind is something that can't be owned. You can't monitor and therefore control my thoughts


...the law is to protect your rights, not to grant them to you. By your argument a person who has stolen your phone is the rightful owner....
Click to expand...

No, merely that ownership is a legal status a theft is a crime
Oh and the law can grant you rights, if you're arrested, the police have to read you your rights
Oh and double by the way, the Constitution grants you rights and it is the law.

...you have the ABILITY to exercise a right even if the law tells you not to. People buy marijuana all the time even when the law tells them not to...
Click to expand...

Exactly

The state grants you your rights. The state will tell you what rights you are permitted to exercise.

...my RIGHT is the expression of what I SHOULD be able to to, my RIGHT is what drives me to abolish the law that impedes my effort to exercise my right. Again (and again and again and again) a right is not an outcome...
Click to expand...

Provided the state lets you do it

...there is a simple calculus to natural rights that reduces rights to a set group of indivisible truths that are self evident...
Click to expand...

Then what are they ?
 
devildavid said:
If rights don't guarantee outcomes, they are meaningless
Click to expand...

That is like saying that laws against murder wont stop someone from killing you so they are meaningless. The right establishes that laws that infringe on the right are wrong.

and really no different than the ability to fulfill a need.
Click to expand...

Well no, the right is the right to try, ability is the chance of success.

Having the right to live means nothing if one can't avail themselves of the necessities to keep living.
Click to expand...

that depends on what prevents them. The right to life drives a shared respect for life. It drove the founding fathers to create a system of government the preserves rights rather than denies all rights and only grant access to what the state desires.
 
jmotivator said:
That is like saying that laws against murder wont stop someone from killing you so they are meaningless. The right establishes that laws that infringe on the right are wrong.



Well no, the right is the right to try, ability is the chance of success.



that depends on what prevents them. The right to life drives a shared respect for life. It drove the founding fathers to create a system of government the preserves rights rather than denies all rights and only grant access to what the state desires.
Click to expand...

Now you are comparing a law to a right. They are entirely different things. The law is the only thing that matters. It does not need to be justified by the concept of rights. Laws were established well before the concept of rights. Our laws came from the tradition of English common law, not from some vague concept of rights.

There is no right to life that drives anything. There is a desire to live, which often drives competition for resources. Without the enforcing power of the state, rights are meaningless platitudes.

A right to try something is not really a right at all. It is the ability to try. I can try to feed myself because I want and need to, not because of some made up concept of a right to do it. Human beings take action because they can, not because some invisible rights allow them to.
 
Rights don't exist without laws to guarantee them.

These rights vary from country to country.

Claiming that a right should exist is like claiming a law should exist.


I think the US Constitution should be ripped up and replaced by a 21st century document of Constitution.


The new Constitution could spell out what rights are given in the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom