• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

On Rights

Sure, and shouldn't the benefit of an education come with the highest standards that can be afforded?

Our school system has been dominated by liberals since "consolidation" in the 1950s. Go talk to a liberal.
 
Our school system has been dominated by liberals since "consolidation" in the 1950s. Go talk to a liberal.

That's partisan nonsense and has nothing to do with the question.

Question: shouldn't the benefit of an education come with the highest standards that can be afforded?
 
That's partisan nonsense and has nothing to do with the question.

Question: shouldn't the benefit of an education come with the highest standards that can be afforded?

Do you actually know the origin of natural rights? Answer: Body sovereignty. Why do you think that theory doesn't expand into education being a right?

I ask that question because your OP has the same orgin, so logically it should expand outwards in the same way.
 
That's partisan nonsense and has nothing to do with the question.

Question: shouldn't the benefit of an education come with the highest standards that can be afforded?

Indeed it should, and those standards should NEVER include any kind of political indoctrination from either side.
 
That's partisan nonsense and has nothing to do with the question.

Question: shouldn't the benefit of an education come with the highest standards that can be afforded?

We now have hordes of "administrators," overpaid union teachers and giant food service and transportation industries. What more do you want?
 
We now have hordes of "administrators," overpaid union teachers and giant food service and transportation industries. What more do you want?

So you refuse to answer the question then.

I'm going to take that as "no you do not believe that the right of education should include teh highest standards that can be afforded".
 
So you refuse to answer the question then.

I'm going to take that as "no you do not believe that the right of education should include teh highest standards that can be afforded".

The highest EDUCATIONAL standards, sure. What, of what he JP listed, are actual educational standards?
 
That's not the question that comes our the passage. The question is, is everybody entitled to a free education? Is education a right?

That comes down to how one defines the word: rights. Those who believe that rights are just imaginary things created and doled out by the state would naturally agree that education would/could fall under their definition of rights. But then again, anything would. Why stop at education? Shouldn't you have a right to food? Clothing? Shelter? A job? The list in endless. The best way to solve the disputes over what is and isn't a right would be for those who don't believe in the concept of innate rights to simply not use the term. They can use what they truly advocate, which is entitlements or privileges.
 
That comes down to how one defines the word: rights. Those who believe that rights are just imaginary things created and doled out by the state would naturally agree that education would/could fall under their definition of rights. But then again, anything would. Why stop at education? Shouldn't you have a right to food? Clothing? Shelter? A job? The list in endless. The best way to solve the disputes over what is and isn't a right would be for those who don't believe in the concept of innate rights to simply not use the term. They can use what they truly advocate, which is entitlements or privileges.

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters only what you can prove. Let us know when you can prove that rights are anything but imaginary things that people made up.
 
An "equal" education does not mean that everyone is equally educated. There is a vast difference in mental abilities, as is shown by School Achievement Tests, where more than half of students fail to meet even minimum standards. Yet the liberals insist that everyone is "entitled" to a high school diploma, whether they can read and write or not. The quality of American public education is among the lowest in the developed world, yet is the most expensive. It has been called a "national security risk" by military officers.

One ought to make a distinction between the quality of the infrastructure and those utilizing it.
 
One ought to make a distinction between the quality of the infrastructure and those utilizing it.

Yes, of course. My point is that a diploma should be the school's stamp of approval on the quality of a finished product. During my working years, I occasionally interviewed new job applicants for trainee positions in the DP department. They all had high school diplomas So I know how little an American diploma means. If I hear the words "Math wasn't my thing in school" one more time, I will scream. The company also hired several young Vietnamese engineers fresh out of college, because they were the absolute best available.
 
Last edited:
That's partisan nonsense and has nothing to do with the question.

Question: shouldn't the benefit of an education come with the highest standards that can be afforded?

That is the question, who has to afford it? The difference in the answer is a political one as it is at that level of decision making about standards that help to get different parties elected. So it is as jp points out a partisan affair.
 
That is the question, who has to afford it? The difference in the answer is a political one as it is at that level of decision making about standards that help to get different parties elected. So it is as jp points out a partisan affair.

The answer has to do with rights, not politics.
 
The answer has to do with rights, not politics.
True, but to make any judgement on whether i should consider it a right i need to make an informed decision. That would require knowledge of what that right entitles and who pays for it. That information is political.
 
It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters only what you can prove. Let us know when you can prove that rights are anything but imaginary things that people made up.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, now does it.
 
Desiring rights doesn't mean rights exist.

Of course, but the desire for rights and ore than one person is what creates them. So, do you believe that education is a right and therefore should enjoy everything that can be afforded?

Do you too believe that each has a duty to protect the rights of others?
 
The desire for rights comes before politics.

No it doesn't, it is part and parcel.
All human interactions have some politics behind them, even if it isn't organized/recognized as such.
 
No it doesn't, it is part and parcel.
All human interactions have some politics behind them, even if it isn't organized/recognized as such.

Politics comes into idea sharing and decision making, not desires. A person who desires freedom is not political in that desire. Two or three who desire freedom are not political: the politics comes in "how do they become free".
 
Of course, but the desire for rights and ore than one person is what creates them. So, do you believe that education is a right and therefore should enjoy everything that can be afforded?

Do you too believe that each has a duty to protect the rights of others?

Sure, which is what we keep pointing that out to people like Henrin who thinks that rights are these magical things that exist entirely without human intervention. That's why we were having that conversation. We agree that rights exist only because humans decide they exist. They change when humans decide that they change collectively. There is no such thing as a universal right or one that will never change.

Do I think education is a right? To a certain degree. But what most people don't want to talk about is that with rights come responsibilities. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. You have a right to a certain level of basic education. If you want more than that, you have to be willing to work for it. You have to be willing to earn it. Lots of people don't want to talk about that.

And no, it isn't your job as an individual to protect the rights of others, it is the job of society as a whole. Individuals have no say over societal rights. it is done as a collective. It's probably a good idea, because rights and morals come from enlightened self-interest, to push for equality for all, but is it your duty? I would say no.
 
Politics comes into idea sharing and decision making, not desires. A person who desires freedom is not political in that desire. Two or three who desire freedom are not political: the politics comes in "how do they become free".

Any interaction between 2 people has politics involved, if you lived your entire life alone the idea of rights would never occur to you. So yeah if you desire freedom that is political. It is in fact inescapably political. Again it may not be registered voter political but it is still political
 
Of course, but the desire for rights and ore than one person is what creates them. So, do you believe that education is a right and therefore should enjoy everything that can be afforded?

Do you too believe that each has a duty to protect the rights of others?

Education is a poor example of a right because it is very different and unique in some respects. It is only incidently a right. A free education is a benefit provided at the expense of others, so is better called an entitlement. It is also necessary for the survival of society, so in that aspect, is an obligation like military service.

A democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on a lunch menu. How does that work?
 
Education is a poor example of a right because it is very different and unique in some respects. It is only incidently a right. A free education is a benefit provided at the expense of others, so is better called an entitlement. It is also necessary for the survival of society, so in that aspect, is an obligation like military service.

A democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on a lunch menu. How does that work?

Education can cover a lot of different subject matter, but why is it very different? Didn't YOU deserve a good and equitable education as a right? Your kids perhaps?
 
Back
Top Bottom