• 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!

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 41.4%
  • No

    Votes: 51 58.6%

  • Total voters
    87
Rights, by definition, can be either legal, social, or ethical.
I have prayed to the church of Google but haven't located the definition you're using. Please link to it.
 
I have prayed to the church of Google but haven't located the definition you're using. Please link to it.

Google "rights."

Or read Wikipedia. Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or you can look it up in websites dictionary : something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do
 
Again the fact that somebody may assume power to deny you the liberty to exercise your unalienable rights as you choose does not mean that those rights no longer exist.

If you can't exercise a right, then it is pointless to claim it. But this completely fails to address the point I made. The aliens are claiming ownership of what they believe to be their planet since they made it. So does it belong to us or them and who makes that ultimate decision?
 
Let me throw my 2 cents in here.

Rights, by definition, can be either legal, social, or ethical.

Beginning with the ethical - you can claim that ethics are subjective, and that's true to a marginal extent, but, largely, human ethics are universal. Nearly every culture on earth has an ethical system that boils down to the golden rule: do to others what you would have them do to you. In other words, treat people as you feel you deserve to be treated. That forms the foundation for what we might call "natural rights."

Socially, if we can agree on this guiding ethical principle, we then interpret this and begin to structure society in a way that protects these rights for the members of that society.

We then come up with laws. Laws which, of course, are unique to specific goverrmsnts and cultures but which, nonetheless, share a number of guiding principles.

For instance, murder is illegal in nearly every culture on earth. This implies a right to life. Theft and slavery are nearly universally illegal. This implies the right to property and liberty.

You see, we get so hung up on our differences sometimes, we start to believe morality and legality to be completely subjective and cultural. In fact, our commonalities are much more profound and run much deeper than our differences.

Every child learns not to hit other children, to share, to treat others with respect, etc. These shared values carry in to adulthood and in to the laws which we create for ourselves.

All rights are then subjective or relative to a society. And no, not every child learns not to hit other children. That may be your ideal and many of us share it, but that is not reality.
 
this post will be marked and noted for further reference.

WHY? :doh :shock: Is it a shock to you to find out that nobody can deny or limit rights that you do not have? :roll::shock:
 
again this is a silly and irrelevant comment. we reference natural rights because they were recognized by the founders in the Bill of rights. People like you pretend that the Bill of rights is extremely limited and the Bill of rights' prohibitions on the actions of the federal government are extremely narrow. We who do not worship the federal government understand that the founders believed in natural rights and intended to prevent the federal government from raping those natural rights. They did this two ways

1) they NEVER EVER gave the federal government the power to interfere with those rights in the main body of the constitution and when some of the founders were worried about dishonest politicians in the future pretending that the federal government had any power not specifically denied it,

2) they created the Bill of rights which was a negative restriction and restatement of that fact

You can pretend all you want that we don't have those right but the Bill of Rights proves you are incorrect.

so does the fact that the federal government was never properly delegated the power to so interfere with them

What all this vitriol is about - well - that is a mystery because all I told you was that nobody can deny you rights that you don't have in the first place. Any rational person dealing with reality would agree with that.
 
Last edited:
WHY? :doh :shock: Is it a shock to you to find out that nobody can deny or limit rights that you do not have? :roll::shock:

Nobody can limit rights that you don't have in the first place.

you have declared rights do not exist..but below you say they do!



Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
The 19th effectively gave females the right to vote. There is no doubt about that in the rational mind of any thinking person who knows history.

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
It most certainly does and I already gave you several examples including rights contained in the Sixth Amendment and the various right to vote provisions.

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
Everything in that article confirms that the right to vote was given to women by the 19th Amendment. This proves you wrong beyond any doubt. For you to deny it - yet again - is simply a sign of your refusal to accept reality and fact because it would destroy your extremist self imposed belief system.
 
Last edited:
All rights are then subjective or relative to a society. And no, not every child learns not to hit other children. That may be your ideal and many of us share it, but that is not reality.

If that's all the thought you can put in to an answer, I'm sorry I wasted my time involving you.

You give no proof of your claims, and offer no evidence contrary to anything I stated. Your answer is basically the adult version of "nuh uh."
 
If you can't exercise a right, then it is pointless to claim it. But this completely fails to address the point I made. The aliens are claiming ownership of what they believe to be their planet since they made it. So does it belong to us or them and who makes that ultimate decision?
That would depend on the fact-dependant claims made by the aliens. We can't know until real aliens actually show up and make a claim.
 
Inalienable rights are diferent in that they don't exist. Every right you have, can be taken from you.

The only possible exeption is the persuit of happiness, because even if you're chained in a cell and doped up, you can still "persue happiness"; like the old saying "you can cage my body but never my spirit". But even that can be argued to be a condition of our being and not an actual right.

Well I have made my argument. And no, the right to think cannot be taken from me. The right to hope, to aspire, to believe, etc. cannot be taken from me. I can be denied my ability to exercise such things as I choose, but they cannot be taken from me. Again 'inalienable' means that you cannot surrender, sell, or transfer it to somebody else. The U.S. Constitution was originally intended to recognize and protect inalienable or natural rights so that no king or religious authority or anybody else could prevent the people from exercising them.

And however much anybody tries to deny that, it is the truth just as not having the ability to understand what natural rights are or the concept behind them does not mean that such natural rights do not exist.
 
you have declared rights do not exist..but below you say they do!



Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
The 19th effectively gave females the right to vote. There is no doubt about that in the rational mind of any thinking person who knows history.

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
It most certainly does and I already gave you several examples including rights contained in the Sixth Amendment and the various right to vote provisions.

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
Everything in that article confirms that the right to vote was given to women by the 19th Amendment. This proves you wrong beyond any doubt. For you to deny it - yet again - is simply a sign of your refusal to accept reality and fact because it would destroy your extremist self imposed belief system.

Your post makes no sense as a reply to what I wrote. I stated that you cannot claim a right is being lessened or attacked if you do not have that right in the first place. That is simply the way reality works. That does NOT mean that you do not have rights. That is simply inane for you to jump to that strange conclusion.

Why you would engage in such gross dishonesty and then attribute it to me is a real mystery. :roll::doh
 
If you can't exercise a right, then it is pointless to claim it. But this completely fails to address the point I made. The aliens are claiming ownership of what they believe to be their planet since they made it. So does it belong to us or them and who makes that ultimate decision?

Using your logic, it is pointless to have laws protecting rights, yes? But nevertheless we have them. So they must exist.

The Constitution was to prevent monarch or religious authority or each other from infringing on our natural rights, i.e. preventing our ability to exercise and benefit from them as we saw fit. The fact that some would deny us that ability does not change the fact that such natural rights exist.
 
the u.s. constitution mentions only natural rights, and privileges and that is all.

civil rights/ legal rights, come from government and are privileges of constitutional law.
 
Well I have made my argument. And no, the right to think cannot be taken from me. The right to hope, to aspire, to believe, etc. cannot be taken from me. I can be denied my ability to exercise such things as I choose, but they cannot be taken from me. Again 'inalienable' means that you cannot surrender, sell, or transfer it to somebody else. The U.S. Constitution was originally intended to recognize and protect inalienable or natural rights so that no king or religious authority or anybody else could prevent the people from exercising them.

And however much anybody tries to deny that, it is the truth just as not having the ability to understand what natural rights are or the concept behind them does not mean that such natural rights do not exist.
Yes, you made your argument, and it fel flat on it's face. That Natural Rights can be alienated means Natural Rights don't exist.
 
Yes, you made your argument, and it fel flat on it's face. That Natural Rights can be alienated means Natural Rights don't exist.

Have a nice day Jerry. I made my argument for why natural rights exist. And you cannot make them go away by saying over and over that they do not.
 
Have a nice day Jerry. I made my argument for why natural rights exist. And you cannot make them go away by saying over and over that they do not.

that is the only argument they have...."they don't exist"

when you ask them to prove it, you get more of the same.

then they tell you to prove they exist, when that question should be directed at them, how can they prove they don't exist, since natural rights are part of our laws, principles, and of history of the world and america
 
Have a nice day Jerry. I made my argument for why natural rights exist. And you cannot make them go away by saying over and over that they do not.

That's the problem, you haven't. You've claimed natural rights exist. You haven't shown that they really do. People are pointing to documents written by people who believed in natural rights. That doesn't prove that they are actually real. If he can't make them go away by saying they do not exist, you cannot wish them into existence by repeating that they do. You have to present some kind of evidence that they're real and differentiate them, in reality, from the only kind of rights we can actually demonstrate exist, legal rights. The burden of proof is entirely on the shoulders of the natural rights proponents. When do you guys think you'll do more than stamp your feet and ardently demand that these things exist?
 
Well I have made my argument. And no, the right to think cannot be taken from me. The right to hope, to aspire, to believe, etc. cannot be taken from me. I can be denied my ability to exercise such things as I choose, but they cannot be taken from me. Again 'inalienable' means that you cannot surrender, sell, or transfer it to somebody else. The U.S. Constitution was originally intended to recognize and protect inalienable or natural rights so that no king or religious authority or anybody else could prevent the people from exercising them.

And however much anybody tries to deny that, it is the truth just as not having the ability to understand what natural rights are or the concept behind them does not mean that such natural rights do not exist.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Excellent! :thumbs:
 
that is the only argument they have...."they don't exist"

when you ask them to prove it, you get more of the same.

then they tell you to prove they exist, when that question should be directed at them, how can they prove they don't exist, since natural rights are part of our laws, principles, and of history of the world and america

But they do exist because each of us knows from our own experience and observation that we have ability to reason, think, hope, aspire, enjoy, create, believe, etc. I think the problem is in our crappy education system that no longer teaches people how to learn, how to think, how to reason. Instead it teaches them what is politically correct to think and say, discourages any deviation from that. A broader concept is simply lost on them. Maybe that cause their brains to atrophy so that they can no longer conceive of anything outside of what they have been taught?
 
That's the problem, you haven't. You've claimed natural rights exist. You haven't shown that they really do. People are pointing to documents written by people who believed in natural rights. That doesn't prove that they are actually real. If he can't make them go away by saying they do not exist, you cannot wish them into existence by repeating that they do. You have to present some kind of evidence that they're real and differentiate them, in reality, from the only kind of rights we can actually demonstrate exist, legal rights. The burden of proof is entirely on the shoulders of the natural rights proponents. When do you guys think you'll do more than stamp your feet and ardently demand that these things exist?

so you are going to post a video of a 19yr old kid telling me natural rights don't exist, and that is supposed to prove your case?
 
But they do exist because each of us knows from our own experience and observation that we have ability to reason, think, hope, aspire, enjoy, create, believe, etc. I think the problem is in our crappy education system that no longer teaches people how to learn, how to think, how to reason. Instead it teaches them what is politically correct to think and say, discourages any deviation from that. A broader concept is simply lost on them. Maybe that cause their brains to atrophy so that they can no longer conceive of anything outside of what they have been taught?

hug a tree today!

get in touch with your feelings
 
Back
Top Bottom