• 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
unalienable means... rights cannot be separated from you in anyway.

inalienable means....rights cannot be separated from you in any lawful way, meaning .........you by you own consent can give them up.

Inalienable - unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:

Unalienable - another term for inalienable.

They actually are synonyms. The Declaration of Independence uses the term 'unalienable' so I usually do too. But I mean the exact same thing whichever word I use.
 
That's your opinion which you are entitled to and I will ignore since so many of your opinions are totally wrong.

oh, so you are prefect?

you may as well learn now that everything we as a people do whether you support it or not is going to be criticized by future generations.

you are very quick to find fault with people who live in an age you have no understanding of.

you remind me of the guy who describes what it like to be a slave, yet.... never was one.
 
Inalienable - unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:

Unalienable - another term for inalienable.

They actually are synonyms. The Declaration of Independence uses the term 'unalienable' so I usually do too. But I mean the exact same thing whichever word I use.

no they are not, which is why i posted old definitions.

unalienable cannot be separated in any way.

inalienable cannot be separated lawfully....
 
oh, so you are prefect?

you may as well learn now that everything we as a people do whether you support it or not is going to be criticized by future generations.

you are very quick to find fault with people who live in an age you have no understanding of.

you remind me of the guy who describes what it like to be a slave, yet.... never was one.



That guy exists only in your mind with the other demons. :roll:
 
no they are not, which is why i posted old definitions.

unalienable cannot be separated in any way.

inalienable cannot be separated lawfully....

Come on. You aren't going to make this into a battle of semantics are you?


inalienable
ADJECTIVE
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:
"freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
synonyms: inviolable · absolute · sacrosanct · untransferable ·
Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

Inalienable | Define Inalienable at Dictionary.com
adjective 1. not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights legal definition of Inalienable rights
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable rights
Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another.

Unalienable | Definition of unalienable by Merriam-Webster
Unalienable | Definition of unalienable by Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of UNALIENABLE : inalienable
impossible to take away or give up

unalienable
Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia.
un·al·ien·a·ble
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:
Free Dictionary.com
 
Come on. You aren't going to make this into a battle of semantics are you?


inalienable
ADJECTIVE
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:
"freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
synonyms: inviolable · absolute · sacrosanct · untransferable ·
Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

Inalienable | Define Inalienable at Dictionary.com
adjective 1. not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights legal definition of Inalienable rights
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable rights
Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another.

Unalienable | Definition of unalienable by Merriam-Webster
Unalienable | Definition of unalienable by Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of UNALIENABLE : inalienable
impossible to take away or give up

unalienable
Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia.
un·al·ien·a·ble
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:
Free Dictionary.com

with unalienable rights..........they in no way can be alienated away from someone, even if the person wanted to

with inalienable rights......the person cannot give up his rights by law, ..however he can freely give them up by his own consent...IE... WAIVE HIS RIGHTS
 
Last edited:
let me set you straight so you know what you are talking about.

first..i going to keep this as short as i can.


i stated to another poster, that the DOI was subjective but he did not quite agree, he believed it to be more a religious document.

i stated to him that Jefferson's first original draft of the document was more religious, then the one in the national archives now.

then you jumped in and started and accused me of creating things on my own.

thats when i told you to "read the original draft"

Everyone who wants to participate in a thread is free to do so and is thus part of that conversation as it is all public and open to all. If you want a PRIVATE conversation with another poster, the board has a PM service they provide. If you do not know how to use it I will be happy to guide you through.
 
with unalienable rights..........they in no way can be alienated away from someone, even if the person wanted to

with inalienable rights......the person cannot give up his rights by law, ..however he can freely give them up by his own consent...IE... WAIVE HIS RIGHTS

They are the same thing. They are interchangeable. They are synonyms of each other. You are free to use whatever terms you want to express yourself--that is actually your inalienable or unalienable right to do--but I will continue to use them as the Founders used the terms and as the dictionary defines them--and the dictionary defines them exactly in the same way as I just illustrated. (And that is my inalienable or unalienable right to do.)
 
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

what is the god of nature...some do not equate that to the god of heaven

Jefferson original draft was more of a religious nature, the final draft toned it down more.

Wow... it says God, it says Creator (capital 'C'), and you are arguing that somehow they meant anything other than 'a higher power,' which however you look at it throws agnostics and atheists out of the equation. That's either denial or selective hearing or something.
 
Everyone who wants to participate in a thread is free to do so and is thus part of that conversation as it is all public and open to all. If you want a PRIVATE conversation with another poster, the board has a PM service they provide. If you do not know how to use it I will be happy to guide you through.

you see you don't even know what you were even arguing about......you are just arguing to argue.
 
They are the same thing. They are interchangeable. They are synonyms of each other. You are free to use whatever terms you want to express yourself--that is actually your inalienable or unalienable right to do--but I will continue to use them as the Founders used the terms and as the dictionary defines them--and the dictionary defines them exactly in the same way as I just illustrated. (And that is my inalienable or unalienable right to do.)

you are free

Bouvier Law Dictionary
 

You can post whatever you want me to see in the Bouvier Law Dictionary. But even if it does define a word as you want it defined, does that override all the other dictionaries that define the same word in the same way as the definitions I posted?

Never mind I'll do it for you. From the Bouvier Law Dictionary (which doesn't exactly support your argument does it):

UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.
INALIENABLE. This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.
 
Last edited:
Wow... it says God, it says Creator (capital 'C'), and you are arguing that somehow they meant anything other than 'a higher power,' which however you look at it throws agnostics and atheists out of the equation. That's either denial or selective hearing or something.

i said that in the original version of the document it was more religious....because Jefferson used "sacred."

the document uses their creator , it does not say the Lord god, leaving the reader with subjective reading because it says

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -
 
You can post whatever you want me to see in the Bouvier Law Dictionary. But even if it does define a word as you want it defined, does that override all the other dictionaries that define the same word in the same way as the definitions I posted?

ask yourself this question.... why does this dictionary, and Black's Law, have two different definitions.....if it means the same.
 
There is no natural right to infringe upon. Thus falls your entire premise.

so what did the 2A recognize given the supreme court in Cruikshank held that the 2A recognized a pre-existing right

that is why your argument is specious and you think that the way to obliterate the 2A is to pretend its foundation does not exist
 
ask yourself this question.... why does this dictionary, and Black's Law, have two different definitions.....if it means the same.

This is the first you've brought up re Black's Law. Couldn't make your case using Bouvier, huh? :)

But here you go with Black's definitions which agree with Bouvier:

What is INALIENABLE?
Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.
Law Dictionary: What is INALIENABLE? definition of INALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is UNALIENABLE?
Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
Law Dictionary: What is UNALIENABLE? definition of UNALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)
 
so what did the 2A recognize given the supreme court



The Heller ruling is irrelevant in stating what the Constitution actually says and what the Founders intended by what it says.

he loves this word....

notice... hes claiming his favorite USSC ruling is irrelevant
 
he loves this word....

notice... hes claiming his favorite USSC ruling is irrelevant

what is hilarious is he quickly cites the FDR lapdog supreme court to justify the commerce clause being the source of federal gun control power but he completely ignores the Landmark (and far more esteemed) Cruikshank decision-a decision the CITY OF CHICAGO cited in support of its gun ban-that held that

1) the Bill of rights CREATED NO RIGHTS

2) But MERELY recognized pre-existing rights

3) that are not dependent upon the constitution for their existence

4) and which only prevents Federal action
 
This is the first you've brought up re Black's Law. Couldn't make your case using Bouvier, huh? :)

But here you go with Black's definitions which agree with Bouvier:

What is INALIENABLE?
Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.
Law Dictionary: What is INALIENABLE? definition of INALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is UNALIENABLE?
Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
Law Dictionary: What is UNALIENABLE? definition of UNALIENABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)

no.... i can make them in several aways ....would you look me to provide them to you, i will if you wish.
 
i said that in the original version of the document it was more religious....because Jefferson used "sacred."

the document uses their creator , it does not say the Lord god, leaving the reader with subjective reading because it says

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

The use of the term God, referring to anything, indicates a belief in a higher power. Added to the term Creator, I don't think you can argue that they were leaving this open to a non-religious interpretation. These were religious men who created a government based on Judeo-Christian ideals. They believed in allowing others to freely practice the religion of their choice, but that doesn't change the nature of THEIR beliefs and the impact that those beliefs had on our government. They are saying that these rights are granted by a higher power. Thus, use of the DOI to justify 'natural rights' that do not involve a higher power is the same as playing "Born in the USA" at a patriotic gathering: The user just doesn't understand or admit to the meaning of the words, and is trying to pretend that the very clear language carries ambiguity that was just not intended.
 
what is hilarious is he quickly cites the FDR lapdog supreme court to justify the commerce clause being the source of federal gun control power but he completely ignores the Landmark (and far more esteemed) Cruikshank decision-a decision the CITY OF CHICAGO cited in support of its gun ban-that held that

1) the Bill of rights CREATED NO RIGHTS

2) But MERELY recognized pre-existing rights

3) that are not dependent upon the constitution for their existence

4) and which only prevents Federal action

i agree.
 
no.... i can make them in several aways ....would you look me to provide them to you, i will if you wish.

Go ahead if you think the definitions I posted for both law dictionaries are not what they say.
 
Back
Top Bottom