• 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!

Defining a Right

What is a Right?


  • Total voters
    32
Your definition of constitutional has no boundaries, your definition allows the erosion of rights by its very nature.

Actually the boundary is the US Constitution, what the legislative and executive branch see as its application to law, and what the Court says about it when they rule on cases regarding parts of it. That is the boundary.
 
Cultural values play some role but the basic human rights wont change much, if at all.

I have not seen so much nitpicking since Ms. Broomflyer had me diagram a sentence in fourth grade. But fine, if this is the game you want to play - I can play that also.

Do cultural values play an important role in determining what behaviors a society wants as a right?
 
Actually the boundary is the US Constitution, what the legislative and executive branch see as its application to law, and what the Court says about it when they rule on cases regarding parts of it. That is the boundary.

Lie. Because everyone on this board has seen your fake as hell "boundary" for the 2nd amendment. You accept any constriction of rights so long as it agrees with your political agenda. Dismissed.
 
Again, what does you directing this stuff about the Court rulings have to do with me or anything I have said?

You believe only a societal majority can decide rights, I am giving you examples where you are wrong.
 
I have not seen so much nitpicking since Ms. Broomflyer had me diagram a sentence in fourth grade. But fine, if this is the game you want to play - I can play that also.

Do cultural values play an important role in determining what behaviors a society wants as a right?

Quit crying, no one cares.

As I stated already some minimal effect, most basic rights cross cultural boundaries.
 
Last edited:
Lie. Because everyone on this board has seen your fake as hell "boundary" for the 2nd amendment. You accept any constriction of rights so long as it agrees with your political agenda. Dismissed.

Instead you you telling me what you think I support or do not support, I would strongly advise you to present my actual views with posts and quotes so we know your personal version is accurate and untainted by your own prejudice with me.
 
Quit crying, no one cares.

As I stated already some minimal, most basic rights cross cultural boundaries.

Minimal. Okay.

You really need to expand your education on this topic. This might help you

https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/database/hr-cultural-values.html

It is an excellent piece which demonstrates rather clearly just how important cultural values are in deterring rights according to many professional sociologists who have studied the issue across different cultures.

this is from the introduction

Asia is a region with diverse cultures. This is coupled with the fact that political, social and economic situations of people in the region are equally varied. This situation raises a question on whether international concepts such as human rights can relate meaningfully to the cultural values present in the region. In recent years, there are reports of some governments arguing for an Asian concept of human rights. One major justification for this view is the culture factor.

HURIGHTS OSAKA took the opportunity of helping facilitate a more in-depth discussion on this matter through a research project that will identify and explain cultural values found in several countries in the region. The research project will analyze the relationship of cultural values to human rights to provide impartial bases for an appropriate appreciation of human rights in the context of Asia.

This initiative is deemed crucial in fashioning effective human rights education programs that present human rights as ideas that relate to the cultures of peoples in different parts of the region. HURIGHTS OSAKA sees the research project as an essential first step in developing its regional human rights education program. It will hopefully supply a sound basis for a need to have human rights education programs that put primacy to people's cultures.

But do not stop here as the article is quite lengthy and that is only about 1% of it.

There is tons of evidence there that cultural values and rights are just what I stated - in previous posts - that they play a major role in determining what rights a society wants.

But if you have authoritative evidence which says the opposite, please present it and I will be glad to examine it and discuss it with you.

Why don't you take a few hours to read it and come back and we can discuss it?
 
Last edited:
Those liberties and properties which, owing to the nature of the human condition and the world we live in, ought to be rightfully respected by the law and society and preserved by same.

If you're asking regarding so-called "positive" or "negative" rights, I don't generally entertain the distinction so much, except to note that any right which imposes a burden on another to fulfill it is an imposition on the latter's liberty, and ought to be viewed with considerable suspicion and caution before being codified into law, if entertained at all.
 
Where did I state what you claim I supposedly said?

Yep, typical. We are done, not playing your insipid circular games. Restate what you do believe and demonstrate how am I wrong, I am not playing this circular reasoning crap with you.
 
That's false and anyone that is not having a right recognized because a government is not accepting it knows it.

Just because you feel like you should have a right, does not mean that you actually have that right. I guess anyone in North Korea has the right to criticize their government, if only their government recognized that right - so, so, so ridiculous. Once again, rights are human constructs. Like any other human construct, it doesn't exist for you unless your culture and society / government recognizes it. Otherwise, its just in your head.
 
Minimal. Okay.

You really need to expand your education on this topic. This might help you

You really need to quit pretending you have the most clever thing to say, again, no one cares.

https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/database/hr-cultural-values.html

It is an excellent piece which demonstrates rather clearly just how important cultural values are in deterring rights according to many professional sociologists who have studied the issue across different cultures.

this is from the introduction



But do not stop here as the article is quite lengthy and that is only about 1% of it.

Why don't you take a few hours to read it and come back and we can discuss it?

Your own source speaks of negative rights, which you barely even recognize. Further its a study, its not conclusive. Considered as a data point, granted.
 
Yep, typical. We are done, not playing your insipid circular games. Restate what you do believe and demonstrate how am I wrong, I am not playing this circular reasoning crap with you.

Actually you were done in by your own tactics when you attempted to tell me what I believe rather than supply the evidence of me stating what I believe. That fatal flaw did you in.
 
You believe only a societal majority can decide rights, I am giving you examples where you are wrong.

Society has decided to limit the 2nd amendment so that freedom loving Americans can't carry around nuclear arms. Is this just sanity, or liberals getting those freedom loving conservative patriot Americans on the slippery slope to their ultimate vision of Stalinist totalitarianism?
 
Actually you were done in by your own tactics when you attempted to tell me what I believe rather than supply the evidence of me stating what I believe. That fatal flaw did you in.

No the fatal flaw was engaging someone that doesn't debate honestly about what they believe.
 
Society has decided to limit the 2nd amendment so that freedom loving Americans can't carry around nuclear arms. Is this just sanity, or liberals getting those freedom loving conservative patriot Americans on the slippery slope to their ultimate vision of Stalinist totalitarianism?

I would say confiscating long rifles and any clips with more than 7 rounds in NY is a bit down the slope.
 
You really need to quit pretending you have the most clever thing to say, again, no one cares.



Your own source speaks of negative rights, which you barely even recognize. Further its a study, its not conclusive. Considered as a data point, granted.

Actually "my own source" has lots and lots and lots and lots in it from many many many people. So you are going to have to do a whole lot better than that and be specific. If you have something which disagrees with me - present it and we will discuss it along with the obvious information that I stated earlier regarding cultural values playing an important role in deterring rights that a society wants.

It would take a sociologist hours to properly read that piece. You responded in mere minutes. Obviously you did not read it beyond a very minimal scanning of it.

Tryo to discuss this honestly for once. Read it and get back with me.
 
Just because you feel like you should have a right, does not mean that you actually have that right. I guess anyone in North Korea has the right to criticize their government, if only their government recognized that right - so, so, so ridiculous. Once again, rights are human constructs. Like any other human construct, it doesn't exist for you unless your culture and society / government recognizes it. Otherwise, its just in your head.

I am saying if rights are not recognized, people eventually force government to recognize them or they throw out the current government.
 
You really need to quit pretending you have the most clever thing to say, again, no one cares.



Your own source speaks of negative rights, which you barely even recognize. Further its a study, its not conclusive. Considered as a data point, granted.

Positive, as well as negative, rights are determined by society and enforced though their system of government. There is nothing "natural" about them. In nature, if someone or something is stronger than you, nature does not guarantee even your right to breathe for very long. That's why humans created systems of government and enforceable law and order- because they didn't like the way nature operates when left completely free and alone.
 
No the fatal flaw was engaging someone that doesn't debate honestly about what they believe.

Actually your fatal flaw is YOU telling ME what I believe and failing to provide the evidence that supports your claim.

Debate is not merely stating an opinion. That is but the first step... and the easiest in many ways. The hard part begins when you have to support your opinion with verifiable evidence. And you have failed to do that when you proclaim to the world what I believe but fail to supply my words stating just that.
 
I am saying if rights are not recognized, people eventually force government to recognize them or they throw out the current government.

Sure. But what those rights should or should not be is determined by the society. In some societies, things like healthcare and a basic education are seen as human rights. If the government stops being able ot provide a basic safety net of these for their populace, they will throw their incompetent negligent behinds out.
 
Actually your fatal flaw is YOU telling ME what I believe and failing to provide the evidence that supports your claim.

Debate is not merely stating an opinion. That is but the first step... and the easiest in many ways. The hard part begins when you have to support your opinion with verifiable evidence. And you have failed to do that when you proclaim to the world what I believe but fail to supply my words stating just that.

Yet, when flat out asked you never present what you do believe. You just skip the first step and settle into a contrarian position to my states beliefs and then say, I didn't say that. Well no ****, you never say what you believe with any certainty, and thus never defend it. Trolls use those tactics, not honest posters. Be more honest, less trollish in your responses.
 
Sure. But what those rights should or should not be is determined by the society. In some societies, things like healthcare and a basic education are seen as human rights. If the government stops being able ot provide a basic safety net of these for their populace, they will throw their incompetent negligent behinds out.

Well, hell, why don't we just have a safety net over everyone, that ought to work. Its not a right.
 
Back
Top Bottom