• 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!

I have a "right" to...

I have a "right" to...


  • Total voters
    84
Entirely irrelevant.
On the contrary -- the basis for your argument is the entire point of the exercise.
So, what are particular reasons you personally find valid?
 
Of course humans do things out of self-interest. There isn't any other reason to do do things at all.
Go talk to a fella named "Empirical Truth". He'll tell you that your motivation is happiness, both yours and for others. He'll then tell you that the only effective and legitimate means to achieve this is Communism.
:rofl
 
Go talk to a fella named "Empirical Truth". He'll tell you that your motivation is happiness, both yours and for others. He'll then tell you that the only effective and legitimate means to achieve this is Communism.
:rofl

I don't know E.T., but I have long strongly argued that communism, though a noble idea, cannot work among humankind and will not accomplish unfettered exercise of unalienable rights nor self governance as he probably envisions that it would accomplish.

I believe that the closest to such an envisioned 'utopia' that humankind will ever accomplish is embodied in our own U.S. Constitution as it was originally intended plus the amendments necessary to correct the prejudicial inequities as we evolved to understand them to be.
 
On the contrary -- the basis for your argument is the entire point of the exercise.
So, what are particular reasons you personally find valid?

I already listed them. Displeasure. I don't think it can be argued narrower than that.
 
What makes you thnk that you should get to do what you want to do?

I don't. What makes you think slaves being considered 3/5 persons is an inalienable right?
 
Yeah, ain't it a hoot, African Americans apparently have the "unalienable right" to be counted as 3/5 persons. :mrgreen:

Keep in mind that it was anti-slavery who fraught for and won the battle so that blacks would not be counted as whole people. If blacks were counted as whole people at the time, then the demographics such as they were would have given pro-slavery superior representation in Congress.

The 3/5ths rule is a victory for blacks, not an example of how they were victimized.
 
Keep in mind that it was anti-slavery who fraught for and won the battle so that blacks would not be counted as whole people. If blacks were counted as whole people at the time, then the demographics such as they were would have given pro-slavery superior representation in Congress.

The 3/5ths rule is a victory for blacks, not an example of how they were victimized.

I am always impressed with somebody who has actually studied and understands real history. Kudos.

The problem we're having here is those who are focused on elements of our early American culture that did not implement the unalienable rights as the Founding Fathers defined them. They seem to be unable to separate examples of where the intentions were pure versus the areas in which humans, like all humans in all eras, had feet of clay.

That a good idea is not fully implemented makes it no less of a good idea. And it really doesn't matter who thinks up a good idea either. It is still a good idea.

The Founders did, however, give us all the foundation we needed to make unalienable rights recognizable, respected, revered, and wanted, and all the tools we needed to protect those rights even if we did have to evolve and iron out some wrinkles in order to get there.

Now we are in serious danger of losing that vision. I hope there are still enough Americans who do understand it to defend the unalienable rights for which so much blood and treasure has been invested.
 
The problem we're having here is those who are focused on elements of our early American culture that did not implement the unalienable rights as the Founding Fathers defined them. They seem to be unable to separate examples of where the intentions were pure versus the areas in which humans, like all humans in all eras, had feet of clay.

I see its a mix and match set up, pick and pay. Just pick the parts we like of what others made up to call inalienable rights. I guess that is why we didn't grant the same inalienable rights to African Americans or to the Japanese Americans. Convenient system of inalienable rights there!

As Carlin said, "Bull****, its the glue that holds the world together!"
 
I am always impressed with somebody who has actually studied and understands real history. Kudos.

The problem we're having here is those who are focused on elements of our early American culture that did not implement the unalienable rights as the Founding Fathers defined them. They seem to be unable to separate examples of where the intentions were pure versus the areas in which humans, like all humans in all eras, had feet of clay.

That a good idea is not fully implemented makes it no less of a good idea. And it really doesn't matter who thinks up a good idea either. It is still a good idea.

The Founders did, however, give us all the foundation we needed to make unalienable rights recognizable, respected, revered, and wanted, and all the tools we needed to protect those rights even if we did have to evolve and iron out some wrinkles in order to get there.

Now we are in serious danger of losing that vision. I hope there are still enough Americans who do understand it to defend the unalienable rights for which so much blood and treasure has been invested.

Of course the Founding Fathers are in no way culpable for their acceptance of slavery as a de facto reality. They created something uniquely perfect. Apart from the slavery bit, which wasn't their fault.

Jeez!
 
Of course the Founding Fathers are in no way culpable for their acceptance of slavery as a de facto reality. They created something uniquely perfect. Apart from the slavery bit, which wasn't their fault.

Jeez!

Of course they are culpable, but that was a part of their particular culture just as it was at the same time in Canada, Mexico, and on most of the Carribean islands and much of South America. Some were convinced that the black slaves were not fully human because that is what they had been taught. Some were not so convinced and refused to own slaves. It wasn't them however who hauled the slaves over here. That would be mostly the British. It wasn't the British who went into the jungles and bush to capture them and sell them into slavery. That would be their own countrymen and sometimes members of their own tribe.

Does that make any of it right as we understand right and wrong? Of course not. But would we be any different than they if we had been born in their time? There is an excellent chance that we would not.

If you are taught from birth that certain things are or are not true, and you have no way to verify them for yourself, you are likely to believe what is culturally ingrained into you.

If any one of those Founders had been born into our culture or even the culture at the time of Abraham Lincoln, I am convinced that not one of them would have condoned slavery.

It is not useful nor instructive to read our 21st Century sense of morality into Revolutionary times or Medieval Times or Roman Empire times or the ancient Biblical times or any other period of history. Each era has its own culture and sense of right, wrong, protocol, and what is and is not true. It is one among many important things all students of history must learn if they are to keep history in perspective.
 
Of course they are culpable, but that was a part of their particular culture just as it was at the same time in Canada, Mexico, and on most of the Carribean islands and much of South America. Some were convinced that the black slaves were not fully human because that is what they had been taught. Some were not so convinced and refused to own slaves. It wasn't them however who hauled the slaves over here. That would be mostly the British. It wasn't the British who went into the jungles and bush to capture them and sell them into slavery. That would be their own countrymen and sometimes members of their own tribe.

Does that make any of it right as we understand right and wrong? Of course not. But would we be any different than they if we had been born in their time? There is an excellent chance that we would not.

If you are taught from birth that certain things are or are not true, and you have no way to verify them for yourself, you are likely to believe what is culturally ingrained into you.

If any one of those Founders had been born into our culture or even the culture at the time of Abraham Lincoln, I am convinced that not one of them would have condoned slavery.

It is not useful nor instructive to read our 21st Century sense of morality into Revolutionary times or Medieval Times or Roman Empire times or the ancient Biblical times or any other period of history. Each era has its own culture and sense of right, wrong, protocol, and what is and is not true. It is one among many important things all students of history must learn if they are to keep history in perspective.

Excellent case for not taking the made up words of people from another era as inalienable rights. Great post!
 
Excellent case for not taking the made up words of people from another era as inalienable rights. Great post!

Well thanks for the compliment, but if that is what you interpreted my post to say, that's too bad. Because that isn't what I was saying.
 
Well thanks for the compliment, but if that is what you interpreted my post to say, that's too bad. Because that isn't what I was saying.
But it's what he wanted you to be saying.

I also would like to say that it was a good post.

However, are their any values/ideas which have been present in much if not all of history?

I personally couldn't say, so I'm asking.
 
You WILL be able to -- if -you- supply the means.
You have the freedom to do so.

I cannot do virtually impossible things. The virtual impossibility prevents me in a way no agency can affect one way or the other.

Not at all.
That you do not have the physical capability to march in a political protest in no way means you do not have the political or legal freedom to march in said protest.

That you do not have a church that youcan atend in no way means that you do not have the political or legal freedom to freely exercise your religion.

et cetera...

Regardless of the case, you can't possess any kind of freedom (politcal, legal, or otherwise) if something is virtually impossible. Freedom must include possibility to do so.

Not just protection from banning, but infringement, period.
Not sure how you think this applies to what I said.

I thought we were discussing the nature of rights, as described in the U.S. Constitution.

Only the right to bear arms can not be infringed. The capacity for habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution implies rights (as described in the U.S. Constitution) can be infringed under certain conditions.

You said "If the government was not able to provide my region with the security detail necessary to ensure the free exercise of my constitutional rights against non-compliants...".

The government can NEVER supply so much security that 'non compliants' can NEVER act against you, which would b enecessary to "ensure" the free exercise of yoru rights.

Perfection is incidental to the point. Basically, the government has to perform its duties with a limited amount of resources at its disposal; considerations of spatial distance and population are important when deciding how to effect its duties responsibly. If it supplies me with protection from non-compliants, I might still end up dead, but at least it was performing its duty to the utmost degree it could.

Ths is absolutely unsupportable.
The consitution specifies that it will provide for very few things, and the means for you to maintain your personal protection is not among them. It specifies that the government will 'ensure domestinc tranqulity', a statment was made in a specific context -- to end the sqaubbles amoing the states resulting from the inefficacy of the Articles of Confederation - not related to your argument in any way.

If it was absolutely unsupportable, then it would be inconceivable that the U.S. government would ever distribute weapons among a civilian population; the existence of posses in the Old West (civilian law enforcement acting on legally sanctioned authority, sometimes supplied with equipment (horses or weapons) when their privately owned gear was insufficient) when the military was unable to protect a region from bandits demonstrates it is not absolutely unsupportable.
 
Last edited:
But it's what he wanted you to be saying.

I also would like to say that it was a good post.

However, are their any values/ideas which have been present in much if not all of history?

I personally couldn't say, so I'm asking.

I took his 'made up words' phrase as a perjorative and actually negating what I was saying.

A valid concept is a valid concept no matter what era it comes from or who proposes it. A good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from.

To discount valid concepts and good ideas from people in other eras and times just because they practiced some things that we now believe to be wrong is just as prejudiced and...well...stupid....as discounting everything somebody says now just because they don't get everything right.

That's why we don't read our 21st century morality into our moral judgment of people of another time. To do so can even make us hypocrites because who among us can say with certainty that we wouldn't be the same as they were if we lived in their time?

But yes, I believe there are universal truths that have been recognized in all times. They don't change just because the people change culturally or morally.

That there is a yearning within all people for personal freedom I believe is a universal truth.
 
None of the above.

I'll address two I could see arguments for.

Water is free, like dirt. Clean water is a paid service and not a "right".

A minimum or "living" wage is decided on by citizens in an attempt to boost employment and thus the economy. There is no "right" to be given a job or "right" to be paid a subjective X amount for that job.
 
None of the above.

I'll address two I could see arguments for.

Water is free, like dirt. Clean water is a paid service and not a "right".

A minimum or "living" wage is decided on by citizens in an attempt to boost employment and thus the economy. There is no "right" to be given a job or "right" to be paid a subjective X amount for that job.

money?????WHERED IT GO? oh yeah thats right my tax dollars are paying a few peoples cell phone bills.
 
Well thanks for the compliment, but if that is what you interpreted my post to say, that's too bad. Because that isn't what I was saying.

It may not be what you meant to have said, but that was the meaning of what you said.
 
I don't know E.T., but I have long strongly argued that communism, though a noble idea, cannot work among humankind and will not accomplish unfettered exercise of unalienable rights nor self governance as he probably envisions that it would accomplish.
Of course not -- it runs contrary to human nature.

I believe that the closest to such an envisioned 'utopia' that humankind will ever accomplish is embodied in our own U.S. Constitution as it was originally intended plus the amendments necessary to correct the prejudicial inequities as we evolved to understand them to be.
Utopia is where everyone lives and acts within his rights.
Once we get there, government is no longer necessary.
 
I already listed them. Displeasure. I don't think it can be argued narrower than that.
Your displeasure must have a basis.
 
But yes, I believe there are universal truths that have been recognized in all times. They don't change just because the people change culturally or morally.

That there is a yearning within all people for personal freedom I believe is a universal truth.

Okay, that's one, "personal freedom", albeit a rather vague one. What are the other universal truths that have been recognised in all times?
 
I cannot do virtually impossible things.
the fact that they are 'virtually' impossible things means that they are possible. You're again deliberately confusing the term 'ability' and using it in an inapplicable manner.

Regardless of the case, you can't possess any kind of freedom (politcal, legal, or otherwise) if something is virtually impossible. Freedom must include possibility to do so.
See above.
As such, my examples stand as concrete examples of how your position fails.

That you may not have a church to go to in no way means you do not posess the -legal and political- ability to practice your religion; the means are up to you to provide.

I thought we were discussing the nature of rights, as described in the U.S. Constitution.
Only the right to bear arms can not be infringed. The capacity for habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution implies rights (as described in the U.S. Constitution) can be infringed under certain conditions.
Still wondering how/why this is relevant.

Perfection is incidental to the point.
"Perfection" was necessary to your point, as 'ensure' denotes a rate of 100%.

If it was absolutely unsupportable, then it would be inconceivable that the U.S. government would ever distribute weapons among a civilian population; the existence of posses in the Old West....
This is an exampleof the government equipping people who are acting on the behalf of the government. Apples and tuna.
 
See above.
As such, my examples stand as concrete examples of how your position fails.

That you may not have a church to go to in no way means you do not posess the -legal and political- ability to practice your religion; the means are up to you to provide.

You are not providing examples, just empty assertions. You have not demonstrated that political and legal freedoms as you envision them even exist in any non-nominal sense.

"Perfection" was necessary to your point, as 'ensure' denotes a rate of 100%.

The term 'ensure' does not necessarily imply 100% effectiveness, only a relative and unfixed amount of certainty. It was clear from the context of my post that I did not mean it as such.

This is an exampleof the government equipping people who are acting on the behalf of the government. Apples and tuna.

People who are protecting their homes and families from bandits because the government can't provide the necessary security detail aren't acting on their own behalf?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom