• 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!

Charlize Theron Is An Idiot

I have to ask, why is this news now?

Wasn’t the decision making capability of Charlize Theron’s character in the film Prometheus enough of a hint??
 
Gaius46 said:
Are they man made or simply recognized by man? "LIfe" isn't a right granted by the US legal system. It's a right inherent in people.
Click to expand...

What does "right to life" mean to you?
 
Gaius46 said:
Are they man made or simply recognized by man? "LIfe" isn't a right granted by the US legal system. It's a right inherent in people.
Click to expand...

Rights are a man-made concept.

No rights exist at all unless recognized and enumerated by man.

Living exists...a right to that life is a man-made concept.
 
Lursa said:
Rights are a man-made concept.

No rights exist at all unless recognized and enumerated by man.

Living exists...a right to that life is a man-made concept.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Recognizing and enumerating a right doesn't imply the creation of that right. Or else what justifies our saying anything about how another country treats it's citizens. If the NK legal system, for example, doesn't recognize a right to life for it's citizens then they simply do not have that right and no one has any justification to say anything about it. That strikes me as wrong.
 
Gaius46 said:
I disagree. Recognizing and enumerating a right doesn't imply the creation of that right. Or else what justifies our saying anything about how another country treats it's citizens. If the NK legal system, for example, doesn't recognize a right to life for it's citizens then they simply do not have that right and no one has any justification to say anything about it. That strikes me as wrong.
Click to expand...

Do other animals create rights for themselves? Do they have rights (outside of what man accords them)?

No. Rights are a man-made concept. A legal, man-made concept, just like laws.
 
Lursa said:
Do other animals create rights for themselves? Do they have rights (outside of what man accords them)?

No. Rights are a man-made concept. A legal, man-made concept, just like laws.
Click to expand...

So a right to life doesn't exist unless the law recognizes it? There's a couple thousand years worth of philosophy that would disagree with that position. Legal rights only exist if a legal system grants them. Natural rights are universally recognized and not dependent on a legal system for their existence. That's not to say that a legal system has to protect a natural right but because NK might not respect it's citizens' right to life it doesn't mean that they do not have that right.

And no animals do not have rights.
 
Gaius46 said:
So a right to life doesn't exist unless the law recognizes it? There's a couple thousand years worth of philosophy that would disagree with that position. Legal rights only exist if a legal system grants them. Natural rights are universally recognized and not dependent on a legal system for their existence. That's not to say that a legal system has to protect a natural right but because NK might not respect it's citizens' right to life it doesn't mean that they do not have that right.

And no animals do not have rights.
Click to expand...

Correct (man, not the law...a law protects a right). It is an appeal to a higher authority to believe otherwise. Exactly where then, did those 'natural' rights come from?

Also, all societies dont universally agree on them. Some societies do not agree that other cultures, tribes, religions, etc. have a right to life for example. So they are not even universal.

And if rights are 'natural,' then why dont animals have them?
 
Lursa said:
There is no such thing as due process in nature.
Click to expand...

Sure there is for humans.

What do you think was developed first? That people came up with idea that "hey, we should devise a system of justice based on due process".

OR that some government came up with the idea of "due process" and the people it served.. said 'hey.. that's a nice idea"?
 
Lursa said:
Do other animals create rights for themselves? Do they have rights (outside of what man accords them)?

No. Rights are a man-made concept. A legal, man-made concept, just like laws.
Click to expand...

so.. that doesn;t mean we don't have natural rights.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure there is for humans.

What do you think was developed first? That people came up with idea that "hey, we should devise a system of justice based on due process".

OR that some government came up with the idea of "due process" and the people it served.. said 'hey.. that's a nice idea"?
Click to expand...

What is naturally inherent about that?
 
Lursa said:
Correct (man, not the law...a law protects a right). It is an appeal to a higher authority to believe otherwise. Exactly where then, did those 'natural' rights come from?

Also, all societies dont universally agree on them. Some societies do not agree that other cultures, tribes, religions, etc. have a right to life for example. So they are not even universal.

And if rights are 'natural,' then why dont animals have them?
Click to expand...

Actually animals do tend to have rights.. we do believe in animal rights.

however.. if a right doesn;t exist unless the law recognizes it...

Would you say then that the Holocaust and the death camps did not violate the rights of jews? that the death camps were not a human rights violation?

The holocaust was legal under German law.
 
jaeger19 said:
so.. that doesn;t mean we don't have natural rights.
Click to expand...

If you imagine it, if you agree with the concept, then I guess you do.

We have rights...but the are a legal concept and as such, identifiable, enforceable.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually animals do tend to have rights.. we do believe in animal rights.

however.. if a right doesn;t exist unless the law recognizes it...

Would you say then that the Holocaust and the death camps did not violate the rights of jews? that the death camps were not a human rights violation?

The holocaust was legal under German law.
Click to expand...

Sure *WE* accord them any rights as WE see fit. Humans. And it absolutely is not a universal concept.

Animals have no rights that man doesnt recognize for them. That is not natural.

And with the German thing...you are proving my point.
 
Chillfolks said:
What? Are you claiming that her dad allegedly being an abusive drunk was the fault of easy access to guns?

They used a gun to protect themselves from a problem caused by easy access to booze and being an asshole.
Click to expand...

His post had to qualify as one of the dumbest I have ever seen. :roll:
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I have to ask, why is this news now?

Wasn’t the decision making capability of Charlize Theron’s character in the film Prometheus enough of a hint??
Click to expand...

Oh leaver'er alone; she's a heart throb.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually animals do tend to have rights.. we do believe in animal rights.

however.. if a right doesn;t exist unless the law recognizes it...

Would you say then that the Holocaust and the death camps did not violate the rights of jews? that the death camps were not a human rights violation?

The holocaust was legal under German law.
Click to expand...

Face Palm.webp
 
Lursa said:
Correct (man, not the law...a law protects a right). It is an appeal to a higher authority to believe otherwise. Exactly where then, did those 'natural' rights come from?

Also, all societies dont universally agree on them. Some societies do not agree that other cultures, tribes, religions, etc. have a right to life for example. So they are not even universal.

And if rights are 'natural,' then why dont animals have them?
Click to expand...

A higher authority isn't needed any more than a higher is needed to explain why I have a liver. Natural rights are inherent to humans and do not require a legal system for their existence. A legal system may recognize and protect them, as ours does, but it doesn't create them.

Animals don't have natural rights because they are unable to recognize the existence of those rights in others. I recognize your right to life. A bear doesn't recognize mine. Animals don't have legal rights either because they do not participate in society in any meaningful way. We have obligations to animals and some of those are codified in laws but those aren't rights.
 
Gaius46 said:
A higher authority isn't needed any more than a higher is needed to explain why I have a liver. Natural rights are inherent to humans and do not require a legal system for their existence. A legal system may recognize and protect them, as ours does, but it doesn't create them.

Animals don't have natural rights because they are unable to recognize the existence of those rights in others. I recognize your right to life. A bear doesn't recognize mine. Animals don't have legal rights either because they do not participate in society in any meaningful way. We have obligations to animals and some of those are codified in laws but those aren't rights.
Click to expand...

Inherent how? What genes? Where do they come from? And if we have them naturally, why dont animals? (And the part I bolded explains it...for all animals including humans)

Edit: exactly what separates humans from the other animals in this naturally inherent concept? Not sentience, animals have lives and needs and instincts even without the same level of sentience as humans.. You make it sound like some super-power.

And the bold pretty much means exactly what I've been saying. If we didnt conceptualize them...recognize them...they wouldnt exist.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
What is naturally inherent about that?
Click to expand...

Where did the idea come from.

As you state.. it couldn;t come from animals. It couldn't come from a government first.

It naturally came from the human consciousness.
 
jaeger19 said:
Where did the idea come from.

As you state.. it couldn;t come from animals. It couldn't come from a government first.

It naturally came from the human consciousness.
Click to expand...

Humans have invented lots of things. Where did religion come from? Where did democracy come from? Where did Communism come from? Where did poetry come from? Where did philosophy come from?

And the concept of rights also came from human consciousnesses. We invented the concept.
 
Lursa said:
Sure *WE* accord them any rights as WE see fit. Humans. And it absolutely is not a universal concept.

Animals have no rights that man doesnt recognize for them. That is not natural.

And with the German thing...you are proving my point.
Click to expand...

Well first.. we really don't know if animals have rights or not because we do not converse with them on an intellectual basis.

Certainly there are animals that have complex social structures and perhaps they do have natural rights. For example.. when two individuals get into a fight in some primate communities.. the aggressor, might get punished by the group. While the one that was being aggressed upon.. fought just as hard. and just as long.

So why did the group punish only the aggressor? and not the other one fighting? Perhaps its because these primates have a sense of the right of self defense.

And the German thing?

It proves my point. Its an easy example that natural rights exist. IF rights don't exist unless its law.. then you should proudly and easily state that the holocaust WAS NOT a violation of human rights. that no rights were violated because what was done was legal in Germany.

but you won't state that will you.? Why not? Because.. regardless of the law.. you and most people.. would say that regardless of the law.. the holocaust was a human rights violation.

Which proves that rights exist without the law.
 
jaeger19 said:
Which proves that rights exist without the law.
Click to expand...

I never wrote that rights exist with or without law. I do claim that we use laws to protect and enforce rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom