Defining a Right

[OpportunityCost]

No that does not work. You still have to buy those arms no one is giving them away for free, And pro bono or public while it may not cost the one they represent there is still a cost that someone and usually that is the tax payer pays.

Are you seriously trying to say that the 2nd amendment costs taxpayers?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Are you talking about governments who do things upon being voted into government because they campaigned on election promises that the voters wanted. Or are you speaking about dictatorships that do as they please once elected.

I'm talking about the slow slide into a dictatorship. Everyone seems to believe it can't happen.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Society is what decided those rights are part of the human condition. Rights are a human construct. They only exist at all because we collectively recognize them.

That's false and anyone that is not having a right recognized because a government is not accepting it knows it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You are not making sense this morning in several of your replies. What did I say that you find fault with?

you made this statement



and I replied


My reply spoke directly to your claim about a majority.

So what in the world does that have to do with a meteor falling ? :doh:roll:

A right does not need a majority and to come to recognition. Hypotheticals are not an argument, they are open conjecture.

 

[vegas giants]

I have never said that he wasn't morally depraved. While he recognized the right to freedom, he abridged the God given right of freedom for others.

A right does not need a majority and to come to recognition. Hypotheticals are not an argument, they are open conjecture.

That is your opinion

 

[OpportunityCost]

Your reply makes no sense to the post from you your pretended to be replying to. Cultural values of a people can be very different across the world and I gave you a very clear and easy to understand example with the individual in the USA and the group in Japan. The rights which then are established in these nations would necessarily reflect those cultural differences.

I really do not see how you can argue any differently unless you are just picking with me because its me.

Bolded: open obfuscation bull****; saying nothing with jargon.

You don't believe the desire to have basic rights recognized doesn't cross cultural barriers? How closed minded.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That makes no sense as a reply what I posted. Laws which are unconstitutional can be challenged and declared as such. You don't like certain laws because they are not friendly to far right interests like Hate and prejudice. But the people support them and they are not unconstitutional.

Bolded: a dismissal posing as jargon, if you aren't clever enough to dispute something just say so, don't hide behind a wordy dismissal.

You claimed hate speech was unconstitutional. You're wrong.

 

[haymarket]

A right does not need a majority and to come to recognition. Hypotheticals are not an argument, they are open conjecture.

Are you talking about your hypothetical meteor falling?

 

[haymarket]

Bolded: a dismissal posing as jargon, if you aren't clever enough to dispute something just say so, don't hide behind a wordy dismissal.

You claimed hate speech was unconstitutional. You're wrong.

I see the attack on me continuing your personal obsession but where is any refutation of what I actually said on the subject.

Where did I say that hate speech was unconstitutional?

You badly confuse two different things

1 - society can pass laws against hate speech if that is what we want as a society

2- laws can be challenged and the Court can rule them as unconstitutional if they find them as such.

Those two statements are two different things. It would be great if you understood that.

 

[OpportunityCost]

They gave their opinions not facts. They happen to be wrong

Only if you ignore they WROTE the system of government we use.

This is what you are saying is subjective opinion and wrong:

We hear so much about "rights", a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food, a decent job and, more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.

At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from? If you said "From some other American", go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.

Because it is built into our system of government it is not a subjective opinion but is a fact because it is such. You are laughably wrong, and it would be nice for you to try to make a point other than contrariness for its own sake.

 

[haymarket]

Bolded: open obfuscation bull****; saying nothing with jargon.

You don't believe the desire to have basic rights recognized doesn't cross cultural barriers? How closed minded.

What my point was and is that cultural values play a important role in determining what behaviors a society wants as a right.

Are you straight on that now?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Are you talking about your hypothetical meteor falling?

Roe v Wade, Miranda rights, to name two off the top of my head. You should think before failing at making a clever response.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What my point was and is that cultural values play a important role in determining what behaviors a society wants as a right.

Are you straight on that now?

No. Because most cross cultural barriers. You're incorrect, as usual.

 

[haymarket]

Roe v Wade, Miranda rights, to name two off the top of my head. You should think before failing at making a clever response.

What about those two cases? What is your point in mentioning both of them?

 

[haymarket]

No. Because most cross cultural barriers. You're incorrect, as usual.

So in your expert opinion as a veteran sociologist, cultural values do not play an important role in determining what behaviors a society wants as a right?

 

[OpportunityCost]

I see the attack on me continuing your personal obsession but where is any refutation of what I actually said on the subject.

Where did I say that hate speech was unconstitutional?

You badly confuse two different things

1 - society can pass laws against hate speech if that is what we want as a society

2- laws can be challenged and the Court can rule them as unconstitutional if they find them as such.

Those two statements are two different things. It would be great if you understood that.

And yet you can't understand why your method of determining rights is so flawed. No legislator worth their oath with knowledge of what their duty is should pass such a law. Yet, you only argue for one step of the process.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What about those two cases? What is your point in mentioning both of them?

No majority decided those rights, the court did.

 

[haymarket]

And yet you can't understand why your method of determining rights is so flawed. No legislator worth their oath with knowledge of what their duty is should pass such a law. Yet, you only argue for one step of the process.

I argue for society being able to create the environment that people want to live in providing it is constitutional.

Do you differ in that?

 

[OpportunityCost]

So in your expert opinion as a veteran sociologist, cultural values do not play an important role in determining what behaviors a society wants as a right?

Appeal to ridicule, rewrite your crap without the snark.

 

[haymarket]

No majority decided those rights, the court did.

What does that have to do with me since you directed that reply to me?

 

[OpportunityCost]

I argue for society being able to create the environment that people want to live in providing it is constitutional.

Do you differ in that?

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

 

[OpportunityCost]

What does that have to do with me since you directed that reply to me?

The court is a majority now?

 

[haymarket]

Appeal to ridicule, rewrite your crap without the snark.

You seemed to be so definitive about cultural values and rights that you came off like a sociologist with a very firm educated opinion. I take it from your response that you ARE NOT one. Fine.

Do cultural values do not play an important role in determining what behaviors a society wants as a right?

 

[haymarket]

The court is a majority now?

Again, what does you directing this stuff about the Court rulings have to do with me or anything I have said?

 

[OpportunityCost]

You seemed to be so definitive about cultural values and rights that you came off like a sociologist with a very firm educated opinion. I take it from your response that you ARE NOT one. Fine.

Do cultural values do not play an important role in determining what behaviors a society wants as a right?

Cultural values play some role but the basic human rights wont change much, if at all.