• 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!

The rights of man and the duty of citizens

jet57 said:
From the same type of social construct known as the US constitution. If we didn't all finally agree on it, we wouldn't have it.
Click to expand...

so it magically appeared out of thin air , and was magically agreed up on by everyone.

that's a solid theory :lamo
 
Thrilla said:
absolutely.

you certainly have a right to walk down the street.. with whatever emotion you are feeling at the time.
Click to expand...

Does that include feeling paranoid enough to carry a gun?
 
Thrilla said:
so it magically appeared out of thin air , and was magically agreed up on by everyone.

that's a solid theory :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what happened. Did it - grow out of the ground? no. Like "rights", the US constitution was formulated as a concept into a working idea and then constructed, and then voted on and then accepted. I don't know what you find funny about that.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Good one man. :clap:
Click to expand...

I guess walking down the street with such a high degree of fear as to institute paranoia to the point of the need to carry loaded guns around is okay too.

That's a better one man. :clap:
 
jet57 said:
Does that include feeling paranoid enough to carry a gun?
Click to expand...

jet57 said:
I guess walking down the street with such a high degree of fear as to institute paranoia to the point of the need to carry loaded guns around is okay too.
Click to expand...

Certainly...since it also includes your "high degree of fear as to institute paranoia" about someone else carrying one. :roll:

jet57 said:
That's a better one man. :clap:
Click to expand...

Just as this silly self-congratulations is also a right of free expression...although others would not agree with the sentiment. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Certainly...since it also includes your "high degree off fear as to institute paranoia" about someone else carrying one. :roll:



Just as this silly self-congratulations is also a right of free expression...although others would not agree with the sentiment. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

(chuckle)

There is nothing credible in anything you say on this subject.
 
jet57 said:
Yes, that's exactly what happened. Did it - grow out of the ground? no. Like "rights", the US constitution was formulated as a concept into a working idea and then constructed, and then voted on and then accepted. I don't know what you find funny about that.
Click to expand...

sorta, kinda... though theories on rights is something that has been build upon for thousands of years....it's didn't just get concocted one day then agreed upon in a vote ( that never happened)

in any event, it doesn't trouble me that folks disagree on the origins of our rights ( humans are tough to figure out sometimes)... what bothers me is why folks go to great length to argue these rights do not exist.
as every human being benefits immeasurably from possessing these rights, it seem extremely odd to me that human would argue against them.

I mean, what's the payoff here?...what's the end game?
I guess a person isn't forced to believe in rights, but to me, it's incredibly self destructive to argue against them.. .unless your end game is to remove rights from other people for one reason or another ( ya can't violate rights if they don't exist)

in any event, it's silly ( to say the least) to look upon the US Constitution will respect and turn around and disavow natural rights... the two are intimately linked.
 
Thrilla said:
sorta, kinda... though theories on rights is something that has been build upon for thousands of years....it's didn't just get concocted one day then agreed upon in a vote ( that never happened)

in any event, it doesn't trouble me that folks disagree on the origins of our rights ( humans are tough to figure out sometimes)... what bothers me is why folks go to great length to argue these rights do not exist.
as every human being benefits immeasurably from possessing these rights, it seem extremely odd to me that human would argue against them.

I mean, what's the payoff here?...what's the end game?
I guess a person isn't forced to believe in rights, but to me, it's incredibly self destructive to argue against them.. .unless your end game is to remove rights from other people for one reason or another ( ya can't violate rights if they don't exist)

in any event, it's silly ( to say the least) to look upon the US Constitution will respect and turn around and disavow natural rights... the two are intimately linked.
Click to expand...

Theories on God are something that has been built upon for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean that they're true. Rights only exist because a social agreement says they do. Ya'see, that's the reality. Whether we like it or not, rights are not like that redwood tree over there, they are a concept that is likened to freedom of behavior within limits taking into account the safety of other people. And I'm certainly not arguing against rights, I'm placing them in their proper context.
 
jet57 said:
Theories on God are something that has been built upon for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean that they're true. Rights only exist because a social agreement says they do. Ya'see, that's the reality. Whether we like it or not, rights are not like that redwood tree over there, they are a concept that is likened to freedom of behavior within limits taking into account the safety of other people. And I'm certainly not arguing against rights, I'm placing them in their proper context.
Click to expand...

Ill give you a better context. Once man has enjoyed certain rights for a few generations, attempt to take any of them away and watch what happens.
 
Thrilla said:
so it magically appeared out of thin air , and was magically agreed up on by everyone.

that's a solid theory :lamo
Click to expand...

We know, it's part of history, the philosophical foundations and governing principles that the FF's based the Const. on.
 
jet57 said:
Theories on God are something that has been built upon for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean that they're true.
Click to expand...
no, not really...the running theories of God haven't changed much over thousands of years... there really is no " building'
philosophy, on the other hand, keeps on building and refining... as does anything that deals with the human condition.
Rights only exist because a social agreement says they do. Ya'see, that's the reality. [/QUOTE]so you believe in the social contract theory, but not natural rights... despite natural rights or preexisting rights being an integral part of the social contract theory.
interesting. :?

Whether we like it or not, rights are not like that redwood tree over there, they are a concept that is likened to freedom of behavior within limits taking into account the safety of other people.[/QUOTE] I was with you right up until you based rights on the safety of others....
And I'm certainly not arguing against rights, I'm placing them in their proper context.
Click to expand...
a few questions here.
1st.. what is the "proper" context"
2nd, can you prove it's "proper"?
3rd, on what basis did you decide your "proper context" is the one true context? ( do you have, for instance, philosophical backing?)
 
Lursa said:
We know, it's part of history, the philosophical foundations and governing principles that the FF's based the Const. on.
Click to expand...

that is true..... I'm commenting on the theory that these items under discussion just magically appeared one day out of the blue and were somehow agreed upon....as opposed ot the theories that thousands of years of philosophers and great minds built upon the work before them , which culminated in a grounded and incredibly enlightened theory of rights and government.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Ill give you a better context. Once man has enjoyed certain rights for a few generations, attempt to take any of them away and watch what happens.
Click to expand...

That has happened all over the world throughout history; what's your point?
 
Thrilla said:
no, not really...the running theories of God haven't changed much over thousands of years... there really is no " building'
philosophy, on the other hand, keeps on building and refining... as does anything that deals with the human condition.
Rights only exist because a social agreement says they do. Ya'see, that's the reality. [//QUOTE]so you believe in the social contract theory, but not natural rights... despite natural rights or preexisting rights being an integral part of the social contract theory.
interesting. :?

Whether we like it or not, rights are not like that redwood tree over there, they are a concept that is likened to freedom of behavior within limits taking into account the safety of other people.[//QUOTE] I was with you right up until you based rights on the safety of others....
a few questions here.
1st.. what is the "proper" context"
2nd, can you prove it's "proper"?
3rd, on what basis did you decide your "proper context" is the one true context? ( do you have, for instance, philosophical backing?)
Click to expand...

Your quotes got messed up, so I'm having a little trouble with your post. can you clear it up please? I want to answer it properly.
 
Thrilla said:
that is true..... I'm commenting on the theory that these items under discussion just magically appeared one day out of the blue and were somehow agreed upon....as opposed ot the theories that thousands of years of philosophers and great minds built upon the work before them , which culminated in a grounded and incredibly enlightened theory of rights and government.
Click to expand...

Sorry, too many offshoots to follow. Cheers!
 
jet57 said:
Theories on God are something that has been built upon for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean that they're true.
Click to expand...
no, not really...the running theories of God haven't changed much over thousands of years... there really is no " building'
philosophy, on the other hand, keeps on building and refining... as does anything that deals with the human condition.
Rights only exist because a social agreement says they do. Ya'see, that's the reality.
Click to expand...
so you believe in the social contract theory, but not natural rights... despite natural rights or preexisting rights being an integral part of the social contract theory.
interesting. :?

Whether we like it or not, rights are not like that redwood tree over there, they are a concept that is likened to freedom of behavior within limits taking into account the safety of other people.
Click to expand...
I was with you right up until you based rights on the safety of others....

a few questions here.
1st.. what is the "proper" context"
2nd, can you prove it's "proper"?
3rd, on what basis did you decide your "proper context" is the one true context? ( do you have, for instance, philosophical backing?)
 
Know what's sad? That people fully believe that as long as the majority of people agree then it is perfectly OK to take people's Rights away.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Know what's sad? That people fully believe that as long as the majority of people agree then it is perfectly OK to take people's Rights away.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the antithesis of what a republic is.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Know what's sad? That people fully believe that as long as the majority of people agree then it is perfectly OK to take people's Rights away.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, the tyranny of the majority.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I liked JFK...very much. He was a popular president with a hot wife.

I know of very few who think he was one of the best Democratic presidents, though.

FDR was a great Democratic president; Harry S Truman was a great Democratic president; LBJ was a damn good Democratic president.

JFK got some things done...and made us feel good about politics for a while.

And while I acknowledge he was a Democrat...he was far from a leftist...so your 180 turn comment was self-serving.
Click to expand...

FDR was a socialist, Truman was hated by the Democrats for desegregating the military and certainly not popular with WWII vets called up for Korea, and Lyndon B. Johnson was the most evil president in my lifetime.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Know what's sad? That people fully believe that as long as the majority of people agree then it is perfectly OK to take people's Rights away.
Click to expand...

Bingo. And the bill of rights is intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority as expressed through their elected officials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom