Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Rights"

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 11:00:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What gives us rights, if we have any?

I believe in rights and I think I can make an argument for them and have done so multiple times. But how do you logically deduct rights? What's your criteria?

I think what's most interesting is what they entail, some of which no one ever seems to mention, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts first.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 12:52:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 11:00:01 PM, phantom wrote:
What gives us rights
There is no giving rights.

. But how do you logically deduct rights?
I seek to live, to act, and to produce the needs of my existence. You seek to live, to act, and to produce the needs of your existence. I therefore need you to not kill me, not imprison me, and not destroy or take away the needs of my existence, and you need the same from me. We have a reciprocal need. If I do not respect yours, you are not motivated to respect mine. If I do respect yours, you know my motivation ceases if you cease to respect mine. There is thus rational motivation for us each to observe this limit toward the other, a proper limit on social relations, a right.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:33:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rights are entitlements to have or do something. If I am entitled to payment for my work, than I have a right to get paid for my work. If I'm entitled to my creation, than I have a right to my creation (in the sense of artwork, an invention, or yada yada).

Some rights are legal rights, whereas others are inalienable rights. Legal rights are granted by man, and inalienable rights are granted by the laws of nature. Man has the natural right to life, liberty, and property; they also have the natural right to defend their life, liberty and property. Government can recognize natural rights, but sometimes governments refuse to recognize natural rights. The purpose of government, arguably, is to defend and protect natural rights through recognition of those rights. Without government recognition, it is up to the individual to defend his own natural rights. Civil rights are rights guaranteed to every citizen. It is through civil rights that the government can recognize and enforce natural rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:36:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 11:33:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Some rights are legal rights, whereas others are inalienable rights. Legal rights are granted by man, and inalienable rights are granted by the laws of nature. Man has the natural right to life, liberty, and property; they also have the natural right to defend their life, liberty and property. Government can recognize natural rights, but sometimes governments refuse to recognize natural rights. The purpose of government, arguably, is to defend and protect natural rights through recognition of those rights. Without government recognition, it is up to the individual to defend his own natural rights. Civil rights are rights guaranteed to every citizen. It is through civil rights that the government can recognize and enforce natural rights.

Nihilism.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 7:02:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We have differences of reference to do something, and these cause the differences in justifying a right in between us. But we have in common regarding to the purpose of fulfilling our rights, which is to fulfill our priorities. This understanding has consequences:

- We have our own standardization to judge whether we will find priorities that should be fulfilled

- We can't justify or force our rights to others, but we can only make a better adjustment to fulfill our rights to provide proper conditions together.


Our rights reflect our possible actualization, whether personally or not and in line with priorities, that may have differences in between us, because of different point of view.

The points are:

- Understanding our rights as our considerations as priorities that should be fulfilled

- Practical for our rights by adjusting our priorities (related to something) because of our limitation on actualization.

- Rights are our priorities (whether personally or not), with different ways to actualize it (whether those are more related to adjustment or domination without tolerances). If there is a right, then at least we have priority.


What is "a right"?

- It's our priority that based on our considerations related to specific consequences (whether it involves faith or not).

What gives us rights?

- Our dependencies (that may differ to others) will give us responsibilities (within priorities based upon religions, ethics, reasonably) that some of it rewards us to get our rights, with tolerance to others, OR

- Our dependencies (that may differ to others) will lead us naturally (within priorities based upon biologically, emotionally) to aware about consequences to be fulfilled further as our rights, with tolerance to others.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 9:33:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What gives us rights?

- Our dependencies (that may differ to others) will give us responsibilities (within priorities based upon religions, ethics, reasonably) that some of it provide reward for us to get our rights, with tolerance to others, OR

- Our dependencies (that may differ to others) will lead us naturally (within priorities based upon biologically, emotionally) to aware about consequences to be fulfilled further as our rights, with tolerance to others.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 3:40:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 11:00:01 PM, phantom wrote:
What gives us rights, if we have any?

I believe in rights and I think I can make an argument for them and have done so multiple times. But how do you logically deduct rights? What's your criteria?

I think what's most interesting is what they entail, some of which no one ever seems to mention, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts first.

I have a personal (original?) theory on this.

"Rights" and the concept of rights are a construct of man. However, I think I might know where the concept may have originated. Like all other animals, early man had to have some basic instincts for survival. Conflicts would have been just as inevitable then as they are now. Those who could not defend themselves soon perished. The instinct to defend one's self was eventually extended to include the defense of one's young.

It is interesting to note that the more intelligent an animal (species) is, the more aggressive it will be in defending its young.

Eventually, man became able to stake out (claim) and then defend things other than themselves and their young. Things like territory, food, etc.

Eventually the ability to communicate evolved and (I believe) some of the first conversations to be had were likely about things like "verbal defenses" of one's self, property, young, etc.

Once the concept was born, it slowly evolved to include rights that would not have been possible early man to have contemplated.

(in short because I'm tired) I think 'rights' are an extension of our basic human instincts to defend ourselves and our young.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
morgan2252
Posts: 89
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 4:43:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Speaking of rights, please vote for a debate on animal rights "Value of life: Human life over animal life." We have only 2 days left until the voting period ends. Thanks!
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 5:33:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems that there are two sets of rights that we can possess. I believe in God, so I believe since we were all created by God, in God's image, we are all intrinsically valuable and deserving of the same rights. But even if you don't believe in God, I believe that rights can still be discerned.

Basic Human Rights

Basic human rights are the rights that all human being (that is, members of the biological species Homo sapiens) share in common. These include the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to self-defense, etc. These are rights not rightly granted or taken away by any government or stronger power/person.

Legal rights

These are rights rightly granted and taken away/amended by the government. These include the right to vote, the right to drive, etc.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 7:45:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2012 11:33:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Rights are entitlements to have or do something.

The Fool: What????? Entitlement is just another word for rights.

If I am entitled to payment for my work, than I have a right to get paid for my work. If I'm entitled to my creation, than I have a right to my creation (in the sense of artwork, an invention, or yada yada).

The Fool: What is entitled?? You are what Is a right?

Some rights are legal rights, whereas others are inalienable rights.]

The Fool: You have skipped the necessary Part. what are the RIGHTS and how is it possible to take them AWAY. Where do we have them??

They are not on my Body,... They are not IN MY MIND!! They are not in my Brain,
WHERE IS THE RIGHTS?/


And what are you talking about!!

Legal rights are granted by man, and inalienable rights are granted by the laws of nature.

The Fool: I never granted them. Which Man granted them?? What is Granted. ???

If they are not where on me or in me. THEY ARE COMPLETELY ALIEN TO ME!!!!!


Where?? where is THIS you are talking about. Justify that you know WHERE THIS ARE AND how YOU KNOW and i don:t know>

WHERE ????????????????????????????????????????????

Man has the natural right to life, liberty, and property; they also have the natural right to defend their life, liberty and property.

The Fool: what are you talking about NATURAL. in my senses. WHERE???


What Property of me are you talking about?

Government can recognize natural rights, but sometimes governments refuse to recognize natural rights.

The Fool: Recognize how. WHere. With vision. IN my Mind. IN my soul. WHERE?????????????????????????????????????

Recognize by what Means. Where IN ME and what the hell are you granting. HOW is that even make anysense>???????

The purpose of government, arguably, is to defend and protect natural rights through recognition of those rights.

The Fool: PURPOSE How does this magical entity work WTF are you talking ABOUT?

WHERE? WTF are you talking about. IN THE SKY? Where are you deriving PURPOSE??

Natural IN WHAT WAY > ?? WTF ARE YOU TALkNING ABOUT,?

WHERE?

Without government recognition, it is up to the individual to defend his own natural rights.

The Fool: From what, recognition WHat how. RE COGNIZE( HOw are they COGNIZING this.? HOW where?

Civil rights are rights guaranteed to every citizen. It is through civil rights that the government can recognize and enforce natural rights.

The Fool: Civil. as in the WORD civil????? Where are the RIGHTs what are you basing anything of here.

PURE RELIGION!! STATE AND CHURCH DID NOT DIVIDE ENOUGH .

This is IDENITY RAPE!!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:27:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2012 12:52:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/1/2012 11:00:01 PM, phantom wrote:
What gives us rights
There is no giving rights.

. But how do you logically deduct rights?

I seek to live, to act, and to produce the needs of my existence.

The Fool: Okay I believe you. You seek. But what does any other PART OF what you
are taking about??

Ragnar_Rahl: You seek to live, to act, and to produce the needs of your existence.

The Fool: Are you asking a QUESTION??? What so suppose to be going on When you
run these words Through your MIND>

COGITO ERGO SUM,,,
there is not even one moment, not even a shadow of a doubt not a breath in my body that I will ever succumb to such madness! NOT NOW NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER! NOT ONE TWICH Not ever!!!!! I WILL ever be under that sick spell you are on now. .

"But even if I have Denied that I have any sense and anybody. Still I hesitate; for what follows from this?
Am I so tied to the body and to the senses that I cannot exist without them? For even if I have persuaded myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world: no Sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Is it the case that I too do not exist? But DOUBTLESS I did exist, if I persuaded myself of something. But there EVEN IF there is some evil GOD, OR other supremely powerful being who is deliberately deceiving me. Then To there is no doubt that I exist, if he is deceiving me. And LET HIM DO HIS BEST AT DECEPTION, he will NEVER Ever BRING it about. That I am nothing so long as I think I am SOMETHING. Thus after everything has been carefully weighed It must finally be established That this Pronouncement "I am, I exist" is true every time I utter it or conceive it in my, mind. "
Descartes

COGTITO ERGO SUM.

BE GOD PROOF!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:40:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 8:27:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/2/2012 12:52:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/1/2012 11:00:01 PM, phantom wrote:
What gives us rights
There is no giving rights.

. But how do you logically deduct rights?

I seek to live, to act, and to produce the needs of my existence.

The Fool: Okay I believe you. You seek. But what does any other PART OF what you
are taking about??

Ragnar_Rahl: You seek to live, to act, and to produce the needs of your existence.

The Fool: Are you asking a QUESTION??? What so suppose to be going on When you
run these words Through your MIND>

COGITO ERGO SUM,,,
There is not even one moment, not even a shadow of a doubt not a breath in my body that I will ever succumb to such madness! NOT NOW NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER! NOT ONE TWITCH Not ever!!!!!

"But even if I have Denied that I have any sense and anybody. Still I hesitate; for what follows from this?
Am I so tied to the body and to the senses that I cannot exist without them? For even if I have persuaded myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world: no Sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Is it the case that I too do not exist? But DOUBTLESS I did exist, if I persuaded myself of something. But EVEN IF there is some evil deceiver, OR other supremely powerful being who is deliberately deceiving me. Then To there is no doubt that I exist, if he is deceiving me. LET HIM DO HIS BEST AT DECEPTION, he will NEVER ever BRING it about that I am nothing so long as I think I am SOMETHING. Thus after everything has been carefully weighed It must finally be established That this Pronouncement "I am, I exist" is true every time I utter it or conceive it in my, mind. "
Descartes

COGITO ERGO SUM.

BE GOD PROOF!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:44:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2012 7:02:13 AM, Seremonia wrote:
We have differences of reference to do something, and these cause the differences in justifying a right in between us.

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

But we have in common regarding to the purpose of fulfilling our rights, which is to fulfill our priorities.

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

This understanding has consequences:

- We have our own standardization to judge whether we will find priorities that should be fulfilled

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

- We can't justify or force our rights to others, but we can only make a better adjustment to fulfill our rights to provide proper conditions together.

Our rights reflect our possible actualization, whether personally or not and in line with priorities, that may have differences in between us, because of different point of view.

The points are:

- Understanding our rights as our considerations as priorities that should be fulfilled

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

- Practical for our rights by adjusting our priorities (related to something) because of our limitation on actualization.

- Rights are our priorities (whether personally or not), with different ways to actualize it (whether those are more related to adjustment or domination without tolerances). If there is a right, then at least we have priority.


The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

What is "a right"?

- It's our priority that based on our considerations related to specific consequences (whether it involves faith or not).

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

What gives us rights?

- Our dependencies (that may differ to others) will give us responsibilities (within priorities based upon religions, ethics, reasonably) that some of it rewards us to get our rights, with tolerance to others, OR

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT?? ABSOLUTE NONSENSE

- Our dependencies (that may differ to others) will lead us naturally (within priorities based upon biologically, emotionally) to aware about consequences to be fulfilled further as our rights, with tolerance to others.

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT?? ABSOLUTE NONSENSE
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 9:00:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 5:33:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
It seems that there are two sets of rights that we can possess. I believe in God, so I believe since we were all created by God, in God's image, we are all intrinsically valuable and deserving of the same rights. But even if you don't believe in God, I believe that rights can still be discerned.

The Fool: No Justification?? who Cares!

Basic Human Rights

The Fool: No Justification?? who Cares!!

Basic human rights are the rights that all human being (that is, members of the biological species Homo sapiens) share in common.

The Fool: Okay, where, give me an example where this is In us. IN my mind, I am concsious MY THOUGHT ARE MINE!!> On my Body??? Where, I have not such things on me anywhere. Just words.

These include the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to self-defense, etc.

The Fool: IF you are telling me that I have a right to life it could only be that you or someone feels like they have some way to take them away. MENTAL SLAVERY. IS OVER

The Fool: WE NEED AN INTELLECTUAL REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These are rights not rightly granted or taken away by any government or stronger power/person.

The Fool: These Right? Do you mean you are just using the WORD RIGHT to actual be convince that its RIGHT? ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THAT MAKE SENSE AND STILL be HUMAN IN ANYWAY. That Garbage is FOR MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Legal rights

The Fool: MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These are rights rightly granted and taken away/amended by the government. These include the right to vote, the right to drive, etc.

The Fool: MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are these such STUPID MONKEY MEN, that could actually believe this still in this day and AGE. THIS IS ARCHAIC MONKEY POOP.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 9:08:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are these such STUPID MONKEY MEN, that could actually believe this still in this day and AGE. THIS IS ARCHAIC MONKEY POOP.

What is SO SAD about this IS not one person is able to make a better argument for Right THEN MY MONKEY POOP ARGUMENT!>

AND YOU MURDER FOR IT> COLD BLOODLY MURDER BASED ON PURE IGNORANCE!!>

The Fool: MONKEY MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are these such STUPID MONKEY MEN, that could actually believe this still in this day and AGE. THIS IS ARCHAIC MONKEY POOP.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 9:18:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: BUT I HAVE MORAL ARGUMENTS! ME!!! You guys are lost in subjective immoral Nihlism, Scientism, Religilisim SCHISM AND SNOOP DOGGY DOG ISL

FALSE, FALSE FALSE, !!!!!!!!

DOCTRINES>

I HAVE RATIONAL MORAL ARGUMENTS MEEE!!!!!

I CAN JUSTIFY MORAL ARGUMENT.

THE FOOL

HA HA MONKEY POOPERS
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 9:58:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 5:33:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
It seems that there are two sets of rights that we can possess. I believe in God, so I believe since we were all created by God, in God's image, we are all intrinsically valuable and deserving of the same rights. But even if you don't believe in God, I believe that rights can still be discerned.

Basic Human Rights

Basic human rights are the rights that all human being (that is, members of the biological species Homo sapiens) share in common. These include the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to self-defense, etc. These are rights not rightly granted or taken away by any government or stronger power/person.

From whence do you derive these in the absence of a God or transcendental law maker?

Legal rights

These are rights rightly granted and taken away/amended by the government. These include the right to vote, the right to drive, etc.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:42:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2012 11:00:01 PM, phantom wrote:
What gives us rights, if we have any?

There are arguments that locate the source of rights in aspects of the condition of being human, others that identify the source of rights in something divine or metaphysical. It really comes down to the fact that we agree that we have these things we call rights that give us rights.

I believe in rights and I think I can make an argument for them and have done so multiple times. But how do you logically deduct rights? What's your criteria?

Wait you.... believe in rights? Explain.
Tsar of DDO
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:52:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 8:42:44 AM, YYW wrote:

Wait you.... believe in rights? Explain.

I mean, I believe that we have moral rights. One main reason being because of self-ownership. I should have noted in the OP that I was referring to moral rights and not legal rights.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 9:07:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:52:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:42:44 AM, YYW wrote:

Wait you.... believe in rights? Explain.

I mean, I believe that we have moral rights. One main reason being because of self-ownership. I should have noted in the OP that I was referring to moral rights and not legal rights.

In your opinion what delineates the two?
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:34:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:52:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:42:44 AM, YYW wrote:

Wait you.... believe in rights? Explain.

I mean, I believe that we have moral rights. One main reason being because of self-ownership. I should have noted in the OP that I was referring to moral rights and not legal rights.

The Fool: What the THING that you believe in. I don't mean "THE WORDS" Rights.
I Believe in those too. What Is THAT that you are believing.

Are you able to have a better argument then my Monkey Poop?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:12:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 9:58:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/26/2012 5:33:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
It seems that there are two sets of rights that we can possess. I believe in God, so I believe since we were all created by God, in God's image, we are all intrinsically valuable and deserving of the same rights. But even if you don't believe in God, I believe that rights can still be discerned.

Basic Human Rights

Basic human rights are the rights that all human being (that is, members of the biological species Homo sapiens) share in common. These include the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to self-defense, etc. These are rights not rightly granted or taken away by any government or stronger power/person.

From whence do you derive these in the absence of a God or transcendental law maker?

Legal rights

These are rights rightly granted and taken away/amended by the government. These include the right to vote, the right to drive, etc.

I'm actually not entirely sure, to be honest. I've never heard an Atheist give a convincing view of why humans should have rights at all, or why we should hold ourselves to a moral standard at all (although there are Atheists who believe in an objective morality, specifically Atheist ethicists). I suppose you could resort to discussion of intuition. A "normal" person (i.e. not someone like a psychopath) ordinarily feels remorse if they commit something that might be deemed as "wrong" or "immoral," and it seems that certain actions, like murder and rape, feel "more wrong" than certain other actions, like lying. But intuitions are not always reliable. I'd be open to hearing how Atheists ground human values and morality.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 2:48:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 8:44:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/1/2012 7:02:13 AM, Seremonia wrote:
We have differences of reference to do something, and these cause the differences in justifying a right in between us.

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

But we have in common regarding to the purpose of fulfilling our rights, which is to fulfill our priorities.

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

This understanding has consequences:

- We have our own standardization to judge whether we will find priorities that should be fulfilled

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

- We can't justify or force our rights to others, but we can only make a better adjustment to fulfill our rights to provide proper conditions together.

Our rights reflect our possible actualization, whether personally or not and in line with priorities, that may have differences in between us, because of different point of view.

The points are:

- Understanding our rights as our considerations as priorities that should be fulfilled

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

- Practical for our rights by adjusting our priorities (related to something) because of our limitation on actualization.

- Rights are our priorities (whether personally or not), with different ways to actualize it (whether those are more related to adjustment or domination without tolerances). If there is a right, then at least we have priority.


The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

What is "a right"?

- It's our priority that based on our considerations related to specific consequences (whether it involves faith or not).

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT??

What gives us rights?

- Our dependencies (that may differ to others) will give us responsibilities (within priorities based upon religions, ethics, reasonably) that some of it rewards us to get our rights, with tolerance to others, OR

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT?? ABSOLUTE NONSENSE


- Our dependencies (that may differ to others) will lead us naturally (within priorities based upon biologically, emotionally) to aware about consequences to be fulfilled further as our rights, with tolerance to others.

The Fool: And you base this OF WHAT?? ABSOLUTE NONSENSE

Hi,

As i already asserted, it's our consideration (within priorities) that must be based (as the consequences) on our dependency. Whether we have dependencies to our parents or dependency upon emotionally or biologically or being guided by our religion to limit our rights (to direct to the correct rights, to make a proper distinction in between true or false rights) and many more. And all of these put us on interactions one to another within priorities.

Replying on typical assertions: "is this my right?" or "do i have the right to do this?" or "you have no right to do this to me!". Referring to our dependency, it's merely subjectivity.

- There is no general agreement since we live (placed) at different conditions, that's why our rights are based on various dependencies.

And as i already asserted, even if we trace back to our root which one of them is our emotions, and further through thinking it will lead us to make consideration (tolerance) whether there is priority should be fulfilled to satisfy our needs, but still there are many dependencies that give us different rights to be fulfilled.

And even if we consider there are rights that commonly known or agreed, still we can perceive it as different rights that can be traced to different dependency (to religion, emotions and many more) that can be located on a specific society.

But still if we want to force this understanding to assert whether there is exact basis for our rights, then it's understanding that: it's based on our ability to make adjustment one to another regarding to our own condition related to others.

- Or IOW, our rights are based on our abilities to implement our possibilities that is inline with our consideration (whether it involves religion or not).

It's not about whether our rights are limited by government or strong power, but it's about that our rights (that are based on our abilities to implement our possibilities that is inline with our consideration) can be fulfilled by adjusting our dependency. It's up to us to select proper dependency.

Our rights can't be traced to a single pointer which refers to the flow passing through the same point of us from the various events that are considered as the fulfillment of equal rights among us, since we are living from one point to another point differently. But we can be closer to common understanding about our rights, rather than practically.

To simplify: our rights are based on our possibilities (essentially) and further it can be based on priorities (understanding consequences), and finally, practically, our rights are based on chances (probabilities that can be widen to the maximum extent based on our dependency that can support probabilities itself)
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:20:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 9:07:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:52:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:42:44 AM, YYW wrote:

Wait you.... believe in rights? Explain.

I mean, I believe that we have moral rights. One main reason being because of self-ownership. I should have noted in the OP that I was referring to moral rights and not legal rights.

In your opinion what delineates the two?

Rights do not require ownership. Ownership can give us rights, but we can still have rights without the need of ownership.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:25:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:34:11 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:52:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:42:44 AM, YYW wrote:

Wait you.... believe in rights? Explain.

I mean, I believe that we have moral rights. One main reason being because of self-ownership. I should have noted in the OP that I was referring to moral rights and not legal rights.

The Fool: What the THING that you believe in. I don't mean "THE WORDS" Rights.
I Believe in those too. What Is THAT that you are believing.

Are you able to have a better argument then my Monkey Poop?


Are you asking me to define "rights"?

Rights are moral entitlements that entail a moral obligation from others to respect whatever these rights give you. If someone has rights over x, it is necessary that it is morally permissible for him to do/have x. It is also necessary that it is not morally permissible for others to interfere. If it ever does become morally permissible, than that means the person has lost his right.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 7:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:25:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/28/2012 12:34:11 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:52:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:42:44 AM, YYW wrote:

Wait you.... believe in rights? Explain.

I mean, I believe that we have moral rights. One main reason being because of self-ownership. I should have noted in the OP that I was referring to moral rights and not legal rights.

The Fool: What the THING that you believe in. I don't mean "THE WORDS" Rights.
I Believe in those too. What Is THAT that you are believing.

Are you able to have a better argument then my Monkey Poop?


Are you asking me to define "rights"?

Rights are moral entitlements that entail a moral obligation from others to respect whatever these rights give you.

If Edmund Burke and John Locke's brains were somehow clusterfucked together, perhaps.

If someone has rights over x, it is necessary that it is morally permissible for him to do/have x. It is also necessary that it is not morally permissible for others to interfere. If it ever does become morally permissible, than that means the person has lost his right.

I just want to know where the hell you think these rights come from. Do they come from natural law? (Oh, I hope so because that's a fantasy too.) Do they come from God? (What if you're an atheist?) Do they come from the recognition of the "other" in relation to the "I"? (lol, maybe.) Do they come from a state of ubiquitous human precarity? (Hmmm... sounds like what I said earlier.) Do they come from constitutions? (PLESE tell me they do, then I'll go all Burke on yo azz). Do they come from traditions? (perhaps... as they change over time.) But really... tell me where these rights come from.
Tsar of DDO
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 4:33:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2012 7:50:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/28/2012 12:25:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/28/2012 12:34:11 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:52:48 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:42:44 AM, YYW wrote:

Wait you.... believe in rights? Explain.

I mean, I believe that we have moral rights. One main reason being because of self-ownership. I should have noted in the OP that I was referring to moral rights and not legal rights.

The Fool: What the THING that you believe in. I don't mean "THE WORDS" Rights.
I Believe in those too. What Is THAT that you are believing.

Are you able to have a better argument then my Monkey Poop?


Are you asking me to define "rights"?

Rights are moral entitlements that entail a moral obligation from others to respect whatever these rights give you.

If Edmund Burke and John Locke's brains were somehow clusterfucked together, perhaps.

If someone has rights over x, it is necessary that it is morally permissible for him to do/have x. It is also necessary that it is not morally permissible for others to interfere. If it ever does become morally permissible, than that means the person has lost his right.

I just want to know where the hell you think these rights come from. Do they come from natural law? (Oh, I hope so because that's a fantasy too.) Do they come from God? (What if you're an atheist?) Do they come from the recognition of the "other" in relation to the "I"? (lol, maybe.) Do they come from a state of ubiquitous human precarity? (Hmmm... sounds like what I said earlier.) Do they come from constitutions? (PLESE tell me they do, then I'll go all Burke on yo azz). Do they come from traditions? (perhaps... as they change over time.) But really... tell me where these rights come from.

During the Enlightenment Era, inspired by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson discovered our Unalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

There is scientific empirical evidence all life has Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the physical Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, Unalienable Rights is not man-made, but part of the physical Laws of Nature.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...

According to Takac, there is an imbedded bio-program, found throughout all life. This bio-program is simply, once alive, "Life," must have the freedom ("Liberty"), in "the pursuit of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human "Happiness." Hence, Thomas Jefferson's celebrated discovery, which he declared "self-evident" and used the labeled Unalienable Rights representing a polished version of this bio-program by the following, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 9:43:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2012 11:00:01 PM, phantom wrote:
What gives us rights, if we have any?

I believe in rights and I think I can make an argument for them and have done so multiple times. But how do you logically deduct rights? What's your criteria?

I think what's most interesting is what they entail, some of which no one ever seems to mention, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts first.

all of your questions answered (sort of) by my definition of rights and explanation of them (my opinions/ideas of).

I define a right as a 'legally justified freedom'.

A 'right' is given by a particular authority and is only backed up by the power of that authority.

example: 1. A person may claim a right to do something (wrong) to someone (backed by their personal power or strength)- if they are claiming that 'right' they can do it, if nothing or no one intervenes ever --> but now to take it a step further
2. If there is a law against that action (backed by the power of a government/police) that says that they have no such right, and they have the power to stop the person from pursuing the that thing which is illegal, then the person (with less power) has no 'right' to do that anymore (if adhering to rule of law). -->but what if the laws are corrupted? -->
3. If the law is wrong (example Israelites in bondage in Egypt)...say Pharaoh says that the Israelites have no 'right' to go out and worship the Lord...and Pharoah makes a law against the Israelites leaving to do that...---> What Pharaoh did was using his power but to try to go against HIGHER laws (which bestow rights) because God ALSO has made laws (ULTIMATE LAWS) which define which rights HE gives us...so ultimately if a worldly power is interfering with rights of people (in this example the right for the Israelites to worship God) then God also can intervene and assert HIS power in establishing the rights of the people to do those things which He has commanded/given/allowed...using His ULTIMATE power to back up His laws and rights.

So ultimately I see the whole system of life as lower laws and higher laws...each kingdom having its laws and there is no kingdom or space in which there is no law, either higher or lower. And obedience to those laws brings an exact consequence.

Doctrine and Covenants 130: 20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated"
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
https://www.lds.org...
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 2:38:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 9:43:58 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 10/1/2012 11:00:01 PM, phantom wrote:
What gives us rights, if we have any?

I believe in rights and I think I can make an argument for them and have done so multiple times. But how do you logically deduct rights? What's your criteria?

I think what's most interesting is what they entail, some of which no one ever seems to mention, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts first.

all of your questions answered (sort of) by my definition of rights and explanation of them (my opinions/ideas of).

I define a right as a 'legally justified freedom'.

A 'right' is given by a particular authority and is only backed up by the power of that authority.

example: 1. A person may claim a right to do something (wrong) to someone (backed by their personal power or strength)- if they are claiming that 'right' they can do it, if nothing or no one intervenes ever --> but now to take it a step further
2. If there is a law against that action (backed by the power of a government/police) that says that they have no such right, and they have the power to stop the person from pursuing the that thing which is illegal, then the person (with less power) has no 'right' to do that anymore (if adhering to rule of law). -->but what if the laws are corrupted? -->
3. If the law is wrong (example Israelites in bondage in Egypt)...say Pharaoh says that the Israelites have no 'right' to go out and worship the Lord...and Pharoah makes a law against the Israelites leaving to do that...---> What Pharaoh did was using his power but to try to go against HIGHER laws (which bestow rights) because God ALSO has made laws (ULTIMATE LAWS) which define which rights HE gives us...so ultimately if a worldly power is interfering with rights of people (in this example the right for the Israelites to worship God) then God also can intervene and assert HIS power in establishing the rights of the people to do those things which He has commanded/given/allowed...using His ULTIMATE power to back up His laws and rights.

So ultimately I see the whole system of life as lower laws and higher laws...each kingdom having its laws and there is no kingdom or space in which there is no law, either higher or lower. And obedience to those laws brings an exact consequence.

Doctrine and Covenants 130: 20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated"
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
https://www.lds.org...

Man-made laws cannot changed the physical Laws of Nature.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...