What is a right?

[TPaine7]

Part of the vast divide between those who support the constitutionally recognized and guaranteed right to keep and bear arms and those who oppose it is the definition of a right. I think if we discuss this difference of opinion on that the basic term means, we will make headway towards understanding each others' viewpoints.

There are at least two schools of thought on what rights are:

1) A right is something to which one is entitled or which one one is owed. In this view, you have a right not to be attacked, not to be stolen from, not to be falsely defamed and the like. You would also have the right to goods and services which you have honestly contracted and paid for.

2) A right is something which one needs or desires. For instance, since people need food to survive, we are entitled to food regardless of our behavior. The same goes for healthcare. But this applies not just to needs but to desires. If something you do unsettles me, I am entitled to have you not to it. If something you fail to do unsettles me, I am entitled to have you do it.

To me, the need or desire school is not far from the criminal mindset. "I need new tires, therefore the store owes them to me"--thief. "That woman mustn't reject me because it will impact my self esteem and I have a right to feel good about myself"--abuser, rapist. "You believe something I strongly disagree with therefore you owe it to me to change your mind"--terrorist, fascist, inquisitor, religious right wing fanatic. "I don't approve of contraception, therefore it should be forbidden"--fascist right wing nut. "I don't like guns, therefore you can't possess them in my company in public places"--anti-gun extremist.

I obviously tend strongly towards one of these schools, so I may not have represented the other school correctly. I invite people who have issues with the poll to select "other" and explain their positions.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. A right is like a freedom or liberty that can't be taken away from you

by the government or a private citizen, as compared to a license which can be suspended or revoked.

[provis99]

20. guns, votes, speech, freedom of assembly and association

are regularly taken away from people by the government.

A right is more a theoretical idea, a fiction if you will, than an actual fact, because rights have no backing by power, and power is ultimately all that matters.

[laconicsax]

2. It's the opposite of a left. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

7. I agree. nt

[Kennah]

34. It thought 3 lefts equal a right

[baldguy]

3. You are mistaken - the desire to posses firearms definitely falls into #2.

Fascists love guns. Always have. Always will.

[SteveM]

6. Fascists also love vegetables. Always have. Always will.

So, am I following your logic correctly?

[baldguy]

12. Vegetables aren't designed to kill things.

[SteveM]

13. Oh, I don't know, try some raw jalapenos. Somebody, somewhere designed those....

[Callisto32]

26. Jalapenos are AWESOME.

[spin]

30. Raw jalapenos are tasty. Habanero peppers are hot ...

I've snacked on raw jalapenos for years but I find it difficult to eat a raw habanero whole. I do slice habaneros up and add them to my food.

A jalapenos has a Scoville rating of 2,500-10,000 while a habanero has one of 100,000–350,000


A habanero chili

[SteveM]

32. Habaneros are difficult to dice under a microscope...

but I had them to my deer chili, along with all the other peppers I find, some onion, a few chopped fresh tomatoes and good cumin. Most excellent, esp. with add-on condiments liked chopped cabbage and parsley. :o

[Kennah]

35. There is no reason for anyone to buy more than 1 habanero in a month

[SteveM]

40. LOL! nt

[spin]

63. I usually have an arsenal of jalapeno and habanero peppers in my refrigerator ...

along with a bottle of Matouk's Hot Sauce and some Dave's Insanity Sauce.

Some like it hot.

[TPaine7]

14. Who said vegetables were designed to kill things?

That was well beside the point.

(I would point out that vegetables have killed people; the Heimlich maneuver has lowered the death rate, however.)

[rrneck]

22. Designed to kill who? nt

[Kennah]

54. Vegetables in the hands of ordinary, untrained people ...

... can probably kill off the appetite of many a food critic or professional chef.

[TPaine7]

55. Licensing and registration are called for. Obviously. n/t

[rrneck]

59. Absolutely!

Just imagine how potent and fearless those cowboy chefs feel strutting around with a cucumber or two strapped to their bodies.

[Simo 1939_1940]

68. Call any vegetable..........

..........and the chances are good ---- that a vegetable will respond to you.

F. Zappa

[Kennah]

69. Is that like a 1-900 Corn number?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. OH SHIT ALL MY GUNS MUST BE BROKEN

Well, except for the one our army used to kill fascists.

[Kennah]

36. Ever see what a spud gun can do?

[DissedByBush]

38. Fascists love guns in the hands of government

And not in the hands of the people.

Possessing firearms falls into #1 because it prevents the fascists from getting their wish.

[baldguy]

45. That's it. Just keep spouting the RW propaganda & everything will be OK.

Just like the fascists tell you.

[DissedByBush]

56. That's it, just keep believing what the fascists tell YOU

Disarm the people.

Then they can win.

[baldguy]

57. PeeWee Herman speaks.

The average gun-owner in Germany and Italy and Spain was perfectly happy when the fascists took over in those countries. And they only were able to get rid of the guns once the fascists were defeated.

You're on the wrong side of history, just like every RWer.

[gejohnston]

58. Not quite

The strict gun laws were mostly passed after WW1 because the European governments (including UK) feared leftist revolutions. In other words, they were more concerned about Amy Goodman than JL from Tuscon. According to a UN survey in the early 1990s, the number of households in those countries were:
Italy-11.6 percent
Spain-13.1 percent
Germany-8.9 percent

Oh yeah, a good book of that era worth reading:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10019
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

[DissedByBush]

79. The experts agree

[iverglas]

85. I just love google's new trick

I drag that image over to the google images search box on my other monitor, and it tells me other places where I can see it.

Like ...

http://www.theeastbayteaparty.com/2ndamendment/2ndamendment.html">The East Bay Tea Party dot com

http://bigreb.com/blog/?p=50">Big Reb dot com
(hint: he hates Democrats, all of 'em)

http://nannystateliberationfront.net/tag/second-amendment">Nanny State Liberation Front
(bicycle licences are baaaad)

http://visiontoamerica.org/category/second-amendment">Vision to America
(I don't know what that means, but it is demanding Obama's birth certificate)

I've tried and tried but I'm not finding that image posted at any, you know, nice place. By, er, nice people.

Odd you should have run into it while roaming the net. I just never would have.

[DissedByBush]

86. I first saw that image ... wait for it ...

HERE!

Yep, at good-old Democratic Underground. One of our members uses it in his signature.

I just Googled that copy, didn't care about the source when the message itself is so true.

[gejohnston]

60. do you know what fascist means?

There should be an amendment to Goodwin's law that says anyone incorrectly using labels like "fascist, communist, socialist, Marxist, etc." also means you lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

[phantom power]

4. A "right" is a social construct.

If a group of people agree to enforce and/or support some mutually held priviledge(s) amongst themselves, then it's a right. There are no absolute "rights."

[ZombieHorde]

8. I agree. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Negative.

Wrong! :(

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Relegating an individual's right to life as being derived from nothing more than the rest of us agreeing to allow it is degrading. Also, an act does not become an evil act or a good act because we passed a law in favor of or against it. Murder is objectively evil, therefore we pass laws against it.

[TPaine7]

16. Exactly

The "social construct" theory means that if society changes its mind and decides that I and other black people have no rights, they will be correct by definition.

It is amoral, unAmerican, inhuman, barbaric and unworthy of intelligent sentient beings. (These are not criticisms of the person making the point, but of the point itself.)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Further:

In many countries Parliamentary Sovereignty exists. In the US, this is not the case. Rights are not bestowed and removed by a vote of legislators. Period. :)

[iverglas]

47. in many countries, people think it's wise

to know what one is talking about before one opens one's mouth ... or not to misrepresent what one knows to be fact ... it can be so hard to tell what is happening in any individual instance.

In Canada, Parliament is supreme. This means that Parliament, not the courts, has the final say as to whether its legislation may be applied.

This was the subject of long and broad debate before the adoption of the 1982 Constitution of Canada. The provisions it contains are a compromise, that grand Canadian institution.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/FullText.html

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

- this is simply a codification of what is done in the US, e.g., by doctrine and precedent (e.g. "clear and present danger" as justification for infringements of the right of free speech); it has been further clarified and made subject to stringent tests by the courts

There follows an enumeration of the usual fundamental rights and freedoms (some of which are unknown to US constitutional law, e.g.):

2. freedom of conscience, religion, speech, assembly, etc.
3. right of citizens to vote
4. maximum duration of legislative bodies
5. annual sittings of legislative bodies
6. right of citizens to enter, leave and move within Canada
7. life, liberty and security of the person
8. security against unreasonable search or seizure
9. right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned
10. rights on arrest
11. rights in criminal proceedings
12. right against cruel or unusual treatment or punishment
13. right against self-crimination
14. right to an interpreter
15. equality before and under the law and equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination

Then we get to section 33, the "nonobstante" clause:

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

Quebec used this provision to override a Supreme Court decision that its legislation requiring that French be given precedence in public signage and so on was constitutionally impermissible.

Nothing here means that any of the rights guaranteed in the constitutional Charter would be in any way denied. They could simply be infringed without the government in question having to meet the section 1 test.

Any government that did that would have been elected by the vote of the electorate. You know, the bit that all the strange people who are all afraid of the government always seem to forget.

The problem would not be that a government chose to exercise its supremacy to violate constitutional rights. It would be that the people chose to elect a government that would do that.

Can your constitution not be amended in the US? Is it not conceivable that the requisite number of states would rally around some ugly rights-violating constitutional amendment ... like one to prohibit burning the flag, or to prohibit same-sex marriage? I mean, they already refused to ratify the equal rights amendment.

It would take a little more work and a little more time, but the effect would be more permanent and would say worse things about the people of the country than a mere parliament or legislature in Canada enacting a piece of legislation that temporarily overrode one of the rights guaranteed in our constitution.


Parliamentary supremacy has precisely fuck all to do with any of this.

Canada, for example, is a constitutional democracy just like the USofA. To actually eliminate rights guaranteed by the constitution in Canada requires exactly the same kind of process as in the US -- it can only be done according to the constitutional amendment formula.


Rights are not bestowed and removed by a vote of legislators. Period.

The rights set out in your Constitution were identified and defined and selected for inclusion in your Bill of Rights by legislators, just as they were in Canada. Period.

A difference is that since our Constitution was modernized in 1982, we have a broader and deeper set of constitutionally protected rights than you have.

Some countries with a tradition of parliamentary supremacy have not adopted entrenched bills/charters of rights, and the debate is ongoing in places like Australia.

The fact that you don't like (or know bugger all about) those systems doesn't make yours better, believe me.

The guarantor of rights and freedoms is the will of the public. No piece of parchment stands up to the match that a population that is not committed to them might decide to hold to it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. Hello and good to hear from you.

Long time... I suppose life has been keeping you busy.

"Rights are not bestowed and removed by a vote of legislators. Period." Hear, hear! Amen to that.

Thanks for the Canadian info.

In case you misunderstood, it was not my intention to imply that all countries (or any particular country such as your Canada) adhering to P_S were violating or necessarily would violate any individual rights. My point was that in the US our government is formatted such that the laws made by one body are subject to the constraints, judgments and interpretations of a balancing body. How this balance is achieved in Canada I don't know.

[petronius]

19. I like this, although I'd specify that the agreement should be at a fundamental level

in the group's political structure - something that's definitional to their society.

As far as 'absolute rights', the only one I can think of is the right to try and stay alive (if you want to)... :)

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Bingo. Winner. Nail, head, hammer, etc.

[Callisto32]

28. So slavery was okay, then?

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Not sure how you read into that?

Rights are asserted by the holder. Just because society doesn't recognize that right, doesn't mean they are right to ignore it.

If I assert self-ownership, and you don't recognize that, and try to enslave me, you establish a precedent that is hazardous to your own freedom, for instance. You might have the physical power to do it, but it's still wrong, still a violation of my self-ownership, and anyone ought to be able to realize that.

[TPaine7]

41. I can't follow your position

Rights are asserted by the holder.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. The abolitionists were asserting the rights of others, as do practically all parents at some time or another. I assert the rights of gays to equal protection of the laws. I assert the rights of children and women to not be abused. I assert the rights of Mexican immigrants, legal and otherwise, not to be abused. I assert the rights of animals not to be abused.

Just because society doesn't recognize that right, doesn't mean they are right to ignore it.

I totally agree. Of course from my perspective that totally refutes the social construct theory. It is true, as you say, that society can fail to recognize "that right"--that legitimate claim. That would be impossible if rights were social constructs; social constructs are defined by society, and thus society cannot be wrong by definition.

The creator of a construct is correct 100% of the time. For example, if TP7(x) is a function that is defined by TPaine7 thus:

TP7(x) = pi*x^e

then the fact that TP7(x) = pi*x^e is not subject to dispute by anyone who is not TPaine7. He is correct by definition, since he is the definer. The function is a TPaine7 construct.

If I assert self-ownership, and you don't recognize that, and try to enslave me, you establish a precedent that is hazardous to your own freedom, for instance. You might have the physical power to do it, but it's still wrong, still a violation of my self-ownership, and anyone ought to be able to realize that.

You are absolutely correct; it is "still a violation of {your} self-ownership" regardless of society's beliefs, physical power or even actions. In other words, rights transcend anything that society does or does not do, and thus cannot possibly be constructs of society.

All that society constructs are approximations to the correct view of rights. Similarly, all that science constructs are approximations to the correct view of reality. Aristotle's approximation was superseded by Galileo's was superseded by Newton's was superseded by Einstein's and Heisenberg's will be superseded by... will be superseded by...

It is quite possible that succeeding generations of humans will have more correct views of rights than we do, just as it is that they will have more accurate views of reality. That does not mean that rights are societal constructs any more than reality is a scientific construct.

[iverglas]

48. "The abolitionists were asserting the rights of others"

The King of Equivocation at work.

What is it that is fundamental to your make-up that you can't address anything anyone says honestly and directly?

[TPaine7]

51. Whatever is Your Sophistry babbling about?

Stand up on your hind legs and make your accusation like a woman.

[iverglas]

61. you're the King of Equivocation

I quoted your equivocation.

Seems pretty clear to me. Obviously it was to you.

[TPaine7]

64. I assumed a certain intelligence and honesty in the person I was addressing,

something I wouldn't have done were I speaking to Your Sophistry.

Let's look at my statement in context, with your quoted snippet highlighted:

Sometimes. Sometimes not. The abolitionists were asserting the rights of others, as do practically all parents at some time or another. I assert the rights of gays to equal protection of the laws. I assert the rights of children and women to not be abused. I assert the rights of Mexican immigrants, legal and otherwise, not to be abused. I assert the rights of animals not to be abused.

e·quiv·o·ca·tion
    Show IPA
noun
1. the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication.
2. an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque: The speech was marked by elaborate equivocations.
3. Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

Source: Dictionary.com

So, once again, what is Your Sophistry babbling about? Which definition are you using? And how do my my words, in context, constitute equivocation?

Stand up on your hind legs and make a coherent point, iverglas. Or is "it is so because I quoted a portion of a sentence and made an assertion, so there!" the best Your Sophistry can muster?

[iverglas]

71. here's where you go wrong

You pretend to intelligence and honesty in yourself.

You fool only yourself. Although actually, of course, I'll grant you the modicum of both that it takes not to be fooled by your own pretense.

[TPaine7]

73. iverglas, you know and I know what happens when you state your case and stop

scurrying away from the light.

In order to maintain your sophistries, you are forced to make claims like the utter drivel that the slaves in the Amerian south

Cause{d} others to recognize ({their} authority or {} right) by confident and forceful behavior.

So what you are confessing is that it only takes pretend intelligence to reduce your points to that. It has only taken pretend intelligence to reduce sophistry after sophistry after sophistry of yours to the point that everyone can clearly see them for the BS that they are. It has only taken pretend intelligence to unmask you for what you are, a sophistry wielding blowhard with a few of the trappings of legal knowledge and little else.

Tell me, iverglas, why did you avoid the straightforward answer to my question?:

So, once again, what is Your Sophistry babbling about? Which definition are you using? And how do my my words, in context, constitute equivocation?

Were you afraid that my pretend intelligence would reveal you for what you are? Were you not bright enough to see that you were unmasking your own sophistry in post 72?

You need some pretend intelligence, iverglas.

While you're at it, pick up some pretend honesty too.

[iverglas]

74. what a bitter little fellow

you are.

[TPaine7]

75. You have no substantive answer whatsoever, so all you can do is insult?

Your implicit admission of defeat is impressive... for you, anyway.

(I guess you actually did pick up some pretend honesty. Wow!)

[iverglas]

76. "admission of defeat"?

:rofl:

Recognition of an obsessive fixation evidently stemming from bitter jealousy and frustration, and resulting in bizarre and socially unacceptable behaviours.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[TPaine7]

77. I guess you're not a vampire after all.

You've apparently seen your reflection:

an obsessive fixation evidently stemming from bitter jealousy and frustration, and resulting in bizarre and socially unacceptable behaviours.

Come now, iverglas, do you really think anyone buys your bravado? Do even you believe that repeatedly moping my floor with your arguments (and don't bother to deny it, I know you can't fool yourself on that one) makes me bitter, jealous and frustrated? LOL.

The projection isn't working, Your Sophistry.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. The abolotionists may have also asserted a slave's right to freedom

but the principal participant is the slave him/herself. They ALSO asserted their right to freedom. The abolitionists merely recognized it, and advocated on their behalf to people who didn't recognize the slave's rights.

[TPaine7]

67. In general, it is true that the primary person asserting a right is the

possessor of that right, but not always.

Most slaves were not in a position to assert the rights of free people to their slaveholders or to the society in which they lived. Doing so could be punished by things like rape, torture, castration (and not just of you but of your children, parents or spouse). It could also lead to death. Even after emancipation, freed slaves were hardly in a position to assert their rights. Doing so lead to the same results as before, regardless of the law. It was not until well after slavery that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others were in a position to assert their rights in a numerically significant manner.

No, I would have to say that with very rare exceptions, the primary people asserting the rights of slaves (even if you count escaping and following the underground railroad as asserting one's rights--and even that could have horrific consequences for your loved ones left behind or for you if you were caught) were abolitionists--who were mostly white, northern liberals.

There are many other, even less debatable examples. Parents (and others) assert the rights of children who are unable to assert their own rights. Relatives assert the rights of comatose family members who are unable to do so. People assert the rights of animals not to be abused.

But this is a side issue; what about the rest of what I said?

[iverglas]

78. I guess I have to demonstrate your equivocation all over again

"Assert a right" means something.

Words used in a particular context do not mean whatever you want to pretend they mean, in your tricky little way.

A third party advocating that someone else's rights be recognized is not asserting that person's rights.

They may be asserting that the other person has rights, but that's another matter, and another meaning of the word "assert".

Parents assert the rights of children, i.e. exercise the children's rights on the children's behalf.

Abolitionists did NOT exercise any rights on anyone else's behalf.

It's unfortunate if you are fooled by your own trickery. That might be the case if you actually understand the words in use so poorly that you don't know what expressions like "assert a right" actually mean. On the other hand, you might just be thinking you can fool somebody else with this sleight-of-word crap.

Either way, it's still sad.

[TPaine7]

80. You demonstrated something, alright...

as·sert
   {uh-surt} Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to state with assurance, confidence, or force; state strongly or positively; affirm; aver: He asserted his innocence of the crime.
2. to maintain or defend (claims, rights, etc.).
3. to state as having existence; affirm; postulate: to assert a first cause as necessary.

Source: dictionary.com

The abolitionists most definitely defended the rights of the slaves, verbally, politically and physically. Yes, iverglas, "assert a right means something." But that doesn't mean that you know what that something is. And it certainly doesn't mean that your bald assertion has any authority.

Next time you want to lecture someone on the English language (or law or science or logic,... or... anything, really), please consult a competent authority.

And about your imaginary trickery, when will you learn, iverglas? My technique for tricking you consists entirely of speaking the truth with integrity. That may seem devious to you, but so be it.

Here's another of my "tricks"--I not only got the dictionary to agree with me, I got no less than John Adams, the second President of the United States of America, to use my flawed language (long before I was born, no less!):

Nor were the poor negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia {an abolitionist by definition}, nor Mr. Jefferson of Virginia, ever asserted the rights of the negroes in stronger terms...

Source: http://www.jstor.org/pss/360453

Debating you is soooooooo boring, iverglas. This whole BS examination of the nuances of the language, nuances about which you are clearly quite ignorant, is a diversion. The big focus of contention is a snippet of a sentence in a throwaway point--it is a detail unnecessary, not only to the main argument, but to the throwaway point itself.

But you thought that you saw an argument you could win. You thought you had found a technical detail where you could prevail. And so that became the entirety of the debate, in spite of the fact that you hold opposing views on more substantive issues. And you didn't even go through sufficient due diligence to discover that you were objectively wrong in your minuscule, inconsequential, diversionary point.

Yeah, you demonstrated some things, iverglas. You demonstrated your ignorance. You demonstrated your pettiness. You demonstrated your willingness to waste time and avoid the actual point. You demonstrated your ability to condescend up. You demonstrated your own pathetic skill at "this sleight-of-word crap." And you're correct--your desperate flailing and sputtering are indeed sad.

You lose.

Again.

[iverglas]

81. maybe you can use it in a sentence

Oh look, Adams did. And what he said demonstrated what I said:

"asserted the rights of the negroes in stronger terms"

When you go to court to "assert your rights" you don't do it in strong terms or weak terms or any terms at all. When you assert your right to liberty by escaping enslavement, you don't do it strongly or weakly or upsidedownly. You just do it.

Adams was using the other meaning of the word. I have no doubt that he knew this perfectly well. Perhaps you did too, I just don't know. To quote you quoting your dictionary:

to state as having existence; affirm; postulate

Big duh. And all that googling for nothing.

By the way, see how it's possible to compose a post that isn't 90% bile and invective? It is, it really is.

[TPaine7]

83. I'm really bored now.

You lost, iverglas. Your trickery failed.

A third party advocating that someone else's rights be recognized is not asserting that person's rights.

Wrong. Transparently wrong by now. That is precisely what that third party is doing. That is precisely what John Adam's words conveyed: "asserted the rights of the negroes in stronger terms." The passage is describing a strong argument for the exisence of the slave's rights and for the recognition of those rights. In fact, in the case of rights, it is hard (if not impossible) to do one without the other. If rights exist they should be recognised; if a right should be recognised it must exist.

They may be asserting that the other person has rights, but that's another matter, and another meaning of the word "assert".

Both dictionary meanings work perfectly. The abolitionists defended the rights of slaves and maintained that their rights existed. Parents defend the rights of their children and maintain that those rights exist.

Parents assert the rights of children, i.e. exercise the children's rights on the children's behalf.

Abolitionists did NOT exercise any rights on anyone else's behalf.

I see what you did there. First you slipped in your homemade definition, then you condemned me for allegedly using it. I never thought, said or insinuated that the abolitionists "exercise{d} any rights on anyone else's behalf." I said that "The abolitionists were asserting the rights of others"--they were defending the rights of others and affirming the existence of those rights.

It's unfortunate if you are fooled by your own trickery. That might be the case if you actually understand the words in use so poorly that you don't know what expressions like "assert a right" actually mean. On the other hand, you might just be thinking you can fool somebody else with this sleight-of-word crap.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. That is a perfectly summary of your performance (except that it leaves out the fact that this entire exercise was a diversion as well as being baseless.)

I'm really bored now, iverglas. You can have the last word if you want it. You successfully avoided the actual point of the discussion, I guess that's a victory in your book.

[iverglas]

84. let's play let's pretend

Let's pretend that AtheistCrusader did not start you off here by saying:

Rights are asserted by the holder.

And let's pretend you didn't actually know exactly what that meant.

Oh look, you've already done that. At great and tedious length.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Callisto32]

27. My rights have absolutely nil to do with what you wish to allow me to do.

Your rights have absolutely nil to do with what I wish to allow you to do.

[Callisto32]

29. So slavery was okay, then?

I know I already posted that subject in an earlier post in the thread, but I am going to elaborate on it here.

This is nothing more than moral relativism applied to groups, rather than the individual. MR says that "it's right if the person says its right." This seems to be saying "it is a right if society says it is a right." Neither view has any "0" to serve as a base for deciding if something is right/wrong or a right/not a right. This kind of thinking is pretty disgusting. Based on this. If a part of the population decides to not let the other part of the population "mutually hold" a "right" (put in quotes when discussed under the MR-like system you suggest) it ceases to be a "right," since what is a right is defined by what people allow others to mutually hold as a privilege. This is extra disgusting, since viewing everything as a privilege means that breathing, standing, hell even thinking are now privileges.

Since there are no rights, there is no recourse if a "right" is violated, since at that time it simply ceases to be a "right." This kind of moral system could easily lead to the subjugation of large minorities of the population, something I thought was the opposite of the goals of the Democratic party....

[hack89]

31. What if the "deciders" exclude groups like women or gays from the decision making process?

is that ok? You disagree with the notion of universal human rights I take it? That being the case, shall we scrap the UN charter and the ICC since how is it possible to find common ground to judge other people or societies??

[iverglas]

44. "You disagree with the notion of universal human rights I take it?"

Do you really? Do you really "take" that from what was said? Can you show us your work?

The notion of fundamental human rights, as belonging to all human beings, is a social construct. It is something constructed by a human group. Whether any individual member of the group "agrees with" it or not is of no consequence anyway.

Do you (or does anyone here) actually have any knowledge of rights theory?

How bizarre that you would talk about finding "common ground to judge other people or societies" and then mock/misrepresent the statement that rights are a social construct.

[hack89]

46. I meant to reply to post #19

the lack of absolute rights and the notion that rights should reflect a society's fundamental nature piqued my interest.

[iverglas]

43. precisely

It's nice to see the occasional breath of oxygen waft into these dank parts.

It is our construct, in the present time and most places, that rights are inherent in the individual, by virtue of the individual being a human being.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum. To say that the last person on earth, the only one who survives the final plague / war / nuclear meltdown / meteorite collision, has rights would be meaningless.

[TPaine7]

50. Your Sophistry returns with a slightly different twist on her BS

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul-21-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. snork


<Quoting TPaine7>If two people were somehow transported to a distant and uninhabited earth-like planet, would they cease to have rights?<End Quote of TPaine7>

If one of them killed the other, who would decide whether this was an exercise of the "right to self-defence"? History is written by the victors, eh?

You may be catching on.


<Quoting TPaine7>I would look up your statements on a woman's "right to an abortion," or a "woman's right to choose" or the like. I feel sure that that right--if no other--is not abstract and inchoate.<End Quote of TPaine7>

You feel free.

You will find that I have said, over and over and over, that the state (you know, the collectivity in its political manifestation) may not compel a woman to assume the risks (including the risk of death) that are inherent in pregnancy -- that laws denying access to abortion services and punishing people who obtain/provide those services are violations of the right not to be deprived of life without due process (to use your lingo; in mine, which is nicer, they are violations of the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or security of the person otherwise than in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice).

See how it works? The right is asserted against the state, when the state attempts to interfere in the exercise of it. If the state wishes to interfere in the exercise of the right to life (etc.) by denying access to abortion services, it must demonstrate justification. Since the right to life is a fundamental right, strict scrutiny does apply. (And your Court failed miserably in that regard in Roe v. Wade.) <*>

Now, if I were one of two people on a distant planet and wanted to terminate my pregnancy, and you were the other and you stopped me from doing that by tying me up for nine months, you'd be a jerk. If I died, you would have killed me: deprived me of life; but you would not have violated my right not to be deprived of life without due process; really.

Glad you asked. But I did think we'd already come to a consensus here that constitutions (i.e. the declarations of protected rights in them) apply only to governments ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x238740#240610

It used to be that rights disappeared when there were only two people. Now it's one. That's progress, I guess.

Now if you could just come all the way to the late 20th century, never mind the early 21st:

TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul-21-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Very revealing.

Edited on Tue Jul-21-09 07:48 PM by TPaine7
Me: If two people were somehow transported to a distant and uninhabited earth-like planet, would they cease to have rights?

If one of them killed the other, who would decide whether this was an exercise of the "right to self-defence"? History is written by the victors, eh?

Both would judge and realize if rights were violated, the victim before death took place and the villian before and after--provided neither was a psychopath. (And of course, that the conflict was morally clear--one killing the other without justification--and not a mutual fight.)

The Declaration of Independence spells out our philosophy well: we have rights because we are human. Governments are created to secure those rights. If they do so, they deserve to continue to exist, if not, they deserve to be replaced. Government is a tool to protect rights. Just a tool.

You may be catching on.

I sincerely hope not. Why would I want to learn that might makes right--that the fact that "History is written by the victors" has some moral significance?

If I killed you (in your hypothetical example) I would be right by virtue of the fact that I would face no consequences outside my conscience?! And I would not have violated your rights because there were no independent observers to witness the crime, arrest me, compose the jury or serve as judge?!

Wow!

If I caught on to that BS principle and actually lived by it, I would never have acted as the heroes who saved the Jews. The Nazis were, to all appearances, "the victors" for quite some time. Ditto for the slavery faction in the US. For a long time, the anti-civil rights (note that word, "rights" in its American usage) forces were ascendant. It looked like they would write history. Thankfully, the black heroes and the white Americans and Canadians that helped the fugitives defied the "collectivity" and the temporary "victors" and respected the rights of the slaves. Those people were noble precisely because they weren't concerning themselves with who would "write history."

"History is written by the victors" is a deeply amoral approach to determining what rights are or whether they exist. Right and wrong--and rights and wrongs--have nothing to do with who is the victor. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.--the famous civil rights hero--put it, {paraphrase} "if a man has nothing for which he is willing to die, he is not worthy to live." The recognition of rights often depends on the victor, but that is a different story altogether.

Unlike you, who insinuate that a black man like myself is an Uncle Tom for not following your approved "black party line", Dr. King understood and appreciated the majestic philosophy of the Founders. He quoted the "dead white men" and applied their words, stripped of the blot of prejudice and racism, to combat violations of civil rights. I also attempt to apply the majesty of American philosophy, purified by the 14th Amendment, to civil rights. I don't expect you to understand.
Beware the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x238740#240618

Pray tell, Your Sophistry, if two people were alone on a distant planet--no "collectivity", Borg or otherwise, in sight--would they have rights? If one killed the other for the fun of it, would there be a rights violation?



*Of course the Supreme Court of the United States of America failed miserably; they didn't have your kind assistance--just like when they grappled with that Second Amendment thing, right? What should we do, we poor benighted Americans? Should we institute worship of your Sophistry as the Goddess of Truth and Beauty, or should we ask the Canadian Supreme Court to rule on guns and abortion? We breathlessly await your kind assistance.

[iverglas]

62. are you a bot?

Clicking on one of your posts is about as much fun as conversing with jabberwacky, so the idea gets my vote.

[TPaine7]

65. Are you slightly less full of it than you were when you wrote that logical and moral atrocitiy? n/t

[iverglas]

70. snork

"Logical and moral atrocity" ... looked in the mirror before typing that, did ya?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. way more complicated than an either/or decision

there are
civil rights
human rights
wwe bragging rights
renters rights
miranda rights
tenants rights
gay rights
grandparents rights
animal rights
etc . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

[Scuba]

9. Nah, it's more the definition of "arms".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Neither...

A right is an inherent attribute of humanity. A typical human has two arms, hair on his head, the ability to speak and... the right to keep and bear arms.

Rights are not desires. Individuals are sovereign entities. Your fellow humans are bound to respect your rights and your government is duty bound to protect your rights.

[TPaine7]

17. Please explain how your views are incompatible with view 1 in the poll n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. I just have a problem with expressing it in those terms.

I believe that I "HAVE" a right to life, not that I am "owed" a right to life.

I believe that other people OWE me to RESPECT my right to life. If an antisocial individual fails to respect another's right to life the right still remains.

Failing to respect that right won't remove the right but may get you dead, should the other person choose to defend themselves. ;)

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. self delete

ain't worth it.

[rrneck]

23. The exercise of our humanity.

We are owed the exercise of that right because of the same humanity.

Do unto others...

[SteveM]

37. Similar, is the approach to "respect"....

Many people assert that "respect" should be earned by others. This is an arrogant and dangerous notion. Respect (that is, the acknowledgment of autonomy and social equality) should be accorded to others -- most especially to those who are strangers to us. Subsequently, some people will lose the respect of others, by their actions. But to require or expect the earning of respect is what gets us into fights and wars.

[rrneck]

39. Yep. I read somewhere

Confucius or Suzuki who , said "always be prepared to bow."

And another, " The mark of an educated person is humility."

[iverglas]

42. what is garbage?

This "poll" and its stupid strawperson / false dichotomy / insulting demagoguery.

That's what.

[TPaine7]

53. This is garbage...

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul-21-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. snork


If two people were somehow transported to a distant and uninhabited earth-like planet, would they cease to have rights?

If one of them killed the other, who would decide whether this was an exercise of the "right to self-defence"? History is written by the victors, eh?

You may be catching on.


I would look up your statements on a woman's "right to an abortion," or a "woman's right to choose" or the like. I feel sure that that right--if no other--is not abstract and inchoate.

You feel free.

You will find that I have said, over and over and over, that the state (you know, the collectivity in its political manifestation) may not compel a woman to assume the risks (including the risk of death) that are inherent in pregnancy -- that laws denying access to abortion services and punishing people who obtain/provide those services are violations of the right not to be deprived of life without due process (to use your lingo; in mine, which is nicer, they are violations of the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or security of the person otherwise than in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice).

See how it works? The right is asserted against the state, when the state attempts to interfere in the exercise of it. If the state wishes to interfere in the exercise of the right to life (etc.) by denying access to abortion services, it must demonstrate justification. Since the right to life is a fundamental right, strict scrutiny does apply. (And your Court failed miserably in that regard in Roe v. Wade.)

Now, if I were one of two people on a distant planet and wanted to terminate my pregnancy, and you were the other and you stopped me from doing that by tying me up for nine months, you'd be a jerk. If I died, you would have killed me: deprived me of life; but you would not have violated my right not to be deprived of life without due process; really.

Glad you asked. But I did think we'd already come to a consensus here that constitutions (i.e. the declarations of protected rights in them) apply only to governments ...

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x238740#240618

That's garbage, as I demonstrated in my response (quoted in post 50 above).

Thanks for asking.

[Euromutt]

52. I'm just going to restate what I've said a few times before in this forum

Namely, that it is my belief that rights simply derive from the principle (articulated, but by no means invented, by Rabbi Hillel and Confucius, among others) of "do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you." A right is essentially freedom from something that nobody wants done unto himself: nobody wants to be told what gods to believe in, or not to believe in; to be told what we can or cannot say, verbally or in print; to have the police be able to search our persons, houses and cars without good cause; to be tortured into confessing to a crime; to be a slave. There's been no shortage throughout history of people who were only too happy to do such things (or have them done) unto others, of course, but vanishingly few people who are prepared to accept having those things done to them. Instead, they invariably resort to special pleading why they shouldn't be enslaved, or why their religion shouldn't be suppressed, or why they shouldn't be detained by the police without charge for several weeks, etc.

The "classic" human rights have always been fairly straightforward: nobody can do X to you, or stop you from doing Y; they require only that others refrain from actively imposing things on you. The "social" human rights--the rights to employment, "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of <one>self and of <one's> family," education, etc.--are trickier, because they can readily be interpreted to mean some unspecified party is required to provide those things to you. However much I regret this is the case (and I do regret it), I consider this interpretation to be untenable, simply because nobody can be required to provide you with something that is not within their power to give, or only by accepting an undue infringement on their freedom (e.g. I can't come and teach your kids for free, even if they do have the right to an education). Instead, my position is that the "social" human rights should be interpreted much the same as the "classic" ones, namely that your right to education, health, employment, etc. bars other people from denying such things to you, or otherwise obstructing your ability to acquire them, provided they are available in the first place.

In this regard, compare the thinking behind the specific wording of the "unalienable right to <...> the pursuit of happiness." Nobody is obliged to provide you with happiness, but they are obliged to refrain from interfering with you doing whatever makes you happy (provided you're not materially harming anyone else in the process).

[jmg257]

82. Tending to think a right is whatever society says it is.

Inherent right? Says who?
Natural right? Says who?
Absolute right? Says who?
Entitled to? Says who?
Needs or desires? Says who?