User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 116

  1. #51
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You're the one arguing about rights, not me. So you answer your own questions.
    You are talking about rights...

    So rights only exist via positive law eh? Rather shaky foundation I must say.
    You later implied that rights are inherent.

    I would like to know which ones you're referring to, and how I would be able to see that they're inherent.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Excellent post

    Which rights are inalienable?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

  3. #53
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    You are talking about rights...
    I'm critically examining the conception of "rights" as proposed by Beargyllz and I guess also you. I'm not arguing this or that is a right or that rights even exist. If you wish to argue that this or that is a right or that rights even exist, you guys need a much firmer foundation to build upon than the one you guys presented. Perhaps reading Martin Luther King Jr. might be a good starting place.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Ah yes, the natural, inalienable rights

    Let us examine them

    "Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

    As to liberty, the heroes who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

    The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

  5. #55
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    The idea that the government can grant or take away rights is true because the government is formed by and composed of people that inhabit a society

    So, a people could implement a government which recognizes certain rights that were not recognized before.

    For example, before the 1890s women did not have the right to vote, but in the years following they were able to exercise this right. This right is protected by law and enforced by governments.

    I do take this topic seriously
    What you are talking about is innovation and social change, which should be towards or reflect more closely the natural order rather than attempt to please the political vogues of the day.

    I accept that there is the possibility that fresh understanding, research or dispute can reveal oppressions concealed within traditions which can be dispensed with, however, there is as much likelihood that social changes such as confering rights inline with popular or political vogues is entropic and compounding error to no good end or purpose.

    What are the consequences of universal sufferage? Not the same as attempting to change fundamental organic social institutions I would suggest, changes in the economic or political spheres of life which prove to be mistaken are unlikely to have the impact of changes of a more fundamental kind, they are reversable and there can be and have been successful exercises in damage limitation but when more fundamental change has proven ill conceived the damage is usually lasting.

  6. #56
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I'm critically examining the conception of "rights" as proposed by Beargyllz and I guess also you. I'm not arguing this or that is a right or that rights even exist. If you wish to argue that this or that is a right or that rights even exist, you guys need a much firmer foundation to build upon than the one you guys presented. Perhaps reading Martin Luther King Jr. might be a good starting place.
    I don't get how my foundation isn't firm...

    Let's say rights don't exist (which I'm gonna translate into: rights aren't inherent). Then what are people talking about when they say "rights"? They're talking about being protected by the government in their pursuit of _______. So the question of which rights should or should not exist is the same as "which pursuits should the government protect?" The government, ideally, will want to maximize the happiness of its citizens, so it should protect pursuits accordingly. This gets us to my question for people that are against gay rights -- how does NOT giving gay couples the same protection as straight couples maximize the happiness of citizens?

    You made it clear you disagree with some part of my reasoning in the last paragraph -- I would like to know what it is. If you don't want to have this discussion, I don't get why you've made the posts you have so far.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I'm critically examining the conception of "rights" as proposed by Beargyllz and I guess also you. I'm not arguing this or that is a right or that rights even exist. If you wish to argue that this or that is a right or that rights even exist, you guys need a much firmer foundation to build upon than the one you guys presented. Perhaps reading Martin Luther King Jr. might be a good starting place.
    Or Edmund Burke or a whole catalogue of sociologists.

  8. #58
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What are the consequences of universal sufferage? Not the same as attempting to change fundamental organic social institutions I would suggest, changes in the economic or political spheres of life which prove to be mistaken are unlikely to have the impact of changes of a more fundamental kind, they are reversable and there can be and have been successful exercises in damage limitation but when more fundamental change has proven ill conceived the damage is usually lasting.
    What are the consequences of two consenting adults getting married?

    I would imagine that this would carry a number of benefits for the betrothed, depending upon the privileges marriage grants, which vary from culture to culture

  9. #59
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Or Edmund Burke or a whole catalogue of sociologists.
    That too, but I think King Jr. is sufficient - not least since he's the person most commonly associated with the concept.

  10. #60
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    In all seriousness, there's conceptions of rights in this thread which indicate thinking hasnt moved on since the days of kings.

    I mean when you guys say government you might as well be saying "the good king" and the "goodness" seems to involve whether or not they concur with your personal values. The same values seem to arise from how you're feeling or what your peers are feeling.

Similar Threads

  1. Mitt Romney
    By wistfulwillow in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-04-2014, 01:34 AM
  2. Twenty-Two Days and Counting: Mitt Romney's Media Blackout
    By WALMART in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 10:28 AM
  3. Mitt Romney: Warlord
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 07:41 PM
  4. Paul Ryan to be Mitt Romney's Running Mate
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 02:17 AM
  5. Romney and Obama Agree: Power is Good
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-17-2012, 09:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO