The Bill of NON-rights

[jinjuku]

I would still like to hear from unreal.reak on the issue. I would, honestly, like to know / understand the reasoning behind some of his statements.

Don't hold your breath for a reasoned and sensical answer based on factual data.

 

[Adam]

Can you agree that some widely held beliefs (which lack of rights were predicated upon) are indeed incorrect? Even if the overwhelming majority hold to said beliefs for whatever internally motivated reasons?

I'd prefer to answer that for a specific example or examples. That's a very open question. Thanks.

 

[unreal.freak]

Don't hold your breath for a reasoned and sensical answer based on factual data.

Your right......not the way you think you are right....but because ive already stated to you and anyone else who read it. Im done discussing this. We arent getting anywhere. Im not changing my mind, you arent changing yours, and im pretty sure noone else is going to change their mind. So to continue arguing this, would be a waste. Pick something else from the list of The OP and lets talk about it for a while. While i can discuss this rationally, You try and belittle and name call. Im ok with that but it only adds to my unwillingness to continue to respond to your posts.

Joe, if i offended you by bringing in your family, I humbly appologize. It wasnt meant to be funny or a slam against you. I do however thank God that you are here and are able to give me red chicklets for my offense and continue to debate/argue/discuss sensitive issues with me.

Peace
Tommy

 

[MidnightSensi]

 

[jamie2112]

Religion politics have we not learned anything.You don't discuss either on an open AUDIO forum.It leads to spewing madness on every side. Thanks for reading now go get your shinebox....

 

[Adam]

Oh, look.

Two girls and a cup...cake.

 

[Alex2507]

Oh, look.

Two girls and a cup...cake.

Wrecked a perfectly good porn moment for me with that remark.

 

[Davemcc]

To quote Wikipedia because I agree with it, "rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions."

"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, "

The Wiki definition obviously disagrees with the Declaration of Independence. The founding principles of the United States include that rights are unalienable. They do not exist at the behest or by the creation of the state. They are an intangible creation from the rational minds of men intended to define the relationship of men to each other. Bear in mind that by this definition, rights do not apply in nature, only among men. Nature does not have a rational mind, therefore rights cannot apply.

To me, rights exist only because people agree to let them exist. Therefore, rights change over time, and they are indeed based on the beliefs of people. I don't think that there is a fundamental set of rights - to life or even to existence.

"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"

The Declaration continues to explain that the purpose of government is to secure these rights, not to create or limit these rights. It's not so much that people let rights exist, but that rational men acknowledge they exist and have joined together to ensure that the benefits of these unalienable rights are protected.

Like it or not, agree or disagree, this is the philosophical principle that underlies the foundation of the United States. This is the basis of the freedoms you enjoy, the source of the constitutional protection you expect and the envy of citizens in nations around the world where governments deny these basic rights. In nations where rights are denied, it is not so much that these rights do not exist in the relations of rational men, but that irrational men are denying these rights to others, at least in the context of the founding principles of the United States, which BTW, is still a model for the world over 200 years later.

Two girls and a cup...cake

 

[Adam]

Dave, your eloquence impresses me on a daily basis. Very well said as always.

However, I don't think that my thoughts are contradicted by the Declaration of Independence. Some humans wrote down what they believed are/or what they wanted other people to believe. Those beliefs generated the perpetuation of beliefs that led to the rights in this country. I would take that as supporting my statement that rights are based on human beliefs and exist because we agree to let them.

IMO, the fact that I may or may not have the same beliefs as the authors of that document does not mean that my statement is refuted by theirs.

 

[Davemcc]

The Declaration explicitly states that rights are endowed by the creator, i.e. that rights are inherent in the nature of man. That is diametrically opposed to your position that rights exists because we let them, i.e. that they are created by man. Oddly, it differs also from my opinion that rights are inherent due to man's ability to reason, since I cannot share such a belief in a creator. The issue certainly lends itself to healthy debate whether rights are recognized by man or created by man, but the Declaration is explicit on the matter and in conflict with the Wiki site's definition of rights as an entitlement or permission.

Man is the only being capable of abstract thought and putting such thoughts on paper. Yet it is not that medium that interests me so much as the message. The message of the Declaration is that the purpose of the government is not to grant rights that previously did not exist, but to secure existing rights against intrusion by government. Regardless of what the founders believed, what we believe or what we choose to debate or agree upon, the Declaration provides the fundamental philosophical principles for US law. In that respect, that is the only opinion that matters in any legal sense.

 

[Adam]

The Declaration explicitly states that rights are endowed by the creator, i.e. that rights are inherent in the nature of man. That is diametrically opposed to your position that rights exists because we let them, i.e. that they are created by man.

Dave, my point was not clear enough. I'll try wording it differently.

Humans wrote the Declaration. Hence, the rights stated in the Declaration (regardless of what the Declaration says) were written by humans based upon the beliefs of those humans or the beliefs that they wanted to instill. That does not go against what I said - it is what I said.

Now...can we get back to those cupcakes?

 

[Davemcc]

Adam, there's lots of threads for cupcakes.

I actually find this thread one of the more interesting right now and I find your point on this worth pursuing. I hope you bear with me because finding a different opinion that is well presented and able to survive challenges of logic is the process by which I reinforce or change my opinion. I'm probably more flexible in that regard than most people think so I hope you don't mind if I try one more time.

Humans wrote the Declaration. Hence, the rights stated in the Declaration (regardless of what the Declaration says) were written by humans

This part is not in question. Only humans can write. Only humans can communicate abstract thought. This is only the medium by which we communicate which we need to separate from the message.

based upon the beliefs of those humans or the beliefs that they wanted to instill. That does not go against what I said - it is what I said.

It is the substance of these beliefs, the source from where rights are derived, where we find a conflict. When you say that you don't believe that there are any fundamental rights, that is in conflict with the founders' belief that rights are fundamental and inalienable. It may seem like splitting hairs but it is an important distinction on the fundamental nature of rights.

If rights are conferred upon people, that we let them exist as you argue, then they can be violated or eliminated by the government at will. It means that there is no basis for the government to acknowledge or protect fundamental rights (because they don't exist). What the government gives, the government can take away.

This is, in fact, a completely different belief than the Declaration. Rights that are inherent and inalienable cannot be removed by government. Inalienable rights can be violated or repressed but it doesn't mean that they do not exist, only that they have been taken by force. If your only point is that the Declaration is the beliefs of the founders, we are in agreement, but your point is also that fundamental rights do not exist which is opposed to founders' belief that fundamental rights do exist.

PS. I hope you can tell that I'm enjoying the discussion. It makes me think.

 

[Alex2507]

I'm enjoying the discussion. It makes me think.

"You keep thinking Butch. You're good at it"

Doh! Wrong thread.

 

[Adam]

Dave, I completely agree that my statement that fundamental rights do not exist is in contrast to the statements in the Declaration of Independence. I'm saying that my point that rights are based on beliefs is not refuted by the Declaration. The Declaration itself is based on beliefs - that's my point.

As for the wording of the Declaration - just because someone believes that something isn't based on their beliefs doesn't make it so.

Don't get me wrong. I am incredibly happy that such beliefs exist and are the foundation of my government. I think that they are a good code by which to live.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Humans wrote the Declaration. Hence, the rights stated in the Declaration (regardless of what the Declaration says) were written by humans based upon the beliefs of those humans or the beliefs that they wanted to instill.

Well put. Note that if you substitute the word "Bible" for the word "Declaration", you still have a true statement.

 

[Rickster71]

I'm confused.....shouldn't she be sticking that cup cake in her mouth?

 

[MidnightSensi]

I'm confused.....shouldn't she be sticking that cup cake in her mouth?

I don't think she is sticking the cupcake there.. I think they were shooting these pictures and forgot to move the cupcakes.

 

[Rickster71]

I don't think she is sticking the cupcake there.. I think they were shooting these pictures and forgot to move the cupcakes.

I meant to tidy up a bit before the big shoot. With everything going on, it kinda slipped my mind......
I mean..... it slipped their mind.

 

[Alex2507]

I'm confused.....shouldn't she be sticking that cup cake in her mouth?

I thought that's where the cup cakes came from.

 

[Adam]

I can't believe that you all would take one of the most innocent and pure things around and taint it with all this dirty and cheap talk about cupcakes.