The Bill of NON-rights

[Alex2507]

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.

He said taint!

 

[Alamar]

@Adam && DaveMCC:

I see the points that you're making but I doubt that you two will ever agree because you have different axioms / assumptions and you base your reasoning from those core given "facts" and go from there.

IMHO both of your logical conclusions are correct based on the assumptions that you reason from.

*********************************************************

In terms of how I think that a proper government should be run my axioms are closer to DaveMCC's

*********************************************************

As far as to whether you have innate rights or they are given to you it is somewhat moot in the absence of the ability to protect/secure/enforce your rights.

 

[MidnightSensi]

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.

Hot rough lesbian sex?

 

[Davemcc]

@Adam && DaveMCC:

I see the points that you're making but I doubt that you two will ever agree because you have different axioms / assumptions and you base your reasoning from those core given "facts" and go from there.

IMHO both of your logical conclusions are correct based on the assumptions that you reason from.

*********************************************************

In terms of how I think that a proper government should be run my axioms are closer to DaveMCC's

*********************************************************

As far as to whether you have innate rights or they are given to you it is somewhat moot in the absence of the ability to protect/secure/enforce your rights.

To start, Adam's got a pretty good point to make and I can hardly say he's wrong when there is no scientific evidence to reference. By definition, rights are abstract. It takes a sentient mind to conceive the concept. Once an abstract concept is recognized, it is also the function of the sentient mind to define that concept.

I just happen to differ with the Wiki definition of rights. If the definition of rights is that they are innate, then some other definition must be found found for those privileges that the government creates on our behalf. The definition of a word is simply a mutually agreed usage to avoid confusion or increase comprehension in communication. The founders obviously intended the word "rights" to refer to an innate condition. Over time, the definition has been modified from the founders' intent to include privileges granted by the state. The intent of the founders hasn't changed, but through the modification of the meaning of the words they used, the meaning of what was written has changed. I hope you can see how this could have a tangible effect on people's lives.

Besides, arguing with Adam is more like a discussion among friends. It can be challenging and a good time had by all.

 

[Alamar]

definition of a word is simply a mutually agreed usage to avoid confusion or increase comprehension in communication. The founders obviously intended the word "rights" to refer to an innate condition.

I think you are probably correct that the founding fathers believe that certain rights were innate. However there are documents that included phrases similar to "inalienable right" and "endowed by our creator". Using those phrases implies that some rights may not be inalienable ... other rights may not be "endowed by our creator".