It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

page: 19
35
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: yuppa




Yes BUT they are still consequences of speaking To the law though. If they didnt speak most likely there would had been no consequence.


If there was no law then there would be no such consequence. The consequence of speaking is always the same, with or without the law. The fact that if someone were to speak in such a manner in a place where there is a law and in a place where there wasn't, lead to two different consequences, prove that it is a consequence of the law, not of the speech.


Calling someoen a racial name could be seen as one correct? Almost all of the time you will get a beat down or a insult back.




posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

Whether I think other humans should be able to exist doesn't really change the fact that some do exist. Some used to exist but they no longer exist and I am willing to bet that some will exist in the future that don't exist now.

I know I sound like a tool but all I want is an example of the difference of having and not having that right, while still alive,

Otherwise, it is just a redundant way of saying alive or dead.
edit on 20-4-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Whether I think other humans should be able to exist doesn't really change the fact that some do exist. Some used to exist but they no longer exist and I am willing to bet that some will exist in the future that don't exist now.


True, but I'm trying to get you to understand what I'm saying, and the only why I can do that is to know where you are 'coming from'.

For instance if you would of answered no to the question, then I don't think I could ever make you understand my thoughts because it would appear life means nothing to you.

But if you would have answered yes, then we might have been able to move forward.


I know I sound like a tool but all I want is an example of the difference of having and not having that right, while still alive otherwise it is just a redundant way of saying alive or dead.


Not at all, that is what I was trying to show you, but it's not easy and I'm no scholar, that was why I was asking the "do you believe" questions, because... yes we all exist, but do we have the right to exist? or in other words, should we as humans be able to exist? And of course I am talking from the perspective of the "natural man" not as members of a society, that's another subject.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

I think maybe I can aid you in your desire to help the other member understand your view on this topic.

My message TO daskakik: if you remove the concept of morality entirely and look at the situation of a living creature (whether human, animal or bug), the act of existing itself (in the objective, non-judgemental but yes DESCRIPTIVE sense) does not grant you any right on that basis alone.

How does that existence benefit anybody else besides the one existing in the purely objective sense?

How should a right be classified? I believe a right should be classified as a context-appropriate freedom that provides an overall benefit for both the subject AND their environment, as long as neither party abuses that benefit to a reasonable degree.


edit on 20/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

The problem I see with your approach is that it really isn't up to any human to say if "humans should be able to exist". They just do.

Let's take something without life (by our standards), do you think the stars should be able to exist? Same answer.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Is that you putting words in my mouth?

Actually, it is well said but I was kind of hoping the idea of a natural right could have been fleshed out a bit, with some actual meat to it.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LockNLoad

The problem I see with your approach is that it really isn't up to any human to say if "humans should be able to exist". They just do.

Let's take something without life (by our standards), do you think the stars should be able to exist? Same answer.


Are the stars having a conversation about our worthiness of existing? (They could be, I doubt they are, but if they were how would we know? Could we know?)

Whereas even if we do not know with 100% certainty about what we think rights mean, within the human framework of knowledge we can be very sure we are somewhat closer than the stars are.


edit on 20/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No, that was not my intention. There, I fixed it so that it is clear.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I don't know, can't even an amoral person put a value on their own life? And usually if somebody values something they will lay claim to it and normally protect it. So I would say they believe they have a right to it since they claim it and protect it.

LOL But then again I could be completely wrong and just projecting my own values. LOL



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But using the example of something without life is not even a part of my equation because I am talking about the right to life... and well, as far as I know stars are not alive. I used the word exists to make it as generic as I could... think I went too generic.
edit on 21-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Just as an aside we are way off topic of the thread, sorry LesMisanthrope.

2nd



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Well it did reflect what I was saying (before the edit).

The addition is not really about natural rights as proposed by others.

The star question was from human to human, about things without life (as we know it). I was pointing out that an actual answer to the question is impossible for both living and non-living things.

Seeing that being alive and existing were being used interchangeably.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Seeing that being alive and existing were being used interchangeably.


And that was my mistake...Sorry



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Well it did reflect what I was saying (before the edit).

The addition is not really about natural rights as proposed by others.

The star question was from human to human, about things without life (as we know it). I was pointing out that an actual answer to the question is impossible for both living and non-living things.

Seeing that being alive and existing were being used interchangeably.


Oh, I was under the impression "existing" in our conversation meant something living, not specifically any entity in existence.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

Oh, OK. No harm done on my end.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

No biggie.

The other part to it is the word "should". It makes the question sound way to deep. Like asking "Why does the universe exist?"

There is no real answer for that.

Now, I know what you were going for. To be honest I have often used the labels "natural rights" myself. It's just that at times a thread makes you re-evaluate things.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: LockNLoad

-snip- How should a right be classified? I believe a right should be classified as a context-appropriate freedom that provides an overall benefit for both the subject AND their environment, as long as neither party abuses that benefit to a reasonable degree.


I posted this a few pages back, which is my thoughts on innate rights.

If a is man alone in the natural state (which would be the purest form of freedom) does he lose his right to life?

Would you not say even the bear wondering the woods alone has a right to live?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I can understand that, it's one of the reasons I enjoy ATS, 'sometimes' I can participate in a thread that really makes me think and that's always a good thing LOL
edit on 21-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Rights are essentially duties. Your right to free speech is my duty not to censor you; your right to life is my duty not to kill you; and so on.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't follow... does a man alone in his/her natural state have no rights because nobody is there to afford them to him/her as would be there duty?
edit on 21-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: added



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join