It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What you speak about are abilities. Not rights. Facts, not oughts. Simple descriptions, not prescriptions. There is nothing in the fact that life is alive prescribing that we should not kill it.
What is the difference between your rights, and abilities?
Indeed they are. Otherwise there is no need for the new word, "ability" would suffice.
Ability describes what you speak of - life can live, roses can keep and bear thorns, skunk can spew its stink. With no prescriptive obligations for anyone or anything.
The word "right" goes beyond that. It says something should not be interfered with (prescription).
I have a right to live means my life should not be terminated (as opposed to "I can live", which carries no prescription).
No. Because its his ability.
The same applies to law. Law is necessarily prescriptive. It would be pointless to have a purely descriptive law, such as "gravitational acceleration is 9,81 m/s2". All laws are prescriptive, such as "You should not commit murder", "You should not steal". Prescriptions.
Legislation is the source of law (besides international treaties, and judicial decisions in some countries). And morality (some value systems) are the sources of legislation, treaties and decisions.
Here is where you confuse the issue. The right to life is not "prescriptive", what is prescriptive is the prohibition on murder. The source of that legislative act is the right to life, not morality.
The mute still has the right to speech, the illiterate still have the right to press, the agoraphobic still has the right to peaceably assemble, and the agnostic still has the right of religious worship. The cripple has the right to walk, the blind has the right to see, and the deaf have the right to hear.
The homeless have the right to property regardless of their ability to secure a home. They have the right, once they do secure that home without disparaging or denying the rights of others, to that home. The homeless current lack of ability to have a home does not diminish his, or her right to property.
The cripples right to walk is not diminished by his, or her, inability to walk. The blinds right to see is not diminished by their inability to see. It is not as if a cripple who has been cured of whatever crippled him, or her, is now under a conundrum where they no longer have the right to walk, and the same for the blind, or the mute.
The right to speech does not "say" that speech must not be interfered with. Any person can shout down another and interfere with their right to speech, but no person can prohibit that person from speaking.
If you try to kill me and my only option is kill or be killed, I have the right to terminate your life. I have this right because you attempted to prohibit my right to life and I have the right to self defense, so no the right to life does not mean that life should not be terminated, it means that I live by right, not by decree.
The ant who has no ability to communicate still has the right to do so.
Gravity is not "prescriptive"
Legislation is no more the source of law than a map is the source of territory, the word horse is the source of horse, or a picture of a pipe is the source of a pipe. Legislation can either describe law, or fail to do so, but it cannot be law. Law exists with or without legislatures.
Earlier you argued that right is a right because thats what something does naturally "Living things live, therefore have a right to live, porcupine tree bears needles therefore has a right to do so, dog can bark therefore has a right to do so..". But suddenly, right is not derived from natural abilities? People have a right to something that they do not have an ability to do? Make up your mind.
Of course I can prohibit other person from speaking, if I have the ability to do so and enforce it.
What determines rights are those actions - outside of defense - that cause no harm.
How is shouting down another person speaking prohibiting their speech?
Declaring rights "abstracts" does not make them so. What evidence have you that rights are "abstract"?
If law must be able to be pointed to then point to gravity in the same way you would point to territory or a horse.
Outside of defense, anything a person does that causes no harm is done by right. This is not government granted right, but unalienable right.
Why should I take anything you say beyond that seriously when you are insisting now that I have only just given this definition?
Finally you defined what do you specifically mean by rights. Congratulations. Was rambling about skunks and roses necessary? Why not simply post your definition in the first reply, instead of pointless talk about nature?
Your definition is that - still only a subjective declaration you made, nothing that can be derived from nature objectively, which is your main point.
Of course, my main point is not that rights are derived from nature
Neither you, nor the Wikipedia article you linked have shown how it is natural rights cannot come from nature, it is just something you keep repeating over and over again hoping that at some point it will become true.
The right to life is irrefutably derived from nature.
Life did not become a right only because some human thought it up.
The contradiction, of course, is that you contend that legislatures "make" law and that if it has been legislated it is law, but the Ninth Amendment is an act of legislation and that act of legislation expressly prohibits government from denying and or disparaging rights that have not been legislated.
(but does not bar denial of freedoms if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution).
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
''Freedom'' is a subjective concept which can objectively be defined as: ''You have the freedom to do things which I personally believe in or tolerate you doing, but you don't have the freedom to do things which I don't personally believe in or am intolerant of you doing''.
The libertarian mantra runs along these lines, and is, consequently, complete garbage,
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You have ridiculously declared a subjective thought as objective. Given your profound ignorance on what is subjective and what is objective, it only makes sense that you would use your wholly subjective bias to describe libertarian mantra.
''free to do what I believe/tolerate, and not free to do what I don't believe/don't tolerate''.
Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
although i may disagree with you on matters of policy, and legislation. i think your responses are falling on deaf ears. clear, logical, crictical-thinking skills are not present in many of the posts here on ATS. your frustration, along with mine, is in the dismissive, and naive, remarks made by shallow thinkers. sometimes i have to leave for a day or two, just to keep myself from falling into the hole of the petty and vulgar.