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.

 

Where do your rights come from?

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

They were money changers and money changers used false weights and equivalents to earn a profit much as bankers make use of fractionalized fiat today.

Marketeering of any sort in the temple is/was forbidden in gods law to man.
edit on 27-2-2021 by Stevenmonet because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2021 by Stevenmonet because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CitizenZero
Certainly not thin air, but it doesn't mean that what they come up with is accurate.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

We have a clean data set then no you don't beleive your rights come from god/your creator.

Yes you feel the government should have less authority/oversight over your daily activities.

You dont fit my hypothesis. Thanks for clarifying.




posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thanks for the response, but in fairness I was hoping for a full data set.

I understand you feel your rights come from your god/creator.

Do you feel that your government needs/should have more or less control/oversight over your daily activities?


No, I am an Atheist. I would choose to say they flow from nature, not God. But, I recognize that some people understand their natural rights through their belief in God.

The government already has way too much control over our daily activities. It exists to limit our natural rights rather than protect them.



edit on 2/27/2021 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

It was required reading in my jr. High goes to show how old I am. I doubt it is required reading in that institution any longer.

Where did i make the claim that humans follow logic.

The fact that humans find the fact that we can
hold mutually exclusive beliefs funny and that george carlin like many comedians succsessfully took advantage of that was discussed very early on in the thread.

If humans were logical by default and in all conditions, characters like spock from start trek and sheldon from big bang would have had no novelty value.

Sheldon's main comedic motif is that his strict logic leads to un-anticipated or even sometimes easily anticipated outcomes. That he doesn't represent/have the typical response aka being logical instead of emotional in certain situations we see humor in the juxtaposition of ourselves into his shoes.

I could go on and on, on the topic of humans and logic, but I have 2 pages of comments to catch up to. Thanks for the value add Andy06shake.
edit on 27-2-2021 by Stevenmonet because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet

I read the text in 2nd year myself. LoL

As to the rest i don't necessarily disagree with you there.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

All I can say is, if a bunch of old dead guys dreamed his up, they certainly took their sweet time.

Let's look at the alternative, shall we? It won't be hard; only a couple of centuries ago there were no recognized birthrights for the common man. Only the ruler held any birthright. Peasants were property of the King/Queen, slaves that were born, lived, and died in his/her service. Even the minor nobility classes were considered property, just more valuable than the peasants.

That did not always work out good for the peasants... actually it rarely worked out good for the peasants.

The concept of birthright we are discussing was not some agreed-upon set of rules. It originated with the birthright of the King to rule divinely, by virtue not of his deeds, but by virtue of his birth. Simply by being born, a ruler ascended to the throne in his time. There is no dismissal of birthright in that respect; it has been the way of man for untold centuries, all the way back to the Biblical days and beyond.

All that can be dismissed is birthright for everyone. That is what we are discussing. Is there an inherent right for someone to live to the best of their ability? If not, that is an acceptance that we are slaves to those in power, for slaves are those who have no inherent rights. I do not wish to be a slave; therefore I claim inherent rights that supercede the right any man might claim to remove them. If a government is forbidden from removing a birthright, that birthright cannot have come from the government.

I enumerated some of those in my first post; I will not repeat them.

The US Constitution specifies certain rights as "inalienable" (above the right of any man to justly remove), and then goes on to specify what the US government is forbidden to do in the way of infringing on those inherent rights. That pretty much signifies that they are not given nor granted by a government. Only those who gave the rights can justly remove them.

If we declare that inherent birthrights do not exist, then why was Hitler considered a monster? He violated no one's rights, after all, because no one had rights. The people he butchered had no right to live. Why do we complain when someone is unjustly killed by the police? George Floyd had no right to live... therefore the officer who killed him was not in the wrong. War becomes perfectly acceptable, as does slavery. As long as the ruler, who solely retains an inherent right to rule, is protected from atrocities in any way.

That is a scary road you're traveling down.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I dont start this thread to preach hopefully you know that by now.

I asked you folkes to share information with and to be fair I formatted my two ways for a reason.

As this thread has grown I felt it would be unfair for me to expound upon my beliefs in a similar fashion as I am asking of all of you how you have chosen to respond to me.

Two answers to taboo "shal we call them?" questions = great data set!

Or,

One answer to totaly non taboo question = great data set.

Failure on both fronts = beg for more data.


Failure on both counts+request for clarification= provide info/explain my beliefs the best I can+beg for more data.

I could potentially plug my beliefs into a formula for responding to comments in order to get more data, but we all know us ats'ers are way to smart to sit and talk to a computer while generating heck volunteering data to it for over 100 pages worth of data.


......right muhahahaha.

Come on I couldn't help it. Did I mention I'm down 24+hours on sleep at this point? Yep... ok moving on, but first: honestly and from the bottom of my human heart thank you all for your efforts here.


's all around.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet

Get some sleep mate, its important.


Im 45 now, if i stay up for 24 hours im fecking no use to Man nor beast. LoL



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Rights can be just as important without them having to be deemed inherent birthrights. Labeling them as such just makes it easier to sell as important.

Apparently you feel some need for them to exist outside of society but the truth is that they don't. It is just a concept that you can't really prove.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No quote so I cant see where you are referring to and I'm probably about 50+ comments deep here only counting my own comments.

Help a brother out please... I beg I beg.

How is either definition I have provided from Google for right inconsistent with Therednecks when applied to my hypothesis.

I didn't see any problem or inconsistencies or would have said so. I will leave him to speak for himself on that, but get ack to me on where I confused or conflated the two improperly and I will try and rectify things.

Thanks



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet
You posted the two definitions of right again but they are not talking about the same thing.

Number 1 is talking about right in the context of something being correct.

Number 2 is talking about rights in the context of birthrights.

The two definitions are not talking about the same thing but you seem to believe they are.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Stevenmonet

In other words would it be fair to say that according to you your rights are inalienable from due to the nature of the univers or how it is ordered.

If that is a fair approximation of your position, we are half way to a clean data set.


I'm not sure as inalienable rights are still created by man and constantly change. Case in point, As Plato and other ancient philosophers wrote about morality, rights etc they had slave boys. Both the philosophers and the boys thought their inalienable rights put them in their positions..i.e. The slave boys had no issues with their rightful position and felt very lucky and blessed to be there.

We can go throughout history and see a smorgasbord of inalienable rights, and the rights we are kind of talking about here right now are really limited to American/some EU countries ideals of rights and not the whole world even today, and even with that people want to add to the list in 2021, so to answer your question the universe has zero care for the "rights" of a complex chemical process we call life.



Do you feel your current form of government/society should have/is waranted more control/oversight over your daily activities than it currently does, or would you say that your current form of government/society should have/is warranted less control/oversight over your daily activities than it currently does?


Tough question...its all about balance in you can not have total anarchy and then you also do not want Totalitarianism either, or what we are kind of seeing with Technocratic today.

I'm more liberation than Conservative, so I tend to want a bigger State foot print I can have more control over and a smaller fed foot print with minimal regulations to keep us from anarchy. But this doesn't mean I believe that social program are not necessary, but those of sound mind and body need to learn how to swim or sink at some point.



I love guns gays the environment bud and god. How is that mix for you.

The political youvascribe to yourself doesn't matter in that I define you as left of rights based on how you answer the question you are trying to dodge.

The alienable vs inalienable debate was not started by me it has value and merit for sure no matter how you see or define unalienable rights from any other right.

Even if we dont get to a clean data set I respect your hustle and tenacity for the truth.
edit on 27-2-2021 by Stevenmonet because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You little bullett Dodger you. I mean this with great respect and love for your ability to both obscure while providing the sense of clarity.

Are you sure you are not a professional p.r agent or politician?

Find a definition of rights that works for you and we can compare it to google then decide what best fits within the paremeters of the hypothesis.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes for many of its uses for relating to one another across a wide variety of view points natural law and god can be synonymous.

Thank you for the clean data set. I think I'm on page 11 now and I'm feeling it hard, but beyond just the data points I am after and the hypothesis I'm seeking to prove/disprove validate/invalidate, I have found value immeasurable through out this thread.

Thanks mothermayeye you didn't have to help, but you did, and that counts for something in my book.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Stevenmonet

I read the text in 2nd year myself. LoL

As to the rest i don't necessarily disagree with you there.


Wow last page for now anyways... maybe I can sleep soon who knows.

Thanks for sticking it out with me andy06shake if you are having a glass of red I just may be joining you soon so and
for all your valuable input.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Rights can be just as important without them having to be deemed inherent birthrights. Labeling them as such just makes it easier to sell as important.

Ummm... not sure how to respond to this statement. I don't intend to come across as condescending, but I have to point out that words are necessary for accurate descriptions.

"Inherent" - a part of, unable to exist without, integral (my definition)

"Birthright" - a moral or legal grant originating at and by the birth (or creation) of an individual (again, my definition)

Those two words accurately describe what I am talking about. They are not superfluous. An inherent birthright is a moral or legal grant of ability or possession which occurs at and by virtue of one's birth (or creation) and is itself an integral part of that person and unable to be removed without causing irreparable damage to said person.

daskakik... we use words because words have meanings which describe things. I could replace every instance in this thread where I used the words "inherent birthright" with the above paragraph; that would be silly and less than useless. It would make every post longer and harder to follow. I don't understand your aversion to "inherent birthright" as a descriptor. I have used "God-given birthright"... that led to the discussion on religion, culminating in another poster who made initial blatantly false statements about my religion then trying to educate me on it. I tried "inalienable birthright"... that brought up the fact that people do die simply because of natural processes. I mean, really, what do you want me to call it? Your suggestion, which I understand is just a "right," does not distinguish between legal and inherent rights.


Apparently you feel some need for them to exist outside of society but the truth is that they don't.

You apparently failed to understand my previous posts. Of course inherent rights exist as a part of society! They are integral with that society, as they form the basis for society. Without inherent rights, society becomes a chaotic fight club where each member is free to harm others at will. Without society there are no others to try to infringe on one's inherent birthrights; there is only nature. They exist as two parts of a whole.

Even in historical times, when the King alone held a birthright, society was structured for the sole purpose of being ruled by that King and to protect his birthright.

I think you might want to go back and re-read my posts.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Stevenmonet

Get some sleep mate, its important.


Im 45 now, if i stay up for 24 hours im fecking no use to Man nor beast. LoL


For most i would and do whole heartedly agree with you, but when my mind is active and focused trust me I am a different beast and circadian rythm ain't got jack on me.

That said just as soon as I've reached the bottom of the last page hit refresh and no new comment comes up I will be kicking my mind into low gear.

get that bottle of red ready I'm thirsty lol.




posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Ummm... not sure how to respond to this statement. I don't intend to come across as condescending, but I have to point out that words are necessary for accurate descriptions.

And while they might describe an idea accurately, they don't necessarily describe something that really exists.


You apparently failed to understand my previous posts. Of course inherent rights exist as a part of society!

But the topic of the thread is do they come from gov/society or do they come from outside of it?

Of course they exist in it, but you seem to be saying they exist outside of it and I honestly believe that is something you can't prove.


edit on 27-2-2021 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet

I'm a bit hungover this evening, so I'm on the coffee I'm afraid.


But you enjoy.




top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join