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: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

Rights is a word that men use to describe a rule of law. Some people don't believe in the rule of law, even for the sake of discussion.

All men must agree and support the rule of law.

Does all power actually flow from the people? Is that 'we the people' stuff real, or just imagination?

We either have rights as individuals, or we don't.

I say we do.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I'm way to deep in to give up now, so let's do it sentance by sentance and similarity to similarity and remember I said long ago that I find googles 2nd definition to be the most apt for this conversation/hypothesis.

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.
"she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong"
Similar:
goodness
rightness
righteousness
virtue
virtuousness
integrity
rectitude
uprightness
principle
propriety
morality
truth
truthfulness
honesty
honor
honorableness
justice
justness
fairness
equity
equitableness
impartiality
lawfulness
legality
Opposite:
wrong
2.
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
"she had every right to be angry"
Similar:
entitlement
prerogative
privilege
advantage
due
birthright
liberty
authority
authorization
power
license
permission
dispensation
leave
consent
warrant
charter
franchise
sanction
exemption
immunity
indemnity
carte blanche
droit


So as you point out the 1st definition is using right as a noun and you see its similarities as well as its oposite of wrong. The sentance Google uses for right as defined in definition 1 is she doesnt understand the difference between right and wrong.

So clearly definition 1 for right is meaning right in its polar oposite form from wrong.

I see no issue with how you have characterized this definition by Google as: being in the context of something being correct.

The 2nd definition is the one I have said from the begining is the definition that provides the best fit for my hypothesis and therefore this conversation

This is because it uses the clearly exclusive "or" instead of the inclusive "and" or "and/or" between moral and legal. That means this definition is meant to exhibit the exclusivity of morale from legal rights.

I have used this to the best of my ability to show that you either beleive your rights come from your creator/god/or in some cases yourself aka are defined moraly"or" society/the government aka defined legally.

This is why I place so much importance on the distinctly exclusive use of "or" between moral and legal

Now let's look at those similarities Google suggests. We see the 3 from my first attempt at explaining this and as you go further you can even find birthright as a similarity.

I only take umbrage with you describing this as talking about right in the terms of birthright because thatvis only one similarity that happens to be in my opinion the legal similarity to the two options in or definition.

The moral similarities are just as prevalent as the legal ones for example the first three not used in the original definition: prerogative, privilage, and advantage.

Now to boil down into sumation and hopefully provide clarity as to why either definition option 1 or 2 provided by Google can fit my hypothesis now that I have explained my preferance for the entitlement option which separates thos enentitlements into exclusive catagorries by moral and legal standards.

When I asked all of you where your rights come from i could just as well have asked:

Where do you get the right....so that would be what i feel you unfailry charactorized as the birthright
View

, or I could just as easily ask is god right or is society/the government couldn't I have.

By wording it as where do your rights come from the thrust of my argument becomes more focused on the matter as seen from the perspective of my hypothesis. Not the nature of right or wrong, but the source.

The 2nd definition is the only one that deals directly with the origin of our rights and their exlusive nature of how we choose to define our legal rights and our moral rights.

Going the other route we are simply left debating more for more or policy for policy without ever getting to the root of the issue from the perspective of my hypothesis which explores the relationship between where one believes their rights originate as it correlates to political leaning if at all, and not the efficacy of individual political legal or moral prose vs another.

Hope this helps.



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 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevenmonet

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 idiology you ascribe to yourself doesn't matter in that I define you as left or right 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 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet
The first definition can be thrown out because it doesn't apply, the problem is that you flipped to it earlier in the thread when you implied that it did apply if someone wanted to be righteous in their obligations to society and therefore rights=obligations.

The second definition is simply stating the crux of your hypothesis, some people think it has a moral origin and some a legal one. The problem is that it doesn't really explain what they are or where they come from, which puts us right back at square one.

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



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevenmonet

Politically: im social anarchist, fiscal conservative. Libertarian is a good fit.

My rights derive from whatever you want to call the creator. Its that in a natural state, all animals on this earth have certain properties, skills, and features. All animals have defense. Its just part of living on Earth. All animals have defense. So it can be reasonably assumed that whatever power or process resulted in our creation intended defense to be part of that. To not have defense would equate to extinction, save for environments without predation. All animals have the ability to act freely, unless enslaved by another creature. There are some examples in nature. Ants do this sort of thing. But prior to another animal exerting this tyranny, we are all given a free will.

Consider this: is it considered cruel to cut the vocal cords on a dog? Why? Because the bark is important for a dog to communicate and function among other dogs. We extend these first amendment rights into nature, because this is where they came from. Would it be right to try to silence the birds? It would be no more right to do that than it is to declaw a cat.

Have you ever tried to lodge in a bear cave? They are ready to show you why that is a bad idea. Entering any animals nest is considered bad form, and you are likely to die. Do you blame the bear? No, you blame the idiot that entered its nest. The same as I have rights within my home, and cannot be forced to lodge other people.

All these rights come directly from the natural world. Why? Because the entire reason there is a government is because men (and women) got together and decided to sacrifice some small freedoms (basically, we cannot sling our poo just where ever because our neighbors may not like it) in exchange for some amount of security. This is called a "social contract". None of us agreed to give up what makes us human: our voices. Our ability to defend ourselve, or the right to do so when our lives are threatened. Our homes. All these things that we don't begrudge the lowest of animals for doing, we reserve for ourselves.

Who guarantees these rights? You. If someone wants to take them away, you can either let them, or you can fight them. You will have no rights that you are unable to defend on your own.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


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

Really? Do you not have a birthright to live? Are you OK with someone killing you? I'm not... I believe both of us have an inherent birthright to live as long as our bodies will allow.


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

In the first place, government is not society. Government is a necessary restriction on a free society.

But something does not have to come from a thing to be a part of that thing. Inherent birthrights come from whoever/whatever creates us... they are inherent to our being. Society is the association between individuals which has grown from the existence of those inherent birthrights and thus they exist within society as the basis of that society. Government is the limitations society places upon itself to further protect inherent birthrights.

You and I are a part of society. Yet, society did not make us. We were simply born into society.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 04:15 PM
link   
To expand....humans defense has, for time immemorial, been the projectile. Prior to projectile weapons we barely scratched out existence. It was the projectile that gave us prominence. It was the projectile that fed us, and evened the odds when we were on the land with much larger and fiercer animals.

First, it was simple spears. Then bows and arrows. Then muskets. Today, the equalizer is the firearm. But all this is is a scale of technology, with humans still simply exploiting the projectile point.

Humans have a right to firearms. The hallmark of human civilization was projectile defense to match the opponent. Anything beyond that is a deviation from the natural state of humanity.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It feels like the 2 views at odds here are:

- Society is a tool of humanity that should serve humanity
- Humanity is a tool of society that should serve society

And to this ill point out your comment: society does not make us. Its our construct. Like any tool, it should function for the job it was designed for (and maybe a few multipurpose things as a bonus like using a big wrench for a hammer).

Humans, without society, is a natural state. What would a human in a natural state be able to do? Those are our "god given" rights. The things we wouldn't begrudge wild animals for.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It can and does apply just not as well as the 2nd if I have been unclear in that or fluid in how I use the two it is only as an attempt to better relate information across as wide of a range of preserpectives/views as easily as possible, but I fully recognized through out this whole process and can even see in my own writing how my use of language has evolved as the need for more percise definitions of terms has become apparent.

I'm testing a hypothesis. If I ever decide there is a strong enough correlation to actually formulate an experiment to more objectively observe the impacts or possible exploits of said perspective corallations could you even imagine the potential let alone scaling that would be reuired?


One simple exploit could be a one question litmus test for political parties to use that has 2 or three control questions?

Have you seen a political litmus test in american politics? Funny thing is how many parties we actually have on the ticket and the number of political idiologies you can be broken down into based on what political scale out of several is chosen. See the probem+create a solution=???

Ok move from litmus test for political parties to use how about helping political pollsters better determine your leanings with one question and a couple controls?

Same thing goes for shaping ideas proactively vs gauging them. If you dont get a couple sparks off that one I'm not going any further with an explaination.

Find a need+fill it=????

Like I said in an earlier reply to another comment this mind of mine runs on focused energy that ignores all signs of circadian rythm in this strange man beast that I am.

You could call it manic, but that in my opinion would imply other symptoms I don't exhibit and be ignoring the more holistic description of my nature.

The anti typical stoner Montana man with a high school diploma, some common sense, and a ton of experience. Trying to plug into the source of knowledge and relate it as best he can with those who care to do the same.






posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Really? Do you not have a birthright to live? Are you OK with someone killing you? I'm not... I believe both of us have an inherent birthright to live as long as our bodies will allow.

What difference would being OK with it or not make?

What difference does it make if you call it an inherent birthright or just a right?


Inherent birthrights come from whoever/whatever creates us... they are inherent to our being.

Here you are just repeating your opinion.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
It can and does apply just not as well as the 2nd ...

No, you had to do some mental gymnastics to try to work it into our conversation earlier in the thread.

Either way, the main point is that the 2nd definition doesn't validate the concept of right (birthright). It just states what it is. Those questioning if they are even real are asking for more than what that dictionary definition offers.

ETA: This is why I posited that they might be outliers. Not just thinking the source is one or the other but questioning if they even really exist or what they really are.
edit on 27-2-2021 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


What difference does it make if you call it an inherent birthright or just a right?

I already explained that. Simply calling something a "right" says nothing about the extent of that right. For instance, there can never be an inherent birthright for healthcare... by definition an inherent birthright cannot deny others their same birthrights. But we do have a large group of people who have called healthcare a right. It is a right provided by the government, and as such can be taken away by the government at a whim.

This is opposed to the inherent birthright to life, which was not given by any government.


Here you are just repeating your opinion.

Is it opinion that a thing can only come from one who has the thing?

We were not created by government nor by society. Neither government nor society can be the source for a birthright. That's just by definition. Government can grant a right, for instance the right to vote, but government can also take that right away.

I don't know how else to put it.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You could call it inalienable.

But thats been done too.



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I already explained that. Simply calling something a "right" says nothing about the extent of that right.

And adding an adjective or two doesn't make it anymore legit.

People are put to death by the government. Calling the right to life an inherent birthright doesn't stop the gov from taking lives.


Is it opinion that a thing can only come from one who has the thing?

You have yet to prove that anything has come from someone who has the thing. Whatever that might be.


We were not created by government nor by society. Neither government nor society can be the source for a birthright. That's just by definition. Government can grant a right, for instance the right to vote, but government can also take that right away.

They are the source for the recognition of birthrights and these don't actually exist without government or society cementing the concept into law.

Some guy breaks into your place to kill you, are you going to say : "wait, you can't kill me, I have an inherent right to life" and that is going to stop him dead in his tracks and make him turn around and go home?



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Humans have a right to firearms. The hallmark of human civilization was projectile defense to match the opponent. Anything beyond that is a deviation from the natural state of humanity.


Basically, humans have a right of defense by whatever means is at least equal to any given threat.

Fair enough, and can't argue there too much, or at least to a degree, until we get back to the right to hardware also possessed by the military, which is another discussion.

God-given, perhaps not, but the right of survival being inherent, yes.
edit on 27-2-2021 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2021 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevenmonet

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


28 years in the military very big 2nd supporter. Gays, don't care... to each his own, no problem with gays in the military today either. Environment is much like Goverment where you need to find a balance. You can't force tech too fast as example as people say give up coal and oil today that would create incredible hardships. The horse was a environmental disaster too and the car fix that, I'm sure we will fix the car... It took 20 or 30 years to replace the horse, I give it another 20 and the gas car will be much like the horse is today, a hobby. Bud...have at it, I don't smoke it, hell if you want to use any drug and no harm to anyone else then have at it. Pot is legal in my state of WA too, God...on the fence, I do not see a need or purpose for a God, but my wife is a die hard Catholic.

I voted Conservative my whole life. 2020 Trump, 2016 no one, 2012 Romney, 2008 no one, 2004 Bush, 2000 Bush, 1996 No one, 1992 Bush, 1988 Bush, 1984 Reagan, 1980 Reagan, 1976 no one but was upset that Carter won....


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



posted on Feb, 28 2021 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You are arguing in semantic circles. That is disingenuous and unworthy of proper debate.

I was about to simply stop responding to you, but I will continue for a short time just to show your inability to comprehend the semantics you insist on using. You and the OP have been arguing over the definition of "right," but you apparently don't even understand what it is you are arguing about.

In modern vernacular, the word "right" can be used to refer to relative position (right vs. left), moral position (right vs. wrong), or an action or attribute that is attributable to one (as in "birthright"). All are derivations of the actual meaning. The word "right" is a synonym for "proper."

In olden times, left-handed individuals were seen as inferior. Most people were right-handed, so the right hand became the "proper" hand and the direction of the right hand became known as the "proper" direction. Those ideologies about right- or left-handedness have long since faded from society, but the word is still used to indicate relative position.

Of course, in the sense of a moral position, "right" does still mean "proper."

"Birthright" was a term coined to indicate proper attributes present from birth by sole virtue of birth. Over the years, we have shortened it to simply a "right." At the same time, we as a society have accepted that there are "rights" granted by governments (there is no natural or inherent right to vote... that right is given to citizens by their respective governments). The right to vote is not an inherent right, although since it is bestowed upon birth it could indeed be considered a "birthright."

Your continual assertion that we use simply the term "right" instead of the more proper term "birthright," and that we do not use adjectives to indicate the difference between a granted right and an inherent birthright only serves to confuse the issue. I have noticed that such confusion of an issue is the refuge of many who want to change societal norms to fit their own base desires, and I suspect this is your tactic as well. From this point on, I will simply assume that whenever you use the term "right" without some sort of qualifier, I am free to interpret it any way I choose (positional, moral, or an attribute).

Perhaps when you hopefully someday decide that actual debate instead of semantics is desirable to you, you will begin to understand the necessity of using words which properly convey the ideals they are intended to represent.

TheRedneck

edit on 2/28/2021 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2021 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Im not sure but I keep losing them. Please sir, can I have some more?

a reply to: Stevenmonet



posted on Feb, 28 2021 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
No, I understand and actually referred to your post where you pointed out that "rights" is a shortened version of "birthrights" because I actually agree with you and I'm trying to point out that it is the OP that tried equating the word right with obligation and then said that a right means someone must do the right thing or something kind of jumbled up like that.

Here is a link if you want to take a look at what our back and forth is really about.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


ETA:

I have noticed that such confusion of an issue is the refuge of many who want to change societal norms to fit their own base desires, and I suspect this is your tactic as well.

I actually don't care if things change or not. My point is that no matter what you call it, it is the recognition by society that brings these concepts into being and, even if they attribute their source to be god/nature, these don't actually exist in nature.


edit on 28-2-2021 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2021 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I think "rights" are those things which society has no particular reason not to give everybody. Or which make society a better place to live.

The rules of society exist to serve the people who live in that society.

(Although to be honest, the rules actually exist to serve whoever is *in control* of that society. Which sometimes leads to situations where many people aren't being served, so a few can be served. If only a few have control.)

When France became democratic, it's economic, taxable GDP went up tremendously, which caused other nearby nations to see solid financial reasons why they might want to consider doing the same.

By the time of the USA's civil war, farm machinery had progressed to the point where farmers that didn't use slavery, but instead used hired workers to operate farm machines, were actually getting better productivity than those who used slaves to work fields by hand.





originally posted by: CitizenZero

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: CitizenZero
I think it means that the idea of god given rights is just a pipe-dream that doesn't actually pan out in the real world.


No one has a right to an easy and comfortable upbringing. That’s a pipe-dream.


In a society where it was easy to grant this, it would be a right.


originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Tempter

Rights is a word that men use to describe a rule of law. Some people don't believe in the rule of law, even for the sake of discussion.

All men must agree and support the rule of law.

Does all power actually flow from the people? Is that 'we the people' stuff real, or just imagination?

We either have rights as individuals, or we don't.

I say we do.


Mao Zedong said political power flows from the barrel of a gun.

So in a country where the people own guns, yes.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join